Commons:Village pump/Archive/2011/07

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

User preferences

There is a new report at Commons:Database reports/User preferences.

  • It shows that HotCat, Cat-a-lot and Gallerypreview are the most popular gadgets.
  • "CategoryAboveAll" (393 users) is used more frequently than "CategoryAboveBelowImage" (298).

Probably it doesn't distinguish between active and inactive users. --  Docu  at 06:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


As HotCat (4573 users) exists for a fairly long time and is a tool one probably needs for efficient editing, maybe http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaCOMMONS.htm#editdistribution
can be used as a point of comparison.
One could attempt to compare
  • 4573
  • with the 5502 users with more than 1000 edits
  • or 13071 users with more than 316 edits.
The conclusion might be the only one third of the users who could (should) use HotCat actually use it. --  Docu  at 08:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The 15 users of the (long dead) Amethyst skin suggest that the statistics isn't limited to active users. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes and editdistribution neither. --  Docu  at 08:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It is funny to see that some admin only gadgets such as DelReqHandler have far more users than there are admins. --Leyo 05:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Free FBI audio files

The following is a link to some audio files given by the FBI to The Oregonian. In these tapes, Swami Krishna Deva, the mayor of Rajneespuram, Oregon, talks with John Mathis, a mediator with the federal Community Relations Service. He prods Mathis for details about a secret federal investigation. Since these tapes were recorded by the FBi, i assume that they are in the public domain. As such, would someone please upload these five files in ogg format? I just thought these would be an interesting addition to articles related to the Rajneesh movement. Thanks.

Joyson Noel Holla at me 15:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Done, see File:Rajneesh-Part1.ogg - File:Rajneesh-Part5.ogg. sısɐuuǝɔıʌ∀ (diskuto) 01:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Great job, Avicennasis (talk · contribs)!!! I have added them into a category, Category:Federal Bureau of Investigation audio files on Rajneesh movement. -- Cirt (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Avicennasis! :-) Joyson Noel Holla at me 04:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... the FBI created the recording. But don't the two people talking have some kind of copyright to their conversation? It's probably not important in this case, as it was published in 1984, most likely without a copyright notice. But it might be interesting for similar files. --Kam Solusar (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
In short, no, unless they wrote a script for their conversation beforehand. Only fixed (or tangible) works (recordings, documents, photos) attract copyright, rather than speeches per se. It is a rather complicated issue, discussed fully at [1]. Note that although at first that article seems to imply copyright, it is mainly asserting that the recorder would have a copyright, which would be the FBI; and that unfixed speeches are unlikely to attract copyright themselves. That's my take on it, anyway, but IANAL. Jarry1250 (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible to upload the scans of FBI and federal government documents on Commons? If so, then i request someone to upload whichever documents (in the link) falls under the public domain. Thanks. Joyson Noel Holla at me 11:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Why should I open license my pictures?

No, not me! However, I'm sure we've all come across that response, when suggesting that someone might donate images to Commons (and the related "if someone wants to use my images commercially, they should pay me!"). And we all, I hope, know good answers. But has anyone compiled them, as a FAQ or blog post (here or elsewhere) to which we can point people? I can't see anything on Commons:Welcome or Commons:FAQ. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

We do, at Commons:Licensing/Justifications. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Just upload an ugly picture of them to Commons and tell them if they want a nice one they have to open license it. That argument usually works. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 21:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I do think a good essay could be written on this. I don't have it all figured out, but have learned some things, the hard way. For one thing, just using the Wiki "standard request" generally leads to problems with the OTRS not satisfied that the releaser understands the donations is to Creative Commons (very "free"). I try to spell it out ahead of time and actually get them to give me a repeat back that satisfies the rights po-lice. I also usually say something complementary about their image or work in general. Maybe a phrase or sentence on how the thing is going to be used (the article, but have to be clear that it's not a one time donation). TCO (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

June 30

PPT Files

Hi! .PPT files are not accepted by the Commons Well, the NTSB website has some PD PPT presentations: http://web.archive.org/web/20090228182953/http://ntsb.gov/Events/2000/Aka261/presentations/presentations.htm What format should PPT files be converted into? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

PDF. PowerPoint has a Save as PDF feature that can accomplish this reasonably well. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I just created the PDF files! WhisperToMe (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hypercategorizing !

(fr) Bonjour, (be) une fois !

Some Users, here, are moving Coats of arms Files to – they say – better categories, e. g. here, creating subcategories for each village, « Category:Coats of arms of placename ».

As a village – even a city – has one and only one Crest, there is no need to such hypercategorization ! (This prefix, « hyper- », means that an action seems to be better, but is in fact wrong ; e. g. « hyperurbanism », when Late Romans spoke a bad Latin – Urbs ! – they thought correct because of its sophistication…) If a town has in its story more than one CoA, we may therefore create such categories ; but this one ?… here ?… Etc.

Budelberger (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

(Moved here from talk.) —innotata 18:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, it could be for having multiple images of the same thing. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
"has one and only one Crest" - why so? Sure, today it has one official blazon and (presume) one official graphics, but there could be historical versions; there could be COAs per se and photographs of COA in sculpture, murals etc. Even Klenov already has three files, then what about Category:Coats of arms of the City of London Corporation ? NVO (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Both approaches, the one complaining about hypercategorization, and the ones explaining the need for subcategories, are pertinent. There has to be some good sense on this, however. I've seen such categories being created with only one item inside. In my opinion this is unnecessary and counter productive. Those items can perfectly be in the village category and in "CoA of municipalities of ...", no need to create a proper category there. However, in the cases where multiple representations of that coat of arms (or historical versions of it) exist here in Commons it is indeed helpful to create a subcategory, or even a number of them, to place them.--- Darwin Ahoy! 20:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I often try to sort out stuff from Category:Media needing categories and use hot cat. If I find a file called coat of arms of x, then I try to add it to the Category:coat of arms of x. If this fails to come up in HotCat then I might have a fiddle looking for alternate spellings of x, and then when this fails I just add the file to Category:coat of arms of country y. My geographic skills are not good enough to be able to work out which subdivision of country y to add the file to. The choice is to put up with files getting into the higher categories and having to be moved down, or having categories at the lowest level. I would expect there are very few subjects where you would expect only one file, so creating the category now with the correct name and position in the hierarchy for single files will reap future benefits. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
No, frankly I don't think that way. There are hundreds of thousands of CoA of villages and other locations. Creating categories for single items in that case is really unhelpful, and hinders categorization, since you have to fiddle with the whole category instead of a single file, which is much more difficult and can't be done by tools like cat-a-lot. It's really counter-productive. In the case you mention, IMO the CoA should be placed primarily in the village category, which is where it will be searched for. Then you may place it as well somewhere in the CoA tree, even if it is at the top category it is useful, but creating a category for those single items in that case is indeed bad practice, IMO.--- Darwin Ahoy! 22:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem. I have brought this up in the past as an article writer, Commons USER. What we need is some "botton" that you click and then all the subordinate categories are displayed. It's insane that when I'm looking for some type of animal and there are 10 pics at the higher level, but in 5 categories, to have to click, click, click, each separate one. give me a button that allows auto decategorizing and much of the pain is taken away.TCO (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the case. A while ago I organized Category:Hindu temples in Bhubaneswar, which was a complete mess, with only the Lingaraj temple as subcat (with a lot of erroneous pictures inside) and the rest floating in the main cat, the majority of the pictures attributed to the wrong temple and erroneously used in wiki-en. Upon finding a reliable database of photos from those temples, I endeavoured the sorting of that mess, and managed to find the rich variety of temples you can now find there. I can say it was a very rewarding and amusing experience, almost a game. You will note that some of the temples only have one picture inside. I've done this on purpose, since they are less known temples, and it's identification was more difficult. Of course you lost there the "big picture" about the assortment of Hindu temples in Bhubaneswar, but I believe that's not the use of categories, but galleries. I'm not interested in galleries and I doubt I ever will be, but people who find them useful may create them picking the images from the sorted categories in order to give the "big picture" about some item, let it be an animal or the variety of Hindu temples in Bhubaneswar.--- Darwin Ahoy! 20:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
You'll have a button if you place {{category tree}} in the content for the category itself. – Adrignola talk 03:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
{{Category tree}} is now redundant because the software now automatically displays all the subcategories of a particular category on one page. — Cheers, JackLee talk 06:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I suspect TOC may be asking for something that also allows to see all the images in the subcategories. That would be a great improvement for me, too.--- Darwin Ahoy! 05:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Cat Scan allows you to see all the images subcategories, an example of the images in Category:Hindu temples in Bhubaneswar and subcategories: [2]. MKFI (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
(you're not getting me.) I know that I can see the subcats. What I want is a reversible mechanism to view the larger population of images. Am trying to save myself clicks. Imagine having a category of "painted turtle" with 2 images in the category and then 4 subcategories for subspecies (each containing subspecies). If I just want a general picture of a painted turtle I have to click all the subcategories. I would like a button to just be able to expand the view all at once, to see all the images in subcats and the parent cat. I'm not saying to permanently scrap the micro-cats. They can have use. However, I really do USE COMMONS. And it is a better resource for me...for article WRITERS, with some better features around search and layout. Don't get me wrong, this is a great place. Still...be very aware that this place is mostly a service resource for other people...and the easier for USERS, not just uploaders, the better.  :-) TCO (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
MKFI just showed above how you can do it. Follow his link, and you'll get the idea.--- Darwin Ahoy! 18:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Didn't mean to shake my rattle. I do appreciate the assist and may use that tool in the future. That said, I really think something simpler, where you can just click on the page and it expands the views down a branch lower (or all the way) is desired. that's a pretty daunting looking window. Realize that the most usage of Commons is writers looking for photos to illustrate Wiki articles, not computer programmers.  :-) TCO (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
[...] most usage of Commons is writers looking for photos to illustrate Wiki articles, not computer programmers.
TCO, have you tried to use the Add Media Wizard for that? Take a look on this screenshot ;-) Helder 21:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Call for image filter referendum

The Wikimedia Foundation, at the direction of the Board of Trustees, will be holding a vote to determine whether members of the community support the creation and usage of an opt-in personal image filter, which would allow readers to voluntarily screen particular types of images strictly for their own account.

Further details and educational materials will be available shortly. The referendum is scheduled for 12-27 August, 2011, and will be conducted on servers hosted by a neutral third party. Referendum details, officials, voting requirements, and supporting materials will be posted at m:Image filter referendum shortly.

For the coordinating committee,
Philippe
Cbrown1023
Risker
Mardetanha
PeterSymonds
Robert Harris

Cross posted by -- DQ (t) (e) 21:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've commented on this before, but will repeat: I think it would be more generally beneficial to allow users a setting to override page settings about the size of thumbnails, so that, for example, you could decide for all thumbnails to be shown at 30-pixel resolution (and perhaps all images to be shown as thumbnails) regardless of the Wiki code. This would help low-bandwidth users as well as those with specific objections. My hope is that at some low resolution - 20 pixels if need be - there is simply no picture that will be viewed as intensely objectionable. I wish your referendum would investigate in this direction rather than pressing for people to "neutrally" place ideological ratings on specific images. Wnt (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
As you're probably aware, there is already a per-user preference for logged-in users (see "Thumbnail size" under Special:Preferences/Appearance/Files), for cases where "thumb" is specified for an image but no image size is given. The list of values is limited by MediaWiki. We could probably file a bug to ask for the ability for the user setting to override cases where image size is given, but I suspect there's good reason it's done that way, and anyway it would probably take ages for anything to happen. Plus, per Bugzilla1340, gallery thumb sizes are still handled separately (Bugzilla3276 made the width of the gallery adapt to the user's screen). Finally, I doubt reducing all images to "can't tell what it is" size is much of a solution for most people who want some control over hiding certain types of image. Rd232 (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I assume filters would rely on proper tagging of those "particular types of images". I wonder whose job that will be. Also does anybody know what "particular types of images" are we talking about? I assume nudity, but what else? Grisly corpses, executions, Depictions of Muhammad, LGBT, Adult diapers, Kittens? It seems to me there is a lot of "particular types" of images that can be offensive. --Jarekt (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Must not forget about alcohol, hate/discrimination, mutilation/torture, weapons, German youth protection, health/medical, drugs, gambling, lingerie/bikini, religious, sexuality, and tobacco related images. – Adrignola talk 14:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
A warning for you all, do not simply add "Category:Sex" to it, because you will censor every picture of anything which is identifiably male, female or other, and 10,000,000 old paintings. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The upload bots might add the words sex, porno, paedophilia, ... in a random combination and languages to all uploaded files. Then they will need real intelligence to filter. --Foroa (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Bots are the least evil; I'm more concerned about a new generation of POV-warring slapping porn tags on opponents' images. NVO (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
At least categories would be put to some use. I think we should make that to work on Commons too. --  Docu  at 06:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

July 1

Deleted Joplin tornado map (posted by US Army Corps of Engineers)

I had a map of the 2011 Joplin tornado which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had posted to its flickr account deleted at 9:06 today. Unfortunately the corps flickr account photo says "All Rights Reserved" http://www.flickr.com/photos/55127822@N07/5887813113 But it is definitely a U.S. government creation (which is also mentioned in its caption) and thus cannot be copyrighted. Flickr is the source for official government photos from the corps released at http://www.nwk.usace.army.mil/Flood/index.cfm (much as the White House releases its photos via Flickr). Therefore I am asking that it be restored. Thank you.Americasroof (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This apparently refers to File:Joplin-tornado-map.jpg, which was later determined to be public domain by Túrelio and Lymantria and thus restored. Good response. Huntster (t @ c) 21:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the quick turnaround. It's confusing since the Corps has placed the wrong license it. I will discuss it with them.Americasroof (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I need some definitions

  1. What is a talk page? is it the same as a discussion page?
  2. What is a user page?
  3. How and where do I install my Babel sign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumbo-jumbophobe (talk • contribs) 21:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  1. Yes, "talk page" is just another term for "discussion page"; for example, your own talk page at User talk:Mumbo-jumbophobe. See Commons:Talk page guidelines for some more information on them.
  2. A user page is where you can include brief information about yourself, links to tools you use often, etc. See my user page at User:Huntster for an example. You can create your own user page by clicking here.
  3. Again, look at my user page for a working example...it's on the right hand side. In the code, it's the line that starts with {{babel|. You can find additional information at Commons:Babel.
  4. For future reference, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~), which will automatically expand into a full signature. Huntster (t @ c) 03:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you rename (move) a category?

I can't find any info on how to do this. Sounds like a frequently asked question to me, should be in help. Palosirkka (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You mean Commons:Rename a category? It's linked from Commons:Categories. Powers (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Deconsecrated churches categories or similar?

Hi to all: I'm working on church categories in Italy, for a better and multi-subcategorized categories (for diocese and patron saint), and I find a lot of deconsecrated churches (but not only in Italy) I think be worth in this different category. However many now laical buildings are categorized in Category:Secularized churches. Is only a problem of linguistic shades from italian? What the better word in english?--Threecharlie (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

In additoin we have cats Former churches (sort of mother cat) and Abandoned churches. --Túrelio (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmm.. There is a difference between deconsecrated churches and secularized churches. The later implies that they were reused in some secular function (like a disco, or a shop, or whatever), and should be a subcat of deconsecrated churches.--- Darwin Ahoy! 06:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I can see the distinction between "abandoned" and "reused", however, they often come together ("abandoned and later reused" or "reused and then abandoned"). Which one should prevail? And then, all too often, there's no <easily available> records. We know that it stood abandoned for the last hundred years, but how did it happen, precisely? So the editors are left to decide on their own, and similar cases will end up here or there based on each editor's own judgement. There already is a multiple-choice riddle about ruins (Ruins, Abandoned, Derelict) already, no need to reproduce more ambiguities. NVO (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I would presume 'abandoned' should be a subcat of 'former', and would specifically mean that it is not currently in use. But, yes, I can see that it would be a problem for categorizing a church (rather than a photo) over time. I would tend to use 'abandoned' more on individual photos. - Jmabel ! talk 16:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Bug: EoMagicalConversion

I've deactivated this Gadget because it converts some word (which I do not typing), after I saving a page. Example Linux get Linŭ. Can someone reproduce this (FF, Chrome12 tested)? -- «( P E R H E L I O N )»* 15:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe this is a feature, all letters before x get converted?! --  «( P E R H E L I O N )»* 16:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
That is the magical conversion, see en:Esperanto orthography#X-system. It can be useful when writing Esperanto, but not for other languages./Ö 16:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

New gadget : GoogleImages tab

Hi all,

Per request on the French-speaking VP, I just created a gadget "GoogleImages tab", based on the TinEye one. it adds a tab to search for an images using GoogleImages 'search by image' feature (rolled out a few days ago).

It’s in your prefs, Maintenance tools GoogleImages tab.

Jean-Fred (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Working like a champ, many thanks for such a useful gadget.--- Darwin Ahoy! 09:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's nickel chrome, thank you. --Myrabella (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Very useful :) mickit 10:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The tool it's really really useful, you can find evidence for violations of copyrights in a couple of seconds! :) --Broc (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a useful tool, but I found that Opera 11.11 does not support the new google "search by image" function, in case others like me were trying and failing. It works fine with Firefox 4.0.1 . I used Opera's "Report a site problem" function to inform Opera of this. -84user (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Help? Google sometimes tells me "The URL doesn't refer to an image, or the image is not publicly accessible" when I use an image URL from wikimedia. (It works when I download and then upload the image to google search.) At other times it works. Are others getting this experience? Could there be an intermittent problem with google accessing wikimedia URLs? Using Firefox 5.0. Also, when I click Google's camera icon to get the popup and enter most image URLs, nothing happens. This blog describes similar experiences. -84user (talk) 02:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This gadget works perfectly for me since I had discovered it some week(s) ago. Never had the issue you describe. Firefox 3.6. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

June 16

Thumbnail bug

Seems that an image I uploaded has corrupted thumbnails (the original file is fine), purge hasn't fixed it. Bidgee (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

See #Replaced images doesn't refresh - Purge doesn't help above, and there are at least three threads about that issue in the Help Desk. You may wish to vote for the bug resolution in Bugzilla, and present the case of that image there as well.--- Darwin Ahoy! 13:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

July 5

Flickr2Commons down?

I haven't been able to make uploads using it yesterday PM & this AM (July 1). Have others noticed problems? TIA, Tillman (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

When I've entered a second file after uploading one I've needed to submit the link and name twice, which wasn't the case previously, but that's all. Just used it to upload File:Passer montanus -Queenstown, Singapore.jpg. —innotata 14:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The F2Com button hasn't shown up on flickr images for me for 4 to 6 months. Geo Swan (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It's apparently an oddball file, as Bryan's Flickr bot wouldn't upload it either. I'll just have to do it manually. I've since uploaded a couple other files with Flickr2Commons, so that isn't the problem. The file in question is http://www.flickr.com/photos/24662369@N07/5884821475, if anyone's curious. Thanks, Tillman (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
It has been uploaded as "File:Central peak complex of crater Tycho on the Moon - 20110610.jpg" by Pline. I don't know if this is the problem, but sometimes if there is HTML in the EXIF, Commons will regard the file as defective and refuse to allow it to be uploaded. The solution is to download the file from the source and remove the offending HTML using a program like GeoSetter before uploading it to the Commons. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the research! Cheers -- Tillman (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2

Commons talk:Tools/Commonist

We need to host Commonist on Toolserv. Can anybody make this happen? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If no-one here has a clue, posting at en:WP:VPT might get the attention of some toolserver techy types. Rd232 (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

July 3

Odd bug

How could yesterday's deletion request end up in Commons:Deletion requests/2009/07/02 ? 2009 ? Right, I was using an old oddball computer with system clock set to 2009. But why did the site listen to my local clock, at all? NVO (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you set your preferences to use a local time zone? Perhaps that takes the time from your computer. — Cheers, JackLee talk 06:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Time preferences are all defaults. At any rate, standard timestamp in signature (wiki server's time) was not affected - only the placement of new DR into daily COM:DEL. NVO (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
What worries me now, how many such malformed DR are there? The recreated Commons:Deletion requests/2009/07/02 is not linked from anywhere (Commons:Deletion requests/2009/07 was deleted when it was over), who would know that it exists? Perhaps, these daily and montly DR logs should be protected against re-creation? NVO (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Probably MediaWiki:AjaxQuickDelete.js should obtain the date and time from the server? Currently it uses the the time of the utilized computer. Local time / UTC in settings does not affect this script as far as I know. Yours sincerely -- RE rillke questions? 18:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons/Wikiversity upload question

i have an upload question over at the File types talk page related to a Wikiversity course i have started uploading there. It would be great to have some comments over there - by people with good intuition about Wikimedia projects' complementarity and policies and also geeky type questions. IMHO Wikiversity requires some careful tech-related thinking in order to get some solid enough material that could inspire other serious material and wiki-type editing of the courses. But without overlapping/competing with Wikipedia, which would be pointless. So i'd rather do this with some community input right from the beginning... Since 29 June, there haven't been any responses at Commons_talk:File_types except for my own comment a few minutes ago, so i thought i'd drop over and invite people across for comment... Boud (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Image no-show

Image File:SOA-Herpes-genitalis-male.jpg is not visible in en-wiki, example en.wikibooks or en.wiki

You need the admins there to add an exception to w:MediaWiki:Bad image list for that image. Any image listed on that page is not displayed on pages with the thumbnail. This is used to prevent vandalism. – Adrignola talk 15:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Amend_search_help

At COM:VPR there is a proposal to amend the search help. This involves expanding MediaWiki:Searchresulttext - draft at User:Rd232/searchhelpdraft. (Note those help boxes are collapsed by default.) Please see Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Amend_search_help. Rd232 (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Cropping PDF files

I found http://www.sos.louisiana.gov/Portals/0/FreedomTrain/TheTributeofFrancetotheMemoryofDrFranklin1790.pdf which has a death notice related to Benjamin Franklin in French

I do not have the full Adobe Acrobat. How do I cut off the caption and include only the death notice? The death notice is certainly PD, but the caption probably is not. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

  • GIMP can open (individual pages of) PDF files as raster graphics. NVO (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The caption is part of the image embedded in the PDF. I've used Acrobat to extract the image and JPEGCrop to losslessly crop out the notice, and uploaded at File:Benjamin Franklin death notice.jpg with a transcription of the French text. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
    • It's not really a death notice. It's a pamphlet with a transcription of a speech regarding Franklin's death. Powers (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancies between Inkscape and WikiCommons SVG rendering

