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
Broadwick St, Soho, London: a water pump with its handle removed commemorates of Dr. John Snow's tracing of an 1854 cholera epidemic to the pump. [add]

Contents





March 21 [edit]

Hattin or Cresson [edit]

We got a message on OTRS about this picture : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hattin.jpg I left a message about it to Adam who uploaded it.

Whilst it is called "Hattin", the legend seems to refer to the battle of Cresson. Even if they occurred the same year, these are two different battles. Perhaps because of the confusion due to the title, this image is now largely used to illustrate both Hattin and Cresson battle. Is there an historian around who would know for sure if it were Hattin or Cresson ? I think this needs to be fixed (both for the title and for the reuse in wikipedias). Thanks Anthere (talk)

No idea, but may I point out that Gallica has the whole of this work online, with this particular folio here. The text may help identify which battle this exactly shows. And may I suggest that someone upload the much better Gallica image? (Or images... it's a beautiful illustrated manuscript.) Lupo 16:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Je n'ai pas de réponse, mais je me suis permis de transmettre la question à l'Oracle pour augmenter les chances d'obtenir une réponse. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
A Flickr-User identifies it as the battle of Cresson.[1] Presumably the "fountain" in the center is supposed to be the springs. Lupo 16:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Hm. File:Français 5594, fol. 197 haut, Bataille de Kefar Kanna (1187).jpeg claims it was the battle of Kefr Kana. No idea where that is. Lupo 16:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Hm... the uploader of that changed the category from the Battle of Hattin to the Battle of Cresson shortly after uploading. w:Kafr Kanna is a town in the general vicinity so it may just be an alternate name... but no idea of which battle. This page shows all the illustrations from the source book; this one appears more in the middle with what appears to be another battle towards the end, which might suggest that this one is Cresson, though I really can't read the text. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I came here at Asclepias's request ... I uploaded the better-quality File:Français 5594, fol. 197 haut, Bataille de Kefar Kanna (1187).jpeg. My title "Bataille de Kefar Kanna" is copied directly from the caption on Mandragore site of the Bibliothèque Nationale (at that time I don't believe the manuscript was on Gallica, where the quality might indeed be better). I have never heard either of those battles called by this name before, but, after checking maps as well as I could, this place seemed to be closer to Cresson than to Hattin: also, as Carl Lindberg says, the sequence in the manuscript suggests this is the earlier battle of the two. Both clues pointed to Cresson, and this is why I changed the category. I didn't want to interfere with the description of the other version because I don't really know :) I was hoping someone would show up who knows better than I do. Andrew Dalby (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
The illustration of the battle towards the end of that manuscript is labeled by File:Bataille de Nicopolis (Archives B.N.) 1.jpg and File:NikopolisSchlacht.jpg as the w:Battle of Nicopolis. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
So it's still open. The two hills shown in the Hattin/Cresson one in the background left and right may just as well point to the en:Horns of Hattin... Lupo 20:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Trying to read the text on this and the following pages, I don't see any mention of a battle of Cresson. The writer introduced each section with a brief summary (or a longish title) in red of what is described subsequently. If I read the red text below the image right, it says "Et la prise en bataille du Roy Guy de Jhzlm [Jérusalem] par Salladin", i.e., the capture of Guy of Lusignan, king of Jerusalem, by Saladin, which occurred in the battle of Hattin. (I guess that the word that looks like "Jhzlm" means "Jerusalem" from folio 187v, where it says "Comment Guy de Lezignen, Conte de Jaffes, fut fait gouverneur du Royaume de Jhzlm".) I also don't see any mention of Cresson on the preceding or following pages. On folio 200v we're already after the battle of Hattin, the subtitle there reads "Comment Salladin print plusieurs Cités et Châteaux en suite...".
Looking at the image itself, there's the two hills background left and right (Horns of Hattin?), and that fortress (Tiberias?) with Lake Galilee in the background. Comparing with e.g. this map, that would fit Hattin pretty well, as the springs of Cresson seem to be farther away (and Tiberias is probably not visible from there, as there appears to be a mountain range in between). Now I have no idea how well informed about the geography the 15th century authors of the Passages d'Outremer were, but I find it remarkable that it might match so well. Just that fountain on center stage bothers me. In the battle of Hattin, the crusader forces were cut off from the nearest springs... Perhaps the artist mixed elements from both battles, and our using the image in both articles is not that incorrect after all. But if I had to decide between Hattin or Cresson, my personal feeling is that this is supposed to show the battle of Hattin, which was the much larger and more decisive event. Lupo 12:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The battle at the fountain of Cresson ("la fontaine de Cresson'") is (rather quickly) narrated near the beginning of the chapter, at f. 197 (recto verso, second column). The red title for the chapter begins at the bottom of f. 196 (verso) and refers to the events of the chapter from f. 197 to f. 200. I guess the part of that title that refers to the battle at the fountain of Cresson is "(...) Et la déconfiture des maîtres du temple et de l'hôpital. (...)". Of course, we should not expect this type of illustration to actually depict an actual landscape, the task being more to try to decipher what the elements are meant to symbolize. I agree that if Colombe wanted to represent only one of the two battles, normally one would think that he should have chosen to represent the decisive one at Hattin, but the thing in the center of the illustration suggests that the illustration is supposed to represent a battle fought at a fountain. That could likely symbolize the battle at the fountain at Cresson, unless it's supposed to symbolize the fountain at Seraphie, where the Franks gathered and from where they left to go to the battle at Hattin, at many kilometers of distance. I like the idea that Colombe may have wanted to insert symbols representing both battles in one illustration for the chapter. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, Cresson is mentioned on 197v, 2nd column, middle. Had missed that (spent too much time figuring out what Jhzlm was supposed to mean :-). I agree we can't expect the illustration to be faithful to the actual landscape; even the text itself may be more or less accurate in the big lines, but I wouldn't rely on it for details. After all, the work was created 300 years after that battle took place, and the artist in all likelihood never visited the place. That's why I do find the congruences remarkable. The Horns of Hattin (Cornes de Hattin) at least might have been known by name to him. I'd really love to know what a specialist on this period or on this manuscript might have to say on this. Lupo 18:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Another point is that the image seems to match the description of the Cresson battle (130ish knights possibly attacking a larger force without foot soldier support), rather than Hattin which was much larger numbers on both sides. Additionally, Hattin is described as being fought on an arid plateau in the en-wiki article with the lack of water being an issue, which is definitely not the case in this depiction. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nature in New York City [edit]

I am categorizing a set of photos made by Suzanne Szasz for DOCUMERICA in 1973. Most of them are concerned with nature, particularly flowers, in New York City. Right now they are categorized under Category:Suzanne Szasz. I would like to provide a link to this set for people who visit Category:Nature in New York City. Do you think putting a link on that page to Category:Suzanne Szasz is appropriate? To a subcategory of her page (which I would have to batch make - and define 'nature')? Or text at the top of the page, such as "Also see 1973 DOCUMERICA photos by Category:Suzanne Szasz". Any other ideas? Downtowngal (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like 90% of her works are Category:Nature of New York City so there is probably no harm in adding her whole category as a sub-cat of that one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. One reason I asked is that it's possible other pictures by her will be added later and 'dilute' her category. I guess I can just put this category on personal watch... Downtowngal (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
By the way, the DOCUMERICA photographers seem to be using similar themes that crosscut Commons's usual categories, like "A day in the life of Fountain Square, Cincinnati" or "Trash, sewage, pollution in X area". I think there's a lot of value to pointing people to the sets rather than making them figure out on their own when they find one image that there's a lot more on the same theme under different categories. So I expect to be doing the same thing with other DOCUMERICA photographers. Downtowngal (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
You could add a note to her category like "Although all the images may not fit it was an simpler way to..." type thing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Would a subcat of Category:Flora of New York be appropriate? Jim.henderson (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
No, that' much too high-level. Seriously, this is an issue that needs to be addressed in Commons. The category system was made for analytic categories like "by year" or "by country" or "name of building in X city". Synthetic categories like "suburbanization" or ones the DOCUMERICA people were using - another example is "Life in X neighborhood about to be demolished for a highway" - don't fit. Yet there is great value in pointing users to them as a whole. We have to think about WHY users want images. I think the way is to accept that the DOCUMERICA sets will be subcategories that don't quite fit their master categories (e.g., "Suzanne Szasz" as a subcat of "Nature of New York City" with an explanation as Canoe 1967 suggested), and are provided with short text explanations at the top of the page. Downtowngal (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I would see nothing wrong with making a subcategory of Category:Nature in New York City of the form Category:Nature in New York City - 1973 photographs by Suzanne Szasz which would then also be a subcategory of Category:Suzanne Szasz. This is the more versatile or general approach and can be used in a lot of cases where we have a large number of images from a particular source or period that threaten to swamp a category. It would also provide an objective categorization criterion to avoid dilution.
The problem with this approach is that not all of the photos in the set are concerned with "Nature in New York City" and I am reluctant to label the set as the photographer's label, if it existed, would be preferable. The theme of this set seems to be "How New York City residents bring nature, particularly flowers, into their lives and the urban environment - with a few other cool pics." Perhaps integrating DOCUMERICA galleries into the existing categories will work. Downtowngal (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
To clarify - I would envision a Category:Suzanne Szazz which would contain several subcategories by topic. The individual images would mostly be in only one but some might fit more than one. Only the subcategories that fit within Category:Nature in New York would be put there. The categories you chose to create would be chosen according to what is present and photographs that did not fit the subcategories would be categorized under Category:Suzanne Szazz and whatever other individual categories they fit. The category system is ideally a net rather than just a tree. This is potentially a lot of work and the gallery approach may be quicker and more direct. However ultimately we would like to make these available and findable outside the context of Documerica and the particular photographer.
Alternatively or in addition, since the Documerica images are a set of finite sets, they would be a good candidate for specialized galleries which could correspond to the original Documerica organizational system. Categories are made to be readily extensible but that is not needed here. Dankarl (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Can you direct me to one example of a specialized gallery already existing that I can use to see if this approach can be integrated into the presentation of DOCUMERICA materials? Thanks. Downtowngal (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Here are two examples of galleries I made to re-unify sets of images scattered within a large block of NARA images (the Wellcome Collection). Not exactly the same situation as Documerica but a closely related purpose. Most important thing to remember about galleries is to hold explanatory text to the minimum needed. O.B. Kent album, 1916 A trip (or two) through Alaska 1897-1901. You would be grouping based on data of photographer, date and original title that are clearly represented in teh NARA records and so would need minimal description. Dankarl (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

