Commons:Village pump

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


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

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

Welcome to the Village pump

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

Please note


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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page


Search archives


 


Centralized discussion

See also Commons:Village pump/Proposals

Please help by translating these messages into other languages.

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

Archive  • Discussion • Edit • Page history • Watch
The last town pump to be in use in Saint Helier, Jersey, until early 20th century [add]





Oldies[edit]

Charinsert[edit]

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

Fotopedia[edit]

moved to Category talk:Photos from Fotopedia#(Moved from Village pump)

Nansen Collection[edit]

Hello!

I've uploaded almost 3000 images from the Norwegian National Library's Nansen Collection, these are images from Fridtjof Nansens personal collection donated to the National Library along with his personal archives. The collection contains photos from his polar exploration, Aid efforts in Russia in the 1920s and later work with the League of Nations. The entire collection have descriptions in Norwegian and about half have descriptions in English, Spanish, German, Dutch and Spanish.

Unfortunately the photos are untitled and not cropped (they are raw photos from the digitalisation).

Head over to Category:The Nansen Collection to check out, rename, crop and reuse the collection. Regards Profoss (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thanks a lot! I already created this one, nominated for VI. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Lovely! Profoss (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Is this one a mistake? 130.88.141.34 16:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I've rechecked the original files, apparently it is as black as this one. Odd, perhaps someone forgot the lens cap... I'll list it for speedy deletion. Profoss (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The version on the web at [1] is definitely not just black... Lupo 13:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The version on the web is based on an old digitalisation from the 1990s, the whole collection was redigitalised in 2010, which is probably were the error occured. Side note, Commons have higher resolution images than the ones on nb.no. Profoss (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Congrats User:Profoss, these look like a valuable collection. --99of9 (talk) 03:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

superprotect right[edit]

FYI: The WMF has added a 'superprotect' right – granted to the 'Staff' global user group – which can be used to prevent sysops from modifying site-wide infrastructure pages (such as default javascript/css pages). There are suggestions that this new right would allow introduction of better version control to these very important files to prevent undesirable effects. The first use of 'superprotect' was to prevent German Wikipedia sysops from using Common.js to deactivate the mw:MediaViewer. There is currently a RFC on meta: meta:Requests for comment/Superprotect rights --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Awwww, WMF pet developpers are sad that their shiny toy is underappreciated by the team responsible for the Foundations’s highest editorial quality project?… Now I need to go stand barefoot on a bucket of Legos to take this grin off my face… Hmm, capital idea: What about a super-super-protect right to keep idiots from ruining Wikimedia with more unwanted, unneeded, harmful crap? -- Tuválkin 06:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Rather than put Media Viewer back into Beta, so that users can optionally enable it if they find it beneficial, WMF has enforced its deployment of this software to all readers, with threats of desysop-ing on English Wikipedia, and now preventing this interface message from being altered by sysops on German Wikipedia... The WMF has also ignored community consensus on Commons (@MW RFC). --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Visual representation of the WMF's response to these questions (and of Commons:Upload Wizard feedback)
From Erik Möller's e-mail: "we've clarified in a number of venues that use of the MediaWiki: namespace to disable site features is unacceptable. If such a conflict arises, we're prepared to revoke permissions if required." I'd like a few actual clarifications (rather than just proclamations) in relation to this statement. Let's start with the easy ones and work our way down.
  • Where was this "clarified"?
  • What really needs to be clarified is why this is supposedly unacceptable, so: why?
  • What exactly is considered a "site feature" in relation to this unwritten policy?
  • Which permissions are you prepared to revoke? Administrative privileges of administrators carrying out the consensus of the projects that they serve? Editing privileges of project participants advocating changes which the WMF disapproves of?
  • Why do you consider community consensus to disable functionality which is malfunctioning or unwanted a "conflict"?
  • If a community feels that certain functionality hinders them from working effectively, do you think that overriding their consensus and threatening to revoke permissions aligns well with the foundation's mission to empower and engage people to effectively collect, develop and disseminate content?
  • Who is your position intended to benefit? If it's the individual projects: Why are you a better judge of what's good for the projects than the communities of those projects?
  • If the WMF is going to exert more power with respect to controlling site functionality, which steps (if any) is it going to take to assume greater responsibility to ensure that, for example, the Upload Wizard isn't utterly broken for all users of certain browsers and that the Media Viewer and Stock Photo gadgets don't fail to comply with licensing requirements for large groups of files? (These are not hypothetical examples.) I don't recall ever seeing anyone responsible for the Upload Wizard following up on Commons:Upload Wizard feedback – are you going to become more active there?
  • Can you show any evidence of a mandate given to you to override a project's consensus and hinder or punish administrators who carry it out?
Looking forward to the WMF's response, LX (talk, contribs) 09:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
@LX: I suggest to use meta for this discussion. There are already so many discussion fragments on this from en.wp, de.wp, meta, mailing lists etc, adding one more location is probably too confusing to people. TheDJ (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
User:LX another ping attempt. Annoying crosswiki differences... :) TheDJ (talk) 09:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't figure out the structure of the RFC on meta or where this would fit, and my questions are less about the new "master race bit" and more about that e-mail in relation to Commons-specific issues. But all comments here are freely licensed, so feel free to copy and extend my list of questions. LX (talk, contribs) 10:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: I'm a bit confused as to your role in making announcements for the Wikimedia Foundation. Is the Wikimedia Foundation going to engage the community on Commons in an appropriate way, such as raising an official notice with explanation on this Village Pump, or do we have to discover these by watching out for code changes? The latter scenario just seems, well, rude. -- (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't work for the WMF, and i don't make announcments for the WMF. This was only a FYI for the community because the WMF don't have posted a notice here. Sorry if the FYI is confusing. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, you are always on the ball Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg. Could someone nudge one of the WMF paid Community Advocates (or whatever title they use right now) that it would be seen as a good thing for one of them to write up an explanation here and explain where we are supposed to give feedback, rather than in haphazard channels? Unfortunately off the top of my head, I don't know the right person to ask. -- (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The community liaisons are usually attached to specific development projects (They try and gather and organize feedback about said project, as well as informing the community about changes related to that project). They are not general internal PR people for the foundation (Or at least that is my understanding). Thus I don't really think its their responsibility to inform the community that the foundation has decided to make a new protection level (I have no idea whose responsibility it would be. Probably should be somebodies). For reference, User:Keegan (WMF) is the community liason for media viewer. However, at this point the super-protect controversy has little to do with the MediaViewer "project" itself. There are discussions about it everywhere. One of the more prominent ones is at meta:Requests_for_comment/Superprotect_rights Bawolff (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I totally misread Fae's comment to say community liaison instead of community advocate. If you want to talk to a community advocate, I'd recommend leaving User:Philippe_(WMF) a message. Bawolff (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I propose the creation of a "collateral damage" list or sub-page listing those users who have retired or cut-down their activity due to the WMF's recent behaviour. --Túrelio (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI: meta:Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

