Commons:Village pump/Archive/2012/10

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

Geograph bulk import

When did the Geograph import last run?

I've found recent images have not been transferred.:

Robert EA Harvey (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2012‎

I think I stopped a bit after 1.800.000 in March 2011, see Special:ListFiles/GeographBot. Multichill (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Is that a space issue? Utility? The categorisation thing? Or did you think Geograph is getting repetitive?
They now have a new tagging structure - Perhaps they could be imported as e.g. 'Geograph:Inns'?
At the moment I have to do a manual import, saving the picture to my PC and cut/pasting the licence. Any chance of a Wikimedia tool to take a Geograph number & do it directly?
And, BTW, there is now a German version: http://geo.hlipp.de/
Robert EA Harvey (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I got a harddisk full of images and the database. I uploaded everything from the harddisk. Never really got it refilled ;-)
I'm using the tags already. Users already mapped most of the tags to Commons categories. So for example Category:Inns. Based on the coordinates the name of the location is figured out and intersected. See for example the categories at File:The Unicorn Inn, Cronton - geograph.org.uk - 291618.jpg. There you also see the main problem of this system: It's quite hard to figure out the exact name of a location and images might end up in the next village. Multichill (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
BTW, thanks for all that effort
It is curious that Geograph have a location name on the top of e.g. http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3136543 "near to Bourne, Lincolnshire" but that isn't anywhere in their Metadata. Perhaps a licencing thng. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
For online import without having to download to your harddisk there is Geograph.org2Commons. You will need a TUSC account to use it. --Rosenzweig τ 20:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Done that, thanks. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't know how well that worked. File:Wherry's Lane warehouse - geograph.org.uk - 3136543.jpg has the picture and the categories, but the description is unattractive.
But you are still cleverer than me! --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Ye glods! If I want to report a bug with that I have to create yet another login on yet another system. It's more than fat & bone can stand. I give in. If MediaWiki makes it core functionality I might be bothered. I've been editing categories & adding pictures and it gets harder & harder. I feel I'm wasting my time. I gave up on Wikipedia because of the wikinazis, I'm going to give up on this because it is just more bother than it's worth. Thanks for your input, but its all to ramshackle. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the rant. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Some of the bot categorization is a bit odd. E.g., File:Sunday morning, Brick Lane - geograph.org.uk - 320366.jpg, where it got Brick Lane, but what's with Streets of Hertfordshire? Plenty of other images of London have been added to Category:Essex. ghouston (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Be fair. Half the population of Thameside Essex don't know the difference either. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

September 29

New Google Art Project uploads have begun

Hedvig Sofia, Princess of Sweden, Duchess of Holstein-Gottorp by David von Krafft, c.1700. First upload of new Google Art Project files.

I've just started uploads from Google Art Projects' new collections since their expansion earlier this year, from about 1000 works to 30000 works, including many new gigapixel works. Some updates were needed to the downloading tool due to changes in Google's infrastructure. See Special:ListFiles/DcoetzeeBot for latest uploads.

This time around I'm using a new template ({{Google Art Project}}) styled after {{NARA-image-full}} which includes all metadata from GAP and transforms it into a suitable artwork template. It gives great flexibility regarding how that mapping is done, while also allowing any individual artwork field to be overridden manually. The subtemplates {{Google Art Project institution}} and {{Google Art Project medium}} give the mappings from Google's names for institutions and mediums to suitable localization templates. User:Peter Weis has been very helpful in helping to fill these out. I'm making use of auto templates ({{PD-Art-auto}} and {{PD-Art-two-auto}}) to automatically update licenses over time for recently deceased authors. I'm also creating a hierarchy by collection and by artist. See the first upload at File:David von Krafft - Hedvig Sofia, Princess of Sweden, Duchess of Holstein-Gottorp - Google Art Project.jpg (right) for an example. There is a category, Category:Google Art Project files requiring license verification, for works whose license status I may be uncertain about, which can be manually reviewed.