upgrade COM:OVERCAT to policy [edit]

I am thinking that COM:OVERCAT needs to be labelled as either help page, guideline, or policy. However, just how much support does it have in the community as a policy ? should it be one ?

Personally, I think it is something of a nuisance, I find that it is faster and easier to use external search engines to look back into commons to find what I want rather than use the cat system, which often puts what too many clicks away. For example, a silly example, smilies, if you search externally, you're there in a click. If use the category it gives you the cream of the crap Halloween sort of smilies first and then you have to go looking through the sub categories.

I would think that having the epitome of the pictures in the top category is often helpful, as well as at the end of the long branches through sub-cats. I'd like to know if anyone else has an opinion on it. Penyulap ☏ 04:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the name is a bit confusing the same way people use the term 'over-acting'. Think about it, there is no such thing as over-acting, you wouldn't call Vincent Van Gough an 'over-painter' would you ? there is simply good acting and bad acting, and over-acting and over-catting is simply bad acting and bad catting.
The ability of an image to appear in a parent and child category, because it belongs there, should be pointed out, so that people don't threaten each other with blocks and penalties and so on. Penyulap ☏ 08:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not quite sure where you want to go with this? :) For cream o' crap you can always put in a DR. What you (seem) to want is more like a gallery? The cat system is to, well, categorize media so it can be found when looking for something specific. True, sometimes it takes a few too many clicks to find stuff. And right with your last statement, it should be clear that in some cases double categories for a file are useful. The policy/guideline should reflect that. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 15:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I'm not clear, I need input to get direction sometimes, but you've zoomed right in on what I mean with your comment "it should be clear that in some cases double categories for a file are useful" that is what I mean, and I can't see it mentioned on the help page.
I think it is very important that it IS spelled out by the people who know, so that the rest of us know, when we should have the double categories, like an example of how a double category makes the category system more useful. (It was today that I had to find a Soyuz launch video by using an external search engine after giving up on the internal category system, seriously, try to find them!) Penyulap ☏ 07:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
OVERCAT is basically already a de facto policy - people routinely (and semiautomatically) remove files from parent cats when they are already in subcats, and have done so for years. Marking it as such might clarify this. I was confused at first though, because I also hear the term "overcategorization" used to refer to excessively specific categories. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it should be a bit better defined as being a help page that is useful in many cases, and that it is too hard to define what is good and bad catting across the board to make it a hard and fast rule. I think the best contributors being blocked based on a help page that has become 'de-facto' policy should indicate it is time to make it clear one way or the other. Can't be a good thing to be losing editors over subcats. Penyulap ☏ 16:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to sort images by a key whithin a Category instead by the imagename [edit]

How can I give a order to images stored in a category, but without giving sub-categories?. I would like to order Category:Tropas chilenas de la Guerra del Pacifico according to Regiments something like in Regimientos de Chile (without so much text). Can I add to a image a key, e.g. for image123.jpg 
[[Category:Tropas chilenas de la Guerra del Pacifico|Reg. Buin]]
to obtain the images of the category ordered by key (Regiments) but not by the name of the image, as usual. This is the usual method by subcategories. Is there a method for the simple images?. (To rename 176 images is excluded as solution). --Createaccount 16:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I´m not an expert, but in my experience the pipe (|) function works for single images as well as for (sub-)categories. And I think it even overrides the DEFAULTSORT-entry. The only problem is that the sorting criteria is not obvious to the visitors of the page, so you might have to explain it in the category description. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Rudolph is right – you can use the pipe function, and if used it overrides any {{DEFAULTSORT}} setting. However, I'm not sure what you are proposing to do is a good idea. I agree with Rudolph that it will not be obvious to other editors what you are trying to achieve, and when editors add new files to the category they may not add the sorting keys which will lead to these files being out of order. I would suggest that you create a gallery like "Regimientos de Chile" to display selected images in a particular order, with captions if required. There is no need to include a lot of text if you don't want to do that. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
That key is often used to have some pictures on the top of the list, such of the most significant picture(s) of an artist or other person. In some locations in Spain, they have some keying convention to ensure that coats of arms, banners, symbols appears always in some top order. It is sometimes abused by people that find their picture the most important of the bunch. --Foroa (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have known the answer, you see I also am not an expert. Allow me a second question: is there a template that shows the key in the category page? I mean, normally the photographs will be shown all together. Can I show the key in the category page?. That is:

== key1 ==

(all photos with key1)
== key2 ==

(all photos with key2) ...
--Createaccount 08:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Not as far as I'm aware. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, anyway. --Createaccount 13:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Main Page issues [edit]

Hi. The main page looks awful today.

  1. The fire picture is huge and takes up most of the page width. (Is this just me? Running iOS using FF)
  2. The mobile app section has rather large text that doesn't really seem appropriately tied in to the theme of the rest of the page. (Is this just me? Running iOS using FF)
  3. The mobile app section doesn't appropriately attribute the author(s) by linking to the file page (File:Download on iTunes.svg and File:Get it on Google play.svg).

With regards, Killiondude (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the picture and media of the day seems a little too large. Same thing about mobile app section. Due to size of those 3 elements the main page takes 2-3 pages and I have large high-res screen. I also agree about lack of image attribution for files on the main page, like File:Double-alaskan-rainbow.jpg, File:Visegradski-most10.jpg or File:WMCommonsAPP upload2.png. We need to link to those files somehow. --Jarekt (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Bump. Killiondude (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Official page" of aircraft manufacturer [edit]

I have just spotted a copyvio file, and when I headed to the userpage of the uploader, I found it says "This is the official page of Dassault Aviation." (en:Dassault Aviation is a major French aircraft manufacturer). Can anyone help verify the authenticity of this account, or point me to someone who can? --Ariadacapo (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Good catch and good reaction. It may actually be possible that Dassault wants to share some images under a free license. Fellow French sysop Léna is sending them an email. let us wait for their answers. In the meantime, I replaced the speedy to no permission to give us some time to process this. Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I’m very curious to see how this turns out =) --Ariadacapo (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
At en:wp, we softblock such accounts and immediately unblock them if they provide proof via OTRS or other official means. Do we do that here at all? Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Involved [edit]

Category:Andy Mabbett has just been protected - and reverted to his preferred version - by the same editor with whom I have a dispute over its categorisation. Does Commons have a policy similar to en.Wikipedia's en:WP:INVOLVED? Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

yes it does, you can also bring it up on Commons:AN/U Penyulap ☏ 18:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Done, thank you. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

May 19 [edit]

Licence information in public domain images [edit]