PD image of David Slater[edit]

(I'm not sure were this question properly belongs; I placed it here thinking this was the best place to start the discussion.)
By the same logic that the famous macaque selfie is a public domain image, could we also upload the monkey's image of David Slater, the photographer, as seen here (or here, as printed in The Guardian)? Or should we wait until the whole copyright issue is settled legally? — Loadmaster (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that your logic is correct, but the words "add fuel to a fire" come immediately to mind, remember also that in addition to legal copyrights, individuals have Personality rights ( see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people), and given the present bad blood between Mr Slater and the Wikimedia Foundation, it would be very unwise to make such a provocative gesture.--KTo288 (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
What KTo288 is saying. I also think it would be a bit pointy. Much the same as the selfie fest at wikimania in my opinion was pointy. However that was also sort of a consequence of the media picking this from the transparency report and running with it like we landed on the moon... For attendees it was as much about the copyrights as the media's and social media's superficial obsession with things like this (that's how I interpreted it at least). Morally, I'm of the opinion that it is not necessary to drive this much further by uploading an image of David himself. TheDJ (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been written somewhere but otrs is getting quite a few mails of unhappy people (eg. I have donated to wikipedia but will never again... , I love you guys but what you did here is really shitty… and so on). Publicity wise the monkey was not good for wikimedia and it was definitely not worth the few images the monkey took. Peoples opinion is, that even if it is lawfully correct, it is morally wrong. Should the copyright issue be settled in favor for wikimedia we will get that victory with an other wave of bad press and unhappy otrs mails. So maybe not upload more pictures taken by monkeys. Amada44  talk to me 19:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. As I said about that previous infamous incident, we must respect the interests and freewill of the authors than merely looking on the legal sides. Otherwise, we will loss a lot of gentle people. I know Flickr and many other similar sites give much importance for photographers. But Commons is difference. Here we care the interests of authors, reusers and the unpaid efforts of the maintenance volunteers at the same time. It is good, and I respect that point of view. But we should maintain an equilibrium so that the voice of each group is taken care and one group is not neglected by the aggressiveness of others. Unfortunately it is happening frequently because the maintenance community is most active and dominating here. Jee 02:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
You're not wrong about the bad publicity, I had been negotiating with an organisation to release photographs under a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license but it has fallen though due WMF's controversial position of the "Monkey Selfie" and they want nothing to do with any WMF projects. Looking at ORTS, most of the emails I've seen are from very unhappy people. Bidgee (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
We've got our hands stuck in the cookie jar, forgetting that the way to get more cookies is to let go of some of the ones we're holding.:(--KTo288 (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