I've been having issues with producing images in inkscape and then seeing them being rendered by wikicommons. The issue is mainly text size and placement and I'm not sure if it concerns Inkscape or wikicommons. Can you please advise, as I'm producing quite a few images right now for a wikibook. See below Pluke (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC) CPT-logic-gate ex5 - Answers.svg

For me, this image renders just as bad in incscape as on Commons. Perhaps you should convert the text to paths. /Esquilo (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Strange, which version of inkscape are you using? I'm on the portable apps version 0.48.0 running in windows XP. Can anyone else check to see if they get the same issue? I'd prefer not to use paths so that it's easier to edit. Pluke (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I've just tested it in 0.48.1 and it looks correct, as does the pure svg render in chrome. It seems to be the png render that is causing a problem. Can you see if you can replicate this problem (and the correct versions)? Pluke (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Set it to COM:GL/ILL. -- Perhelion»♥› 13:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I think I might know what is going wrong. I have it under the "Sans" font in Inkscape, which apparently defaults to Arial in Windows, the font that wikipedia replaces it with is slightly larger, hence the misalignment. Is the only way to fix this to go through each image individually and change the font to dejavu sans? Surely I can't be the only experiencing this issue?Pluke (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Use before upload Commons:SVG_Check. And see the infos here: Help:SVG#Fonts - there is also a link to the list of fonts which are available here. If you really need to use a specific font then upload a version of the svg, then convert the text to paths and upload as a new versions clearly describing in the version comment that the old version did contain text and this doesn't. Reason: Text as path is really bad for editing the svgs afterwards (e.g. translation, mistakes, ...). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

July 6

Old File Version Archive Request

I recently uploaded File:USMC 4th MLG vector.svg. However the first three attempts didn't render properly (showed as dead image link on my system). I have since resolved the rendering issue, but there are now four versions (three attempts and a revert) in the upload log that show no image. I'd really appreciate it if an admin would hide/archive, whichever is the proper term, these old versions that don't diplay anything. Thanks Jdcollins13 (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done--Jarekt (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thank you very much Jarekt, Jdcollins13 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Secure server problems

In case anyone else has had the problems accessing Commons today that I've had (frequent 503 errors): it turns out this is a problem specifically with the secure server, so switching to the main server (until this is fixed) solves the issue. See also en:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Frequent_503_errors.3F. Rd232 (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

seems fixed now. Rd232 (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

User categories: Flicr

Why do the Flicr users have their author's categories? They are just users, same to ourselves.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

July 7

User categories

I would like to catch the idea of «user categories». Let me show some examples of user categories: Category:Photos by Ilya Ilf, Category:Karl Bulla, Category:Photographs by Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky, Category:Mikhail Evstafiev, Category:Photos by Ilya Varlamov, Category:Photos by Vasiliy Zimin. Why those categories are not marked as user categories? And why some other categories containing the works by modern photographers are labeled as user categories? I studied COM:USER and still cannot understand the difference between user-specific categories and author-specific categories when some photographer acts like a Commons user.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Because Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky died years before the Internet/Commons and didn't upload them himself? --  Docu  at 23:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Thus the photographer that uploads his art himself is nothing but a user now? -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
"user" is meant to mean "contributor" and "artist" in this context. --  Docu  at 23:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Why artist categories are visible, but user categories are hidden? Why artists alive are worse than dead ones?!--PereslavlFoto (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Basically, you have to be dead (or exceptionally expensive) before officially recognised as a real artist. --Foroa (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Let's get back to the question: some living wikimedia contributors have "author categories" while others must live with "user categories". What, precisely, makes User:Zimin.V.G. more equal than others? NVO (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I would say the reason to give artists a category for their works would all be to do with notability. But I don't mean notability to the strictness of wikipedia notability, but simply some notability beyond wikimedia/wikipedia. If it is a collection of images from some external source, then a category or gallery of those images is useful if for no other reason than to easily verify whether we already have a copy of that image - maybe it is a maintenance category. If an artist (eg photographer) uploads all their own images here, then there are galleries of their material available via the Gallery tool. So I think a collection of images of a flickr user account may have a gallery/category, even if they are otherwise un-notable. But if the entire contents of a gallery/category are uploaded here directly by the author, unless they really are wiki-notable, we don't really need a main-space gallery/category. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
NB I cleaned up a lot of user category entries recently, and may have moved some legitimate mainspace categories into user-category space, feel free to revert any changes that I made in error :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think author categories for users should be displayed in the same way as for others.
    This should apply to categories in the basic format (e.g. "Photographs by Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky"). I'm not convinced of the utility of subcategories in these for every 10 images.
    The main problem we have today is that we can't easily identify topical categories from other categories other than by tagging them as "hidden". The "hidden" attribute should eventually just move them to a new line, but currently it doesn't. If we mixed all of them with topical categories, it just gets messy.
    To have user categories display for all users, a workaround used by some is through a link in a user template. This has the added benefit that it's also accessible from Wikipedia. --  Docu  at 10:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I was just reviewing the categories listed by PereslavlFoto, and it occurs to me that there really is not a problem for us. If a user creates a category for their images, and doesn't mark it as a {{user category}} then they have relinquished all control of it. Like any other category it is subject to editing by any user and may be out-right deleted if it is seen as out of scope or otherwise unwanted. If they mark it as a {{user category}}, then it will in general be left alone, and they can add/delete images etc to their hearts content. If they want everyone to be able to find their category they can add a link from their user-page. So there really is not anything that needs to be specifically policed. For those not marked {{user category}} send them to {{cfd}} if they are seen as unwanted, and decide on a case by case basis. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that the problem is that the user hates hidden categories for his works. He might think that nobody will see him or find him less important. (He reverted several times the user cats) --Foroa (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
This is far from truth, because you take emotions for the reason (using the word «hates»). In reality the Commons users cannot understand why do the same photographers have different category types. Is it for discouraging people to join Commons? The reason in not emotion but logic. I beg you to see the problem, not the people pointing to it.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Is it for discouraging people to join Commons is a fairly bizarre assumption, as nearly 99.9 % of all new users who are going to join Commons (including myself anno 2006) do neither know the difference between user and photographer categories, nor they (or a lot of them) know what categories are at all. (And, just for the records, even some "established" users with some high pretensions seem sometimes not to know how to categorize correctly.) - A.S. 20:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
(You are right, I am not a major burial specialist. So back to the question.) — What is the difference between authors and users, and why a photographer publishing at Commons has no right to be a photographer? — (You must know that en:Argumentum ad hominem is a en:Logical fallacy.)--PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
User categories are a concession to users to make them maintenance more easy, user categories are not topics, besides the maintenance aspect there is nothing that makes it acceptable that users include themself in our educational content. Commons is not flickr.com where people build their own photostreams, albums and so on. Some of the above mentioned categories are maybe simply not created correctly, but Category:Mikhail Evstafiev who is considerably notable judging by wiki articles is correct for example. --Martin H. (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there any rule distinguishing authors in two groups, the notable ones and the other ones? How can a man catch up what categories are not created correctly? Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I doubt about Flicr, please see the example. A usercat from Flicr user is treated as photography category.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

US National Laboratories as opposed to Department of Energy

This is kind of a broad concern. I see a large warning on our DOE template that works of National Labs may not be PD. And as far as I know, they are most or all run by contractors. (Some of the lab websites have a copyright notice, some don't. Also, for example, Ames, clarifies that the USG has a non-transferable right to publish all their images...so even seeing something on the DOE site might not be assurance that it is PD as general, they might just be exercising their right, but not ours for lab image republishing!) We have a LOT of images from National Labs. I am seeing them in Featured Articles at en-Wiki and the like. (It's not an isolate thing.) I pretty much LOVE these images. But also have this concern that we are broadly non-compliant. Appreciate any thoughts, not just on "the rules", but also practical things to make sure we're using compliant images (and that I not rule out good pictures.) P.s. I guess I could just throw a bunch of important pics into Deletions and get insight that way, but thought I would ask here first!  :-)

Some pics (must be more):

TCO (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Very legitimate concern, I think. However, the latter two you mention are Manhattan project photos (pre-dating the private involvement in the national labs I think, which were only created after the war), and the last one explicitly mentions the US Government employee who took the photo, so I don't think there is any issue with those. The first one may be an issue, though apparently being published before 1964 would mean that a copyright renewal would have to be on file at the Copyright Office somewhere for that one. For modern images, however, yes they are a concern (unless it is documented that a US Government employee took them). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Feel better. Guess I still have a mildly persnickety wonder about even MP era photos as the sites were often contractor-run even then. And there must be a difference in the type of contractor. If USG just hires a photog to do some photos, we would treat that as USG property (image made for hire, although even then I guess it would matter the actual contract), but then the labs now, are on Federal land, but are contractor-administered and the employees are not exactly civil servants. But...eh...you made me feel a little better.  :-) TCO (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Manhattan Project I think would be entirely considered federal employees, or close enough. Contractors/employees may have been loaned by private institutions but the work was definitely only for the federal government, and I don't think they were contractor-run at all. Any photos would have been highly classified anyways. Official private involvement in running the labs themselves only started after the war... 1946/1947. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
They used contractors even back then. Not sure the nature of the contracts, but say at ORNL, Eastman Chemical (formerly Tennessee Eastman hired several thousand females to work at uranium separation). The work had federal purpose then and after. Perhaps the nature of the contracts differeed (which would be great). But even at LA, there was a definite desire from the beginning to have a bit of an academic atmosphere and Universty of California was the meta-contractor. See the current FAC on Manhattan Project (great article, btw!) I feel a little better with the Wescott photos as he may have been directly contracted by Army History or the like (althouth still unclear).TCO (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to write to Ames (want to ask for a bigger file anyway, to try to get Featured Picture). Will ask what they know about rights status as well. The thing about 1964 makes me feel pretty good, that this stuff is off copyright from a practical perspective, but will just be interested to see what they say.TCO (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
They said it was PD, but gave me a release anyhow. and bigger pics! Putting them on Wiki since this is where image is now.TCO (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Allan_Manning's_Signature.jpg

It's not really about deletion, but about a problem concerning the license ( {{self|Cc-by-sa-3.0}} ) used in :

Uploader is not the author of this, and can't license it with a free license.

Scanning something do not create a new copyright => the scanner is not the author of it. What remains is the author of the element represented , here the signature of Allan Manning. But there's a long habit on commons to consider signatures PD Simple (or {{PD-signature}}). Hence, this file can't be licensed with a free license (with self), but should be maybe tagged PD.

Lilyu (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Martin H --Lilyu (talk) 10:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Template merge

{{Should be substituted}} and {{Must be substituted}} appear to serve the same purpose, since the former says "should always". Should they be merged? Rd232 (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. I thought of it too. Rehman 01:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree. Neutral. No (difference) in parameters as well. I see not much difference if we are using one or two templates--Ben.MQ (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree, looking at the history they were very deliberately created to have different meanings. One marks templates that "must be" sustituted because they have a purpose and/or syntax that require them to be. The other is for templates that "should" be, but they will work even if you don't. If the distinction hasn't been observed by those applying them, then that is a matter of documentation and education. --Tony Wills (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Nope, it still can be merged with the help of a few parameters. Rehman 04:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Parameters increase complexity and you'd likely see one of the above turned into a silent call to a combined template with the parameter specified. As in, {{must be substituted}} would have {{should be substituted|must=yes}} within it. – Adrignola talk 14:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The words do have different meanings, and there is a completely different look. The same user created both, so there is an intended distinction. As noted above, it was already discussed briefly at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Should be substituted and kept. They have already been translated into a bunch of different languages with their precise meanings; I see almost no benefit to changing things. It's just another template, which is no big deal, and trying to change it creates far more work than will be saved. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - While the original intent may have been to have two separate templates, the distinction between them is not so significant that we need to maintain two separate templates. The templates largely share the same look, other than the fact that one uses larger text. As Rehman suggests, have one template and use parameters. I actually think it increases complexity to have multiple templates that perform tasks that are only subtly different from one another, rather than having one template that accomplishes a related set of tasks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - subst technically required and subst recommended is a major difference. You can ignore a recommendation for good reasons if you know what you are doing, but things don't work as expected if you ignore a required subst. The effects of a missing required subst could be subtle and unpredictable, from "breaks if transcluded indirectly" to "kills the server if used by more than ten readers simultaneously". –Be..anyone (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think anyone diagrees that there is a difference. As far as I am concerned, that's not the issue. It's not clear to me how having two separate templates eliminates the risk of confusion between the two, however (if anything, it adds to it). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Significant differences based only on parameter can be just as confusing, IMO. It looks like we would have a situation where based on the parameter, we choose one layout or the other -- there doesn't seem to be much overlap in terms of the template content. If that is the case, we may as well have two templates, and make the difference more apparent in the name. Lastly, there has already been lots of translation work here, and the list of languages in the two templates do not match up. You risk messing up a lot of that work, or at least forcing people to re-do translation work, where everything seems well enough if left alone. If the templates were just being created there *may* be an argument, but at this point... there's hardly a benefit that I can see. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The fact that the lists of languages in the two templates do not match up is precisely a major reason why these templates should be merged. Because the two are currently edited independently, seemingly in disregard to the complementary role the two templates play in respect of one another, we now have a situation where, for example, one template is translated into Spanish and the other isn't. So, a Spanish-speaking Commons user only gets half the story. This presumably would not have been a problem with one template. With two templates, you are always at risk of inconsistent and incomplete edits that have no regard for the sister template or the distinction between the two templates. There is tremendous benefit in eliminating that problem, and I disagree that suggestion that the templates work well as is.

As for overlap, the templates both consist of a box with the same icon. We are not dealing with completely different layouts. We are only talking about a message changing with the parameter. You suggest that we might change the names, but if we were going to that degree of trouble, why would we not just merge them and do things properly? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I wonder how well the existing translations convey the distinction between "should" and "must". Unless one speaks 10+ languages, it's hard to monitor this. Where only one template has been translated, I suspect there is a good chance that the distinction is lost. Where both templates have been translated into the same language, but by different editors, I also suspect that is a lot of room for confusion. Again, there is less risk of this problem if we have one template that allows users to choose between "should" and "must" (and thus forces translators to distinguish between the two). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
GA candidate.svg Weak support (updated from oppose) — if there's a required parameter for MUST vs. SHOULD as per Skeezix1000 a merged template would in fact help with its i18n. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the technical merge of both templates. My experience with templates is that it's much easier to maintain one template with some parameters than a group of distinct templates performing similar things, given that the changes on the "mother template" are not very complex, as in this case. From the looks of it, it will be extremely simple to merge them and keep compatibility in the way Adrignola explained above. The separate translations are actually a good reason to merge them, and not the opposite, as has been told above, and I don't believe that merging them will be such a big deal as well.--- Darwin Ahoy! 18:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Just to reiterate what I wrote above, you could have {{must be substituted}} still exist, just calling {{should be substituted|must=yes}} in the underlying code. No difference for end users but far easier for maintenance and new translations. – Adrignola talk 21:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
An optional required=no (or false or 0) with a default required=yes (or true or 1) might be clearer. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure. Just threw one possibility out there. It bothers me not as to what the parameter is eventually named, nor the value. – Adrignola talk 21:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I was just throwing the possibility out there, but the discussion here suggests a merge would be helpful. It would improve clarity to explain the contrasting meanings of "should" and "must" in a single place, and would make internationalisation clearer and easier. A template redirect would ensure that no-one used to the status quo need do anything different. Rd232 (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - The discussion appears to have wound down, with 6 in support, 1 neutral and 2 opposed. Do Tony or Carl have any further comments/objections? Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I had proceeded on the assumption that both templates were widely used. But in fact "should" is used in only 12 templates [3] while "must" is used in well over 100 [4]. "Must" has many more translations (I've borrowed he and nds from "should", which "should" had and "must" didn't). The distinction between "must" and "should always" is unclear in English anyway, and the languages I can understand make the distinction even less clear. So I've just redirected "should" to "must", and anyone who wants to adapt "must" to introduce a sort of "should" meaning with an optional parameter can do so. Rd232 (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Just as a note... there is a distinction of "should" and "must" in RFC 2119. I don't think it's in any way "unclear". In many circumstances, the difference is significant (which is why all the internet RFCs make sure to use those words carefully). Not sure if the distinction here is important enough to keep the two templates, but it could be -- doesn't sound like "should" was widely used. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
My oppose updated to weak support was inspired by RFC 2119, and much work on m:help subst-topics years ago before I pulled "right to vanish" on en:w:/m:/mediazilla: (doesn't affect the new userid here). –Be..anyone (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
"should" and "must" have different meanings in English, that's clear. The distinction between "should always" and "must" is clear as mud. Rd232 (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Uploaded a new version of an image, but it isn't updating

Crosslink to older VP section on the same topic: #Replaced_images_doesn.27t_refresh_-_Purge_doesn.27t_help --Saibo (Δ) 04:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version of an image (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_beach_in_maine_on_a_clear_day.jpg). The upload seems to have been successful, but the site is still displaying the old version, and Wikipedia articles that link to the image are still showing the old version. I tried refreshing the page, clearing my browser cache, and manually purging the page, but the new version still won't show up. The only way I can display the new version is if I scroll down to the File History section of the page, and click on the new version, and the it will load... but this doesn't solve the problem of the new version not displaying on the main file page or in Wikipedia articles. Help? Thanks, --BMRR (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see that this is known issue. Sorry. --BMRR (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Same problem for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Strassen_algorithm.svg. (See https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28613, Elder article on village pump). Is there any workaround? --Xypron (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
To my knowledge there are only those workarounds: Only if it is very urgent (e.g. main page or similar) then just embed a slightly different size which wasn't used by anybody before (e.g. 179 instead of 180 px width). This will have the correct thumb. I guess deleting and restoring or simply uploading a duplicate under a new name could help, too. Those work arounds shouldn't be used for non-urgent cases as they are creating work and are non-standard. Just waiting helps. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
From my experience, deleting and restoring does nothing to resolve it, but renaming the file solves it, if there is some urgent need.--- Darwin Ahoy! 08:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Inkscape Text Problems

I'm having problems with the way text appears in many of my Inkscape submissions and I don't understand why. Image File:Baker's San Felipe Flag.svg should have each word centered down the white stripes of the flag, and not left justified. Also, the font has changed to some sort of default, which I didn't specify. On File:San Jacinto Flag.svg, two of the words are showing up on the ribbon over the sword but a dark rectangle appears where a third word, "Liberty" should be. I was about to upload another submission, but the thumbnail showed another dark rectangle over the text. All of these files look perfectly fine in my Inkscape, but once they're uploaded, the text goes crazy.--Glasshouse (talk) 00:2Italic text8, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The software that Mediawiki uses to convert SVG to PNG can be a little quirky, and it is a known issue that just hasn't been solved yet. See Commons:SVG Check and Help:SVG for more information. Huntster (t @ c) 02:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, any font used in an SVG file must be one of those listed here. Huntster (t @ c) 03:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've hand-massaged both files, and the San Jacinto flag should be fixed (correct font and halved the file size). Also "fixed" the San Felipe flag, but the damn caching problem has decided to rear its ugly head for this file, and the image refuses to update. Sigh...that's getting old. Huntster (t @ c) 07:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the help. I'll use the fonts in the list you referenced, and as for the San Felipe flag, I guess we just wait until the cache updates itself?--Glasshouse (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


Mysterious black rectangles are generally a symptom of the non-standard Inkscape "flowtext" nonsense... AnonMoos (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

help uploading larger size images, but that have changed file extension

Hi. I requested and got a donation of 3 larger size images. However, the extension is .tif (an allowed kind for us), but our original was .jpg. Trying to upload "new copy" does not work as the extensions are different and it won't let me change destination name. Should I upload as all new versions? run some conversion of my own through Paint (don't want to lose content though)? What?

Concerns these three images: [5]

P.s. I know it's Wiki, but help your brother?

TCO (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Upload as a new version, and add an "other versions" entry to the .jpg. --Carnildo (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Not sure how to add an other versions, but will try.TCO (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a template {{other version}}. - Jmabel ! talk 17:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan and Arab world maps

Hi, I m an admin in Arabic Wikipedia and I m wondering, with the independence of South Sudan, if you are going to update some maps in Commons. There is a lot of maps dealing with the Arab league or the Arab world that still contain South Sudan. Can any one remove the South Sudan from those maps Category:Arab League ? --Helmoony (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that you identify suitable maps to be modified, and file a request at "Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop" for new versions of the maps to be created and uploaded. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that in some cases, the existing file should be updated, and in others it should be retained and the new file uploaded under a new name. Powers (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't suggesting that the new files be uploaded over the old ones (these may be useful for historical reasons). — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, someone has already moved the dicussion there. --Helmoony (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Username policy for organizations

Could I request additional comments on a username policy question which I posted on that project's talk page? Please see Commons_talk:Username_policy#Test_case.

The issue is that some Wikipedia projects, like English Wikipedia, discourage group accounts such as those which might be used by anyone at an organization. My question is whether Wikipedia Commons supports such accounts. It seems to me that an organization might have media files which it could be willing to upload, and an organization account would be the most appropriate kind of account for doing this.

However, the global login created might be problematic for its existence on some Wikimedia projects. Could someone please comment on this on the talk page given above? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


Fun with sortkeys in General views of USS Ronald Reagan

More for the above gallery in Category:General views of USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76). The numbers used for sorting are approximate.