Last time the U.S. Capital add the following comment on some (flickr) images, published as public domain, quote: This official Architect of the Capitol photograph is being made available for educational, scholarly, news or personal purposes (not advertising or any other commercial use). (i.E. see here). What about this statement? Can we use this images as public domain or must not import because of this statement? --Slick (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think they are all still public domain by law. They can't change that law at Flickr.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The first thing is to know if the person who created the work was an employee of the U.S. governement in the course of his duties. The answer is given by the use of the license tag "U.S. government work", which can be taken as a clear statement, by the flickr account owner, to the effect that the answer is yes and that the work is in the public domain in the U.S. and freely usable in the U.S. The additional notice on the flickr image page includes: 1. A non-commercial restriction, which might be enforced outside of the U.S. if the U.S. government ever felt inclined to do so; 2. A credit line, obligatory outside the U.S. and a useful suggestion in the U.S.; and 3. A reminder of the fact that a reuse should not be presented as an endorsement, which is a fine reminder. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
That site seems to be run by Template:PD-USGov-Congress-AOC. Should we modify a new licence to cover their Fickr account restrictions?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what to do, but I like to get a clear statement (i.E. which template to use) for images from the U.S. Capital, because there have a great stream and a lot of images are imported already. --Slick (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
You could probably just tag them with Template:PD-USGov-Congress-AOC, Template:PD-USGov, and Template:Flickrreview. The third one is a bot that checks licenses but I don't know if it will choke on the first two. We can then add any qualifiers or remove any uneeded licenses once we decide how to deal with the wording on the Flickr site. I doubt they can ever be deleted. We just need to tweak wording to keep them. --Canoe1967 (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
As Canoe1967 said, the flickr account named "USCapitol" appears to be he account of the Architect of the Capitol. Thus, when an image is identified on that flickr account with the tag "United States government work" and when there is no reason to think that this tag was used by mistake or that the image was not created by an employee of the AOC, then on Commons you can use the tag "PD-USGov-Congress-AOC". If you find an image that fits the definition of U.S. government work but is not from the AOC, then you can use the tag that seems to best fit the case among those in the Category:PD-USGov license tags. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Do we know if the Flickrreview bot can detect either license?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Giving a licence and then contradicting it in the photo text - it's just weird. I'd suggest asking them what they mean. What is the legal grounds for their restriction in the text? ghouston (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
By licence I should have said public domain statement, since it's not a licence in that case. ghouston (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Their grounds are likely publicity rights or trademark, i.e. rights not related to copyright. "public domain" can have a different meaning in the real world than just "no copyright", even though that is the definition typically meant here. PD-USGov-Congress-AOC is the correct license tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Publicity rights / trademark of their building, is that's even possible? If it is, wouldn't it apply to every photo of the US Capitol building? ghouston (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
It is possible to trademark a building, yes -- there are several examples (Empire State Building, Rock-n-roll Hall of Fame building, many others). Doubt that applies to anything federal though, and that does not affect photographs of the buildings (the Rock-and-Roll Hall of Fame tried to sue someone on those grounds and failed). I was thinking more about their name -- you shouldn't imply the federal government is endorsing anything you are doing, nor should you use the photos to imply anything like that, and that sort of thing. There is no U.S. copyright in the photos, so whatever rights are claimed are based on something else. They may just be protecting themselves if they put up someone else's photos by accident, as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The name, endorsment etc., sure. But that doesn't explain the "non-commercial use" restriction that has been placed in the photo description. ghouston (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The grounds for the non-commercial restriction would be the copyright laws of those countries of the world where the photos are copyrightable and where therefore they can be used according to the license. Perhaps the AOC and other government entities may not often bother to enforce their copyright and licenses in foreign countries, still it is understandable that they may want to express the limits into which they want to allow their photos to be used there and reserve the possibility to exercice their rights if they ever decide to. It is even possible to imagine, in theory, cases where they may really want to exercise those rights. Suppose commercial ads to promote a product or service that is legal in the country where the ads are published but that is illegal in the U.S. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
"Commercial use" has a different and more specific meaning in trademark/publicity rights (e.g. endorsement) contexts than it does in copyright law. The term doesn't always refer to copyright. The use of the term advertising right next to it is actually a pretty clear indication it's something other than copyright -- it's generally advertising where publicity rights start to kick in. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

New project [edit]

Do we have anything like User:Canoe1967/Sculptors yet? Feel free to edit it or discuss on the talk page. Another user has an account at http://www.sculpture.net/community/ and we are wondering how to approach them. Once we get a nice page for them to contribute to we can work out approaches to their forum and others.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

May 20 [edit]

Princess Olga Orlova [edit]

According to this site http://www.gogmsite.net/the-belle-epoque-1890-1914/1911-princess-olga-orlova-b.html (and some others) is this woman File:Portrait_of_Izabella_Grunberg.jpg NOT Miss Grunberg but in fact Category:Olga Konstantinovna Orlova. Regards 91.66.56.55 09:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I renamed the file and fixed the descriptions. --Jarekt (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Photograph or Artwork template [edit]

Hello, while reviewing Artworks with implicit creator, I stumbled upon Category:Photographs by William Thompson Freeland

My question is : which is the best template to use on that kind of file : {{Artwork}} or rather {{Photograph}}, which has more technical data fields ?

Is Artwork OK ? is it "wrong" ? should it be replaced ?

Thanx for your answers, as I'm not really used to dealing with such images… --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

{{Photograph}} would have been better as some fields in {{Artwork}} might be confusing when applied to the photographs. --Jarekt (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Receptie123 [edit]

Can someone please fix the error on my userpage?--Receptie123 (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I've fixed the formatting error, but I don't know how you can list your English language level as en-2 in one place and en-5 in another. - Jmabel ! talk 15:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Flickr2commons [edit]

Hi All

I've just finished filling in a 550 file transfer on Flickr2Commons, some have been successful, others (around 100) have failed, I think some of them are my fault with descriptions being too long or file names using unsuitable characters with the error Transfer failed : API Error... Code: verification-error Text: This file did not pass file verification Upload error...

Others have just not worked, not sure why, the error is Transfer failed : 502 Proxy Error

Question: Is there a way to retry these failed uploads? I have tried clicking the "Transfer selected files to Commons" button but nothing seems to happen.

The successful images are in Category:Images_from_the_National_Media_Museum_collection

Many thanks

--Mrjohncummings (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

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.

Translate is now enabled on Commons [edit]

The Translate extension has just been enabled on Wikimedia Commons, together with Universal Language Selector (ULS), which everyone should now be seeing next to their username on top of every page. This lets us translate pages the proper way, without the hassle of template tricks, and with additional features (details).

For now, only bureucrats are able to add (and remove) users to the 'translationadmin' group, so if anyone feel like managing translations, please request the rights at the buraucrats' noticeboard. Of course, shall the community decide so, we can enable administrators to add and remove themselves from that group. odder (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Allow admins to assign this right [edit]

RFC An editor has requested comment from other editors for this discussion.

Can we allow administrators to assign this right to themselves? It works well on Meta... —Mono 22:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info See Commons:Translation administrators (already translated in a couple languages with the new system ;-) Jean-Fred (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I believe that is how they do it on Wikidata. I would also propose to speedy approve non-admins who already have those rights on Wikidata or other projects. A lot of names on d:Wikidata:Translation administrators sound very familiar. --Jarekt (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose allow admins to assign themself to the user group. Instead, I Symbol support vote.svg Support that the user rights associated with the tranlsateadmin user group being (also) added to the sysop group (=administrator group). Reason: It is really weird seeing admins adding themselves to a user group. Instead, they should have the rights by default. It's a different discusion whether we want administrators to be able to give this right to other people. -- Rillke(q?) 10:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This discussion is premature, see also [2]. --Nemo 06:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Enable TranslationNotifications [edit]

I think we should also use this opportunity to enable the TranslationNotifications extension (it's on use on Meta and Wikidata already). odder (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The extension is not enabled on most wikis using Translate and I don't think it's a good idea to add it here: there are potentially thousands of templates to notify about (mostly always the same, not new things) and it would be overly spammy. It could be considered when it become more suitable for the specifics of Commons. --Nemo 06:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Note on ULS [edit]

In case anyone wonders, it appears the language detection for anonymous users of Universal Language Selector is not enabled − (Niklas hinted so on the RFC). Jean-Fred (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't fix it [edit]