August 13[edit]

Folger Shakespeare images CC-BY-SA[edit]

See here If anyone is willing to upload them, that would be great. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Commons:Batch uploading is the place to make such a request. --Ppelleti (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Problem is I don't see any of it as CC-BY-SA; they're almost all PD works, with some undated drawings that are unclear on publication which could be debatable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

August 14[edit]

Cat-a-lot down[edit]

Is it just me, or Cat-a-lot isn’t working right now? -- Tuválkin 01:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

For a few hours now MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js#The_gadget_doesn.27t_work Jim.henderson (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes that was a stupid mistake of mine while moving stuff around so it's loaded on demand. Some peer-review and it wouldn't have happened. -- Rillke(q?) 19:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Are you suggesting we should superprotect the gadget? ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Definitely. I think we should ask for superprotection of all MediaWiki pages. Perhaps site requests in Bugzilla? Or just injecting code into cat-a-lot that disables MV? -- Rillke(q?) 22:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The latter is definitely the quickest way to get super protection. It would be cool to have flagged revisions for scripts and a bit of code review. At least on the high profile pages. --Dschwen (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Crops[edit]

Hello, I have a question regarding licensing & author information formatting of some crops of a picture. The original is here and this is one of the crops. Have I got the right? Regards, --Mihai (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I fixed it up a bit. If by "Have I got the right?" you mean to say "Am făcut acest drept?" the answer is "Mostly". If you mean "Trebuie dreptul de a face acest lucru?" the answer is "yes." - Jmabel ! talk 02:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Ups, that was a typo. I meant „got it right”. Mulțumesc :D for the help, I'll use the template for the other files as well. --Mihai (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

August 16[edit]

Interwiki links on categories[edit]

I've been having a bit of a disagreement about Interwiki links on categories with User:Allen4names, and it is clear we are not going to reach consensus, so I'm bringing the matter here in hopes of getting broader discussion.

My view is that it is pretty much mandatory for categories to provide, whenever relevant, the Interwiki links that show up (in most skins) in the left-hand navigation column, connecting to appropriate articles or, occasionally, categories in the various language Wikipedias. It's perfectly OK to also make a visible text link along the lines of {{en|[[:en:Topic]]}}, or a longer text that may or may not include that link, but until such time as Commons may be fully integrated with WikiData such that the need for Interwiki links in Commons may go away, the one along the lines of [[en:Topic]] is pretty much compulsory.