It's a bit silly, I concede. Anyways, enjoy. --  Docu  at 07:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I do something like it, too (street numbers), so it can't be silly. But it needs regular attention in the future. Sometimes the subject is too narrow or unpopular to be safely left unattended. With CVN-76, you're guaranteed to have more and more new photos every month. NVO (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    • In this case, new ones get added to the end. (Not all images in the category are sorted BTW). --  Docu  at 07:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
? The 2nd image is ≈ 45 ° on the photographers port side and the last is 45° to starboard. If you want to use the full 360 deg notation then the 2nd should be 315° and the last 45° because degrees are counted clockwise.--P.g.champion (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually I thought about using 0° for the view now at 180°. Feel free to revise it. --  Docu  at 10:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Replaced images doesn't refresh - Purge doesn't help

..this problem seems ubiquitous. I really wonder if the admins are aware of these problems and if someone is working on it. --Alexrk2 (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed that too. Yann (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course Commons' admins are well aware of this problem. But we have no means to do anything about it, beyond soothing angry uploaders/users and filing Bug reports. --Túrelio (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Please all complain, add notes and vote at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28613 . Multichill (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Tnx, voted.. seems like this could take some time to resolve. Maybe it would be nice to place a hint on Commons so users don't get frustrated. --Alexrk2 (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
So nice to find out that I'm not the only idiot in the neighbourhood... Just wasted half an hour to try to understand what I did wrong... Ha ha ! It was not my fault. But the problem remains. Indeed, placing a hint somewhere (if possible, somewhere one could notice it) might be a good idea... In the meantime, I'll try voting, in case it would help anyhow... Oblomov2 (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC) (Oh no, I have to create a Bugzilla account or whatever and this will probably make me lose some more hours, I give up). Oblomov2 (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

File:2011 Turkish general election.svg has been re-uploaded under a new name, and the original file marked as a duplicate to be deleted, because there seems to be absolutely no way of getting any image version more recent than Jun 30 to display... AnonMoos (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The same problem is affecting me as well. Last time this occurred (about a six weeks ago) some of my images took weeks to refresh. However, if one changes their preferences to increase or decrease the standard image size (say from 800 by 600 to 1024 by 768), the "correct" version is displayed. 09:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
This image is showing the wrong version since I cropped its border almost 15 days ago. In cases where there is an urgent need for the new version it can be solved by simply moving the file, however. It is possible that deleting an undeleting the file also has some effect, though I haven't tested it yet.--- Darwin Ahoy! 09:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
It's showing the cropped version for me. This image is squished really wide at 800 by 600 on my computer, does the correct version render for other users? OSX (talkcontributions) 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
is it? Weird, why can't I see the cropped version then? Even in different browsers?--- Darwin Ahoy! 10:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
This is what I see. OSX (talkcontributions) 10:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Strange, I can't imagine why I'm still seeing the wrong version. Incidentally, even with the low res in your image I was able to see that the last crop was better than mine, and tested deleting and restoring the image, to see if it would change something, but I'm still seeing the border version. About your image mentioned above, I think I'm seeing the squished version as well.--- Darwin Ahoy! 11:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Added a sitenotice about it. Hopefully it will stop people from worrying when updates/replcements seem not to work. Feel free to improve the message and/or possibly add a link to a page where such images may be listed. /Lokal_Profil 09:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Policy Translation

Hi. I´m natural spanish speaker. I´ve been looking for this policy in spanish but I couldn´t find it. I´m able to translated, but I´m not sure if I can, if I must request some permission, if I need concensus or I can do it without problem. Can someone tell me if I can create Commons:Umbral de originalidad or is there any other method I should follow? Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

We can probably copy es:Umbral de originalidad to Commons and make minor changes or something. Killiondude (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I translated the policy :) But I don´t know how to add the headline: "This project page in other languages: English | Spanish | +/−" --Andrea (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
What you did one day later works for me, thanks. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Technically were other users, I just made a small adjustment :) But yes, I think now is perfect. Cheers. --Andrea (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

July 8

Attributing A Derivative File With The New Upload Wizard

I like the fact that the new upload wizard is quick and easy, but I only have the option to list the item as my own work or as someone else's work. I often borrow elements from other wiki artists, and I want to give them credit for their work, but the upload wizard, as opposed to the old form, doesn't let me attribute a file as a derivative of someone else's work. How are we to handle derivative submissions going forward?--Glasshouse (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The upload wizard (UW) is simply incomplete and will not be complete in the near future. Just use the old form Commons:Upload instead.
It would be best if you leave your UW feedback at Commons:Prototype_upload_wizard_feedback. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

July 9

Help: I cant't restore original File:LocationSouthernSudan.svg

I tried revert to original upload of File:LocationSouthernSudan.svg (see here), but the system show other picture that original, The original picture was a pink and red svg map scheme, like ohter files File:LocationSudan.svg, File:LocationAngola.svg, etc. But an user upload other type of map. I tried rever this, but commons show ohter picture. See the history of image. Shooke Flag of Argentina.svg Flag of Italy.svg(Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 17:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Have Some problem with server, i reverted image, but not show the same that original, i not understand Shooke Flag of Argentina.svg Flag of Italy.svg(Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 17:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Some administrator can be restore to original upload?. Have Some bug that not show the image Shooke Flag of Argentina.svg Flag of Italy.svg(Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 17:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a caching issue. It just takes some time for the system to update the thumbnail images. Leave it alone for an hour or so, then check it again. It should have updated itself by then. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
But the problems are other users, that not wait for this and revert again Shooke Flag of Argentina.svg Flag of Italy.svg(Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 17:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Patience; besides, the red/orange map needs some fixing (overlapping and such, give me a few minutes) Seb az86556 (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, Shooke Flag of Argentina.svg Flag of Italy.svg(Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 17:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Fixed: the two are now separate objects, rather than one plastered over the other. Seb az86556 (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The newest version looks rather horrible. I don't think that's what you intended, Seb. Killiondude (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Looked horrible due to the bug, I fixed it moving to File:Location Southern Sudan.svg. It may me moved back to the old name when the server issue is resolved, but for now this is the only practical way to solve the bug I'm aware of. Otherwise the wrong version may stay there for weeks.--- Darwin Ahoy! 18:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Darwin. I think that rename the file like LocationSouthSudan.svg, see Category:South Sudan. Thank Shooke Flag of Argentina.svg Flag of Italy.svg(Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 19:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I can rename it again, if there is a need for that and there is no opposition. If LocationSouthSudan.svg is the best final name, I may issue an universal replacement for the file name as well (I have not done it for the current name, since it was meant to be a temporary fix only).--- Darwin Ahoy! 07:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know why people cannot be patient and upload a new version using a new file name. You broke the sense, mainly in Wikinews articles where the old map was so far used to show both Sudan and South Sudan in one map which the 2007 version was the only useful map. There a different usages of maps. Never ever upload a new version on the same file! --Matthiasb (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
BTW: There was even no need to such confusion, since File:LocationSouthernSudan-Independent.svg exists since May 2011, now using the correct naming File:Location South Sudan.svg. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Unsourced Flickr image" templates on image that didn't come from Flickr

An image that I uploaded a few minutes ago, File:ElzaGate.jpg, has been tagged as an unsourced Flickr image. That doesn't make much sense to me, since I didn't get the image from Flickr. It's a PD-US image, and I think it's likely that someone else uploaded it to Flickr at some point, so I guess that maybe it was detected as being identical to a Flickr image. I've never encountered this particular issue before. Will anyone object if I quietly delete the template as irrelevant? --Orlady (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If you didn't get it from Flickr, why did you add the template {{flickrreview}} ? /Esquilo (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Added by new upload wizard? Bulwersator (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't surprise me, I'm sure someone posted on Commons they their own photographs were being tagged with {{flickrreview}}, a month or so ago but can't find it. Bidgee (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I know where it is, it's somewhere in the UW feedback page, in more than one thread if I well recall.--- Darwin Ahoy! 11:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

July 10

Missing Creative Commons templates

Hi everyone, I created all the missing Creative Commons license templates like for example {{Cc-by-2.0-za}}. I do this by looping over the countries at {{Cc-country-flags}} and combining this by the different types (cc-by-/cc-by-sa) and versions (1.0, 2.0, 2.5 & 3.0). If the template exists at the Creative Commons site, it will be created here. Some messages are still missing (see for example {{Cc-by-3.0-cr}}). I'll add them to Translatewiki later. Expect these messages to show up in the next couple of weeks. Multichill (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Naming order of Japanese people

Hi! There has been a little debate regarding the usage of Japanese names.

User:Aphaia appears on several photographs posted to the Wikimedia Commons. I altered image descriptions, a category name, and category content so that the name reads as "Naoku Kizu" instead of "Kizu Naoko" to make the name order consistent with pages/categories/etc of other post-Meiji 1 Japanese names

  • In the Japanese language, a name is written with the family name first and the given name last. Kizu is the Wikipedian's family name, and Naoko is her given name, so in Japanese her name is "Kizu Naoko"
  • In English, most other European languages (Spanish, French, German, etc), and languages like Thai, Arabic, Hindi, Indonesian, etc. the common practice is to reverse the name so that it fits western naming order, so the family name goes last and the given name goes first. I.E. "Naoto Kan" (Kan is family name) instead of "Kan Naoto" - This practice is done in those languages widely by the press, book publishers, governments, individuals, etc. in Japan and foreign countries.
  • In some other languages (Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, Hungarian) the Japanese names of post Meiji 1 figures remain expressed in the Japanese order.
  • The MEXT (Japanese education ministry) published a survey asking Japanese people if they believe the practice of having the name switched, which originated in the Meiji era. There was no consensus in the survey results. See the end section of: http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/12/kokugo/toushin/001217d.htm (in Japanese - For an English summary, please see en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan#MEXT_document_on_Japanese_names)
  • While widespread practice has the names of Japanese and Hungarian people switched to western order, typically Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese people do not have their names switched to western order.

The practice of name switching is commonplace, and most Japanese have not expressed opposition to it. However Aphaia has a strong preference for having her name written as "Kizu Naoko" even in foreign languages. She takes offense whenever a person expresses her name as "Naoko Kizu". Aphaia expressed a preference that her category, images portraying her, etc. should have the text read "Kizu Naoko" in Japanese order.

However, manuals of styles of various Wikipedias ask that post-Meiji 1 Japanese names be put in western order if the Japanese person is of the modern day era (on the English Wikipedia, if the person is born on or after the first year of Meiji). On the English Wikipedia, editors do not allow specific pages to be expressed in Japanese order, even if the subject has commonly used or has a preference for Japanese order. On EN all post Meiji Japanese people are to have their names written in western order. (Pages on subjects born before Meiji 1, who are historical figures, use the Japanese naming order).

  • English Wikipedia: en:Wikipedia:MOS-JA#Names_of_modern_figures: "For a modern figure—a person born after the beginning of the Meiji period (January 1, 1868 onward for our purposes)—always use the Western order of given name + family name for Western alphabet, and Japanese style family name+<space>+given name for Japanese characters.[...]"
  • French Wikipedia: fr:Wikipédia:Transcription_du_japonais#Noms_de_personnes: "Les noms de personnes japonais sont toujours mentionnés sur Wikipédia dans l’ordre prénom, nom, contrairement à l’ordre traditionnel japonais (nom, prénom) :" - It makes exceptions for historical figures and two modern day pen names (Oh! Great and Edogawa Rampo)
  • Spanish Wikipedia: es:Wikipedia:Manual_de_estilo_para_artículos_de_origen_japonés#Nombres_de_personas: "Para el título de figuras modernas, aún no existe un acuerdo en el orden del nombre, aunque se usa preferiblemente primero el nombre y luego el apellido." - Apparently the Spanish editors may not have technically reached an agreement yet on the naming order themselves, but established a preference for western order.
  • German Wikipedia: de:Wikipedia:Namenskonventionen/Japanisch#Namensreihenfolge - Based on Google translate, generally people born after 1926 get western order, except for people who appear in German literature using the Japanese order - there may be something about personal preference being a factor, but I'm not sure... (modern sumo wrestling names are always in Japanese order on DE)
  • Russian Wikipedia: ru:Википедия:Статьи_о_Японии#Имена персоналий - Because all names are "Family Name, Given Name" in article titles, Japanese names in article titles are "Family Name, Given Name" - But in the articles themselves, Japanese names are in western order ru:Исихара,_Синтаро

I believe that despite preferences of particular individuals, the Commons, like the Wikipedias, should maintain/enact a manual of style governing all post-Meiji Japanese names so that they are expressed in the same naming order, but that would only affect Files, subject pages, and categories since those pages have "official" Commons content (analogous to Wikipedia articles. I would stress that Wikipedians, when on talk pages, category talk pages, user talk pages, user pages, etc. etc. should continue to refer to Aphaia as "Kizu Naoko" WhisperToMe (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

A name is what people go by. If she wants Kizu Naoko, there's no harm in using that for her name everywhere. Otherwise I demand that Cherilyn Sarkisian be written that way everywhere.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Well Cher was a stage name is "Cher" so the English Wikipedia uses that - Turns out she legally changed her entire name in 1978 to "Cher" (no family name, no middle name) - So that is her name, full stop.
Likewise on EN if a Japanese person has a stage name/pen name "Aba-kun" the English article is "Aba-kun" but the article states the legal name is "Taro Sato" - That differs from the presentation of a Japanese name (what order is the actual name in). On EN and other Wikipedias pen names and stage names of post-Meiji 1 Japanese people go in Western order too (Yukio Mishima, legal name Kimitake Hiraoka).
Speaking of "Cher" we could very easily refer to the category and in many occasions author as simply "Aphaia" or "Britty" but there's still the question of how to refer to her legal name in "official" Commons material.
WhisperToMe (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
A photographer can be credited by any name they choose, regardless of Wikipedia article guidelines (besides which, this is Commons, not Wikipedia, and we don't operate under their guidelines). If Aphaia chooses to be credited as Kizu Naoko, you have no right to demand it be changed to something else, or to unilaterally change her uploads to something else. For any files you have already modified, I would strongly suggest you revert your changes. Huntster (t @ c) 02:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Aphaia, is the subject of the photos in the category, not the photographer. The category and photos are at Category:Naoko Kizu
While Commons is a separate project from the Wikipedias, it could easily establish its own manuals of style, and due to it's relationship with the Wikipedias, I think it would be a good idea.. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, misunderstood. Still, please respect her wishes. If she wishes to go by "Kizu Naoko", and she obviously does, please respect that wish. Huntster (t @ c) 02:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
If the Commons community has a consensus that certain individuals may have their names expressed in their preferred orders versus the standard order, then I would be happy to honor those wishes.
WhisperToMe (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
As it stands, as far as I'm aware, there is no consensus either way, which means it defaults to the editor's choice in the matter, not the other way around. Look, I'm sure you mean well and are just trying to create a sense of standardisation, but I find it distasteful when the desire of an individual overwhelms the desires of other editors, and this situation seems to have that appearance. Huntster (t @ c) 07:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
In some cases Aphaia was the editor who added her own name in the photo descriptions, and in some cases she did not edit the descriptions at all.
For instance this photo used Western order from the start: File:Wikimania_2008_dungodung_64.jpg [6] (possibly because the Wikimania Alexandria name badge in the photo that she is wearing puts her name in Western order) - She did not edit the description in that photo (she probably didn't know the photo existed, since I added that photo to the category) - In photo descriptions which Aphaia edited, she used Japanese order - In some photos her legal name is not mentioned, and only her screenname is
She was the author of the Category:Kizu Naoko category - I moved that category the to western order to make everything consistent and added more photos to that category.
Speaking of the name badge, another factor that prompted me to use western order was that in some Wikimedia/Wikimania materials her name is written in Western order (the name badge, also the page title of http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Presenters/Naoko_Kizu , although the text inside the page uses Japanese order)
In some other Wikimania materials I found the name was put in Japanese order: http://wikimania2008.wikimedia.org/wiki/Program_team and http://http://wikimania2008.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schedule (in schedule her name appears as "KIZU Naoko" while other Japanese/Japanese diaspora person's names are as "Tomohiro Fukuhara, Yoshiaki Arai")
To illustrate how the name is written in Japanese, I used the format that is seen in various European language Wikipedias on how Japanese names are displayed in Wikipedia articles and added "Naoko Kizu (木津 尚子 Kizu Naoko) - aka Aphaia, Britty" to the category description
WhisperToMe (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Please honor other user's wishes about how their names are used. I agree with Huntster - I see no ambiguity about this. --SJ+

We should always default to respecting the wishes of the subjects or creators of photos - where possible. It requires a very good reason to do otherwise, since it is simply inconsiderate. Simple pedantry is not a very good reason (even if it fuels Wikimedia :). --SJ+ 14:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I understand the sentiment. But I do not believe that this issue is pendantic. In my earlier years, I interacted with people who crafted the Manual of Style on Japanese names on EN. And discussions about which naming orders or better, or how to assign naming orders, came up constantly: en:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_for_Japan-related_articles/Naming_order and en:Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Japan-related_articles)/misc5#Name_Order_Discussion are some examples of discussion. It was very difficult to come up with the standards on how the names would be ordered, and who would get what order. Because of the level of controversy, I would think that such a thing isn't pedantic (at least by Wikimedia standards :) )
If this was a small, personal project with a group of close friends, or something about social networking, or something more informal, I would without hesitation have the name be written as "Kizu Naoko" - But Wikimedia Commons is a large educational project and I think conforming to general English/other language media print standards would be important. While I haven't found Aphaia's name in the news, if she suddenly had an article written about her in the NYT, or Agence Presse France, or the BBC, I would imagine that her name would appear in western order.
Looking at the archives, I found a case where going against the subject's wishes on the name (in this case though, he's a public figure in the news constantly) may be editorially the best choice: en:Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Japan-related_articles)/misc5#Name_Order_Discussion
"The naming of biographical articles in Wikipedia is complicated by the fact that one individual may be known under several different names at the same time, and may change their name a number of times in their life. For example, we have an article at Cat Stevens (his stage name) even though he was born as Stephen Demetre Georgiou and changed his name to Yusuf Islam. To be neutral, our only choice is to examine popular usage. —Morven 23:20, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)"
"Sometimes, I feel that those of us who live in Japan, or are just more familiar with Japanese culture than most of the English Wikipedia user profile, need to step back and realize that even though doing it this way is "right", when it has been established on WP to do it that way, it is for a very good reason. Most of the people reading about Japanese people in WP are not us, but others. I think the conventions are usually formed with that in mind, and thus, are what we should follow in the WP playground. Neier 08:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)"
I am aware that the discussion is old, but I think the sentiment should illustrate how I feel about the issue.
I think the determination for Commons on how to handle these issues ought to be not be necessarily what the subject of photograph wants. It is what is best for the reader or what the reader would expect. Commons is mainly for the user/reader. If the international media made a story about or featuring Aphaia, they would certainly use western order. I believe that acting in a manner that would help the reader in understanding the content would be a "good reason" for an exception to going by the wishes of the subject.
If the consensus is "Well, Aphaia is not a public figure (yet?) and people who talk about her use FN-GN, so in this case it would be best for the reader to see her name in FN-GN and give an exception" then I would be fine with that. I just hope that I illustrated why I take the position on the matter that I take.
WhisperToMe (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I just found something interesting: There's only one journalism-related article that I found about Aphaia so far, and it mentions Aphaia's name in Japanese order (not sure if the journalist knew whether "Naoko" was her first name or if he believed it was her family name.
Cohen, Noam. "Some Errors Defy Fixes: A Typo in Wikipedia’s Logo Fractures the Sanskrit." The New York Times. June 25, 2007.
I just sent an e-mail to Noam Cohen asking him if he knew that Aphaia's family name was "Kizu."
WhisperToMe (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, a recent trend is for Chinese people (at least) who have become famous in the last few decades to become known in English by the Asian name order: Yao Ming, Li Na, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep - As the MEXT/Mombusho article points out, typically Korean and Chinese people do not have their names switched. And some Chinese people working abroad continue to be referred to in FN-GN order. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

How many images from www.flickr.com...

I recently appealed to a flickr contributor to make one of their images available here. I tried to figure out how many of our images come from www.flickr.com .

If I am not mistaken there are about 655,000. Geo Swan (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You did catch also category descriptions with weblnks to flickr. With Category:Files_from_Flickr you see 175484 Admin reviewed Flickr images, 140295 Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR, 124391 Flickr images uploaded by Flickr upload bot. = 440 170 reviewed images. If some images are not in several of these cats. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Upload new version of picture problem

Hi! I tried to replace File:Kawanishi E7K seaplane.jpg with unretouched version from crimso.msk.ru but I can't see the new version, only the old version resized to the new version's size. I tried to clear cache (even by action=purge) but it didn't work. Can anyone help me? Thanks... --Sceadugenga (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a known technical problem with the display of thumbnails that doesn't have any simple solution right now. You'll just have to wait a few hours and try refreshing the page again. The new file has been uploaded, though – if you click on the "full resolution" button you will see it. — Cheers, JackLee talk 20:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
"hours" or even days/weeks, yes. Please just wait and continue to discuss this problem at the relevant sections above - if needed (avoid a scattered discussion). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
File is showing the correct version now (at least to me), as are the various project pages. Hopefully this indicates the servers are slowly returning to normal...update lag time seems to be decreasing. Huntster (t @ c) 08:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Anybody speaking russian there ?

Hi,

Could anybody tell via the Russian Embassy or something that the pic ru:Файл:Unigpo28051942ausstkat91.jpg is somewhat the same as File:Bundesarchiv R 49 Bild-0022, Berlin, Ausstellung "Planung und Aufbau im Osten".jpg here and therefore should be deleted there after the use of the Commons one ?

Yours sincerely,

Ultrogothe (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Why should they? It's a cropped and contrast enhanced variation which maybe fits more into what they want to do with the file. --Matthiasb (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I added NowCommons template to the russian page. Thair copy is of much lower resolution and quality. --Jarekt (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

July 11

Archive template problem

Why is [7] not showing up at the top of Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop? There seem to be three levels of templates, and I'm not sure I edited the right thing, or if I did, whether the new version will ever get transcluded over a cache of some sort. 99.24.223.58 10:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That template is obsolete. The template used for archives is Template:GraphicLabArchive. However, don't add "(stale)" becuase the template is localized. You may, however, modify the part that says "Completed requests are archived regularly" in the English translation page: Commons:Graphic Lab/top/en. Changing it to "Completed and stale requests are archived regularly" will work, but will need to be changed for all other languages as well. --ZooFari 17:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Could someone who knows what that means please do it? I'm a monoglot, but I know better to tell people that only the completed requests are archived when old stale requests are archived too. All should be linked from the archive box, unless there is a reason not to. 99.24.223.58 22:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio tag

On template:copyvio, it says Appeal: If you think that the file does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page and remove this tag. But if the uploader sees this and (say, they add some extra information on the copyright status) remove the tag, they will get a 'Please do not remove speedy deletion tags' warning. Maybe the wording should be changed. Who was the 'you' in that line referring to? An admin, any user that is not the uploader? --Ben.MQ (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think there's a settled policy against removing speedy deletion tags. If you think it's not a matter for speedy, and want it to be taken to a formal deletion nomination, that's the only way. AnonMoos (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thousands of medical images

Working on the donation of a few thousand / tens of thousands of medical images under a CC3.0 license. If we are able to come to an agreement how would I go about arranging the upload here? Or should I speak with the WMF? --James Heilman, MD (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk to User:Multichill, he has experience with large batch imports. Otherwise, see COM:BATCH. Lupo 06:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Start a page at COM:BATCH and lets continue discussion there. But in general we will need 3 things to do successful mass upload
  • Access to the images: they should be either online somewhere or you might need to upload it to our new staging area
  • Prepare metadata: For each image we will need as much data as is available. Ideally data would be provided to the uploaded in a spreadsheet.
  • Categories: Although this step can be done after upload, it is usually easier to assign commons categories to each image before the upload
Once we assemble those 3 things the actual upload is rather straightforward. --Jarekt (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Great thanks. Will let you know the details when they are finalized. --James Heilman, MD (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

French translation help

Please could someone help me by translating a couple of sentences from French to English at Commons:Administrators/Requests/ArséniureDeGallium. It's fairly urgent, as the Admin Request closes soon. --99of9 (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

July 13

Editing the Upload Wizard

Re Commons_talk:Licensing#Free_Art_License.3F - does anyone know how to get changes made to the Upload Wizard? I get it's an extension (mw:Extension:UploadWizard), developed as part of the Usability Initiative (cf [8]), but I can't see anything about how to change the Wizard structure. Maybe only the developers can? Rd232 (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

<snip> discussion moved to Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Upload_Wizard_-_Free_Art_License. please continue there to avoid a scattered discussion. --Saibo (Δ) 01:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Saibo (Δ) 01:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Free image?