I just fixed two typos and then noticed a template that said I shouldn't. File:Tule Lake Relocation Center, Newell, California. (L to R) Frank Vail, newsreel cameraman for Pathe, . . . - NARA - 537142.tif and File:Tule Lake Relocation Center, Newell, California. (L to R) Frank Vail, newsreel cameraman for Pathe, . . . - NARA - 537142.jpg are the two files and Template:NARA-image-full is the template. The 'do not edit description' is in the yellow bar at the bottom.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to tell us, but at least personally I don't find it easy to understand the message you're talking about. This should probably be communicated clearer and in an easier way. --Patrick87 (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
It's probably the same intention as the Bundesarchiv template - no change to text archived by NARA but add corrections inside a description field. Sadly this description field is missing in the NARA templete while it's present (or had been added) to the BA template. We should probably get someone adding a description field to the NARA template which is shown as "Wiki description" if something is present there and a Bot run to implement this. --Denniss (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Currently, Template:NARA-image-full "Description" field is described as "Other notes by and description by Wikimedians can go here." so this is where wikimedian's descriptions should go. We could have separate "Archive Description" and "Wiki description" fields if that is desirable. --Jarekt (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the purpose of the edit message is to make NARA aware of errors in their files. If we just fix them here then they may not know they are still broken at their end. I don't know how active that project is though. My edits were just 'boundry' to 'boundary'. I discovered three files when I spelled it wrong in search. They may wish to fix the same files at their end so their searches work correctly as well. This is may be why they like to be notified.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Hi. User:Dmcdevit was the Wikimedian in residence at NARA (possibly still is?). Maybe ask him? Killiondude (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I am no longer the Wikipedian in Residence at NARA, and they are not actively working on the project as far as I know, so I can't speak for them or if they ever plan to eventually fix all the metadata errors we have flagged. I can explain the rationale behind that notice being included on all the uploads. (1) Commons has an interest in notifying NARA of errors it has found, both in the general pursuit encouraging quality information, and in partnership (2) the institution whose holdings we are uploading, like the National Archives, is generally the authority when it comes to the metadata, and it makes sense to try to mirror it directly except when we have identified a mistake, and (3) as long as we are doing so, it is problematic for people to just edit the fields that do mirror NARA's metadata exactly (and are described as such), since then we are being non-transparent about our sources. The corollary to all this is that in the ideal world, we'd report the errors and the authorities on the subject at the institution would vet the reports and change their metadata so that our corrected pages are still the same as the experts'. The last step depends on their cooperation and and actually devoting staff resources to correcting metadata, but I do still think it is generally a good idea to somehow make it clear when you are editing these pages that they are Wikimedian-derived changes to original metadata, whether that is through using the parameter provided for that or maybe some kind of inline parenthetical note, since it would be silly to put a spelling correction in a different parameter. Exactly what way the Commons community prefers to mark that is entirely our decision, of course. Dominic (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I noted my two changes just above the license field.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Tech newsletter: Subscribe to receive the next editions [edit]

Latest Tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes.
Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
  • The latest version of MediaWiki (version 1.22/wmf4) was added to non-Wikipedia wikis on May 13, and to the English Wikipedia (with a Wikidata software update) on May 20. It will be updated on all other Wikipedia sites on May 22. [3] [4]
  • A software update will perhaps result in temporary issues with images. Please report any problems you notice. [5]
  • MediaWiki recognizes links in twelve new schemes. Users can now link to SSH, XMPP and Bitcoin directly from wikicode. [6]
  • VisualEditor was added to all content namespaces on mediawiki.org on May 20. [7]
  • A new extension ("TemplateData") was added to all Wikipedia sites on May 20. It will allow a future version of VisualEditor to edit templates. [8]
  • New sites: Greek Wikivoyage and Venetian Wiktionary joined the Wikimedia family last week; the total number of project wikis is now 794. [9] [10]
  • The logo of 18 Wikipedias was changed to version 2.0 in a third group of updates. [11]
  • The UploadWizard on Commons now shows links to the old upload form in 55 languages (bug 33513). [12]
Future software changes
  • The next version of MediaWiki (version 1.22/wmf5) will be added to Wikimedia sites starting on May 27. [13]
  • An updated version of Notifications, with new features and fewer bugs, will be added to the English Wikipedia on May 23. [14]
  • The final version of the "single user login" (which allows people to use the same username on different Wikimedia wikis) is moved to August 2013. The software will automatically rename some usernames. [15]
  • A new discussion system for MediaWiki, called "Flow", is under development. Wikimedia designers need your help to inform other users, test the prototype and discuss the interface. [16].
  • The Wikimedia Foundation is hiring people to act as links between software developers and users for VisualEditor. [17]
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Unsubscribe • 20:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Important note: This is the first edition of the Tech News weekly summaries, which help you monitor recent software changes likely to impact you and your fellow Wikimedians.

If you want to continue to receive the next issues every week, please subscribe to the newsletter. You can subscribe your personal talk page and a community page like this one. The newsletter can be translated into your language.

You can also become a tech ambassador, help us write the next newsletter and tell us what to improve. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. guillom 20:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

May 21 [edit]

File moves and inactive Commons Delinker [edit]

Commons Delinker is out-of-action since May 10 so it can't replace moved files. This generates problems on multiple Wikis as the thumb generation may file from the original filename. I strongly suggest to restrict file moves to the bare minimum, to files without use or files where you change usage to the new name (either manually or via move + replace). Please do not rename high-use files until Delinker is working again !! --Denniss (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Also note that there are some projects, such as voy:, where Commons Delinker never has been active. Shouldn't the delinker be enabled on every Wikimedia project? --Stefan4 (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes but first we have to get it back to work but this seems to depend on Toolserver ressources which may still have problems. --Denniss (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

navigation boxes moved to bottom of watchlist page [edit]

The 4 boxes "search", "navigation", "participate" and "toolbox" at the left side of the watchlist-page have since yesterday been moved from the top of the page to its bottom, which makes them nearly unusable if you have a long watchlist. It is specific for the watchlist-page, whereas contributions-page is unchanged. As I observed this problem in Chrome, Opera and IE 8, it is obviously not a local, but a site-problem. It's also independent of language-preference (switch from de to en didn't change it) and of whether "Exclude me from feature experiments" (preferences) is on or off. Any ideas/solution? --Túrelio (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bug somewhere; the whole sidebar (except for the Commons logo) is shifted down below the end of the content. Appears to affect monobook only. The DOM structure is all wrong. Normally, div#column-content, div#column-one, and div#footer are siblings, but on Special:Watchlist in monobook, #column-one and #footer are children of #column-content, which breaks monobook formatting. Highly annoying. Lupo 08:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
All right. It was User:Mono who left an unclosed <div> in MediaWiki:Watchlist-summary. I've fixed that, so the layout is OK again, but actually I think his edits to MediaWiki:WatchlistNotice.js should also be summarily reverted. Lupo 08:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your fast analysis and the fix. So we can't burden it on the MW-update as the usual suspect ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry - that would be my fault. It looks like Vector has an extra closing div (I checked Vector in Chrome and IE and then missed Monobook). Either way, I've turned off the geolocation so everyone in the world can see the message. It will only be up for a few hours - thanks for catching it. I'll be more careful in the future. —Mono 14:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

PDF-versions of Wikipedia articles [edit]

Hello,

are PDF-versions of Wikipedia articles like File:TEORIA ATOMICA.pdf or File:EL ATOMO.pdf within our scope? Per Commons:Project_scope#Allowable_reasons_for_PDF_and_DjVu_formats I'd say no, or are there exceptions I'm not aware of? I there are, what would be the appropriate category for those files and how should the author= and source= parameters be set? The uploading user is clearly not the only contributor to es:Átomo and es:Teoria atomica - the real authors are mentioned in the pdf itself, but just putting {{own}} there is misleading at least. The same question arises for the various figures in the article and their licenses. --El Grafo (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I would say no. It is better to generate a new PDF file whenever you need one as these soon will be outdated. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the input and the DRs. --El Grafo (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

May 22 [edit]

Bypassing the Flickr UI redesign [edit]