His view, as I understand it, is that a link like {{en|[[:en:Topic]]}} removes all need for a link like [[en:Topic]], and he has (at least in some cases) been actively removing the latter. (Allen, if you feel I've mischaracterized your view, please feel more than free to clarify.) -- Jmabel ! talk 05:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Jmabel, I think you’re wright and that Allen4names is wrong. He should be stopped. (Too bad stopping Wikidata from their current policies regarding articles’ vs. categories’ interlanguage links is not nearly as easy to do.) -- Tuválkin 21:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I think we need to recognise that the environment is going to change radically at the end of this month, 26-28 August, when "In other projects" links are going to be rolled out on Wikipedia, Wikisource and Wikiquote sidebars, working through WikiData. As presently constituted, those links can only be category-category and gallery-article.
I've put up a new page at Commons:Wikidata/Commons-Wikidata sitelinks to present the issue -- it needs a lot of discussion and expansion, but I thought it was worth putting at least a skeleton up.
It's important to note that while we may think the current structure at Wikidata is daft, that is their Plan A, and they are simply not prepared even to discuss anything else (ie category and gallery links) -- I've tried quite hard over the last couple of days at d:Project chat and d::Contact the development team and could not even get a "feature request" number to be created for the idea on Bugzilla. Lars also suggested it on the wikidata mailing list last week, and got a fairly short brush off. For the moment, there is simply no point in asking for this on the Wikidata forums, in particular besieging the two above would just be counter-productive. That's not to say Plan B is a bad idea, but we need to better understand just what are the full technical and social issues blocking it from discussion at the moment. Which we can perhaps do on that page above, at the moment still in very skeletal form.
This is an issue we need to crack, but we need to be getting sitelinks into Wikidata to get other things to work, and for the moment those links need to be category-category and gallery-article. Jheald (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
So does this mean we are going to need to create hundreds of thousands of basically redundant galleries replicating categories just so that links will work? That seems insane. - Jmabel ! talk 01:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
That's inacceptable, using cats for interwiki links to articles is valid, especially if no gallery is present. Often they are removed from Galleries as redundant to interwikis at cats. This common practice is not to change unless replaced by something properly working at Wikidata. --Denniss (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
We must make sure the current commonscat -> article link data is harvested and not lost. And we can try to build up the technical proposal for Plan B, and try to understand what it is about it that the developers at Wikidata have been so hostile to. But for the moment this is the way it has to be. Jheald (talk) 07:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Jmabel's position is the one that is the accepted practise on Commons, however given the seeming unwillingness of wikidata to compromise on this issue, in order to get the links to work, we need to consider a change in policy to allow single image galleries to serve as place holders for subjects where there are both article space pages and categories in the wikipedias. For those subjects where there is an article but no category in wikipedia, a workaround would be the mass creation of gallery pages to as redirects to categories. Anyone know someone who can create a bot to do it?--KTo288 (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
There's a possibility it might be possible to get the new sidebar to link to both categories and galleries; or to systematically prioritise categories (if that would be our preference), by using the Wikidata properties Commons category (P373) and Commons gallery (P935). I've asked for more information at d:Wikidata:Project_chat#.22In_other_projects.22_sidebar_.26_Commons Wikidata Project Chat. Jheald (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
On the original subject of Jmabel dispute with Allen4names, I agree with Jmabel position we do need [[en:Topic]] style interwiki links in our categories. I often use them and I do not like digging them out from text in the page. As for discusion on wikidata, I think it is only a matter of time before the wikidata software catches up to our needs, and I agree with position of many wikidata users do not want to see temporary fixes which might jeopardize long term validity of their database. Each article wikidata page has property "Commons category" that property is not being used at commons at the moment but I am sure that with time we will be able to use it. --Jarekt (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Having thought about it a bit more, I agree that [[en:Topic]] links on categories are harmless -- so long as in wikidata the link is category-category. In that case the explicit [[en:Topic]] will over-ride what gets shown in the sidebar, but won't interfere with the underlying assumptions needed to make templates work.
It should be possible -- very soon -- to create a standardised template that can be put at the top of the category, giving multilingual short-form explanations and language links automatically pulled from Wikidata. So then one wouldn't even need to scroll down to the sidebar.
For galleries, we should be able to do something richer.
Again, we should be able to offer template than can produce short-form explanations and multilingual links.
But for galleries we also ought to be able to automate infoboxes to pull multilingually from Wikidata.
It's a shame we won't be able to do categories as well, but it gives us something we can start on. Jheald (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I would like those responding to Jmabel to read the discussion we had at User talk:Allen4names#Interwiki link. I regard having two links to the same URL on the same page to be redundant. Note also that I may not be able to reply as quikly as I would wish. Allen4names (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

August 17[edit]

How GLAMs can help the Structured Data for Commons initiative[edit]

A brain-dump about the Structured Data for Commons initiative

Commons:Wikidata/How GLAMs can help the Structured Data for Commons initiative

Based on a post to the glamtools list yesterday (ie the list for GLAM people doing or about to do mass-uploads to Commons, using the GlamWiki toolset + the toolset developers).

There may be bits that I've got wrong (hope to see everybody on the discussion page); but I hope what I've written tries to capture the overall shape.

Personal views:

  • There is an opportunity at the moment, to work out exactly what will and will not be stored on WikiData, and is important enough that the dev team should include it in the data modelling for Commons Wikibase.
  • There is also an opportunity to start porting our templates (particularly specific museum ones), so they are ready to draw on WikiData; in particular trying to get involved with the various creative WikiData communities to make sure their data modelling is sufficient to capture all the cases that we would want to put on.
  • We should also start making sure we have good cataloguing of those templates, and think maybe how we can generalise and standardise what are currently often quite idiosyncratic designs.