Hi, can any admin/expert please check if this image is free for real? It was taken from a fan page and it really doesn't seem like a public domain photo. The license confuses me. Mel 23 talk 02:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion here. No evidence that the license is valid. Huntster (t @ c) 04:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Special:Upload page

Hello!

Is there any way to implement the templates {{int:filedesc}} and {{int:license}} to the upload page in their appropriated places? The output of this form contains the section titles == Summary == and == Licensing == , I think that it would be nice it they were exchanged with the internationalized templates. And as long as I am on it, is there any way to add

== {{int:filedesc}} ==

in the preloaded text of the basic upload form? I forget to add it manually too often when uploading something... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Often asked, and so far the answer is basically 'not now, probably someday," but I don't remember the rationale. Someone? - Jmabel ! talk 17:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Bugzilla11698 "Allow &preload= and &editintro= parameters on Special:Upload"? Rd232 (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of the in category names

[Discussion copied from "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands" for more comments.]

Rename Category:Rail tickets of the London Underground to Category:Rail tickets of London Underground (0 entries moved, 8 to go) grammar
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I don't think grammar requires the the to be removed. — Cheers, JackLee talk 06:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
It is not correct, grammatically or otherwise, to use the article with "London Underground". As a , it does not require the article. Ravenseft (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Ummm, are you suggesting that it is always grammatically incorrect to use articles with proper nouns? If so, I think that is not right. It is grammatically correct to say "I visited the White House today", and incorrect to say *"I visited White House today". For that reason, there is nothing grammatically wrong with "Rail tickets of the London Underground". — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but your example is not helpful. The White House's official title is "The White House", like "the United States" and "the British Virgin Islands", so in these cases the "the" is indispensable. Hence, "Mountains of the United States" is correct and "Mountains of United States" is wrong. However, when "the" does not appear in the name, it is unnecessary to use it. So, "Cars made by Toyota" and not "Cars made by the Toyota". I realise this is not the place for an English lesson, that can be found elsewhere, so perhaps another native English speaker could confirm my explanation? Ravenseft (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I regard myself as a native speaker, and I have not heard of any rule which states that the is only to be used when the word is part of an "official title". (And how does one find out what the "official title" of a proper noun is? Why is the "official title" of the USA "the United States of America" and not simply "United States of America"?) The website you referred to is interesting, but it doesn't seem to lay down any hard and fast rule on the matter. For example, http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/nouns-proper_3.htm states: "We normally use 'the' with the following sorts of names: ... the Ritz Hotel, ... the Royal Theatre, ... the Crystal Palace". I don't see how "the London Underground" is distinguishable from these examples. Anyway, I'm happy to hear views from other editors on this issue. — Cheers, JackLee talk 20:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm copying this discussion to the Village Pump as this is probably not the best place for it. — Cheers, JackLee talk 20:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
The answer to your question is quite simple - there is no "the" in London Underground. London Underground which issues the tickets in this category is a company founded in 1985, the full title of which is "London Underground Limited". I believe your confusion may have arisen from the fact that LU is sometimes used as a synonym for "the Tube" which refers to the network in general. The "the" is therefore superfluous at best and grammatically incorrect at worst; it also gives rise to the impression that more than one company is issuing Tube tickets. Ravenseft (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Ravenseft, unfortunately in some respects you appear to have an unhelpfully oversimplified understanding of linguistic usage/grammar, and a simple Google search suggests that there are plenty of occurrences of the phrase "the London Underground" on UK sites: [9]... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see many other categories that includes a definite article. /Esquilo (talk) 04:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
There are a fair number that even begin with "the" -- see [10] -- and I imagine quite a bit more with "the" in the middle (e.g. Category:Flags of the United States etc. etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A definite article isn't uncommon in category titles. See e.g. all the sub-categories of Category:People of New Zealand by region and all but one of the sub-categories of Category:French Revolution and of Category:Transport in the Dominican Republic. The exception in the latter case is Category:Buses in Dominican Republic, which seems just as unnatural to me as Category:Rail tickets of London Underground. (I'm not saying that "London Underground" always requires an article; there wouldn't be anything grammatically wrong with Category:London Underground rail tickets, for instance.) This nomination seems to be based on a very peculiar idea of English grammar. --Avenue (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Most of the categories AnonMoos links to seems to be books, films etc where 'the' is a part of thier name. There is a definite distinction between Category:The Black Cat and Category:Black cats. /Esquilo (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Point of order -- Ravenseft wrote “The White House's official title is ‘The White House’...” ‘The White House’ is a nickname. The official title of the POTUS`s residence is something like “the Executive Mansion”. Geo Swan (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
It is very common in English to use the definite article before proper nouns that are of the form "Adjective Noun", even if the noun doesn't strictly include the article, except when the noun is used as an adjective. (As noted above: "I went to the White House", but "White House security is tight".) "London Underground" fits this pattern; it sounds stilted (at least to American ears) to omit the definite article. Exceptions include the titles of creative works (e.g., Dangerous Liasons or Scary Movie), though such works often incorporate the definite article anyway (e.g., The Little Mermaid). Powers (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"London Underground" is a en:Proper noun. The definite article should be excluded. Rd232 (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Or, to be more precise, it's a proper noun referring to the company existing since 1985 (en:London Underground) and by extension the institution existing since 1933. Rd232 (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
While proper nouns are not normally preceded by an article (e.g. Chicago, Lady Gaga, etc.), they often are (the New York Times, the CN Tower, etc.). Whether it is a proper noun or not is a red herring. What is the most common usage, with or without an article? What does en-wp use? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The company/institution name does not include the definite article. On the other hand, when referring to the system, especially prior to 1933, the definite article is used, because then it's a common name (adjective+noun). Rd232 (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
If including the article is only considered to be a solecism by a few railgeeks and company employees, but hundreds of thousands of ordinary riders are perfectly happy to include it, then I see no reason to change the category names. Meanwhile, the article en:London_Underground includes the article several times in the introductory section alone... AnonMoos (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Ordinary riders call it "the tube". Rd232 (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Really? I call it "the Underground". That phrase is used in 'Art on the Underground' and 'Poems on the Underground', so I'm not the only one. But the whole conversation is slightly silly anyway. Is this amount of discussion worth it just to decide on whether to include 'the' or not? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Well, this is potentially an issue that affects thousands of categories. I don't know if any definite rules concerning the use (or non-use) of the in front of proper nouns can be identified – if someone can help in this regard, please do. However, based on the discussion so far it looks like there is no single right answer, which means that each disputed renaming request will have to be separately discussed in the hope that consensus can be reached. We should strive, though, for consistency within each branch of the category tree, at least (in other words, we should not have "Category:Rail tickets of the London Underground" coexisting with "Category:Escalators of London Underground").

It has also occurred to me that a distinction should be made between companies and places. It may be appropriate to leave out the definite article when referring to a company ("I work for London Underground [Limited]") but less so when referring to a place ("The London Underground [system] transports thousands of people each hour"). — Cheers, JackLee talk 13:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that distinction is important, and may explain some of the disagreement here. There would be nothing grammatically wrong with "Category:Rail tickets issued by London Underground Limited". I still think "Category:Rail tickets of London Underground" is incorrect, though (because the dominant meaning of "London Underground" is the railway network, not the company). --Avenue (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:SNCF Class Z 23000

This type of train was never owned by the SNCF but the RATP. See french wikipedia. Please rename. Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Please leave a request at "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands". Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not clearcut, see discussion page. CMP or RATP? Do we in general use the historic company or the actual company? Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case, you've done the right thing by initiating discussion on the category talk page and notifying editors of the discussion here. Sorry I can't participate – I know nothing about trains. — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I now asked in the French Bistro. They should know. Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

July 12

CC-NC allowed?

I thought that material with non-commercial restriction is not allowed, but I found Category:CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0-DE? -- JakobVoss (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

See User:Axpde/GFDL or CC-by-nc-sa, which is “responsible” for most/all files in this category. --Leyo 09:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
It is allowed only when used as an alternative license together with a free one. --AVRS (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Adding non-free licence tags is counter-productive, but I assume that discussing this with Axpde is fruitless :-( -- JakobVoss (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Im Gegenteil, das ist nicht kontraproduktiv. Nachnutzer aus dem Bereich Schule/Studium usw. brauchen garnicht erst fragen, sie können bequem nachnutzen. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 10:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
That was exactly my intention (I'm a teacher myself). a×pdeHello! 15:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not. GFDL+CC-NC is actually a good improvement when compared to only GFDL for all those who whant to use the image in a non commercial way. For the others it's the same, so there's no harm and all gain. --- Darwin Ahoy! 11:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Nevertheless the category should be deleted. 1) it is sorted wrong into Category:Creative Commons licenses which is a section of our free licenses copyright statuses, but this is not a free copyright status. 2) the alternative category of Category:Copyright statuses - unfree copyright statuses - is expected to contain no content other then the only allowed unfree Wikimedia content. Axpde can add this tag to his files but he can not create a license category, the scope of Commons is not to offere images under various unfree copyright status but under free licenses, therefore this category is unecessary and only confusing. --Martin H. (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Why not create a subcategory "non-free Creative Commons licenses" to clearly differentiate? Effeietsanders (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The category is useless on itself, but when crossed with GFDL may be of some use, still. But in any case it shouldn't be categorized under the free licenses or mixed with them in some other way, of course.--- Darwin Ahoy! 13:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
@Effeietsanders: Scope of this project. Creates the wrong impression that Commons accepts content under free licenses as well as unfree licenses, or that Commons is a source for free as well as unfree content. --Martin H. (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Since double licenses are allowed, CC-NC is of course "allowed" insofar. I think that the reasoning that sometimes CCBYNC is preferrable over GFDL makes sense. In that case, categorizing the NC also makes sense, as long as it is clearly seperated from the free licenses so that people don't get confused. I merely suggested a method for accomplishing that goal (since it /is/ a Creative Commons license, removing it totally from that category doesn't make sense to me) - if you know a better method, that could of course be considered just as well. I do not see where the scope of the project has any influence whatsoever on how we arrange our categories. Effeietsanders (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I just looked at Category:Creative Commons licenses, it doesn't read "media files published under free Creative Commons licenses" but simply "media files published under Creative Commons licenses". And my pictures have CC license, so what's the problem? I added a warning to the category in case someone wants to use just this license ... a×pdeHello! 15:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all CC-NC is not "unfree" it just limits the access just as BY or SA. Everyone is allowed to use my pictures as long as he does it non commercial, uses the same license and states the author (me :). Whenever someone wants to use my pictures commercially he must do this under the terms of GFDL which is "free" as well. Btw. this construct is not my own idea, there are several other photographers having similiar licenses! And if some private user wants to search some NC pictures, why don't we give him the chance to do so? We could add a warning to this category that this license is only valid in combination with another license as GFDL! a×pdeHello! 15:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

CC-NC is indeed "unfree". See freedomdefined.org. The distinctions between NC and SA may seem arbitrary but they are well-established, and with reasoning behind them. You can add a NC license, provided you have one free license, as it could indeed very much help re-users elsewhere (but not Commons). Having GFDL as the only free license is discouraged because it has practical limitations that prevent some usage which is normally in the intended scope of "free" usage. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
GFDL is a free license, and if someone wants to use my pictures commercially he has to use this license, that's the price he has to pay! a×pdeHello! 16:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
No one said anything against your licensing. Its absolutely ok. Its however not required to create a category for unfree copyright statuses. Iis not what we collect - although we not forbid people to add them as you correctly said. Its extremly misleading as this posting shows. It adulterates our free content related copyright status categorization. --Martin H. (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
If they are here, we may as well categorize it. I would simply make a "non-free licenses" category, or "non-free Creative Commons licenses", and make sure to categorize them under that. The current one *is* misleading; it is simply called "Creative Commons licenses" and not all of them are free. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
What about giving the “non-free”-related categories names beginning with something like “Images multi-licensed with”? --AVRS (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I must write here german, my english is too bad. Bevor ich die NC als zusätzliche Lizenz aufgenommen habe, kamen fast wöchentlich freundliche Nachfragen meist von Studenten, auch von Schülern und Lehrern. Mit der NC kommt sowas fast nie mehr, die Lizenz erfüllt ihren Zweck. Anfragen von Schulbuchverlagen und Ähnliches kommen weiterhin, ihnen erlaube ich die Weiternutzung dann natürlich problemlos. Ich möchte Bildung nicht behindern, ich bin selbst Dozent. Dafür ist diese Lizenz bestens geeignet. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Before I added the NC as an additional license, friendly inquiries came almost weekly, mostly from school students, also from (upper level) students and teachers. With the NC this almost never happens, so the license is effective. Requests from textbook publishers and the like continue to come, I will allow the continued use them then of course easily. I would not interfere with education, I am a lecturer. This license is perfectly suited for this.
translator: Google, heavily reworded by User:Jmabel, could be improved further but was almost incomprehensible.

Classification of war memorials

During a walk I, I found this. How can I correctly classify the war memorial? It has al kinds of of cross references (Mainz, air raid date). And is it usefull to set the full names of the deceased so that the can be found? Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Added Category:World War II memorials in Belgium. I also think we need to create a category system such as "Foo" (as in RAF, RAAF, USAF) monuments and memorials in "Country"? Bidgee (talk) 09:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what that means. Foo? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
See w:en:Metasyntactic variable. "'Foo' memorials in 'Country'" translates as "(insert relevant military organization here) memorials in (insert relevant country here)". --Carnildo (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. That's helpful.

I think Bidgee's suggestion is a good one, but I would leave off the country for now. For example, not all the contents of Category:USAF monuments and memorials would be the United States, and in many cases it would be overkill to split the category right away into cats by country (although categories with a population that warrants it could ultimately be subdivided into subcats by country).--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Further research finds File:Wellington Bomber memorial - geograph.org.uk - 804620.jpg. It gets more and more interesting. Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Translation of policies

Hi. I´m natural speaker of spanish. I noticed several templates and policies are not translated to spanish, so I begon to do it. But the problem is some are protected, and this for example has not lenguage-template. I´m not sure if is not allow to translate it or I can do it and someone add the template later. Can someone tell me, please? Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:GNU Free Documentation License should not be translated on Commons. In stead it should have interwiki-links to different language versions of Wikipedia. /Esquilo (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. What about the others? --Andrea (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I added more interwiki links including one to es:Wikipedia:Texto de la Licencia de documentación libre de GNU. What other policies would you like to translate? There might be a reason why they do not have language templates. Otherwise, if you can not add them I or some other administrator will add them for you. --Jarekt (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks a lot. I'll check the others and translate those with template. Any problem I tell you ;) Cheers, --Andrea (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Curious categories for the picture of the day !

Since it's protected, could any admin do something with the cats of File:Mexican curious monkey.jpg ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a spelling error (curios/curious) in the POTD text... AnonMoos (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks both of you, I've done a copyedit and some categorization. --99of9 (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Please also add Category:Smoking animals and Category:Monkeys acting as humans. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Unidentified traintype in Czech republic

I cant find the corresponding 914? type railcar in the czech railcar types. Category:Poběžovice (train station) Is it new? Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Should belong in Category:ČD Class 814. --Foroa (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
you are correct. I was confused with the nummering starting with 914 instead of 814. Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

To be checked... for what?

Almost none of the subcategories of Category:To be checked say what the images in them need to be checked for. Licensing problems? Bad categorization? Picture quality? Description accuracy? Any or all of the above? This should probably be spelled out somewhere so users with the relevant abilities/interests can help with the checking. - dcljr (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If I well recall those are categories added by a bot, so they should be checked for everything, indeed.--- Darwin Ahoy! 12:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Quick look at those categories reveals that they are full of uncategorized images. They do not need to be "checked" they need to be categorized. --Jarekt (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Apartment buildings versus blocks

There is a Category:Apartment buildings by country and a Category:Apartment blocks by country. Is there a noticable difference or could these be fused by moving all these .... blocks categories into ... buildings categories? And what about Category:Housing estates by country? --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that the terms apartment buildings and apartment blocks are similar and agree with you that they can be consolidated into "Category:Apartment buildings". However, an apartment building is not the same as a housing estate. I would say that the latter is a collection of housing units, and so a group of houses (that is, not multistorey apartment buildings) could also be considered a housing estate. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting the costume issue

In 2009, a series of highly contentious deletion requests were created around photos of cosplayers and other people wearing costumes of non-free copyrighted characters. Most of the discussion was centered at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan. In addition to the files mentioned there, we have an extensive hierarchy of costume categories, rooted at Category:Costumes and Category:Masks. At that time, Mike Godwin gave a legal opinion after a request by User:Piotrus:

"I do not see a legal justification for removing the images we are discussing here. It is common for photographers to take pictures of people in costumes of copyrighted and/or trademarked characters. In general, such photographs are understood as lawful.

I believe the deletion of the photographs you were talking about was unnecessary, and that this represents a too-conservative worldview with regard to the applicability of copyright and other intellectual property theory.

Feel free to reproduce this e-mail on-wiki.

--Mike Godwin General Counsel

Wikimedia Foundation"

As a consequence, we retained those files, our policy page Commons:Fan art was modified to state that "pictures of people in costumes of copyrighted and/or trademarked characters, In general, are understood as lawful," and Commons:Image_casebook#Costumes_and_cosplay was modified to read as follows:

"There is not yet consensus around whether photographs of a person wearing a costume are permitted. Some widely-agreed upon points:
  • The photographer has rights to the photograph and must license the photograph under a free license.
  • If the costume is a completely original design (not based on any existing character design), and the designer has released it under a free license, it is permitted. (There isn't a tag for this at the moment.)
  • If the costume is an accurate representation of a character whose design is released under a free license or in the public domain, it is permitted.
  • If the costume is a modified or original representation of a character whose design is released under a free license or in the public domain, and the costume designer has also released their design under a free license, it is permitted.
  • If the costume is purely utilitarian and has no distinct or original graphical features - for example, if it's the kind of clothing that an ordinary person might wear on the street or on the job - then it is permitted under #Clothing above.
  • If the costume is not the central focus of the image but only an incidental feature, or one among many costumes, it is likely to be considered de minimis.
  • If the costume conveys an accurate representation of the original non-free copyrighted character, and is the sole and central focus of the image, it is more likely to be considered a derivative work and so not permitted. A commonly cited example is an accurate Darth Vader costume.

Mike Godwin, legal counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, has taken the following stances with regard to costumes: [copy of statement above]

There is not yet consensus on whether we want our policies to be this permissive."

Although Mike's statement was accepted, it was never fully accepted by all users (including myself) due to its counterintuitive nature. Recently, I asked our community liaison, User:Moonriddengirl, to investigate further and follow up with the Wikimedia Foundation's current legal team, which Mike is no longer a member of. They have asked that Mike's statement, above, be retracted, and issued the following, considerably more nuanced statement of their own. This has been discussed and agreed upon by all three lawyers in residence:

"This is a complex and difficult issue, which in the end comes down to the decision of individual contributors. Although we cannot offer legal advice in particular cases, we can provide these general thoughts. In short, both costumes and masks are copyrightable. Additionally, posting pictures of costumes or masks that are themselves under copyright, or which depict characters that are under copyright could qualify as copyright infringement (subject to a fair use analysis).

The 1991 policy decision on costumes and masks by the Copyright Office appears to still be in effect, and although it is only advisory, it is a good indication of where courts tend to fall on this issue. It says that masks are definitely copyrightable, and that costumes may be copyrightable in certain circumstances (or at least certain features of the costume might be copyrightable), subject to a complicated legal analysis to determine whether the aesthetic aspects of the costume are "separable" from the costume's role as an article of clothing (the utilitarian aspects). Some information on the separability test can be found at [11].

The separability test is an unfortunate example of where American law can get rather confusing, as the outcome may differ from court to court. However, the important thing for us to keep in mind is that if someone obtains a copyright for either the character that is being depicted by the costume, or obtains a copyright for the costume or mask itself, she could send us a DMCA takedown notice for any photograph of a costume or mask depicting that character (as it could be considered a derivative work), and the individual who posted the image could also be liable for copyright infringement. This is similar to the "Mickey Mouse action figure" example at Commons:Licensing#Derivative_works, which demonstrates that reproducing a 3D copyrighted work in 2D (or vice-versa) is not sufficient to escape liability.

The separability test is legally complex, and because it is performed only once a matter goes to court, the outcome is uncertain. The same is also true of the “fair use” defense, which is often regarded as a dangerous and expensive defense to rely on. The safest approach is to assume that if a costume depicts a character that is under copyright, or if the costume itself is produced by a company that is likely to have placed it under copyright, posting photographs of it may result in a DMCA takedown notice, and possible liability to the individual who posted it.

--Wikimedia Foundation legal team"

Based on the cited materials, I believe this is a more accurate characterization of the state of the law regarding photographs of costumes. If we accept this statement, it will lead directly to the deletion of many, but not all, works under Category:Costumes and Category:Masks, and the revision of Commons:Image_casebook#Costumes_and_cosplay and Commons:Fan art.

My own point of view: I largely agree with the statement, with a couple caveats. On the one hand, I believe that there are many images for which it is appropriate to consider separability (for example, any costume consisting entirely of ordinary clothing), and I believe we can do so conservatively to avoid the aforementioned legal risk. On the other hand, I would assert that even home-made costumes and masks of non-copyrighted characters cannot be accepted without a proper free-license release from the creator (that is, the copyrighted creations of a "company" have no special status that the copyrighted creations of individual fans do not, regardless of how likely they are to pursue legal action).

I would like us to reach a clear consensus here about guidelines for evaluating this type of work before proceeding to nominate them for deletion. So my questions for you are: given a photograph of a costume (for example, File:Gen Con Indy 2008 - costumes 118.JPG), what questions should we consider, and how should they weigh in our deletion decisions? Some of the questions I think are relevant are:

  • Is the photograph in the public domain or released by the photographer under a free license?
  • Is the depicted character's design either in the public domain or released by its designer under a free license?
  • Does the costume depict an original character invented by the costume designer?
  • Is the costume's design either in the public domain or released by its designer under a free license?
  • Does the costume contain any elements that are separable from its role as a utilitarian article? Are those elements copyrightable? (in particular, does it consist entirely of ordinary clothing?)