OK, so yesterday Flickr decided to 'modernise' it's UI, and unsurprisingly, the result is disasterous. Feedback has been universally negative from what I can see, but sadly it looks like an immediate reversal is not going to happen. They've also changed other stuff like the account administration and profile pages, but that's not what this post is about. It appears whoever actually did the UI redesign, had never actually used the site for anything other than to gawk at teh pretty pictures, rather than concern themselves with stuff like meta data or even relational/chronological context. From what I can gather, for some idiotic reason, they've decided that streams don't need to display info like titles, descriptions, licenses, dates, etc, and neither do search results - everything is now presented as closely tiled images with what little info that is still there only visible on rollover. Only the user name is permanently visible, even in sets (which shows that whoever did the redesign really wasn't a user - sets only ever belong to single users!). Everything is also now presented as infinitely scrolling high resolution streams, which must be great for people wih iCraps and high spec laptops, but not so great for anyone else. They've also decided that presenting anything in thumbnail size is pointless, so that's now gone completely, you get a single size in streams and searches, which can only now be refined by date (which isn't visible!) and the other two (relevance/interesting), which I never really understood in the first place (closest title & most comments?). And for individual image pages, all the info is now below the image, rather than being visible at the side. Obviously that's less annoying than it not being there at all, but still pretty crap. Anyway, rant over, and to the matter at hand - does anyone know of any tricks or fixes to get back to the old UI? All I have found so far is that you can get the old detailed/paginated view of a stream by adding ?details=1 to the end of the url. This doesn't seem to work for search result though. Ultra7 (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Overall it might serve as a good example how not to do it. --Túrelio (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Is any corner of the Internet that's safe from Web 2.0? ;_; --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to see the EXIF metadata of a file somehow without first having to download it to my computer? There used to be a link I could click to see this information, but I can't find it in the new layout. Without easy access to the EXIF, it is much harder to determine whether a Flickr user uploads own works or whether files are likely to be copyright violations. Very annoying and user-unfriendly design. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes. In the photo page, scroll down and look for the "show more" link beside "Additional info" on the right side. Click that, then click anything in the "Settings" line. Tada! Still, the new design is simply horrible. Even with my cable connection, it still takes far too long to load large pages. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Did we drive away people working for the WMF ? maybe we can contact Flickr and get them back. ;) Penyulap ☏ 00:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Horrible design, and not where I would have expected to click in order to find the EXIF. Thanks! --Stefan4 (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Only a starting a hustle; I assume. Click on the "..." button on the right of the "title bar" and select "View EXIF info". You get http://www.flickr.com/photos/jkadavoor/4230596704/meta/
Or you can add "meta" on the "address bar" and hit "enter".
Or (as Huntster said above),scroll down and look for the "show more" link beside "Additional info" on the right side. Click that, then click anything in the "Settings" line. Can't you see "1/125 f/4.4 ISO250 86.4 mm" which turns to blue on "mouse-over" and display the "tool-tip" View EXIF information for [this photo? JKadavoor Jee 07:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Netherlands [edit]

I recently replaced File:Leona Helmsley.jpg with my cropped version in many other language projects. The nl.wikipedia.org project was the only one to revert so far. I don't speak Dutch so someone who does may wish to pop over and see what policy or consensus is on images of this sort.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:PD-US/doc edit help needed [edit]

I tried to edit a dead link to cornell univ. with this page, But it didn't reflect new link in PD-US template. Probably I did something wrong. Editing template is challenging. Pls edit that correctly. Thank you for your help in advance. --Nightingale (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to do, here. {{PD-US}} itself already has the new link (see the talk page). What you updated was the example code to make a new translation of the page (which did need updating anyway) –⁠moogsi (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I was editing {{PD-US}} on ja setting. Still it shows dead link to cornell univ. If I change my language setting from ja to en, the link is OK, but not on ja setting. I don't know where to edit. Thank you for your further help in advance. --Nightingale (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The link works now. However, there is also another issue. It says that "これは、多くの場合、最初の発行が1923年1月1日より前であるために著作権が消滅した米国の著作物に適用されます。" However, any 著作物 published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States, not just 米国の著作物. Shouldn't the characters 米国の be deleted, or do we want to keep them there due to the exception which only applies to the Ninth Circuit which treats some published non-US works as unpublished? --Stefan4 (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not yet sure the link was corrected. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US?uselang=ja still shows old dead link to cornell univ. Thank you for your advice again. --Nightingale (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Try http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US?uselang=ja&action=purge --Stefan4 (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thumb updated, but not file [edit]

Hi,

Something strange going on with File:Wiki Revue (quarterly report - january to march 2013).pdf. A new version was uploaded, changing among other things on page 3 the 75011 in 75012. Now the thumb is correctly updated ; but the actual PDF file is still the old one.

Any idea what is going on here ?

Jean-Fred (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

An issue with the caching servers: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Wiki_Revue_%28quarterly_report_-_january_to_march_2013%29.pdf?dummy=nocache looks like the new version. -- Rillke(q?) 14:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah, thanks Rillke − did not know that files were cached as well when requested not thumbnailed. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/MichaelMaggs (2) [edit]

As is customary for applications for advanced permissions, this note is to advise the community that User:MichaelMaggs has been nominated for the role of Bureaucrat. --99of9 (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

World heritage, but which one? [edit]

source of the far right sub-image?

I've been trying to do some cleanup on File:PMPPP3.jpg, but unfortunately the list of the images used to compile this collage of World Heritage sites was incomplete. Is there anybody who can identify the place/image on the right side of it? Also, I'd be glad if someone could take a few minutes to double-check my adjustments. Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Milford Sheerdown Peak.jpg (w:Te Wahipounamu) –⁠moogsi (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks alot! --El Grafo (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"Sensuous"/erotic photos of naked minors [edit]

According to US law, it is illegal to distribute "sensuous"/erotic photos of nude minors (below 18). It therefore seems we might have some overlooked problems. For example, the following category (and subcategories) is filled with old photos of minors that are clearly meant to be erotic/sensuous: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Orientalist_nude_photographs Examples:[18][19][20][21][22] It was not normal for North African girls to walk around naked back then, these were posed and photographed for erotic postcards by horny, colonial Europeans. Likewise, we have many other "ethnographic" photos of nude minors, in categories such as: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ethnographic_topless_adolescent_girls They are not as "sensuous", but might still be problematic. One might argue that since toplessness is normal in those cultures, the photos are not meant to be sensuous. But take for example the Reed Dance[23], where the purpose is for virgins to show their goods to the Zulu king so he picks them for marriage. In that case, the nudity is clearly meant as "sensuous", since Zulu women are normally not topless, and the intent is to show off bodies. The girls can be married as early as 13 years old. Some more weird categories for nude and topless adolescent girls:[24][25] So do we have a problem? This question is not about morals, but about the legal system. Commons files are hosted in the US, so US law applies (not "tribal" law). If it is illegal to show naked minors (in the US sense, below 18) on US websites, then it applies to Commons as well, whatever the context. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Furthermore, according to US law, a website distributing pornographic image, which Commons does[26], needs proof that all models are above 18, which Commons does not provide[27] (and cannot in most cases). FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The article you link to says that Commons does not need that proof. It says "The statutory and regulatory definitions of sexually explicit content “producers” should exclude the Wikimedia Foundation".--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Commons does not count as a "producer", but it is still a distributor, which is also illegal. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
meta:Legal and Community Advocacy/Age Record Requirement, the page you link to, is a document produced by lawyers employed by the WMF saying that Commons does not need that proof that all models are below 18. That's it; I don't see any reason to continue that part of the discussion at this level.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Look at all the disclaimers at the top ("The page may not be accurate, and it may fall out of date over time. This page is not legal advice or a representation of the viewpoints of the Wikimedia Foundation."), this certainly isn't a resolved issue. Furthermore, peer to peer distributors like Napster were closed and sued simply for enabling users to distribute illegal content[28], not for producing it (Napster used the same excuse as Commons), so we shouldn't be so slack about this. FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not legal advice. You're not giving out legal advice, either, because that would be illegal. The WMF paid someone who passed the Bar exam to look into; they came out with a legal opinion that said the WMF was okay. When a lawyer tells a group that what they're doing is okay and the group accepts the advice, I don't think it the place of the volunteers to second-guess that opinion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
You overlooked the important part: "The page may not be accurate, and it may fall out of date over time." Possible kiddy porn is a tad more serious than your regular copyright infringement. In any case, that point is secondary, we do have actual erotic/"sensuous" photos of children (as shown above), and whether they are historical or not does not seem to make a difference to US laws. Commons does not exist in a legal vacuum, but is subject to US laws. FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Just as a point of interest, the page is just under a year old; I don't think it's terribly likely that the page is out of date by this point. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems the law is quite ambiguous on the issue, so it is likely to change rapidly. But anyway, the "consent" issue is not so important to me, as much as the fact that some of the images clearly show children (all points above the asterisk). Not that I am morally offended myself, the images are so old, but the legal issue with such images is interesting. FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how US law defines pornography, so I don't know whether these images are pornography or not. How does US law work if the age of a person is unknown? In many cases, Commons does not know the age of the people on the images, and it is likely that there are some pornographic images around where the people on them are too young. There are supposed to be lots of websites for user-contributed pornography. How do those websites work, and do they record the age of every contributor? For example, Flickr hosts some pornography. How does Flickr handle this issue? --Stefan4 (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
You do all realize that the record-keeping "proof" requirements you're talking about only applies to works after November 1, 1990, right? (18 USC § 2257 - Record keeping requirements is the statute. 28 CFR Part 75 seems to apply only to works after July 3, 1995.) I am not a lawyer, but it appears that the "record" requirements are totally off-topic. The real question is about possessing or distributing very old works that actually appear to be, and are asserted to be, of people under 18, and under what circumstances U.S. law allows them, and under what circumstances U.S. law prohibits them. For example, recent sexual acts with underage people is almost certainly prohibited to the widest extent. (But how far is that?) The pictures of 9-year-old Phan Thi Kim Phuc from 1974, in which she's being burned with napalm, appear to be clearly allowed, however. --Closeapple (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This is a major problem that many, many, many people have brought up over and over, and it is mostly met with people criticizing US law and not wishing to comply. This is an issue that seriously jeopardizes the project and something that too many people here just don't care about. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Because after 5+ years of not even a warning from any legal authority we are in imminent danger of prosecution? - Jmabel ! talk 16:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
      • How do you know there were no warnings? I have seen many Office actions taken. Your statement is out of line. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
        • The files are still here, so there have been no Office actions taken on them. I can't imagine any warnings that couldn't be solved by the Office deleting the files wouldn't get passed onto us, nor that any deletions of files that had been here for years would not provoke comment by the Office to the Village Pump or other places.
        • And calling his statement out of line is out of line. You can disagree with someone without attacking their right to speak.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Prosfilaes, your statement is inappropriate. There have been many, many office actions. Office actions are processed. Claiming that some images have not been officed cannot be used to claim that such images haven't been removed. Child pornography has been deleted in the past. That is a fact. Trying to claim otherwise is disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Flickr users need your help! New Flickr redesign threatens availability of CC images on Commons [edit]