My uploader is a semiautomatic tool, which lets me examine each image and its description before upload. I can add things like {{non-free frame}} on-the-fly as needed. I'd appreciate any feedback on this process. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

A note: a few users like User:INS Pirat have already been uploading a small number of Google Art Project images, maybe 50 or so, some at full resolution. My current plan is to just reupload these and merge file descriptions as needed, since there's not a lot of them. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
First two collections are now done, see Category:Google Art Project works in The Royal Armoury, Sweden and Category:Google Art Project works in Albertina, Vienna. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Some updates to this: after feeling more comfortable that the bot is doing a good job with license sorting and filling in templates, and differentiating 2D and 3D works, I've set it to upload automatically for any images that don't require license verification (the ones it's pretty sure about). So most images will upload unsupervised, which will speed up the upload process a lot. I review its upload stream for files that need to be tagged with {{non-free frame}}. You can explore the images uploaded so far at Category:Google Art Project works by collection - about 5 collections (300 files) are complete at the moment. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The first new gigapixel work is up at File:Auguste Renoir - Dance at Le Moulin de la Galette - Google Art Project.jpg. It's scaled down from the highest resolution version (to eliminate artifacts) and is 669 megapixels / 203.28 MB (uploaded using chunked uploads). Dcoetzee (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Great!
I would think we could do without all the info about the artist. When we have a creator, all info should already be there, otherwise it should be possible to upload the creator info to a creator template rather than to the file (user:Jarekt did it for the Walters Art Museum). There may be cases were our info conflict with Google's info but it should be minor enough that it can be ignored, we already need to reconcile our info with VIAF and tons of others anyway.--Zolo (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I was a little hesitant to automatically generate creator templates because in many cases the name is a variant spelling of an existing creator with slightly different info which could cause confusion, and other times the artist is vaguely specified for a single work and a creator template wouldn't make much sense. It might make sense to omit them for cases where a creator template is available, but I find it helpful to ascertain that the creator template that was chosen is actually the same person, in case of name conflict. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Blacklist? - Control characters

What's this. "Naslov »File:Russula turci - višššsnjeva golobica.jpg« je bil preprečen pred ustvarjanjem. Ustreza naslednjemu vnosu na črnem seznamu: .*\p{Cc}.* <casesensitive> # Control characters" This means that the title meets the entry .*\p{Cc}.* <casesensitive> # Control characters" on some blacklist. How's that? It's a compound of a Latin name and Slovene name of a fungus.. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

R u s s u l a t u r c i - v i š š š s n j e v a g o l o b i c a . j p g
82 117 115 115 117 108 97 32 116 117 114 99 105 32 45 32 118 105 154 154 154 115 110 106 101 118 97 32 103 111 108 111 98 105 99 97 46 106 112 103
That's because there are U+009A (decimal: 154) characters between "vi" and "snjeva". Accoding to en.wp they are "Single Character Intro Introducer". The solution is removing them:
File:Russula turci - visnjeva golobica.jpg
-- Rillke(q?) 11:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
There's three embedded control characters inside "višššsnjeva" - it seems to be Unicode 009A, "Single Character Intro Introducer". They're invisible, and show up between "vi" and "snjeva". I don't quite know where that came from!
Try copying-and-pasting this file name, which is plain text with no control characters: File:Russula turci - visnjeva golobica.jpg. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Auto adjust

Windows Photo Gallery has an "auto adjust" button that slightly rotates a photo, brightens it, and changes the colouring. I think it makes them look a bit better. Should I use that on photos before uploading them, or does Commons want photos in their original unmodified forms? 68.149.164.35 22:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It's normal to edit your own photos a bit before uploading. If you like the improvements made by Windows Photo Gallery then use them. Just don't use effects that distort the depicted object (e.g. false colours, overexposure). Windows Photo Gallery also offers very little control over the process, so you may eventually want to try another tool like GIMP or Photoshop that gives you more control. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
One could also try IrfanView, which I personally like: it too has an easy "auto adjust" option, but adds some manual controls as well, without being as complicated as GIMP, and it's free... Gestumblindi (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