I will do my best to summarize the resulting decisions in the Image casebook. Thanks for your consideration. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Just confirming that the statement above is accurate; it is the response I was given by our attorneys after their investigation, and permission was given to publish it. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Derrick for taking the initiative to tackle this issue, Maggie for investigating and the WMF legal team for their work. It was much needed. --Jean-Fred (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. When I had looked for actual cases, there are many where costumes were considered copyrightable, in cases where people were making actual costumes. But I have never seen a case where a photograph of one was deemed a derivative work. Masks are a tricker case, as they are closer to sculpture, whereas clothes themselves are generally considered utilitarian and not copyrightable. Patterns used on clothes can be copyrighted (this is true outside of costumes as well, on everyday clothing -- the same "separable" test exists on those), but to suggest that photographs are usually derivative works of those patterns seems very, very excessive to me. Similar to the Ets-Hokins decision (where a photograph of a bottle is not to be considered derivative of the label on the bottle, unless the photo is of or mainly of the label itself), I don't see how most photographs should be considered derivative of the costumes, provided they are showing the costumes worn in context and are not primarily aimed at showing the actual artistic expression on the costumes. I think trademark is more often a concern than copyrightability, although yes costumes derived from drawn characters have been given copyright protection (again, generally in cases about people selling unauthorized costumes). I'm sure it's possible for a photograph to be a derivative work (a photo just of a mask, or a closeup of a clothing design, or something) but I think it is relatively rare. I would rather have an actual, example court case about something like that before we start deleting works, and I have never really found one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
To put the above into context, my understanding is that clothes (no matter how aesthetically elaborate) -- if they are being worn by people -- are considered by default to be merely utilitarian and functional under United States copyright law (which is why high-end designer clothes have no copyright protection against low-end imitations). Therefore, a photograph of a Batman outfit actually being worn by a person is NOT necessarily legally comparable to a photograph of a Mickey Mouse action figure (though photograph of the same Batman outfit in its original packaging probably would be). I think the burden is on those who claim non-utilitarian status for some particular outfit as being worn by a person... AnonMoos (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: This is simply untrue. There's a big difference between designer clothing, whose appearance is inseparable from its function as clothing, and a costume which has design elements with no functional purpose. Consider from [12]: "In Animal Fair Inc. v. Amfesco Industries. Inc. [...] the district court upheld copyright in a slipper depicting a bear's foot. While treating the slipper as a useful article, the court concluded the whole shape and design were recognizable as a fanciful artistic rendition of a bear's paw. The Eighth Circuit affirmed without written opinion." That article lists numerous other examples, including masks and children's backpacks, where copyright was upheld in the design. I believe they would also uphold copyright in the distinctive Batman mask, with sculpted non-functional features such as the "ears." The context in which a copyrighted work is reproduced is not relevant unless you're arguing fair use, FOP, or de minimis.
@Clindberg: I don't have any problem with the usual de minimis exception for (say) a group of people at a party/convention wearing costumes. I would argue however that many of our photographs, such as File:Batman cossplay.JPG, are intended specifically to illustrate the actual design of a specific non-free copyrighted character design. This image is being used as the lead image on ca:Batman and fr:Batman, to illustrate Batman, not to illustrate "a guy in a costume at a convention". I think the Ets-Hokins analogy is misleading because I'm not concerned solely with two-dimensional designs printed on the surface of the costume, but with non-functional sculpted three-dimensional features, for which a better analogy is photography of modern sculptures - which are well-established as derivative works. You are correct that as far as I know that there has never been a specific case affirming that a photograph of a costume was a derivative work, but nor am I aware of a case denying this - this is a narrow area with poor coverage in case law, and some speculation is necessary to reach a conservative conclusion for our content reusers. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
First... the Copyright Office treats costumes exactly like regular clothes. There is no difference. If you are going to delete costumes because of separable designs on them then you should be deleting photos of regular clothing with separable designs too. Lot of patterns used on clothing get their copyright registered. I think deleting photographs of costumes the incorrect decision in most cases however. I have not found any court case of such a photograph being considered a derivative work, none. In fact, the court cases seem to explicitly state otherwise. It is not a de minimis argument; Ets-Hokins basically indicates the photograph cannot be a derivative work of the designs, because the clothing is the "underlying work" in question, not the separable design on them. Just like a label on a bottle -- no de minimis arguments are required for those; they cannot be the "underlying work" of a photograph of the bottle as a whole, unless the photograph is entirely or mainly of the label itself. To me, this is basically the same -- if it is a photograph mainly of a mask itself, then that could be an issue, if there is a close-up photograph of the clothing someone is wearing (i.e. the separable expression itself is the main focus of the photograph), then that could be a problem too. Otherwise however, it would seem the photograph is quite simply not a derivative work, because the separable design does not qualify as the "underlying work" necessary to have a "derivative work" in the first place. Please find a court case which at least indicates such a photograph would be considered a derivative work before making any guidelines along those lines, in my opinion -- I'm not sure you are going to find one, because all the ones I know of indicate something else (i.e. what I'm saying above). Making a costume which is a derivative work is easy, but a photograph is an entirely different situation. People (say Corbis) have been selling photographs containing costumes forever, and you'd think there would be some court case somewhere if there actually was a legitimate issue to worry about. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Dcoetzee -- Your distinction between haute couture and costumes seems to be a little simplistic. If you think that designer outfits don't contain highly-decorative details which do little or nothing to conceal the body or protect it from cold etc., then you obviously haven't seen some of the flamboyant monstrosities which have been strutted down Paris runways! Nevertheless, though some of the details are inessential and purely decorative, such clothing as a whole is considered to be overall "utilitarian" for the purposes of United States copyright law, and is not ordinarily entitled to any of the legal protections which would prevent low-end imitation knock-offs from being made and sold... AnonMoos (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Seems like the law in Australia is just as confusing as the US. Clothing is protected by the Designs Act 2003 but its not clear in both Designs Act and Copyright Act 1968 (including Copyright Amendment Act 2006) if costumes are protected if photographed in a public place. Bidgee (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: I agree that by the separability standard described above some features of fashion would seem to also be protected by copyright. I'm not aware of any case law outside the area of costumes however. You can't deny that in the cases described by [13] that a number of costume features were held to be copyrightable. They tried to argue that they were utilitarian and this failed due to separability. You seem to be pushing for a policy that denies that such a thing is possible, which it's obviously not. All I want to see is a consistent policy on this matter that makes sense. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Dcoetzee -- I'm sure that you're earnestly trying to do the right thing, but your legal precedents seem to refer to people who want to make and sell Batman costumes which compete with the official licensed Batman product (which is something quite different from publishing a photograph of somebody wearing a Batman costume). And in the United States (don't know about other countries), the general state of the laws governing photographs of clothing as being worn by people is such as to make the attempted analogy with a photograph of a Mickey Mouse action figure somewhat misleading and not very useful. AnonMoos (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
@Dcoetzee -- there are cases where clothing (or other) patterns were deemed derivative of others, I'm pretty sure -- case law is not limited to costumes at all. Costumes are identical to clothing, copyright-wise, per the link you gave (the Copyright Office decision). Masks, not costumes as a whole, are the only real issue. There is even a case where someone registered a costume as "soft sculpture" to get around the restrictions, and a judge deemed them guilty of fraud for that description. And there is no case law I'm aware of which would indicate that a photograph of a person wearing a costume (or mask even) in public would be deemed a derivative work -- in fact, as I've said, the case law on photographs strongly indicates otherwise. The only examples you give are about makers of actual costumes, not the same thing at all as a photograph. The photo would have to be primarily of the mask or other separable element of the costume, e.g. focusing on the the expression inherent in the mask distinct from that of the general character. Believing that a photograph of a costume is a derivative work of the comic book artist is even a further stretch, in my opinion. Infringing photos would be relatively rare I would think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

July 14

How to I find my contributions that were reposted by other users?

Hi commons,

I joined the English wiki like 10 years ago when it was just started. I have not joined the Wikimedia Commons until just recently (Feb 2011). I noticed that a number of photos I posted to the English Wikipedia over the years have been moved to Wikimedia Commons by some other users. I've tried to locate these photos, but the "My contributions" page seems to only show my direct posts to Commons, but not my photos moved by other users. Is there a way to search Commons for photos that have my account as the "Author" instead as the "Poster"?

It seems inappropriate to credit photos to the people who moved other's work instead of to the original author.

Thanks in advance.

Kowloonese (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest just searching commons for your username, and restricting it to filespace. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


In the early years of Wikimedia Commons, the paperwork requirements for transferred files were often sloppy, and sometimes the identity of the original uploader to Wikipedia was completely omitted. More recently there have been automated scripting tools which plug the relevant information in... For finding images credited to you but not uploaded by you, the quickest is just to search for your username ("Kowloonese") using the general search function. AnonMoos (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
@AnonMoos I think the problem is not in the paperwork of the transfer. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NYSESecurity.JPG for example. My login is credited as the author. However, the "My contributions" link will not be able to find it. Thank for the suggestion on using the "general search function", through that I am able to find some of my pictures. I am lucky that my login name is kinda unique or else I will have to wade through may false positive matches. Thanks for the quick solution.
Kowloonese (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
There's really no presumption on Wikimedia Commons that the image uploader is the same as the image author. Except in the case of self-made images, image uploaders get legitimate "credit" only for being uploaders, not for being authors... AnonMoos (talk)
@Kowloonese: I think you have misunderstood the semantics of "My contributions". "My contributions" show all images you have uploaded to Commons, not all images you are the author of. If someone else have uploaded your photos, these photos will show up in their "My contributions". I suggest the same thing as mattbuck; Search the filespace for your username "Kowloonese". If you want to kep track of them in the future i suggest you create the user-category Category:Photos by Kowloonese and put those files there. /Esquilo (talk) 05:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
My contributions show all contributions, not just uploads. Kowloonese, here's the link where you can see all images linked to your user name. mickit 06:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
And here's the same thing without encrypction. - dcljr (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Seal of Alabama (1868–1939).svg

Can an admin please do something about the server problem with this file's rendering? It's supposed to show the 3rd version, with the red ribbon, but every time I upload or revert, the servers go all the way back to the very first version. Deleting the last two reversions might help, I've seen it done before, or maybe there's another trick an admin might have up their sleaves. Any help is greatly appreciated. Fry1989 (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

For me, at least, the third revision shows for the file itself, but the first revision in the thumbnails. I'm guessing it's just a thumbnail problem: the one the site notice referred to? —innotata 21:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the server problem is with the thumbnails in the "file history". Unfortunately, the version that the thumbnail shows, is the version that appears where-ever the file is used, as you can see when you click on the file usage on different wikipedias. Sometimes the servers accept and render new versions and uploads easily, other days they mess up like this. Fry1989 (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Still waiting for assistance. Fry1989 (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a technical problem with the servers, and there's not much an admin can do. (Moving the file to a new title can help, but this should not be an encouraged action, imo.) Just make sure the correct version is the last thing uploaded, and it should self-correct in a while. Huntster (t @ c) 08:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, moving the file to a new file name is the only way I know to fix it while the bug persists, but it should be done only in urgent situations (such as the case of Sudan or to conceal a copyvio). In this case I believe it is better to have patience and wait (though that wait may last for weeks).--- Darwin Ahoy! 09:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Tweaked the image size from 120px to 125px in the Seal of Alabama article to get a new thumbnail generated. – Adrignola talk 19:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A ticket was submitted to initiate some diagnostics for getting to the bottom of the issue according to a comment in bug 28613. – Adrignola talk 22:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

A problem for correct categorization.

Hi to all: have a problem for a correct and better categorization of this type of image, see File:Botte Bresparola (Bresparola, Bosaro).jpg please, an particulary hydraulic opera referred in fr.wiki as fr:Pont-siphon and in it.wiki as it:Botte sifone. Unfortunately en.wiki lacking in this article and I don't know which can be the better category. For thise reason a lot of images from France are orphan (in Hydraulic sense). Can you help me?--Threecharlie (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Closest explanatory phrase I can find is "inverted siphon bridge", but it doesn't seem to be a standard term... AnonMoos (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
In lay terms, it would probably be an underpass, which is a sub-type of tunnel - both have categories. "inverted siphon or a siphon underpass" is used in http://www.m8completion.com/m8/files/TSCD_1305f.pdf. Finavon (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Annoying feature of image thumbnailing versions problem

Sometimes uploading a new image version will not just fail to update the thumbnail, but will resurrect an old thumbnail from two or three versions ago, so that while you're trying to improve things, you actually end up worsening them (temporarily). In my browser, the display of 120px-wide thumbnails on images File:Ile de France.svg and File:Bandera de Linares (Chile).svg shows this (and I've seen other cases which I didn't bookmark). AnonMoos (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please post examples to bug 28613. – Adrignola talk 21:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

July 17

I have a photo and am not sure if it can be used

Hello, So i have found a photo of Nayer for her wikipedia page, but it is from this website http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/i0Vjfl-o5FJ/2011+Billboard+Music+Awards+Arrivals/ueuXEZkVJw4/Nayer i am also not sure how to upload photos, so if this photo is allowed to be used can someone please upload it for me :) thanks

Special:UploadWizard walks you through the steps to upload files. This files appears to be copyright and not acceptable on Commons. Finavon (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Uploading cropped photos

I tried to upload a cropped version of File:Angulus tenuis.jpg over the original version. I can see the cropped version when I look at the file but when I use it in my Wikipedia article it seems still to be the original version. Have I done something wrong? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you are just seeing bug 28613 in action. Try changing the thumbnail size in the article by 1 pixel to force the generation of a new thumbnail. For what it's worth, I do see the image in the article without the portion you cropped out. So maybe we are being served by different cache servers. – Adrignola talk 13:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted the image to the original as the image resolution was considerably reduced, which I doubt was the intention. I have uploaded a losslessly cropped version at File:Angulus tenuis cropped.jpg. -84user (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. The result is much better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright of signature

I've just uploaded File:Frank O. Salisbury - signature.png. Can someone kindly confirm my belief that such things cannot be copyrighted; or otherwise suggest how it should be tagged? Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

See Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag#UK. LX (talk, contribs) 14:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Problem uploading images for use in Wikipedia

I have twice used the new upload tool to create images in Wikimedia commons for use in Wikipedia

In the first case (image of a building) I was unable to get it to display properly on the relevant Wikipedia page. I tried to re-do the upload, but, of course, was told that the image already existed.

I have now tried to upload another image (of a grave) for a Wikipedia page. It has uploaded successfully, but because I was unhappy with its positioning on the Wikipedia page, I moved back a page and in the process lost the file id from Wikimedia. I tried to retrieve the image through the Wikimedia search, but no go. What am I doing wrong, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin york (talk • contribs) 02:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Martin. As regards the first case, it is hard to tell what you were doing wrong unless you let us know what was the Wikipedia article you were trying to insert the image into, and the image filename. However, it sounds like you uploaded the file successfully since you were unable to upload it again under the same name. (Was it "File:P1070239.JPG"? In future, please give your files descriptive names, and categorize them. To have a file renamed, tag it with {{rename}} – click on the link for instructions.) As for your second problem, you can either (1) check the history of the Wikipedia article, as that will reveal what changes you made to it; or (2) click on the "My contributions" link in the Wikimedia Commons to see what you have done here. I had a look at your contributions, and believe the file you are looking for is "File:Grave of Charles Darwin.jpg". I suspect your search didn't throw up the file because it takes a while for the server to index new files. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Template to tag map errors?

I was looking to a template to tag map errors, after I noticed these two. Is there such a thing? What to do in these cases? --Tuvalkin (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Inaccurate-map-disputed -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

July 18

Desperately seeking for Jim Henderson (jeh)

Hi, I'm sorry, if this is not the right place to do this, but it's the only one I found... I'd like to get in touch with photographer Jim Henderson from NY. Pls contact me: http://www.mun-new-york.info/postiasaitilta

best wishes from Finland Sari Köykkä — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.13.149 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If you mean User:Jim.henderson, leave him a message at User talk:Jim.henderson. Lupo 13:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Wow; am I beloved, or is it more like "Wanted, dead or alive?" Anyway the link requires answering a questionnaire, so I'll wait for the contact on my personal talk page. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

July 19

Category:Men by given name

It seems that some people haven't quite understood this cat. See Category:Women by given name where it's clearer. Could any bot resolve the problem ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

note that those women categories have been nominated for discussion. There is nothing educational in grouping people together just because they have the same name. --Martin H. (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
1) where is it nominated for discussion ?
2) not educational, I agree, but Commons is not ONLY educational. Having categories by year of birth is not very educational either. And it may be interesting for people named X who would want to know which famous people share the same name with them. Anyway, there's not any big problem with those cats, they're neutral and they don't bother anyone (including people who don't see the use of them). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

July 16

Village Pump / Proposals

user:Docu just attempted to effectively delete Commons:Village pump/Proposals by merging it here [14]. I reject this attempt to unilaterally get rid of something that has hardly had a chance to succeed or fail, but to my mind has already proved useful and certainly had enough community engagement that it is absurd to rely on old discussion as "consensus" to get rid of it. If there is a community agreement to close it now, fine, I'll accept that. But it should be a new proposal/thread/discussion (here, I suppose, would be logical). Rd232 (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal was discussed here and didn't gain sufficient support. While I understand that you are interested in porting ideas from English Wikipedia to Commons, you need to accept that not all gain the necessary support.
The text discussion wasn't effectively deleted, but still remains available here. --  Docu  at 21:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
"didn't gain sufficient support" - you opposed it, so you're not the best judge. And this is hardly consensus against. It's often easier to judge an idea when you've got a concrete draft of it, and there wasn't at the time. So, by all means, revisit it, but don't cite that discussion as proof it should be killed now. Rd232 (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

* Close Commons:Village pump/Proposals. Why? Ask Docu. Why not? Because having a place for discussions and ideas that need a bit longer to gestate is helpful - better than this Village Pump where they disappear up the page quite easily. And having them on a separate page allows separate watchlisting by people who might not be interested in the everyday discussions here, but would keep an eye on bigger ideas. Rd232 (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC) struck, since apparently it is impermissible to discuss the merits of having a proposal subpage. Rd232 (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Summary of discussion of proposal about "Village_Pump/Proposals"

Rd232, would you provide us your summary of the discussion of your proposal at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/06#Village_Pump_.2F_Proposals. Try to spare us your incivilities and just state the support and opposition your proposal gained. --  Docu  at 21:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I see. Your opposition to this concept is so deeply visceral that no new discussion of the proposal on the merits is permitted? Besides which, two can play that game. What arguments against the concept were offered in that discussion? Rd232 (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Docu's moving this section down again, after I tidied it up to above the Proposal with an explicit assumption of good faith seems almost like a declaration of bad faith; a public declaration of an intention to disrupt. Rd232 (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid editing other users' signed comments. As apparently we have different notion of "tiding", please refrain my comments at all times. --  Docu  at 22:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Apparently we have a different notion of "editing" too. Rd232 (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The page has already been created, so oh well. Participants have already become involved with that page, and therefore reverting the proposal by merging the page back to this one is not a good idea. If Docu really wants better consensus, we can all re-discuss the issue so that we can achieve consensus that will satisfy Docu and others who didn't think the previous discussion was enough. That being said, let's just share opinions/votes on whether the page should be kept or not. I hope not to see another argument about how the previous discussion was insufficient or how this section should be formatted. --ZooFari 22:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. If there had been some real arguments against in that discussion, or dangers or potential harm I could see, I wouldn't have gone ahead and created the page. As it is, I think it should just be given a chance (maybe 3 months) and then see if it's still in use, or has died, or should be given up on for some other reason. (Unless someone comes up with some real demerits now.) Rd232 (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
"If there had been some real arguments against in that discussion, [..] I wouldn't have gone ahead and created the page.". That is really funny. It gives the impression you had actually been interested in other people's opinions. --  Docu  at 22:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Accusation of bad faith noted, and rejected. Would you care to discuss the page on its merits? Rd232 (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Your summary in the quoted sentenced is factually wrong. --  Docu  at 22:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I've just revisited the archived discussion, and I don't think so. If you want to argue it (really, is it worth it?) provide quotes. Rd232 (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward

The discussion is in regards to Commons:Village pump/Proposals. Should it be kept?