We all know that Creative Commons photographs from Flickr are a hugely important source of images for us here at Commons. A huge portion of those CC images weren't originally uploaded to Flickr under a CC license, but rather, were changed to CC after a Wikipedian messaged a photo's uploader asking for the change. (I am one of those Wikipedians – I've uploaded hundreds, if not thousands, of images of this nature).

However, one of the changes in Flickr's new redesign makes it harder for Flickr users to change the licenses on their photos. Far from impossible, but they now need to make a few clicks to see the option, which will likely deter many users from making the switch.

User:Fæ and I had an idea that a Help page could be set up on Commons that could include a cartoon or a set of screenshots instructing Flickr users how to make the change. That way, when we message them, we can simply link them to this page. Any thoughts? Delaywaves • talk 22:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

All your base comment are belong to us. sorry, i split the thread due to popular demands, if the demands aren't met, the hostages can be released, just cut and paste or rejoin as you please. Penyulap ☏ 06:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
A single click on Show more on the right of Additional info and a single click on the edit on the right of existing license will give you all the options of licenses available from which you can select any. JKadavoor Jee 07:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

making commons a community you look forward to being a part of [edit]

The topic is split from the above topic, which I think everyone will be happy with. Penyulap ☏ 05:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt most people would listen to me, and the chance of changing things is slimmer still, but driving people away from commons with the 'police state' mentality is a complete nobrainer for destroying this project. Hell, people here outright TELL people to leave and go to flickr. Is it any wonder that they do ? Is it any wonder that commons can do no more than gather crumbs from under the flickr table ? The clear and obvious future contains one or more major replacements for wikipedia which create a place people like to come to, rather than struggle to use despite the efforts of nasty people to stop them, and in the end, wikipedia will have no chance to stand up to these sites which can change the default, or only, licenses allowed, and choose commons-incompatible licences just to press flush on the toilet at a rest place beside the Internet superhighway and finish this project off.
We should make a comic strip showing the blocks 'voting people off the island' like in the TV show survivor, until in the last frame the island is the typical castaway under a sinlge palm-tree .
The recent nonsense with mobile phone uploads proves the insistence by the WMF on ignoring what the community is actually saying about the problems on the site and going their own way perusing 'churn' (short term uneducated ediitors) just DOES NOT WORK. People have to learn how and what to upload before they learn what a complete sh*thole wikipedia can be. If not they upload junk that can't be sorted.
Making a how-to page to direct the flickr users to, for the purpose of making it easier to run flickr harvesting bots will have no effect on the community whatsoever. Anything that makes it easier for a bot to copy in, any bot copied images can just as easily be copied out to a new project. The only thing of value to the life of the project which can't be copied out is the community itself.
Collect people, not images. A collection of images won't educate, people will. If we bring the people, they'll bring the images.
that's just my opinion and you should ignore it, I'm a bit melancholy today.Penyulap ☏ 01:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what that tirade has to do with the subject at hand... AnonMoos (talk) 02:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Do you think you can try to refrain from calling comments 'a tirade', it makes me rather less likely to answer your query, if that is a query. You don't understand something, then how is a comment like that going to get you an answer I don't know. Penyulap ☏ 03:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually I often find what Penylap says to be... let's call it "off topic", but in this case it is spot on. I notice over and over again, that rather than making it easier for people to join Commons and directly distribute their work here we (the community) mass deete their images and then tell them to join flickr or whatever other site (and then we begin copying images from there). Take a look at rules on proof of distribution under a free licence, I see many times when a person has put {{own}} in the source and their images are nominated as "no source provided", but somehow if that person will upload to flickr it will be quickly fickrreviewed and even in cases of copyvio it will be ages until we find out what has happened. I disagree with Penylap on one thing, there were many educationally useful images upoaded via Mobile tools that were deleted "just because we want to show everybody who is the boss". Look at this and then at something like this the latter are not only kept, but are constantly expanded "because they come from a civilized source" (a statement which by itself a personal attack to all contributors on Commons). This is why I do not contribute content to this project, I know that there will be people who fetishise deleting somebody's hard work. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Penyulap's post is about the importance of strengthening the community and the problems of a "police state" mentality, and what a bad competitor we are for Flickr. I think... (you're always a bit abstruse to me, Penyulap).
Your post seems to be about the vagaries of scope and problems in the deletion system which make the site unattractive, again this is related to user retention. Also there are unspecified "people" who think our contributors are "uncivilized" and want to "show people who is boss", in fact they even get off on it, although you don't say who they are. Maybe the whole thing isn't as personal as you think it is?
All fine points both, if a little melodramatically presented for my taste. Read the original post. It's about providing guidance to Flickr users on how to use the site redesign in a way that might also help them contribute to Commons. It's about a new help page, mostly. No-one else has said one single word about that. This is not the definition of "on-topic". In fact, this is a classic derailment, almost textbook. The OP also contains something missing from the replies: a single practical suggestion. If you have a solution, or even if you just want to point out something that's bothering you, I'd encourage anyone to please start your own topic about it, be prepared to back up what you say. Just pointing out problems, especially OT in someone else's topic, is... well, it's just really rude –⁠moogsi (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
We (Flickr users) don't need much help. If we're matured enough to upload, add description, tags, license, location, etc., we can change the license too if we wish. I don't know how a minor redesign of Flickr interface become a life-taking threat to Commons. A single click on Show more on the right of Additional info and a single click on the edit on the right of existing license will give you all the options of licenses available from which you can select any.
The real threat from Flickr now is its new policy to give everybody one terabyte of free space and the facility to share in full resolution. Earlier they were limited to pro-users. Now Flickr is a real alternative for people who are not comfortable with the harassment of admins/other-big-heads.
I agree with Penyulap on Collect people, not images. It is always better to invite people to Commons than stealing images without their permission. I'm sure that many of them will come and start contributing high resolution works here, if we spend a few minutes to convince them about the benefits of contributing here (if any). But in practice, we prefer to harass people here with words and actions and many of them save their life from here. (This is a positive self criticism; I'm not blaming any. I came here accepting the invitation of ComputerHotline, and I too invited many people to here.) JKadavoor Jee 04:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The real threat is, as you outline, the lack of harassment. If wikipedia was a meal for dinner, then the idea of letting everyone organise the site is, well, chaos. The resulting recipe is get all the bags of shopping from the supermarket, bring it home and then throw the bags into a cooking pot and apply heat. Hmm, interesting idea it was at the beginning, but now we get our ass kicked. There is all that melted plastic, boiled bread and bananas, flickr needs an arbcom like a kid needs a brain tumour. The nasty people never rest and are constantly thinking of new ideas to destroy things (though in their minds they're not out to destroy things, just to have everything their own way and get rid of people they don't like). Like, naughty people are 24/7 creating new ways and honing techniques to use commons as a battlefield, and when people don't take an interest in what is going on, and make sure they agree, then things get out of hand behind their back, it's hard to fix when they are dumped into the middle of it, it's a shock to the system. Catting all day everyday for 5 years and then next you know someone has managed to get you totally blocked for no reason, because people don't care to stop them.
The problem with the mobile thing wasn't that stuff got thrown out, that's not it, the problem was you can't get the core needs of the project filled by people who are here for 20 edits before leaving. WMF was trying to make up for the loss of long term editors by finding ways that people could make drive-by contributions. Quantity rather than quality. The project become a desktop trashcan where images went without any thought. Passers-by just throw a mess at the too few people left here to sort, cat, and find a use for. If there are no editors left, why bother collecting for articles that won't exist. Can't write things that way. If new people can't be tained before the trolls eat them, there is nothing here. Newbies can't do what needs doing. Like, why on earth is Peter kupier banned ? I've heard he was good, but is now gone. Then there is 'global bans' which are a new way for sneaky trolls to use tiny projects to make themselves sysops and then sniper off any commons editor. Period. No appeal, nothing. The person who does it is someone you don't know at meta, and that's the same person you have to appeal to apparently, so it's like everyday the sneaky trolls make up new ways to sniper off people, when you see that done to others, it takes a toll. A lot of editors were discouraged when they saw my block on en.wiki and they stopped editing. That was awful, the many objections were flatly ignored. When you see that stuff going on to other people here, it's like, you can't half be bothered putting your heart into it. Then, when editors get ignored by the few admins who have an 'us and them' mentality, (not all admins do) it's like, if you want to ignore everyone who is not an admin, fine, create the content yourself a-hole. That is especially how en.wiki is now, it's like everyone gets beaten down and ignored, not good for morale. Better to fix some of the problems that are being created, because when our backs are turned for too long, it's easy to think it's too late. It's certainly harder the longer things are left. Penyulap ☏ 05:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Pieter Kuiper was banned because he seemed to be literally incapable of restraining himself from making constant "revenge" deletion nominations, and so trailed constant clouds of drama behind himself wherever he went... AnonMoos (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't everyone ? no, but seriously, is he blocked or banned ? is there a discussion somewhere about it ? Penyulap ☏ 15:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion is at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Pieter Kuiper. We are currently waiting for an administrator to close it. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. The section title "Anyone who oppose this gets a Pieter Kuiper-like treatment" speaks volumes about the atmosphere that a few people like to create, the Texas lynching mentality sort of thing.
Looking through more of it, seems there was a lot of people commenting there, and a well-divided community. I expect that it hasn't been closed because it looks like unblocking is, as a percentage, popular and admins don't want the blowback from the people who wouldn't like whatever action they take.
That makes me think that a lot of the tension could be removed from the largest cases with a bot. For example if it was so large that 100 people took part, and they had like 12 months and 2,000 edits each, then PALZ could count up the !votes and then act. Still, maybe people would want to lynch PALZ, interesting idea. Than again, after he plotted to MURDER me, so I wonder which way I'd vote :D Penyulap ☏ 16:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