October 1

Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Vector version available/error

There are again many transclusions without a parameter (often caused by CommonsDelinker). Anyone willing to help with the cleanup? --Leyo 09:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking for the templates to be removed? -FASTILY (TALK) 08:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I think he is asking for help to fill in the missing filenames. /ℇsquilo 12:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
If there is an alternative SVG version, this would be the best solution. Alternatively, the template should be removed. --Leyo 00:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Clinton Hart Merriam

This person ( see wikipedia ) died in 1942. Does copyright on photographs of him still exist ? --Forstbirdo (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's no easy answer - it'll be different for different photographs. It depends on who took the photograph, when they took it, and (critically) when it was published. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The only images by Merriam I could find are C. Hart Merriam Collection of Native American Photographs, ca. 1890–1938. If you could point out the images that you are interested in, it would be possible to determine if they are suitable for Commons (i.e. in the public domain in this case). Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for informing. I mean the photograph you can find in the Indonesian Wikipedia, article "Zona kehidupan". --Forstbirdo (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The photo in question is here: id:File:PSM_V66_D390_Clinton_Hart_Merriam.png. It was published in Popular Science Monthly 1904 in the US and so is public domain and can be transferred to Commons. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
And the appropriate license would be {{PD-1923}}. - Jmabel ! talk 15:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Image scaler upgrade test

Peter Youngmeister has performed a major upgrade of the operating system on one of our image scaler machines, as a test for upgrading all of them (upgrading from Ubuntu 10.04 (Lucid) to Ubuntu 12.04 (Precise)). The image scalers are responsible for generating scaled-down versions of images for inclusions in wiki articles, as well as converting SVG images into PNG. The great thing about this upgrade is that 12.04 comes with much newer versions of imagemagick and librsvg, which both have many bugfixes from their previous versions. The risky part is that the new versions *might* introduce new bugs serious enough that things might temporarily get worse.

So, please keep an eye on these functions over the coming days, and report any problems you suspect are caused by this upgrade. Thanks! -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Would be nice if you could bump the tiff pixel limit if this upgrade is stable. Multichill (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

October 3

Category:Media renaming requests needing target and help from Hebrew-knowing user

This category currently showcases 14 files with rather absurd names. The description for these files is in Hebrew and the files pertain to ISraeli heritage. I request the help of a Hebrew knowing user to rename the files. Plz feel free to contact my talk page. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC).

  • From what I seeand read this is Beit Shean, but it would be good if this info could be confirmed by an Israeli.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Then you please help us by contacting an Israeli Wikimedian / just national for this purpose. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC).
User_talk:Ynhockey#Heritage_sites_in_Israel_without_clear_description. --Foroa (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Foroa, for your effort. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC).

Free or non-free, possibly PD

I am interested in a file displayed on the English Wikipedia at Cosmic ray. The file is File:Moons shodow in muons.gif, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moons_shodow_in_muons.gif]. Just below the figure in blue highlight is "Non-free media data", where further below is "Portion used All - the image is purely constructed from scientific data, contains no trademarked or copyrighted logos, and is freely shared information." The source url, [1] is a dead link. While I realize "freely shared" is not Public Domain, I am confused about whether or not this image can be uploaded to Commons. I am working on tracking down the copyright holder, if any. It's probably someone or a group associated with the Soudan 2 detector. Thoughts and suggestions would be appreciated. Marshallsumter (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The design is only 2-dimensional and quite simple. Thus: {{PD-ineligible}}. --77.2.47.12 08:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I suspect it can't be uploaded. The archived version of the source page is here; they give the author, and note that permission should be obtained for commercial use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
All photographs are purely constructed from scientific data; this photo is no exception. We could ask them to republish it under a dual license of CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-SA, a common licensing combination. But I suspect it's non-free iff the telescope was oriented and activated by a human and not machines. 68.173.113.106 23:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Riots, demonstrations and protests