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as user who wants this to move forward. The page will just need some time for it to evolve. --ZooFari 22:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
We are still trying to evaluate what conclusion to draw from the previous discussion. The page was created when the proposal was initially made. --  Docu  at 22:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
That it was closed prematurely? I'm fine with admitting that. Whether we all agree on this or not, it's not going be much help since the page already exists and is linked from several different templates, and users are already participating. That's what my comment above was about. If this is an issue about Rd232 not knowing when to close things, or if you presume the user lacks knowledge about anything regarding proposals, then that can be discussed somewhere else without interfering the process already in process. It isn't easy telling whether you support that page or not, because more of the energy is going towards Rd232's actions (and/or conclusions of the previous discussion I suppose) and very little towards the idea of the page itself. --ZooFari 22:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't really closed. It drifted off without any substantial arguments against, and with a test case, very suitably, being the discussion of another VP subpage (Copyright). Rd232 (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Rd232 created it and added some topic, before it was proposed here.
It's only in his mind that the following happened: "If there had been some real arguments against in that discussion, [..] I wouldn't have gone ahead and created the page."
Funny actually. Curious what he will make up next. --  Docu  at 22:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, by "created" I didn't mean putting together a draft of the subpage (technically creation, which I did to assist the discussion, since it's much easier when you can see what it might look like) but putting it live, by moving the Copyright discussion there and linking it from {{Discussion menu}}. Your AGF valve may be malfunctioning. Please consider servicing it. Rd232 (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
".. and linking it from {{Discussion menu}}": You are quick in making more things up. Consider adding diffs when you try to relate your own actions.
At least you concede that you deliberately ignored the discussion ("by moving the Copyright discussion there"). --  Docu  at 11:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC) (edited)
My bad, I've just checked the history and I did add the new page to {{Discussion menu}} shortly after creating the draft, which was obviously premature. However moving the Copyright discussion there wasn't ignoring anything, it made sense at the time as the thread was going off topic, and it worked out just fine. Rd232 (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
It may be "anything" to you, but it was the community feedback for your proposal. --  Docu  at 11:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
By "anything" I mean a substantive argument against the concept. There weren't any then, and there haven't been here (yet). Even now you decline to provide any. Rd232 (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per ZooFari, my arguments above, and in the original discussion (in which no serious arguments against the concept were advanced). Rd232 (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I remain uncertain as to how useful the page will be, in light of the lower number of users here, but it may be. It can be re-merged down the line if it becomes too quiet. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
    • The lower number of users (and lower frequency of logging in, at least from the average user) is one of the arguments for a separate page, so that proposals that aren't time-dependent aren't mixed up with the general discussion and problem-solving of VP, and can be watchlisted separately. Rd232 (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • show me the money. Think of the whole package. There's VP/Proposals, and there's VP/Copyrights (itself conceived inside VP/Proposals). Anything else? What the complete structure will look like? NVO (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
    • That's it. Also /Copyright isn't dependent on /Proposals, it's simply a centralisation of copyright/licensing discussion in a much better place than Commons talk:Licensing, which should be reserved for discussing the policy. Rd232 (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Given that I hadn't noticed the existance of such a page, and probably still wouldn't be aware of it except for coming across this discussion, I expect the main effect of seperating discussions that effect the wider community, onto a seperate page, will be to limit the number of people who participate to a small number. Most users who checkout this page are unlikely to re-read the info boxes at the top and notice new links to new discussion pages, let alone recognise that significant discussions may occur there. If you want wide community concensus discuss things in the widest possible forum (eg VP), if you want to discuss things amongst yourselves, by all means hide the discussions, but don't assume any decisions made are widely supported (or even known about). Perhaps a solution that would satisfy more people would be transclude that sub-page into the main page, or only discuss insignificant issues there. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I had some time ago requested a Sitenotice of the new pages (MediaWiki_talk:Sitenotice#Notice_request), and that ought to take care of awareness. Even without that, if awareness of it develops more by osmosis, I think you're entirely wrong in your expectation that having proposals on a separate page should have less input. In the interim, some proposals from VPR have been advertised here - and if there is any pattern in terms of participation for threads which have and have not been advertised in that way, I don't see it. The bottom line is that there will be transitional issues as people become aware of the page and get used to the idea - but once they do, you should get more proposals and more discussion of proposals, since proposals won't be buried on a page amidst a bunch of other stuff. Rd232 (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is an awesome forum and splitting discussion will hurt. I can buy moving some of the repetitive "is this a free image" stuff to a sub-page. But meta-topics like proposals belong here. The amount of discussion is not so large that splitting is needed. So better to keep things together and have community critical mass.TCO (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
    • As per my comment above, splitting proposals off should produce more proposals (because it makes it completely clear that there is a place for ideas to be discussed) and more discussion of proposals (because discussions will be more prominent within the page and not buried amongst other stuff, and not archived so quickly; and a separate page to watchlist helps prominence of those discussions). And it's less a question of volume of text, than the fact that proposal discussions have an entirely different timescale than most VP discussions; they can productively take place over weeks or even months. That doesn't really work at VP, where threads can easily age rapidly up the page with minimal input, and there's necessarily less of an atmosphere of being receptive to ideas, than in a specialised subpage. Bottom line: what's the harm in trying? If the concern is that discussions are not prominent enough there, it can easily be agreed to advertise every discussion here, at least for the time being (until it's agreed that the page's existence is well established). If that's done, then what's the harm in trying? Rd232 (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I've trolled the Internetz for years. Commons VP doesn't have such huge traffic. You split this thing, you'll get less participation AND have a less dynamic VP. If something is getting comments much at all, it will stay here. Plus, if really wanted, someone can postdate it to elude the archiver. But not needed. If it's been a few days without discussion, so be it.TCO (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
        • So, basically, your answer to my arguments is to restate your view as if I hadn't responded to it. Charming. Concrete question: how does your approach offer the advantages of being able to separately watchlist a page? That clearly brings more attention to the relevant threads even when people are watchlisting both and paying attention to both pages; but there are surely some editors who would watchlist VPR (in case something interesting comes up) whilst not bothering to pay much attention to, or even to watchlist, VP. Subpaging, done right, gives proposals greater prominence. If we agree to advertise every VPR thread at VP, it's very hard to see a concrete downside of the subpage approach. Rd232 (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
          • It's a trade-off, one for the other. You have to pick your poison. I would ask you why you think a topic that has had no replies in 7 days should be kept around, why it is really actively still being considered. Would also point you to, for example long-running discussions on en-main page-talk or even en-ANI, en-MOS talk, which are higher traffic forums than this one. An ideal solution would be to just have normal forums that display thread topics and then just have the threads. People will decide what to go to. Sections are a pain in the butt. Also, the damned colons, tildas, having people edit into your posts, and not having an avatar or autosig.TCO (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
              • i) "It's a trade-off, one for the other." - what's being traded off? Please answer my question above re "what is the downside". ii) "I would ask you why you think a topic that has had no replies in 7 days should be kept around..." - because Commons has lower traffic, and contributors who log in less frequently than the average Wikipedia contributor, and because proposals generally have no time critical element (good ideas often take years to happen from when the idea is first brought up), and because proposals often involve a technical element which further cuts down the number of editors-passing-by who are going to comment - so more time is needed to allow people to come along. iii) "...which are higher traffic forums than this one" - I already said above that traffic on COM:VP isn't the issue. Kind of odd that you mention en.wp though - it has not one but two Proposals parts of the Village Pump (after I created Idea Lab to help ideas become proper proposals). Yet somehow having one here is controversial, even though people struggle to come up with reasons why it's bad (the only halfway convincing one is fixable in the way I already suggested - by mandating VPR threads be advertised at VP). iv) I don't see the relevance of that to this issue. Right now, a separate page for developing and discussing proposals enables separate watchlisting. Rd232 (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
                    • The downside is you lose critical mass and activity. Not everyone wants to click on a lot of different ages and having a discussion group a certain size is more fun than all fragmented. this is something I've seen at forums lots of times. Subforums will kill a forum unless it's just vastly too big to keep up with.TCO (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
                      • "The downside is you lose critical mass and activity." - an assertion you give no support for. It's not like the proposals are so frequent that you're losing lots of threads from VP (and if you have advertising of VPR threads, you don't have any fewer anyway). And the loss of proposals posts from VP to VPR is even less of an issue; VP will get pinged daily multiple times whatever happens, and it doesn't make much odds to most users how often it gets pinged, since they don't check into VP obsessively. Meanwhile, if they watchlist VPR in addition to VP, they're more likely to catch those developments on their watchlist. Rd232 (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I voted against it based on my deep experience with forums. It's relevant and I stated the basis. now get off my back.TCO (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

So basically you're saying you just don't like it? Because you've given no indication as to how your "deep experience" with "forums" (Commons is a MediaWiki wiki, not a forum) translates into concrete reasons to oppose. Every attempt to do so I've knocked back; so either change your mind (it is allowed!) or continue discussion (en:Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion). Rd232 (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I said it was based on deep personal experience from discussion forums. Take that for whatever it's worth. And get off my jockstrap. you're not contributing anything. You've already said you think my point unsupported (I disagree). So, we're not getting anywhere. Now just stop trying to have the last word.TCO (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not "trying to have the last word"; I thought we were having a reasoned discussion on the basis that one of us might persuade the other by the strength of argument, or else agree to disagree through different opinions on the strength of different arguments. "I don't like it and I'm not telling you why" doesn't really fall within that. Rd232 (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
You are trying to have the last word and you are annoying as all get out. At this point, you;'re just repeating that I'm repeating myself. Part of a discussion is a set of different views. You have had plenty of pro views. I have stated the con view based on less people "critical mass". The ratianale was not a specific example, but a set of experiences over the years. For that matter, if you just think conceptually of both sides of the equation, surely there will be SOME POINT when splitting a talk forum will lead to lack of critical mass (what if we split it into 50 instead of 5?) Perhaps it will do fine this way, perhaps it will lose something, but if you don't even GROK the concept(!) you are not thoughtful. Who knows, maybe noone cares about the concept or the personal assertion, but you just repeating yourself that you disagree is not adding anything.TCO (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Just recently I pointed out this problem to someone who suggested making a page (VPR?) have every thread a separate subpage. Multiplying pages can be a problem, yes. The issue is whether adding one page is a problem, and if so, whether the costs are worth the benefits. If you'd deign to engage with my suggestion to advertise VPR threads at VP, I might go add that to VPR as advice. As it is, between you and Docu opposing VPR I'm trying not to think about how much I could have achieved if the time spent arguing with you two had been spent actually doing proposal drafting/implementing. All you two needed to do was shrug and say "meh, probl'y won't work but no-one's gonna die. When you end up talking to yourself at VPR, don't come running to me". Honestly, this whole thing has been really demotivating. I saw lots of potential for improvement, no proper venue for discussing it seriously, and ended up spending this much time just talking about that. Wish I'd never bothered, frankly. Rd232 (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Dcoetzee. I hope it works (but still remain skeptical). In any case, it can be remerged and marked historical if it doesn't work. Killiondude (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - My experience with VP actually goes in the exact opposite direction of what TCO says. I specifically recall one recent controversial proposal to use Commons as an universal repository for templates, which attracted hordes of users from wiki-en and for weeks dispersed attention from the regular issues of VP. I really would like that such proposals would be moved to a specific place rather than being mixed up with general discussions. An improvement to the current VP-Proposals would be to create each proposal in its specific subpage, so that one only has to follow those proposals one is interested in, rather than having everything showing up in the watch list everytime someone comments in one of the proposals.--- Darwin Ahoy! 13:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Shade.png Good point. Personal experience rocks! (I mean it.)TCO (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Darwinius provided specific reasoning that can be engaged with, drawn from personal experience. Perhaps you could take that as a model. Rd232 (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Mega-discussions like that should normally be moved to a sub-page when they reach a certain size. One extra page to watchlist (VPR) is a couple of clicks, but subpaging every proposal would make it easier for people to follow just that discussion, but make it harder for people who are generally interested in following discussions on that page. There's a balance there, and in my experience, sub-paging discussions on an ad-hoc basis when they reach a certain size works pretty well. (And the flexibility to do that is one of the advantage of a wiki.) Rd232 (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, subpaging only at a certain size would probably be the best solution, indeed. We subpage every proposal at the wiki-pt Village Pump, and it suffers from the problems you point above (to the point that some proposals are even completely missed and not commented upon, due to people failing to notice the subpage being added to the VP).--- Darwin Ahoy! 08:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support keeping it for at least a few months. It seems useful to separate out VPR discussions, given the volume of chatter at VP. It's too early to see how well it's working, and I don't see it as an immediate threat to the health of VP. --Avenue (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment building a subpage as proposed in an interesting idea as a way to expand, with experiences like Darwin's its understandable and apparently necessary. There is also the isse of fragmentaion of discussions maybe theres another way to work this that is to create subpage discussion for into VP like FPC pages. Archiving would then be possible by tagging so that the discussion gets linked into the VP archives in situ woth what was happening at the time. The creation of a subpage would is fairly simple process and something that can be done by anyone as a discussion grows, that means no additional boards to watch only additional discussion when the editor choses. Gnangarra 04:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I easily lose track of what discussions are important when they get pushed up this page. The date headings are really troublesome, making old threads appear "stale" and uninviting for further participation. There's too much traffic on this page for me to watchlist it and too many threads that I don't find relevant to me, while proposals deserve my attention. A separate page is more convenient. Frankly the general village pump would be a good place to implement LiquidThreads. – Adrignola talk 13:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

July 4

Euro coins

There are many Euro coins depicted with their copyrighted national side uploaded in 2009 under {{Money-EU}} (see for example Euro - already partially mutilated - and Category:Euro coins), which is (from Jan 2011) only for banknotes. Should they be speedy deleted as blatant copyvio and as per COM:CUR#Euro? Thanks--Trixt (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually we're also deleting ones with common side up. See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face 2. (Updated COM:CUR#Euro correspondingly). However, copyright status of the national side may vary from nation to nation - I think it may be PD in some nations but haven't checked. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Actually no one european country listed in COM:CUR has a law that allows uploading of its national side.--Trixt (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Paco_Peña_y_Sabicas.JPG

An administrator request a deletion and the file is deleted by himself three minute later?? [15] MachoCarioca (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The DR was not needed, all the other files uploaded by this user were copyvios, there is not any reason to believe this upload is legitimate. Low res, no exif, typical copyvio. Anyway, if you disagree, the proper place to request undeletion is the Undeletion requests, not the Village Pump.‎ --- Darwin Ahoy! 03:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This is your argument. Actually, you were the adm that requested deletion and deleted it yourself. I want another adms views, if an adm can request a deletion and delet himself because he thinks this or that...... MachoCarioca (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to do it at the undeletion requests, here is not the proper place to ask for such things, as you have already been told.--- Darwin Ahoy! 05:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the question here insn't if the file should be deleted or not. The question here is your act. I'm not requestioning 'undelection' of any file, I didn't uploaded this file. I wanna read other opinions about your act 'per si'. Sds 05:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Then go ask it at COM:AN. The Village Pump is not for those kind of requests.--- Darwin Ahoy! 05:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Admins are permitted to delete any file that is a blatant copyright violation regardless of whether they or anyone has nominated it for deletion recently. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I've done this when goin thru a number of CVs, where you run up against an image that needs more attention to confirm the cv, you tag it then come back to it after dealing the others. Its just plain common sense and being cautious, this shows that Darwin was doing whats expected of all admins in being thorough. Gnangarra 04:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Captain Burroughs' Flag

There is a hidden something in the top left corner of File:Captain Burroughs' Flag From Ohio.svg which appears as a black box on the Wiki image. I think it might be a text box, but when I look at the original, I can't find anything. I think that's also what keeps the flag from fitting squarely into the frame when I go into document properties and try to resize the page to content. How can I correct this?--Glasshouse (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Mysterious black rectangles in SVG files are generally due to the non-standard Inkscape "flowtext" nonsense; will take a look at it... AnonMoos (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!--Glasshouse (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Can diagnose some problems at Commons:SVG Check... AnonMoos (talk) 06:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Template MH France

Who can make the right templates for Monument Historique at Category:Citadelle du Quesnoy and its files ? The reference to base Mérimée is on the category page, has got lost. --Havang(nl) (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done (category only, not necessary for the files). Croquant (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

July 21

Widespread deletion of old images clearly out of copyright

I understand the logic for deleting images that don't have information about the author etc, and I know the 7-day rule. However, currently dozens of images of old locomotives from the 1800s are being put up for 7-day deletion because certain details are missing. These images are clearly out of copyright, but in many cases they cannot be easily replaced because of their historic nature. You can't just nip out and take your own photograph of them because you're about 100 years too late! So for both reasons, it seems over-zealous to be putting them up for short-notice deletion. Can we not have an alternative process for such cases e.g. a notice to the uploader and on the page itself that the information is missing and the image may be deleted in due course if it can't be supplied?

As an example, a lot of these files up for deletion have been added by Blieb. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This is quite sad, indeed. According to this blog, this is a 1865 photo, I expect most of those pictures would be likwise PD-old. The source possibly is not hard to find, if there are people interested in saving those photos the ones that were already deleted should be restored to allow the research.--- Darwin Ahoy! 06:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
This is insane. These images were uploaded in 2006. Someone please rollback these edits and beat some sense in the nominator. He can open a regular deletion request if he doesn't agree. Multichill (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Blieb fell free to add your thoughts. -- RE rillke questions? 17:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Deepika Padukone at an event.jpg

I would appreciate it if someone would take the trouble to remove the watermark from this image. Thanks. Joyson Noel Holla at me 07:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You can tag the image with {{watermark}}. — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

small bug: reverting images

I noticed a small but while reverting an image to an older version: [16] The history says: uploaded a new version of File:Wiki thesealights.jpg: Reverted to version as of 20:25, 3 August 2006 That is wrong because I haven't uploaded a new version. Later I got an automated messages that says I'm the uploader and the image lacks permission: [17]. --Avron (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That's the way MediaWiki is working/ dealing with reverts. But it should be possible to change AjaxQuickDelete to prevent notifications of users who only reverted. By the way does anybody know when API: "leaction=upload/revert" happens? I tried to query but the server had problems to show me lelimit=5 examples. So I assume there is something wrong, devs? (query with no response) -- RE rillke questions? 08:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The biggest problem is that the one who reverted is afterwards listed as uploader of the file, which is definetly not correct! a×pdeHello! 08:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

HELP!!

Hello, if you look at the file history, some guy named J intela decided to replace Betoseha's image at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:East_Asian_Cultural_Sphere.png - how can I revert this change or replace it with the original image? I believe his upload affects wikipedia pages because it was done without concensus. Please help out! I want to get Betoseha's original image back, but this J Intela dude put a new image up with Japan in light blue, whereas the original image had Japan in dark blue. He also incorrectly added Mongolia as well. Phead128 (talk) 06:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

this link could help you. -Mys 721tx (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done I reverted the change --Jarekt (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you guys!!!!!!!!

Replacing existing MediaWiki:Gadget-UserMessages.js ?

A few moths ago I started to write a replacement for this outdated script.

The result can be found here. (documentation)

Are there any concerns replacing the script? Then, please tell them here.

Sincerely -- RE rillke questions? 14:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a summary about the changes? --Leyo 14:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Documentation -- RE rillke questions? 14:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Very nice. If bug free I support updating as soon as possible. I've long thought the sidebar links for user notices were old-fashioned compared to the interface Wikipedia has long had in the form of Twinkle. – Adrignola talk 16:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Did not test it yet but it looks much better than current version. --Jarekt (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I've been test driving the replacement for the past month and a half or so. In my experience, it works well and constitutes a significant improvement. LX (talk, contribs) 21:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

July 22

Uploading without JavaScript

Uploading images without JavaScript is a real hassle. First you need to open the upload page. Then you need to open a second page which contains the information template and then copy/paste it to the 1st page.

It would be so much easier if there was a special form for those of us who can't or wish not to use JavaScript. It could have different slots for description, source, date, license and so on. Please consider this. Palosirkka (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps, but you might use en:Firefox with the en:NoScript extension. Then you can have JavaScript blocked by default, and only enable it when and where you want. Rd232 (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I hate to say it but I think the number of people without Javascript is so tiny that there are a lot of higher-priority things to fix. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion but I'm already using both. Thanks for both replies. I guess it is something I can live with. Palosirkka (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Categories

Proposal at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Split_Commons:Categories to split Commons:Categories into two pages (creating Commons:Category structure). Please comment there. Rd232 (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that section is just a repeat of the same topic a month earlier. Further comments and links to the discussion when this previously brought up Commons_talk:Categories#Commons:Category_structure. --  Docu  at 06:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
It is a repeat of the same proposal from a month ago, when the only person commenting was Docu. Rd232 (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess it's some sort of honor, if you choose to ignore everybody but me. Still, makes me wonder if you are interesting in achieving anything and reminds me of your attitude towards feedback noted earlier in Commons:Village_pump#Village_Pump_.2F_Proposals. --  Docu  at 09:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
How bizarre that you would say this after I noted at Commons talk:Categories Oh, you meant your enormously helpful contributions at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/06#Commons:Category_structure_amendment? I rebooted it at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/06#Commons:Category_structure_creation. Neither thread got any substantive input on the proposal. Yes, I did try and forget that, and frankly, it's bizarre you want to bring to attention to your behaviour in that episode. Again and again, your interest in constructively discussing the substance of proposals seems highly limited. And you have the ineffable cheek to "wonder if you are interesting in achieving anything"! Rd232 (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Since we're talking about categorization, I thought I'd point out Bugzilla29928 - a replacement for the WONTFIXed Bugzilla5638. Commons really needs the ability to multilingualize page titles. Feel free to vote for it (you need to create a bugzilla account though, it's a separate system). Rd232 (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I've seen it stated many times that the developers don't take votes into account when deciding what to work on. – Adrignola talk 13:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, indeed. But voting pings everyone watching the bug, so drawing attention to it... that can't be entirely useless. Not quite entirely. :) Rd232 (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

July 23

Age-based categorization of nudity

Those interested in the categorization of images containing nudity (in particular, categorizing them by age), please see Commons talk:Nudity#Age-based categorization. This is a comment I left a week ago that has garnered no responses. I can't believe no one has any opinions about this (i.e., that differ from mine), so I'm posting about it here to get more eyeballs... - dcljr (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

July 24

Download dialog on non-image files

The download dialog ("Download" link just above the image, in the sharing options menu) should probably not link alternative sizes for non-image files (such as this one). --Tgr (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

JPEG files which can not be uploded

While doing WGA mass upload I run into about 1000 jpeg files which for some reason can not be uploded. Upload by bot gives cryptic "{u'servedby': u'srv294', u'error': {u'info': u'This file did not pass file verification', u'code': u'verification-error', u'details': [u'uploadscripted']}}" error. New Upload Wizard claims that "This file might be corrupt, or have the wrong extension.". While old Upload interface claims that "This file contains HTML or script code that may be erroneously interpreted by a web browser."

The files in question seems the be fine. For example this file. I suspect some issues with metadate inside the JPEG causes the issues. Any ideas? --Jarekt (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Use Exif-Tool to remove the HTML (probaly something like that Author: <a href="http://subdomain.tld/">Mrs. Snow</a>) from the JPEG Metadata, e.g. IPTC-Tags. I have done this already for about 5 files (example: File:Boediono - World Economic Forum on East Asia 2011.jpg) but Exif-Tool allows batch processing. Or should I do this? -- RE rillke questions? 07:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I assume you can see the problem in the Comment-line. -- RE rillke questions? 07:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I removed HTML from bunch of files and uploaded them. --Jarekt (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Maintenance help requested from someone who is EN admin

Hello!

I stumbled upon a file from EN that was moved to Commons in "prehistoric times", lacking some information: File:LutjensHonors.jpg. Can someone with admin rights on EN please check if there are any useful information in the old deleted copy? Thank you. :-) Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No admin rights, but I found the file from the web with tag line "Official U.S. Navy photo by LT Mike Elliot." MKFI (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
No useful information on the deleted file page on WP, but easy enough to find info on the web (including navy websites, with no credit info, which implies PD). Its taken from a US Navy ship, and was apparently taken by a sailor... I'd like to find the original file though, as that's probably a better file...--Nilfanion (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Using the Internet Archive, I pulled info from the original article and put it in the image description. Huntster (t @ c) 10:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

File Log Archive Request

I recently created the vector graphic File:Generic fighting style GrabTechnique 1.svg However my attempts didn't render at all, it took another user re-uploading to fix the problem. There remain the three versions in the upload log that show no image, and have a resolution of 0x0. I'd greatly appreciate an admin archiving these to clean up the page, Thanks. Jdcollins13 (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done for two. The original upload will remain so that a record of your upload of the file prior to the update is retained. – Adrignola talk 19:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
much appreciated. Jdcollins13 (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Better support for downloading of large images

[Is there a problem?]