May 23 [edit]

Purging issue? [edit]

Yes check.svg ResolvedKeraunoscopia


I thought the purging issue was resolved a while back. I can't get File:Ane Brun, Le Cargo interview, 2008.jpg to show the updated version, reverting, reuploading, trying different browsers, clicking "purge", nothing is working. The full size appears fine. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 05:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you uploading the right file? I've opened them in full size tabs and can't tell the difference between any of the versions. I tried the ol' ?action=purge trick on the full sized versions as well. Killiondude (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it's fixed. I see the same image for thumb and fullsize –⁠moogsi (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
If the thumbnail is correct now, this is most likely bugzilla:41130, which is not fixed –⁠moogsi (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Killiondude, I'm so sorry I can be extremely unhelpful. I should have pointed out the tiny fragment where the change occurred. It seems to have updated now. Apologies for my impatience. Moogsi, would I be able to request suppression of the three file versions in between the original upload and the final version? Thank you so much!! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done. One thing to try is
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/thumb.php?f=Ane Brun, Le Cargo interview, 2008.jpg&width=800
where width is whatever size of thumbnail is stuck on the old version. –⁠moogsi (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much moogsi, I really appreciate it! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Identification of Flickr uploads with a hidden category [edit]

Commons provides a way to easily see the images that a Commons user has uploaded, but I am not aware of any way to see the images that a user has uploaded from Flickr if they have used the Flickr upload bot or other facilities. Yesterday I created Category:Flicker images uploaded by High Contrast (including that typo of Flickr) and manually added about 250 images to it. Those were all images that I believe should be reviewed for general consent issues, country specific consent issues, and personality rights warning tags. It was a hidden category that would not be seen by most users. Today, High Contrast deleted the category, removed it from all of the images, and left a message on my talk page saying "Do not create categories connected with my username especially if you have not asked me". I have tried to determine what High Contrast's concern is, but they seem to have stopped participating in the discussion.