Setting up a new WikiProject at Wikidata may be a good place for this,

d:Wikidata:WikiProject Structured Data for Commons

I suspect the project team may have enough bodies to produce something that works, but if we want a smooth evolution, I suspect we need to start preparing the ground ourselves - and soon. Jheald (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I really want to encourage people to participate in this. It is very important that we implement this correctly, getting data OUT of commons is hellish now. TheDJ (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Derivative works tool[edit]

Is anything being done about the loss of the Derivative FX tool in the upload form? SpinningSpark 12:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Further info: bugzilla:67283. --McZusatz (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Seattle, Washington[edit]

I usually take responsibility to diffuse Category:Seattle, Washington, but User:Fae just dumped about 800 images in there, and I could use some help from anyone else with knowledge of the city. - Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Actually, it's not as massive as I thought: only about 20-25 different topics. I've already refined the categories for a hundred or so of the images. I can probably do this myself, and should get it done over the next week or so. - Jmabel ! talk 22:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
    • If you get stuck drop me a note. I'm handy with VFC and hotcat. -- (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Here is one that isn't Seattle at all (presumably in that batch because the ship in question eventually ended up in Seattle). Clearly, that's the western span of the Bay Bridge (San Francisco Bay) and I've marked it as such, but given that it's the western span that title mentioning Oakland seems a bit odd to me. Is that perhaps one of the islands in the bay (which?) in the middle ground and a 1930s Oakland skyline in the background? - Jmabel ! talk 01:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

August 18[edit]

How do we handle inaccurate HABS data?[edit]

How do we handle inaccurate HABS data, such as on this file that says "depicted place = Washington; King County; Seattle" based on where the ship in question was eventually based, but where the image itself is presumably at the shipyard in San Francisco where it was built? Should we just change it like we would inaccurate information by a random contributor, or do we somehow want to preserve it because it comes from an official database. - Jmabel ! talk 03:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we should do what we do for files from the Bundesarchiv, and other similar donations, keep the original description intact, but add a template telling people that it is an original description, and may be inaccurate and misleading. If so we can then also add a supplementary description saying why the original description is inaccurate.--KTo288 (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Serbia or Croatia?[edit]

Ruma-Pyma station.jpg

I took this picture from the Belgrade - Zagreb train. I suspect that the train was still in Serbia, but I am not certain as I cant find any Ruma-Pyma or Pyma-Ruma location. The dual naming confuses me.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I found a postcard: http://www.delcampe.net/page/item/id,237322664,var,AK-Ruma-Pyma-Schmuckkarte-Hauptstrasse,language,E.html Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

en:Ruma is in Serbia. --Magnus (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, we already have a picture of the train station. --Magnus (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
This is great, the more pictures taking at different moments and from different positions we have, the better.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Created Category:Ruma railway station. Stil dont know what this "Pyma" means. Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Ruma and Рума are the same, the first in latin, the latter in cyrillic. --Magnus (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Does "Trg" mean square in Serb? Can I translate "Studentski Trg" into "Student square"?
Trolleybus terminus.jpg
Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Outdated Stockholm Metro station name due to official name change[edit]

Hi. I'd like to inform that the Stockholm Metro maps containing the station name "Vreten" are outdated now, since the official name has been changed to "Solna strand". - Anonimski (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Stockholm metrosystem map.svg
Vreten Tunnelbana.png
Hi Anonimski. It would be best if you were to contact the uploader, or modify the images yourself. Categories and files can be renamed easily if necessary. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata / Commons Wikibase thread at COM:AN[edit]

Hey all,

Just to say that there's a thread at COM:AN about getting information out of and putting it in to Wikidata, plus the new proposed Commons Wikibase, and how we feel about all of that.

There are a couple of separate sections at the end, that I would really like to see people's feedback on, namely

  • Thread - Are we ready to see "Phase 2" access to Wikidata enabled for Commons? Should we have an RfC ?
  • Thread - Would we like the new "In other projects" sidebar that is about to be piloted on Wikipedia automatically include links to both the relevant Commons cat and the relevant Commons gallery for each Wiki article and each Wiki gallery; or would we prefer only category-category and article-gallery links? (The latter is what will happen if we don't ask)

Please go over to COM:AN and have your say. Jheald (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: the latter discussion has now moved to Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#"In other projects" sidebar -- Jheald (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

August 19[edit]

User time help[edit]

Hello, Iam Naresh Raja Kumar. Please help in the my time template "IST".