This 90 MB image takes 30 minutes to download at full resolution over a dial-up connection and requires 333 MB of RAM to view or edit.

On at least two occasions I've had other users become very upset - and even revert me - when replacing low resolution images by higher resolution ones, on the grounds that "the high res ones take too long/cost too much to download". The images I upload (e.g. File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg, right) are very large (50 to 100 MB), but at least on my screen I see a gadget above every image with a Download button that offers downloads in a variety of thumbnail sizes. Other users claim they can't see it (I guess it's some kind of gadget I've enabled in my preferences), and it only goes up to 1024px regardless. I've explained how they can use wikitext to create a thumbnail of any size on a temporary page, but this is an awkward solution. Is this something I should be filing a bug with Mediawiki about? If so, how should I recommend this be improved? I obviously don't want to upload multiple versions of the same image, and it's frustrating when higher-quality images get replaced with lower-quality versions just for the sake of file size. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I read the two complaints you mention and would have answered the very same thing that you did, ie server-side Thumbnailing + LargeImage/ToolServer IIP + Download button.
As for this last one, I am pretty sure we refer to MediaWiki:Stockphoto.js, which is a gadget enabled by default for unlogged (and while logged-in only have a thin bar at the top, anonymous get the big buttons).
(Note the 1024 max width may be changed in the script, by changing var widths = [75, 100, 120, 240, 500, 640, 800, 1024];)
This is definitely UX issue. Click on the image could trigger the download feature, or fire up the Toolserver IIP.
Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Replacing high resolution images with lower resolution versions is usually frowned upon and discouraged. In my opinion, the issue is not with the image itself, but rather with your slow dial-up internet connection. I use a broadband connection on my main computer, and I usually have no problems with downloading high resolution images. If your dial-up internet access is too slow, I would use wireless a faster Wi-Fi connection, or a 3G/4G hotspot connection. —stay (sic)! 01:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
That makes no sense in context. I'm the one complaining about others replacing high-resolution images with lower-resolution ones. Nor do I have a dial-up connection (obviously). I was hoping however to address the needs of those with limited connections by making automatically-downscaled downloads more accessible in our interface. I would also avoid assuming, as you are, that everyone in the world has access to Wi-Fi or 3G hotspots (most countries don't have them or they're very expensive and charge for bandwidth). Dcoetzee (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Oops, I must have misread you. Well then, to whomever else has poor internet connection, it may be time to upgrade. There is usually free public Wi-Fi for laptops and mobile devices if anyone needs it, such as Starbucks or McDonalds. Or try convincing someone who has a hotspot connection to share it with you. Otherwise enjoy waiting 30+ minutes to download a picture of Mona Lisa. :P —stay (sic)! 03:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
As I explained, free public Internet may be widely available in metro areas in the United States, but is not widely available in the world at large. In New Zealand for example, establishments with wi fi charge about $5 per gigabyte of data transfer to use it, and residential ISPs charge for data usage too, forcing users to voluntarily limit their own bandwidth usage. The public library there has free wifi but with a 100 MB transfer limit per day. The same is true in many European countries. In many countries in Africa cell connections with poor availability and sub-dial-up speeds are the only Internet available. Finding a faster connection is simply not an option for these people. Large downloads can be not only annoying but also costly, when someone accidentally downloads a file over a high-speed but high-cost connection before they realise it, and is stuck with a big bill. In this context I hope you can see why it'd be useful to improve this aspect of the UI for large files. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
While large images are obviously a good thing, there are practical problems. Very large images often fail to upload on my (fairly recent) laptop. This is apparently a memory problem. And even with broadband, it takes one minute before I learn I can't download it. Moreover, while Stockphoto proposes to upload various resolutions, the most intuitive way to enlarge an image is to click on them. We can't expect every user to pay attention to the various "large image"/"try another size" messages around it. Dcoetzee, I see you have suggested to file a bug so that image would not always be downloaded at full res. I think this would make sense - (and even more for cell phone users)--Zolo (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, most browsers cannot display these images inside the browser window, they're simply too large, especially on 32-bit machines or machines with less than 2 GB of RAM. They're very very big and have to be downloaded separately (and sometimes even then won't open in image editing software). This obvious limits their utility to many people. I don't think downloading the full size image when clicking on the image is the right thing to do all the time - but what I'm pondering is what is the right thing to do? Should clicking on the image be disabled? Should it pop up a box asking what size you want with Javascript? Should that box contain warnings for very large files? Or what? Dcoetzee (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi stay, remotely in the spirit of "assume good faith", the folks who can upgrade will do when they had enough of slow interrupted downloads, or earlier if they are smart. That leaves those who can't for various reasons (money is not the only possibility), and for those folks simple proposals in the direction of "upgrade" are bitter. As an example I have 5GB monthly with a decent mobile speed, and after those 5GB my bandwidth is reduced to a joke in comparison with my good old V.everything modem vintage '95. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
If downloading 90 megabytes is too hard, then imagine trying to download an entire movie over the air. Most movies nowadays are around 1 to 1.5 GBs in standard definition. HD movies are often over 2 GB in size. With that being said, I agree Commons should give users the option to download images in either small, medium, large sizes, or at full resolution, especially for large images that go well over 10 megapixels in size. But I dislike it when someone says "think of the underprivileged children in Africa" as a counterargument. I'm not the bad guy here. —stay (sic)! 06:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, rewrote that part of my comment, I was just really surprised at your reaction. We seem to be in agreement anyway. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
@"Other users claim they can't see it" - it is disabled for IE (since IE gets crashed with it) and old Opera versions (see first lines in the .js code. I am not sure why I cannot see it currently. I had it once disabled in my monobook.js - but I cannot find the entry there anymore. Strange. Doesn't the {{LargeImage}} template exchange the full res download links (also the one which covers the preview image) with its viewer link? I think it was this way once - or was it a gadget? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 07:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Even without any changes to Mediawiki, perhaps it would help to append extra info about the download options to {{LargeImage}}, or link to a page explaining the options. --99of9 (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

[Possible solutions]

Wikimedia Commons download for large files mock-up.png

I'm pondering is what is the right thing to do? Should clicking on the image be disabled? Should it pop up a box asking what size you want with Javascript? Should that box contain warnings for very large files? Dcoetzee (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If this is possible, I would say: when files exceed a given size: open a box proposing either to view it with zoomViewer or to upload the file with a choice of different sizes -like stockphoto. --Zolo (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I would advocate changing as little as possible, since I think current setup works well. Some ideas:
  • May be we could have a setting in user preferences that allow user to choose settings for "slow connections". If that setting is on than we could apply a ceiling on the maximum size of the image one can download by clicking on an image.
  • We could may be have 3 settings "slow connections", "fast connections", "autodetect". the last one would be a default for IPs and for users who did not change the setting.
  • May be we need a links for opening the image at 4-5 preset resolutions for all the images in the "Full resolution" line under the image
--Jarekt (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, honestly I think automatically giving users with slow connections a reduced-resolution version is not only infeasible but may be confusingly inconsistent. I think the best thing to do is to say that for all images above a certain configurable threshold size, clicking on the image will pop up a "Download options" box letting you select with one additional click which resolution you want (or to use the interactive viewer). For logged out users this threshold size would be set to a reasonable default like maybe 3 MB. For logged in users they can set it to anything they want, or disable the feature. I've created a mock up of this (right). You click an image and get a pop up box with download sizes, including resolutions, megapixels, and filesizes. The resolutions I chose were 1024 wide, 1280 wide, 10 megapixels, 20 megapixels, and full resolution. Regarding your third suggestion of adding links to thumbnails below the image, I think this is also a good idea although orthogonal. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I like Dcoetzee's idea, the only issue I have is with the name: "Download options" suggest I am trying to download the image and I would expect next box to be "save as" dialog box. I often click on images because I would like to see them in more detail, not because I am downloading them. May be the name should be called "Viewing options" or "View & Download options". --Jarekt (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Good idea... I would also recommend making so that the largest sizes are automatically saved, rather than viewed in browser, since they actually break most people's browsers if you try to view them in browser. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've filed a Mediawiki bug at [18]. Feel free to leave comments on it. Thanks for your feedback, everyone! Dcoetzee (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Images can be obtained with the right link:

                                                                                                                       xxxpx width
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Mona_Lisa%2C_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci%2C_from_C2RMF_retouched.jpg/220px-Mona_Lisa%2C_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci%2C_from_C2RMF_retouched.jpg

Example

You can also use thumb.php:

                                                                                                           xxx        xxx
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/thumb.php?f=Mona_Lisa,_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci,_from_C2RMF_retouched.jpg&width=120&height=120

example -- RE rillke questions? 10:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Several questions

I have several questions I hope can be answered here.

  • (1) I asked here (archived discussion) about possible copyright restrictions for a photo I took. Based on what was discussed there, I think it was a mistake to upload it, and I would like to ask for that image to be deleted if possible, so that I can upload it somewhere else instead (a Flickr photostream). My question is whether that is possible and whether the release it was uploaded with is still valid or not? i.e. If it is deleted, are there any restrictions on what license I can upload it under elsewhere?
  • (2) I have photos of a UK election card from the General Election of 1945. One side is a set of text that is a cross between a polling card and an advert for a candidate, and at the bottom it names the printer and says "Published by the Candidate" (who is named on the card). On the other side is a photo of the candidate (which is what I really want to upload, to go with the article on en-Wikipedia). My question is what is the copyright status here or both pictures? Given what happened with the previous photo, it might be simpler to upload to my Flickr photostream and point to it, rather than uploading here.
  • (3) Given some of the uncertainty surrounding some uploads, I would much prefer, where there is any uncertainty, to upload to my Flickr photostream (mostly private photos and family and friends), and then make public ones that I would like to upload here, and then ask about them here. Is that a reasonable way to do things, or not, and if so, are there any pages giving guidance about how to handle transfers between Flickr and Commons?

Thanks in advance for any advice. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi,
  • (1) I nominated that image for deletion (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yuri Gagarin statue on the Mall (14 July 2011).jpg) because of the discussion you linked to. As the author, you can upload your images whereever you like with whatever license you like. However, if your works depict works of other people, you need their permission to publish them (unless covered by FOP or similar copyright exceptions). So the answer is: You are not allowed to upload this to your Flickr stream, as you don't own all the rights to the picture. You can, however, upload it anyway and hope, that nobody sues you.
  • (2) Is there a copyright notice somewhere on the card? If not, it might be {{PD-US-no notice}}. It might be, that the back of the card with the advert is too simple to be eligible for copyright, but I can't say that with certainty without seeing the card.
  • (3) Yes, that is a reasonable way. For transferring your uploads from Flickr, see Commons:Flickr. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • (1) Thanks. I replied there. I will ask on your talk page later (this evening) for help in adding a few more images to that nomination, as I think they need to be discussed at the same time as that one. If anyone else had time, the images are 1] and 2. Even if the second one is OK, I'd still like it discussed and kept, to avoid problems later on.
  • (2) Will discuss this later when I have a chance to upload it somewhere else. Is it better to upload somewhere else and ask, or is it possible to upload temporarily here?
  • (3) Thanks for the link. However, that page doesn't answer my questions, so I've come back here. What I want to know is what are the advantages and disadvantages of having an account both here and on Flickr (which is a completely separate site) and where is it best to upload the images? Directly here, or to Flickr and then transfer? I can see advantages and disadvantages of both (how does image reviewing work, for example, and what about the names of the files), but wanted to discuss it here and get advice. What I really want is to avoid uploading the same pictures twice to two different sites.
Hope someone can help. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Royal Society Journals Copyright Problem

On WikiProject Royal Society Journals there are two important topics: 7 Watermark removal? and 8 Watermark copyright. Please check it. As sooner the better. I'm offering my help but if I don't have an answer soon I won't be able to help you anymore. Ivanov224 (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, which files we are talking about, but watermark removal is generally encouraged. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Look at here: Commons:Category:Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (1665-1886), volume 1 has just a few clean PDFs. I'm talking about that watermark: Philosophical Transactions - Volume 1 p0-Epistle Dedicatory.pdf Volumes 2-5 have the watermarks intact and probably all the others too. I need assistance - how can I download all the files in a volume at once? And then how can I upload them again at once? I really don't have so much time to download and upload every file individually. Ivanov224 (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I copied this discussion to Commons:Bots/Work_requests#WikiProject_Royal_Society_Journals_Copyright_Problem. Please continue there. --Jarekt (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Google image search

Hello,

I have selected the Google image search in my gadget preferences. I am presently trying to use this tool for 1) File:Эрика.jpg or 2) File:Sinatic.jpg. Google says 1) picture is too small (should be at least 20 Kb) 2) the server is too slow or the picture is too big. Is the bug originating from Google ? From Wikimedia ? From my computer ? Teofilo (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Google image search worked for me on both images. MKFI (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
It works fine for me too.   ■ MMXX  talk  18:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. It is working fine for me too today. I guess the problem is Wikimedia server was being too slow at that time, as pictures were quite long to display on my computer. Teofilo (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Cateogry

Working on "Media needing categories" I found that in several cases the word "Cateogry" instead of "Category" is used. A search shows 147 hits. Is there a bot that can replace "Cateogry:" in "Category:"? Thanks. Wouter (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You might try COM:BR. There are many [[Category:[[Category:name]]]] structures too; they are problematic for most tools. --Foroa (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Done. Wouter (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

July 27

Slow upload speed

For some reason the upload speed is being extremely slow for me. I tested my internet speed, and it is perfectly fine, but it is for some reason taking very long to upload photographs. The same thing happened to me in the past, and it fixed itself after I posted here about it, just wanted to bring it up and hopefully determine if there is an issue. Thanks. Gage (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am still having issues with having a very slow upload speed on the Commons. I've been able to upload the same images on Flickr in mere seconds, but have to wait up to 5 or 6 minutes for it to upload here. Please help. Gage (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
What about staying at your old topic Commons:Help_desk#Slow_upload_speed? ;-) Or at least mentioning it?
Because it seemed no one there knew it was even going on. Gage (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Please write down the URL (address) of the upload form which you are using, the browser version and operating system version. This probably helps. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not the only one having this problem, according to the Help desk page. Gage (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Large PNG fails to thumbnail

This is a major problem and it looks like I might have to revert my upload: File:Meridians-baselines.png. It currently displays the message "Error creating thumbnail: Invalid thumbnail parameters or PNG file with more than 12.5 million pixels." Do I revert this, report it on Bugzilla, or both? Foxyshadis (talk) 03:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a deliberate policy (for about five years) that PNGs and GIFs larger than a certain threshold size are not resized... AnonMoos (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
P.S. All you have to do in this case is downsize to about 4,250 x 2,900 pixels, and that will be within the limit... AnonMoos (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
What is supposed to do when we find those kind of uploads? Delete them as corrupt? --- Darwin Ahoy! 04:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Definitely not, in most cases. I reverted this file to the previous working version, since it's used in Wikipedia articles. In other cases, such images may be uploaded despite the uploader knowing perfectly well that it won't be resized, in order to store an archival lossless high-quality image version. And the issue can always be fixed if necessary by manually downsizing in a graphics editor to fit within the 12,500,000 pixels limit... AnonMoos (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I've only found one of those cases until now, and it was today, by coincidence. I was puzzled for not finding a way to view or even download what was there, and thought it was corrupt. Now I see that if I follow the "full size" link I will be able to see (and download) the file.--- Darwin Ahoy! 05:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm rather confused, why an arbitrary limit for PNG but not for JPEG? I've seen much, much larger JPEG files (both raw bits and pixels) and they get thumbnails, and I assume that wiki commons would prefer high over low resolution when it's available. Is it regarding a vulnerability, or is this just one of those crufty old hardware problems that no one has bothered to fix, despite no longer being a problem? Thanks for taking care of it, by the way. Foxyshadis (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Due to technical reasons, there's a way of generating thumbnails of JPEGs which does not involve using up a lot of resources (memory or disk space), but not for PNGs or GIFs; the reasoning was explained somewhat in the original e-mail list announcement, but I don't have its URL handy... AnonMoos (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-October/019681.html -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
As Tim notes, it is possible to fix this. I really need to submit a patch for this. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I think too, after 6 years the limit is very outdated (least twice). s.a. Category:PNG files affected by MediaWiki restrictions -- πϵρήλιο 22:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
However, the limit was reconfirmed when the Great GIF Foofaraw of 2008-2010 was finally resolved, so it's not like it's musty dusty policy which hasn't been reexamined since 2005... One past proposed solution is at http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/pngds/ -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Great GIF Foofaraw? Sounds interesting. Any search terms to aid historical recollection? – Adrignola talk 13:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
It was discussed in a number of places, but you can see complaints from people whose patience was running thin at Commons:Graphics_village_pump/GIF_thread... AnonMoos (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
FYI I did some investigation and as far as I can tell ImageMagick convert no longer takes a lot of memory to thumbnail PNGs. I have an e-mail thread going with Brion about this, but so far he seems unconvinced. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping the effort going. I have another image I'm holding on to until things are fixed, hopefully it's just a matter of time, otherwise I'll upload a reduced resolution version. Foxyshadistalk 10:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Please do go ahead and upload the full-resolution image. You can upload the reduced-resolution version on top of it or under a separate filename. This will allow us to easily retrieve the full-resolution version later after it's fixed. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the reduced-resolution version is already "on top of" the full-resolution image, so any image version he uploads right at the moment shouldn't be larger than about 4,250 x 2,900... AnonMoos (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay I investigated further and ImageMagick is not in fact fixed, so I need to build a new tool for this. It should be fairly straightforward. I'll get to it soon. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

New thumbnail engine

I encountered, the devs are working on a solution for tifs (but possibly also gif and png). They want to use libvips. If you want that feature it is good to show that you want it. (On bugzilla and by talking to the devs) -- RE rillke questions? 10:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"Should be recreated using vector graphics as an SVG file"

The image in question

A file I uploaded a while back was recently tagged with {{convert to svg}} which says it "should be recreated using vector graphics as an SVG file". I'm trying to work out if this means anything beyond "Wouldn't it be nice if this were an SVG?" The image was scanned from a US Government document. I don't have access to any other form of it, and I presume neither does anyone else. Is this a request for someone to take a bunch of time to essentially trace it out by hand in some sort of graphics program and make an equivalent SVG? Or is it something more practical than that, and if so what?

Also, I have at least some question of the desirability of replacing a rather accurate copy of a 'pedigreed' document with what would be, at best, an artist's rendering of that document, less accurately representing an original that might be of historical interest in its own right. - Jmabel ! talk 01:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a request to painstakingly reproduce the document in a vector format. There's a reason the backlog for these is enormous. Neither would be deleted, and article writers would decide which is best to use in a particular context (in a historical context, the original may be preferable, while the other would facilitate derivative works). Dcoetzee (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the category is sufficient for that. Tags tend to be placed before the actual description and license information and thus clutter up file description pages. --  Docu  at 03:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I would have no complaint about a change of process to use just the category. If there is consensus for this I can automate it. An alternative is to just make the box smaller and move it to the end of descriptions. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Something I've been thinking about since seeing this and the previous "BadJPG" discussion is the possibility of integrating these types of request templates into the {{Information}} template, which would have the benefit of centralising these sorts of things, and keeping a uniform placement and format. If you don't want to disrupt the Information template, create a separate template that you can fold all these requests into, achieving basically the same result. Huntster (t @ c) 05:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
That's a good idea. Maybe something in the {{Information}}'s Other versions field? Like "Other versions: ... Requested: " followed by a list such as "SVG", "cropped", "brighter", with jut a link to the details of SVG's pros and cons. -84user (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the "other versions" field would be useful for this purpose. It would entail adding new parameters to accomplish what these various and spread out templates do now. Huntster (t @ c) 22:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The thing is, different cleanup tags have different priorities. {{Convert to SVG}} is time-consuming and a "nice to have". {{Rotate}} is straightforward and required for the useful to be image at all. For the latter kind of cleanup tag it makes sense to have it be prominently at the top of the description. For the former it makes more sense to have it be buried somewhere. And it's a continuum... Dcoetzee (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Good point, so how about a colour coding system similar to what was implemented for the message boxes on en.wiki? I always thought that worked really well from a visual standpoint. The current templates are also quite bulky, and it seems like they could be trimmed a bit (couldn't the language sections be folded into a universal box inside {{Information}}, or at least in their own stowed drop-down box?). Btw, if this should be moved elsewhere, feel free. Huntster (t @ c) 04:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the wording of the template could be improved. Using "could" instead of "should" [19] makes a difference. Let's not forget get that we are actually thankful that the image was uploaded in the first place. --  Docu  at 06:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's the biggest problem with these templates...they give the impression that the target files are somehow afflicted and not worthy of being here. Definitely want to see that changed. Huntster (t @ c) 07:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest other_fields rather than other_versions for the purpose, using a template for the value parameter of {{information field}}. – Adrignola talk 13:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I have to say, the constant push for SVG seems annoying. The only good free tool I know of for editing them is Inkscape, which is deprecated. Every time I edit one of these files, it looks different in Internet Explorer than it did when edited; I can't seem to get Netscape to open it at all until I upload it, and that looks just a little different again. How can a file which is more or less a program with some variable degree of compatibility be a reasonable substitute for an image, except in specific cases? Wnt (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Inkscape is not deprecated (where did you hear that?). Differences in rendering are regrettable, and due in part to license issues (Mediawiki on Commons only uses freely licensed fonts, apparently as part of their promotion of freedom thing). I should perhaps create a Toolserver tool for test rendering of SVGs, which will render them just the same way as Mediawiki, for testing purposes. Regardless, SVGs have a number of very important advantages, the most important being that they facilitate the easy creation of derivative works and translations, which is directly relevant to our mission. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
@Wnt: the only editor one needs for making translations etc is a simple text efitor. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
@Dcoetzee: That would be redundant to COM:SVG Check (know it)? -- πϵρήλιο 00:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

"View this page in British English"

I've recently noticed that alert and thought it to be rather pointless. The thing was added because at some stage I changed my language setting from "EN (US)" to "EN (GB)". However, since there's hardly a difference between American and British English in the MediaWiki software, I would consider removing this additional clutter in this case. I know it might not be the best place to put this message, but I couldn't find which JavaScript/extension added this alert. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be good if you find a personal solution for this issue. I also use en-GB as the first browser language (instead of de‑DE), because (1) I hope that en content is better than any German content, (2) it should match what I learned in school better than en‑US, and (3) if en‑GB fails from my POV, e.g., if there is no en-fallback, then I'm confident that there is a serious bug wrt other languages. Unrelated, for this comment I created and used {{nbhy}}.Be..anyone (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Okładka Wikipedii wydanej na DVD przez Helion.jpeg

I don't know what is NVO, but how come that mixing incompatibile licenses is OK for us? I always thought that we are here to guard copyrights, not ignore it when it would cause deletion of image. When somebody uses certain license it doesn't mean "do everything you want", but "use it however you want as long as you obey the rules of license". Also, if there are virus licenses, then Wiki logo should be on that license too. It's one piece of art - the cover of DVD. There's someting in OTRS, but I can't see it. I just want to know whether they agreed to publish whole cover art on free license or just their logo. If that's the first case, then I'd consider permission as incorrect (i.e. they randomly put somebody's work as free license work), cause thet aren't copyright holders for part of the cover - especially Wikipedia logo+images of Wikipedians.