Is there any reason not to use a hidden category to identify the user who chose to upload a particular image from Flickr? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reason to do so without asking an active user if he wants to? --High Contrast (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Why should anyone need to ask another user's permission to add a hidden category that merely identfies the user who chose to upload the image from Flickr? No one needs to ask permission to see the images that you have uploaded directly, why should Flickr uploads be any different? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Then create categories like flickr images (personality rights template to add), flickr images (whatever) if you must. But if you do so pay attention to the correct spelling: "flickr" not "flicker". Regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
All was said, as such I did not feed that superfluous "discussion" on his talk page. --High Contrast (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I would also object to someone creating a category (hidden or otherwise) about my work on Commons without consulting me. - Jmabel ! talk 16:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Just look at it as a different form of Special:Contributions. It was always supposed to be possible to see the images uploaded by a specific user. --Conti|✉ 16:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
No, it is not "a different form of Special:Contributions". Special:Contributions is accurately maintained on an automated basis. If someone creates a category about me, I'm stuck having to monitor it to see if it is being accurately maintained. If I don't, someone can easily slander me by tagging inappropriate images as being associated with me and my work here. - Jmabel ! talk 19:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
A bot could easily take care of that and monitor those categories and automatically revert any inappropriate additions. This is unlikely going to be a problem anyhow, as a click on the image always reveals the actual uploader anyhow. --Conti|✉ 19:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Wasn't there a similar discussion a while ago? I remember Fae (or someone else?) writing a script that would do that. See Category:Photos uploaded from Flickr by Fæ using a script. It would be really nice to have this for everyone using upload bots. We need this information. --Conti|✉ 16:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
No, Conti. This is absolutely different. Please read properly. Fae's discussion was about categories for flickr streams and flickr users. This is absolutely ok. Do you see the difference? --High Contrast (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Why do we “need” the information? What's the intention of such categories? --Rosenzweig τ 16:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
In this particular case, I was identifying images that need further review, but it seemed best to add a category that provided useful information rather than just "images needing review". Any that were not deleted would then remain categorized as having been uploaded by High Contrast. In the general sense, we know that the uploads of some users are problematic or suffer from a similar lack of categories, etc. having the uploader identified would make it easier to find and sort out issues. On the other hand, I see no reason why anyone would object to having this information available. It seems to be an oversight caused by a technical shortcoming. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I think I am more experienced on Commons than you are - if you want to bring it to the "incompetent-user-need-to-be-checked"-direction. You are wasting time of other people. As I said above create categories like flickr images (personality rights template to add), flickr images (whatever) if you must. --High Contrast (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
High Contrast, I think you are a very competent and experienced user. But I also think many of the images that you chose to upload from Flickr need to be reviewed in light of Commons recent awakening to consent issues. Don't misunderstand, I think all Flickr uploads should be categorized by uploader, not just yours. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I have no problem in such categories. I have Category:Files uploaded by Russavia as a matter of fact. I think the issue that High Contrast might be objecting to is the choice of images being placed in the category. They have uploaded nearly 20,000 images from Flickr (it seems) so instead of 250 images, it should entail all of these images. High Contrast, would you agree to having Category:Files uploaded by High Contrast added to all of your uploads? I had Fae go through and add the category to all of my uploads with a script/bot. I think that is a fair solution. russavia (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No, russavia, I do not want such a category - equal what is in there. I see no value in such categories. If you want such categories, it is good. --High Contrast (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Category:Files by High Contrast already exists. What is your objection to identifying your Flickr uploads similarly? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
High Contrast, Special:ListFiles/High_Contrast already exists. All your uploads already are put into a category and are available for all to see. That that list does not contain your uploads done through a bot is a mere technicality that needs to be fixed. --Conti|✉ 16:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
It would be really nice if the upload bots would add/create categories like Category:Files uploaded by Russavia for every image that are uploaded through them. I'm a bit surprised that this was never considered, to be honest. --Conti|✉ 16:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
You are running in circles. I will now get out of this talking round. I say it again: I do not want such a uploads by category. I object such a creation. To your last thought Conti - something comparable is done by the Commonist-tool - but I consquently delete those categories as well. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Would you delete Special:Contributions/High_Contrast, too, if you could? That's a honest question: If the answer is yes, then I would at least understand your point, even if I don't agree with it. If it's no, then I'm simply at loss why you would oppose a mechanism that works exactly the same. Either way, the decision really isn't up to you, or me. Our contributions and uploads are publicly viewable, and it shouldn't matter one iota whether our uploads are done through our main account or a shared bot account. --Conti|✉ 16:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough High Contrast. For the purposes that are stated above, I think Category:Flickr streams is a better way to go about such categories anyway. There's no requirement for uploads to be categorised by the user who uploaded; there are other tools to see what images people are uploading. If people want such categories to be mandatory; then it should have consensus for all users, not just a select editor or two. russavia (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Russavia. I too have a category, Category:Uploaded by Jkadavoor (Jee); but it should only be a matter of personal preference, not done by third parties. JKadavoor Jee 17:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Great, let's get consensus. Such categories (both uploader and originating Flickr account) should be mandatory for all Flickr uploads. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. --Conti|✉ 17:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Start an COM:RFC on the issue, and we can advertise it via the watchlist notices to get wider input. russavia (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
This looks like a simple and straightforward enough change for me that Commons:Village_pump/Proposals could take care of it. Again, in the end, it's a mere technicality. We do not need to establish a consensus on whether user's uploads should be visible and trackable. That has always been the case. We just need to ask the bot owners to make the changes to their bots. --Conti|✉ 17:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
RFC is definitely a better way to go about it; it could be drawn up as a guideline for uploading from Flickr sources. VP/P is not the place for such things. russavia (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I think categories like Category:Photographs by Geoff Gallice under Category:Photographs by photographer is the better approach, which covers all non-Wikimedian contributions. Whether to include a category to specify the uploader is a different matter though. JKadavoor Jee 17:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Again, we already have categories for each uploader. We always had that. It's just that mass-uploading by bots became more and more common, making categories by uploader (based on the user account) useless. Why do you oppose a category of images uploaded by a specific user? I'm trying to figure out where the opposition to this comes from, and I just can't come up with any reason. --Conti|✉ 17:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
      • "we already have categories for each uploader." - No; user categories are created by individual users, if and only if they wish. So I think other's can't create them if somebody (like High Contrast) don't want it. Correct me if I'm wrong. JKadavoor Jee 17:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
        • You are wrong. Well, I suppose it depends on the exact definition, but there is Special:ListFiles/Jkadavoor, which is automatically generated, and lists all your uploads under your account. It should also list all images you upload from Flickr, but since that happens with the help of a bot, it does not. Having a bot create and populate these categories to include uploads done through bots would fix that. --Conti|✉ 18:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes; Special:ListFiles/Jkadavoor and Special:Contributions/Jkadavoor are automatically generated. I'm talking about user categories like Category:User:Jkadavoor, Category:Images by Jkadavoor (Jee) and Category:Uploaded by Jkadavoor (Jee). See; I already created them, and I've nothing to hide. But all people may not be. Some people upload non-censored contents that are allowed here; but they may not be interested to show them under their name. Just an example. JKadavoor Jee 18:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
            • And what I don't understand is where you see the difference between automatically created pages and user/bot created categories. If you do not want to associate files you upload with your user name then you are neither going to upload them with your main account, nor with a bot account operated by your main account. So the proposed user categories would not even touch this issue, and you could still anonymously upload images. This is only about images uploaded by you through a Flickr upload bot being categorized as images being uploaded by you. Just like images uploaded by you under your main account is categorized as images being uploaded by you at Special:ListFiles/Jkadavoor. It is exactly the same. --Conti|✉ 18:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
              • Reiterating what I said above, Special:Contributions is accurately maintained on an automated basis. If someone creates a category about me, I'm stuck having to monitor it to see if it is being accurately maintained. If I don't, someone can easily slander me by tagging inappropriate images as being associated with me and my work here. - Jmabel ! talk 19:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
                • Jmabel, I think your fears are unfounded. Are people trying to slander you using other methods? Is there something about this that would make it more likely to be abused than any other method of attempted slander? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
                  • To discuss about fears being founded or not is beside the point. If a user doesn´t want another user to manually create categories with the aim to track his activities, it should suffice that he objects. Period. No need to justify his objections before the village court or elsewhere. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
                    • Ideally the categories would be created automatically and filled in during Flickr uploads. But getting back to the point, can you suggest why all other uploads should be easily viewed but not Flickr uploads? Should we instead start an RfC to remove access to other mechanisms which list user uploads? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
                • Agree with Jmabel above. Now it is the right of individual users whether to create user-cats and fill with suitable files under them. We can't allow it to other people; especially if they are of conflicting interests. I don't think it can be done by a bot; since a user-cat may contain sub-cats and gallery pages and whether and where to include a particular file is only a matter of personal taste. See Category:Uploaded by Jkadavoor (Jee). It will expand when I upload more types of files. For other people who are interested to peep on one's work, the best place is Special:ListFiles. I've no problem if somebody fix the bug to display bot uploads too. JKadavoor Jee 05:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
                  • Of course a bot could easily fill and maintain a simple category, and a bot could easily make sure that only the bot and no one else adds images to that category (by reverting anyone else). Subcategories are a simple bonus that is not necessary, though if anyone would want to sort his own uploads into subcategories, he's certainly free to do so manually. And yes, ideally, the developers would fix this and have Special:ListFiles working even with bot uploads, but we all know how long it usually takes for a feature like that to be implemented. Waiting for that is simply unrealistic. It's not that your worries are unreasonable, I can entirely understand them. But all of them can taken care of easily, with no drawbacks whatsoever. --Conti|✉ 11:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
                    • Then I hope it will turned out as a good idea. JKadavoor Jee 13:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Photowikimeetup in Hong Kong during Wikimania 2013 [edit]

Hello! if you are interested in photography and are joining this year's edition of Wikimania in Hong Kong (August 7th - 11th), would you like to attend a (photo)wikimeetup for a night photo tour in Hong Kong?. Does it sound good to you? here you can learn more. Cheers, Poco a poco (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

May 24 [edit]

Finally [edit]

They went and did it! Good news!--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Files moved from ro.wikipedia to Commons requiring review [edit]

I have recently noticed that some files from ro.wikipedia are requiring review for a long time.Could someone review them?Receptie123 (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you please provide any link to them? --McZusatz (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
There are many.The link is : Category:Files moved from ro.wikipedia to Commons requiring review on commons.--Receptie123 (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Bibliotheca Augusta changes license to CC BY-SA 3.0 DE [edit]

See here. <- Text in German Someone in for a mass import? (example) - Amada44  talk to me 10:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This means that for images in Category:Collections of Herzog August Bibliothek, we pass, for example, from {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923}} to {{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923|Cc-by-sa-3.0-de}}? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Transfers to commons [edit]

Is there a way for people to know how many transfers a user made? Please let me know if there is.Receptie123 (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Auto replacement for images in Wikipedia namespaces [edit]

Hi, I noticed an increasing amount of higher resolution / better quality reproductions of 2D art and was wondering if there's any automated tool to replace uses of an images in all Wikipedia namespaces, rather than doing this manually. An example would be the Pontormo's Halberdier: File:Jacopo Pontormo 062.jpg vs. File:Pontormo (Jacopo Carucci) (Italian (Florentine) - Portrait of a Halberdier (Francesco Guardi?) - Google Art Project.jpg. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk)

With many we can probably overwrite the low resolution with the higher and delete the duplicates. We would have all versions one page and then. Graphics lab may be nice enough to adjust the tones etc. if we put the problem ones all in a cat for them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Downloading Wikimedia Commons images and make them accessible/visible on maps [edit]

Can I please ask for some help... I would like to show selected images of Wikimedia Commons on a map.

  • I would like to include images on the Harvard world map http://worldmap.harvard.edu - which is a sort of map aggregator and which has an Africa map with amazing documentation you can browse by selecting contemporary and historical layers (http://worldmap.harvard.edu/africamap/). It doesn't seem to be any tool to connect wikimedia commons and wikipedia content to this map. Or not? (I asked to their developers and the answer was no)
  • Something which seems an efficient system to make content available on this map is through picasa. I have the original images but organized by authors not by subject (i added the subject by using the category). Is it possible to download all the images of a category stored on Wikimedia Commons?
  • otherwise, is it possible to visualize selected images from Wikimedia Commons (a category for example) on Open Street Map?

Here an example of images I would like to put on a map Category:Lucas Grandin, Le jardin sonore de Bonamouti (an example), and a group of examples Category:Public art in Douala thank you very much. --iopensa (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

@2 If you consider uploading content to Picasa, make sure licenses of content from Wikimedia Commons comply with Google's terms and services: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/
A tutorial on downloading an entire category can be found on wikia.com.
@3 Commons on OSM seems to be what you are looking for. Also de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Georeferenzierung/Anwendungen/OpenStreetMap/en could be an interesting read. I recommend contacting User:Kolossos or building upon his code.
Regards, Christoph

May 25 [edit]

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=96895223"