What exactly do you want to do? There is no template "IST" ... --rimshottalk 06:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Presumably something to do with Indian Standard Time timezone... AnonMoos (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Video upload request[edit]

I don't have software for conversion of video to formats uploadable to Commons. Could someone add this video to Commons please?

Source page here.

Information page here, dating video to 1918, so therefore in public domain as copyright expired.

To be placed in Category:Tympanuchus cupido cupido and Category:Videos of Phasianidae, please. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@MPF: done - File:Courtship_rituals_of_the_heath_hen.webm. However looking at the copyright tags, is the copyright actually ok? The article says the film was made circa 1918 (And certainly before 1923 when the bird went extinct), but its unclear if it was "published" (And I'm not entirely sure I understand the technical meaning of the word published in a copyright context). The article says that "Massachusetts officials commissioned the film nearly a century ago as part of an effort to preserve and study the game bird, once abundant from Southern New Hampshire to Northern Virginia. Then, like the heath hen, the film was largely forgotten", which doesn't scream published, but at the same time it seems a reasonable assumption that the film was shown to scientists/interested people and what not at the time if that was its specific purpose. Anyways, I trust if there's any problems with the copyright, you guys can sort it out. Bawolff (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Bawolff: Many thanks! I'd think it is safe to assume it is published. - MPF (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Central notice javascript error[edit]

Old upload form javascript is malfunctioning. Browser console (Firefox 31) shows the following:

"Exception thrown by ext.centralNotice.bannerController" load.php:161
"URIError: malformed URI sequence" URIError: malformed URI sequence
Stack trace:
decoded@https://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=ownwork&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki&only=scripts&skin=monobook&version=20140812T191220Z line 4 > eval:51:2004
$.cookie@https://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=ownwork&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki&only=scripts&skin=monobook&version=20140812T191220Z line 4 > eval:52:764
@https://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=ownwork&modules=ext.centralNotice.bannerController&skin=monobook&version=20140812T191220Z&*:1:513
@https://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=ownwork&modules=ext.centralNotice.bannerController&skin=monobook&version=20140812T191220Z&*:8:1
runScript@https://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=ownwork&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki&only=scripts&skin=monobook&version=20140812T191220Z:171:166
execute@https://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=ownwork&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki&only=scripts&skin=monobook&version=20140812T191220Z:172:353
mw.loader</<.implement@https://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=ownwork&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki&only=scripts&skin=monobook&version=20140812T191220Z:178:172
@https://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=ownwork&modules=ext.centralNotice.bannerController&skin=monobook&version=20140812T191220Z&*:8:1
 load.php:161
 
URIError: malformed URI sequence

MKFI (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not see anything in Chrome. Ruslik (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I get this error ocassionally too, e. g. on the upload page or right now editing the village pump. This is very annoying as it seems to break all scripts running after this code (upload form customization, some gadgets, search auto-completion). (Environment: Firefox 31, OS: current Ubuntu and Windows 8.) ireas (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I haven't yet managed to reproduce this. If anybody can reproduce this "more often", appending "?debug=true" (if there's no question mark yet in the URL address) or "&debug=true" (otherwise) to the URL address is welcome, to get non-minified output in the browser's error console. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

MMS request[edit]

Hello, Photos and Videos are upload in my mobile phone. I send the photos in commons in my mobile phone please provide in the MMS number. Thanks you Naresh Raja Kumar (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I can't make any sense of what you wrote there. Can you reword, or can someone who can make sense of this paraphrase? - Jmabel ! talk 15:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I think he wants to upload photos by sending them in a multimedia text message to commons (MMS = Multimedia_Messaging_Service). Which we do not support. Bawolff (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

August 20[edit]

License tag help requested[edit]

I've been reading the articles about possible tags for images, but can't find which one best suits the image I uploaded:

  • It's a photo of a painting made in the 17th century.
  • The artist is unknown / anonymous.
  • In my country it's considered public domain (70 years after death of artist or first published over 70 years ago)
  • It is in the public domain in the United States.

When I use template PD-Art|PD-anon-1923 the text it produces doesn't mention the part about the author being anonymous. Which template should I use with which parameters ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OSeveno (talk • contribs)


I don't understand the problem. "PD-Art|PD-anon-1923", as you used in this example, shows the text of the embedded template, including in this case the mention of anonymous. Is it a problem when you view the text in a language other than English? -- Asclepias (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)