I think that Commons admins should think about law, not about their wishes. That deletion request wasn't en.wiki stuff where people decide if somebody's notable or not. It's about copyrights - it's legal or not. When it's not legal (like in this case) we shouldn't allow to keep it here - just because we are in the project which cares about author's rights and law and it's our goal. There wasn't single meritorical argument for keeping. So how can admin keep it "per tsca" when tsca was telling about his philosophy, not about facts?

I observe that many admins don't think anymore about copyrights. They just think if we need image or not. "We can ignore free license rules - it's free, ya? So if it's free we can do whatever we want. Stop bugging us, cause nobody will sue us ever."

Again - discussion about copyrights should be based on law and facts. It's (in most cases) binary - legal or not. When there's discussion about notability we may rely on our opinions. But it wasn't. Please, guys... This project was great when anybody could use work from here and in 99% it was in fact legal. Now I wouldn't recommend it cause here's such mess and that deletion request is the best proof. I know that's hard to check every image. But when something is requested to check, let's do a good job - at least please read whole discussion. If admin who kept it would read it, he wouldn't keep it. Or maybe he just shouldn't be an admin of Commons. When you aren't sure what you should do, please leave it to another admin. Herr Kriss (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

PS1: It's not deletion request. I'm requesting opinions and when I got some, I'll eventually start a new one DR. It's not only discussion about particular image.
PS2: I'm not sending it to Copyrights subpage, cause it's also begging some people to start act mature. Herr Kriss (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Good question - as was proved these images cannot be collaged under one license - simply as that. So, how it is that the image remained? Masur (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The question is whether it's a derivative work or a composite work. Many Wikipedia articles are composites of many works of different licenses, and they do not "infect" each other because they are clearly separable. That's probably also the case with this cover. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
    • For me it's clearly composite work. Images doesn't need to interfere in graphical way with each other. Here we have a single work - a cover. They aren't a few separate images in the book. And still I don't know if permission is correct. 83.5.85.56 18:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The cover of this DVD is a collective (or composite) work, not derivative. It's the same as a wikipedia article -- it is the selection and arrangement of images and text (separate works). It is in no way an integrated graphical work. Helion must release their rights to that collective work, *which is separate from the contained works* -- and presumably some of the text. So, whatever licenses they give are valid for that much at least. The collage at the bottom... you are straddling on the difference between the derivative and collective (though all of the images are CC-BY-SA from the looks of it, so not a big deal either way -- I see no mixing of incompatible licenses and it is a matter of correct documentation; at worst it must be noted that the collage is CC-BY-SA only). There was one court case on the difference in the US, but it involved a more circular collage with the individual photos overlapping each other and rotated etc.; much more of a single work. I don't think there has been a definitive court case which absolutely states a group of tiled images are automatically a derivative work rather than a collective one. Do you have any law or facts which would indicate otherwise? The wikipedia logo is an issue, but provided that the Foundation gives permission for it to be used on that cover in that context, and allows the "free" licenses on the full image, I think it's OK. Copyright is an extremely complex subject, and differs between countries (I am coming from a more U.S. point of view). I have not seen any evidence that admins here ignore copyright at all -- rather they pay close attention to it -- but rather I think that copyright law is a great deal more nuanced than you think it is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Most of the works appear to be CC-BY-SA - the only ones of concern are the Wikipedia logos and Wikimedia Foundation logos, and as far as I can tell they seem to be separable. The publisher's logo is also present and they may or may not have released it under a free license, but it might be de minimis or PD-ineligible anyway. The text does not require a release in this case because the resolution is so low that the text is illegible. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I think all the logos are de minimis, other than the main Wikipedia one, which was presumably licensed for use in that context. That part cannot be licensed, really, but since we normally grant an exception for those anyways, it's probably reasonable to note that portion is copyrighted and the rest is licensed, yeah. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • NVO are real-life initials of user:NVO. Personally I don't care what happens with this file. For the sake of sanity I'd repeat it here: if barely recognizable 40-pixels "images" are unacceptable, just blur them into a rainbow. NVO (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Page behaviour

Hello! Is there any way to get the older and nicer behaviour back, that, when you enter something in the searchbox and hit "enter", that you won't be forwarded to search results but immediately to a page, given that you've entered an existing page name? It's getting on my nerves that I've either to wait for the auto-fill suggestions or to be informed that there is a page named eg. "COM:VP. I am still using Monobook and I will not in any way switch to Vector at this moment, but if I need to put something in my Monobook.js, I'll do that. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

July 28

Question about filemoving and a conflict in moving rationales

Hello! Is a Commoner with the filemove right entitled to decline a move per uploader request? While processing the requests in CAT:RENAME, I came across File:Adenium 2.jpg. The current filename is a good bioname as it is the genus of the depicted plant. Nevertheless, the uploader requested renaming the file as to get a filename equal to the local non scientific name File:Hoa sứ sa mạc - 2.jpg. I am more inclined to decline this request, but I am unsure if it is rightful to do so. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I would think the idea is we follow what the author wants; and the guideline says "meaningless bio-names" aren't to be used, not common names. —innotata 01:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, those meaningless names aren't to be used, but the best is still a binomial scientific name ("4. change meaningless bio-names into binomial scientific names"), that's why I am deducing that the genus is yet better than a common name... Grand-Duc (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Common name can change from one place to another, or worst: frequently in two countries or places can use the same c.n. in two different species. But it's just my opinion. --Andrea (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me, "Hoa sứ sa mạc" is the vernacular, local, Vietnamese name of the species and what's wrong with it? Isn't in the description "Adenium obesum" and isn't the category "Adenium obesum"? I didn't even think that a move per user request is ever declined as it is against the Commons:File renaming. PRENN (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, then I set a precedent earlier this day. Additionally, no one is forced to execute a renaming request. And there is not much wrong with a Vietnamese local name, apart your harsh tone in your posting, and that a binomial name is something that is accepted and understood worldwide. It's easier to browse filenames that cats and descriptions, so even if this request is de jure valid, it may be wise to use a scientific genus or better binomial name instead a local Vietnamese name... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

IMO, there is no exception for a move to a valid name requested by the uploader. As I think, people never search for a species picture by type the filename, don't you think so? They will search for bionomial name, and will found the picture in the category, or the page, with that name. And I think if you're in doubt, maybe you should ignore it and let someone other to do it, instead of closing it? PRENN (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The scientific name in the description will have the image come up in search results, so I personally wouldn't have given the uploader any grief about renaming, considering that Commons:File renaming encourages honoring the uploader's request. Since they're contributing the content it's important to build positive relationships. – Adrignola talk 14:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the move to the new name was a fair compromise. Personally, I would have declined the move request as it creates significant work without any improvement for the Commons community. --Foroa (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

QI: review categories

Hello,

I think we need to review the categories of Commons:Quality images. Please give your opinion at Commons talk:Quality images#Review the categories. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

OTRS

Hello, I need a favor, need you ask the owner to release these photos to use Wikipedia. You do that for me? Sorry my bad English. Bruno Ishiai 13:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Your question is ambiguous. Could you please restate it (at more length) in a language in which you are more comfortable; someone will doubtless be able to read it. - Jmabel ! talk 15:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Bruno: which photos - the Ulan-Bator cathedral? even if the photographs were released under a free license, commons cannot host photographs of modern buildings from Mongolia - see the policy (pt: Commons:Liberdade de panorama has no section on Mongolia yet) and the way it is used to delete files. NVO (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
But these images? [20] [21] [22]
Can not be accepted unless outdoor photos, but what the rules say about the photos of inside?

Jmabel, is that English is the answer faster.

Hello??? Bruno Ishiai 15:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
English isn't faster if we can't understand what you mean. Powers (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Bruno Ishiai 13:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be possible for a photograph inside a church. Bruno Ishiai 13:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Working on an unofficial media dump

Hey all, just an FYI that I'm currently working on building unofficial Commons media dumps for distribution to content reusers.

Because Commons as a whole is far too large to distribute (except by mail on hard disks), I'm working on finding useful subsets. The first subset I'm working on is a set of thumbnails of all images in use on the English Wikipedia (including local files), which I estimate will occupy about 50 GB excluding videos and animations - the initial dump will take a few weeks to construct, but after that it should be less costly to update it over time (so far I have 2 GB). I'm building it in the form of a three-level MD5 directory tree that can be plopped directly into the images folder of a Mediawiki installation. The main goal of this dump is to facilitate constructing an offline edition of the complete English Wikipedia.

I plan to distribute the dump via BitTorrent from my Amazon EC2 server, but I can only afford so much bandwidth (maybe 200 GB a month), so I might need others' help to seed them. My hope is that if these type of dumps are successful, WMF will be motivated to contribute bandwidth for distributing them too.

Questions for you all: does this plan make sense? what other subsets might be useful? also, since I'm including local uploads, would I necessarily have to bundle the media dump with the text dump in order to maintain fair use context? Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

1&1 doesn't have bandwidth limits. – Adrignola talk 23:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
It would be more accurate to say that they don't announce bandwidth limits. They've still got limits, and once you go over, they'll cancel your account using the "we can do whatever we want" clause in the terms&conditions. --Carnildo (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I ended up getting a seedbox with much cheaper bandwidth and more disk space. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Mayflower

Hello,

It’s been a while now since I tried to find out waht happened to the Mayflower search tool. It apparently went down in late 2009, successively because of an outdated database and the an expired Toolserver account. I went through the talk pages, VP archives, wikitech-l, nothing much.

I was barely active back then in 2009, but it appears it is remembered as a very neat tool. Does anyone know what happened exactly? Could it be revived? Would it be worth it? What happened to the PHP sources?

Thanks, Jean-Fred (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

WP manipulation by changing photo content

File:Stele-Gedenkanlage.JPG has been overwritten with a different photo previously removed from an article in de:WP. The common user who uploaded the files seemingly wants to manipulate the article by his action replacing another foto still in the article on commons with the one removed in the WP article. As a result, the other picture had to be removed from the article as well. Is there some policy in commons to undo the replacement in commons? 7Pinguine (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Just click on "Reset" ("Zurücksetzen") next to the original imag in the history. Pretty simple. -- H005 13:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
It still a proposed guideline, not official, but Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files specifically discourages this. MKFI (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the information and for reverting. I had tried that too but must have done something wrong as it didn't change anything. 7Pinguine (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
MKFI, I disagree. It discourages what the user did, not the revert. -- H005 10:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info The same user tried again to delete this image by taking out the license, adding a lack of license template and by uploading a blurry version of this image. Tm (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Renaming subcategories of Collections of the Shanghai Museum

The chinese olympic cheerleaders team kindly offered to help to attract comments.

the subcategories of : Category:Collections of the Shanghai Museum are :

Hello, what would you think about renaming those simply :

it would be shorter and simpler. The museum of shanghai only host ancient Chinese stuff... so it's a little bite obvious. I checked for the Louvre : Category:Collections of the Louvre and for the B. me Category:Collections of the British Museum, and it seems to me that they use those proposed forms for their subcats. --Lilyu (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to do work on the files of this museum, but i prefer to check if cat names are correct before creating the other missing categories, and categorizing files... i don't want to start and than have to go back to all the files to move the cat, you know ? Lilyu - smile.svg --Lilyu (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Probably not a good idea in general (although "Furnitures" is wrong, the plural is also "Furniture"). These should be subcategories of, for example, Category:Ancient Chinese Jades, and should fit the pattern of being the same term further qualified by location. - Jmabel ! talk 14:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure to understand why you disagree to my proposition:
Category:Furnitures in Shanghai Museum -> Category:Furniture in China
Category:Jades in Shanghai Museum -> Category:Bronze of China
It works also as you said, specifying Ancient Chinese changes nothing to that. And the subcategories i'm listing are already both inside Collections of the Shanghai Museum and in the respective "typeofart in/of china" (see)
Also, Category:Ancient Chinese Jades already exist, and it's called Category:Chinese jade --Lilyu (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Please, can we get a consensus ? i'm waiting for other advices before working on the shanghai museum. Because i have hundreds of files to categorize, missing collections categories to create (painting, calligraphy, coins, seals, etc) and i'm waiting to know if we keep or not "ancient chinese" to all those subcategories and create the new ones with the same pattern. --Lilyu (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Help me.svg
Ok, the categories are now like Category:Ancient Chinese Jades in Shanghai Museum. I proposed Category:Jades in Shanghai Museum (here as an example). I later thought that maybe Category:Jades in the Shanghai Museum would maybe be more correct. The en.WP article talks about Gallery of Ancient Chinese Jades, and the museum website display Gallery of Chinese Ancient Jade ( http://www.shanghaimuseum.net/en/display/display-10.html ) :
  • Gallery of Chinese Ancient Bronze
  • Gallery of Chinese Ancient Bronze
  • Gallery of Chinese Paintings
  • Gallery of Chinese Calligraphy
  • Gallery of Chinese Ancient Sculpture
  • Gallery of Chinese Ancient Jade
  • Gallery of Chinese Coins
  • Chinaese Ming and Qing Furniture Gallery
  • Gallery of Chinese Seals
  • Chinaese Minority Nationalities'sArt Gallery (sic)

what do i do ? --Lilyu (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

My opinion goes for Jades in the Shanghai Museum. Also Gallery of Ancient Chinese Jades makes more sense to me, above all those are ancient first.
Nice try there for comments Poné! — Tanvir | Talk ] 08:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Personality rights violation?

Thumb I was wondering if this image I uploaded is okay or not regarding personality rights. I took it in a public jazz club in Paris, you do have to pay to get in. Can anyone enlighten me? Richardprins (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing particularly damaging or derogatory to anyone's reputation seems to be going on, so it's not a serious concern. If the club-owner prohibits photography, then that would be a matter between you and the club, and would not directly affect Commons. AnonMoos (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Precise rules on this differ in different countries. In the US, certainly this would raise no issues for most uses; the only issue would be if this were used in an advertisement, where it would quite likely require releases by the people depicted. If you want to play it very cautiously, you could add {{personality rights}} to the image description page, but that's really just a reminder to any re-users that they should give thought to the laws of their respective countries.
Having to pay to get in is irrelevant to the notions of "public" or "private" space in the sense relevant for photography. - Jmabel ! talk 06:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks, the both of you Richardprins (talk) 11:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

privilege to vanish?

Is there a privilege to vanish and can I (please) exercise it? I don't have a user page, but whatever traces of mine, that you will allow to be deleted, please get rid of.

No drama, just want to disengage and not have a big online profile and not that interested in contributing any more. Would like it cut from all WMF areas if possible.

Not trying to get any content cut. You are welcome to it.

Thanks in advance. -TCO


TCO (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it a complete user deletion is not possible, but your talk page and other userscape pages can be deleted and user name (possibly) changed. For more information, see meta:Right to vanish. MKFI (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

July 30

July 31

UploadWizard gone mad?

What the hell? Face-surprise.svg

And the whole collection is like that.--- Darwin Ahoy! 05:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you reproduce it? --  Docu  at 05:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
If yes, please file a report in Bugzilla:. This was uploaded just now and seems fine. --  Docu  at 05:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea about what caused it. In the last few days, while reviewing the FAL queue uploaded by UW, I occasionally found some files suffering from that disease, though they were quite rare. But I've never seen such a collection.--- Darwin Ahoy! 05:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
If it's not a single occurrence, I think it's worth reporting it. --  Docu  at 05:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not a single occurrence, definitively. What option should I choose?--- Darwin Ahoy! 05:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe "Product: MediaWiki extensions, Component: UploadWizard", but whatever you pick, generally it's gets re-sorted fairly quickly. --  Docu  at 05:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, done.--- Darwin Ahoy! 06:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Same as pointed out earlier: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/06#Upload_wizard (you can select all licenses if you state it isn't your own work) I suggest to turn off this wizard if the devs continue to ignore this problem. -- RE rillke questions? 09:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Successfully tested here. RE rillke questions? 09:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rillke, if I understand correctly, what's happening here is that a user is simply selecting lots and lots of licensing checkboxes because they're confused by the licensing process (perhaps they don't even understand the language in the upload form and simply check all checkboxes in the assumption that doing so represents consent). Because of the possibility of multi-licensing, we have to use checkboxes here, and allow for some degree of multi-licensing.
Unless there's something else going on, I don't see this as a bug, and I don't think there's an obvious fix. Sure, we could do some degree of consistency checking on the checkboxes and throw an error, but if the user doesn't speak the language and doesn't understand what's going on, they'll just try whatever combination of clicking works. It may be sensible to create a new Category:Possibly incorrectly licensed for this, and add it when all or most checkboxes are ticked. In that way, UW could actually help detect user problems that probably went un-noticed in the old upload form.--Eloquence (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
On the one hand you are talking about multi-licensing but on the other hand you don't provide an option for multi-licensing for own work. That's actually confusing.
It is nonsense to provide multi-licensing for not own work. Almost always only one license (such as on Flickr or US-Gov) is applicable if it is not own work. On the other hand you are impeding reusing of "own work" by your "new preferred option" and by not providing an option for dual licensing: GFDL+CC-By-SA.
How many new files did you patrol on commons recently? -- RE rillke questions? 08:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, I don't understand why PD-US-Gov is listed in the "german version" and not "PD-german stamp" which is more likely uploaded by a german speaking user. So you prefer the work of the US-government and don't want that from other country's governments? very nationalistic ... -- RE rillke questions? 08:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Rillke, it's not an accident that the "own work" options are simplified. We're nudging users to stick to one of the three options provided. The case for GFDL/CC-BY-SA dual-licensing is a very weak one at best. The GFDL is not really a license suitable for media files, and we don't want to promote it in the UI. With that said, we're going to add the ability to add custom licensing templates for users who know what they're doing, to make it possible to add any of the myriad templates, in both the own work case and the third party case. That would also ensure that you'll have access to any of the more country-specific templates. (I agree that ideally the experience should be country-optimized.)
The difference between the own work case and the third party case is that, in the own work case, you have a choice whether you're adopting a certain licensing regime, while in the third party case, you are given works with a specific license, and it's in our interest to ensure that the licensing of a given work is correctly recognized. It would be trivial to change the checkbox to a radiobutton there, but do you really believe that would be the right answer?--Eloquence (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the polite reply. "interest to ensure that the licensing of a given work is correctly recognized" - we would call it "de:Elfenbeinturm" or just schmanchy fancy. As you discovered, we have a lot (and too much for a UI) license-templates. Therefore I do not see realistic use of multilicensing. If one of the licenses provided by the source matches, it is enough. It is more likely to me that this feature is abused. Again, I never found a license which is correctly multi-licensed and not own work and uploaded with UWiz.
Concerning Dual-Licensing of own work: We have some uploaders, uploading under GFDL and FAL only. So if you want to combine one picture of those and one licensed under cc-by-sa, you definitely have a problem. -- RE rillke questions? 21:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, how about the user selected those names for the simple reason that he

  • didn't knew better
  • haven't had a better name
  • wanted to obfuscate that those pictures are simply private pictures without any relevance for our project!?!

Mass deletion? a×pdeHello! 08:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I haven't noticed the squall of license templates ... same question as above: Maybe the user did this, don't know why. a×pdeHello! 08:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered the possibility of asking the guy in question what he did and what was he trying to do. Separate questions, in that order. Palosirkka (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I was going to report this somewhere today and this seems like a good thread. This exchange indicates that something is wrong with the uploader. Killiondude (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

How can I reproduce this problem? -- RE rillke questions? 22:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
This double-adding of licenses is possibly covered by Bug 29346 -- RE rillke questions? 22:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow, Neil was quite rude to you in that bugzilla thread. I'll poke Epolk about this thread and maybe he can explain the steps he took when uploading. Would that help? Killiondude (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
One possibilty, I found out is to "select the license for each file in the next step", then select cc0. You'll get {{self|self or {{self|self|self {{self|self|self|self {{self|self|self|self|self|self dependent on the file-count. And yes this belongs to this bug -- RE rillke questions? 22:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The other option is to cancel the upload declaring it is not your own work and then selecting a file and uploading this.
And all the trouble because the devs are unable to fix one line of code, to clone the settings to prevent them from being modified. -- RE rillke questions? 22:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I am a little late getting back on this. Vacations and all that...
Anyway, what I have been doing with the upload wizard is uploading one image at a time. After it uploads, I select "my own work" then click on "use a different license". I select Public Domain then click Next. I add in all the details about the image then finish it off. Apparently, this is creating some kind of weird license loop. For example: File:Yolo County Courthouse.jpg has a license that reads: {{self|self|self|self|cc-zero}}. There is one possible thing that I might have done that contributed to this weirdness. Rather than reselect the upload link, I might have been using the browser back button to go back to initial page of the upload sequence but I am not entirely sure of that.
Epolk (talk) 06:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

More mega-license nonsense on File:Breakrihanna.jpg and similar... AnonMoos (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

In Public Domain because...

...The author wanted it to be so. I mean, it's not because the rights expired; is not a NASA picture or any other reason but the solely will of the autor.
Problem: the author is not me. ¿Where is the proper template for that? ¿How can I license the picture under Public Domain (as it already was) without saying i'm the owner, or that the picture was made by the Goverment, or whatever? Thank you. --3coma14 (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I found the template, but wasn't listed in the program used to upload files. I think should be included. Greetings --3coma14 (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
You can use Commons Helper to make transfers from other Wikimedia projects a little easier. (You still need to do a little manual work.) I used it to add some of the source information which you had left out. I also tagged the file on English Wikipedia as transferred. LX (talk, contribs) 11:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. A lot to learn yet... :-) --3coma14 (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Special:Upload (Finnish version) edit request

Where can I (or someone other) edit Special:Upload (Finnish) page? There is one typo. --Stryn (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be done here, but only administrators can edit MediaWiki pages. mickit 20:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

August 1