Am seeking views on whether riots should be considered as a form of demonstration or protest. My view is that riots should not be so considered (and so "Category:Riots by country" should not be a subcategory of "Category:Demonstrations and protests by type by country", for example), because riots are generally spontaneous outbreaks of violence whereas demonstrations and protests are planned events. That's why I placed "Riots" in "Category:Activities associated with demonstrations and protests". However, I will go along with the consensus on the matter. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Demonstrations are (defined ay being) planned events? ..Really?. :/ Orrlingtalk 19:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
@Jacklee Your request is unlikely to be solved, since there's no "true" answer to it. If you want to consider a riot being a form of demonstration, protest or civil disobedience is closely related to your political view on this matter. It's possible to find definitions that make a point for both approaches. Personally I'd c&p English Wikipedia's current approach and apply Category:Protests Category:Civil disobedience. Although there's an intersection between protests and demonstrations, I don't approve of using them in one category. To sum it up: -Category:Demonstrations and protests by type by country +Category:Protests +Category:Civil disobedience for Category:Riots. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your views. Well, if I understand your point, riots can be considered as both a form of civil disobedience and a type of demonstration or protest, so both of these should be parent categories. (Note that "Category:Protests" now redirects to "Category:Demonstrations and protests".) — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't support that Category:Protests redirects to Category:Demonstrations and protests, since I object the centralisation of demonstrations and protests in one category, but that's a different story - and worthy to discuss, too. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, Category:Demonstrations already redirects to Category:Demonstrations and protests. This has been discussed several times before: Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/11/Category:Demonstrations, Commons:Village pump/Archive/2011/08#Demonstrations and protests and most extensively at Category talk:Protests. LX (talk, contribs) 08:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I think this attempt at a distinction (riots as "spontaneous outbreaks of violence" vs. demonstrations and protests as "planned events") isn't sustainable, for various reasons. For example, demonstrations and protests (whether peaceful or not) often happen quite spontaneously, too. Then, the same incidence may be called a "protest" by supporters of the protesters (or rioters) and a "riot" by the opponents of the rioters (or protesters)... Gestumblindi (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Not to mention that riots are often the result of initially organised demonstrations that degenerate into violence, often without a clear line between the two. LX (talk, contribs) 08:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd say riot is a form of demonstation and protest... So yes, it should be a subcat. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, looks like we have consensus, then. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2

Capture date

Is there any concurrence wheater a file should be assigned with categorie of the originating year (and country), e.g. „Category:January 2012 in Switzerland“ and „Category:2012 photographs“, see this diff. I just want to prevent a useless editwar. --Mattes (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Move proposal: Schools for people with hearing impairment → Schools for the deaf

I was told to come here to ask for discussion about this proposal. - Purplewowies (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikitravel File Transfer Tool Proposal

Hi all, I've made a proposal for the creation of a file transfer tool of some sort here. All users are invitied to comment. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible read-only time Friday, October 5 11:00-14:00 UTC

Hi everyone, we have some emergency maintenance that may require a brief period where we may stop uploads. We plan to do this starting 11:00 UTC, hopefully brief, but potentially lasting up to 3 hours (until 14:00 UTC) tomorrow. Our backup NFS server is nearly full, and we're having hardware issues with our new Swift servers, so rather than run without a real-time backup, we plan to use a newer NFS server (nas1) which has more capacity. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thank you for your patience! -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Apparently this hasn't happened in the first 19 minutes of the period. Can you update us here when it's done? (or if you've decided not to do it?) --99of9 (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I gather the highly informative message “Upload warning: Could not create directory "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/archive/3/36"” I just got along with a failed upload is supposed to mean that the plan went ahead?—Emil J. 11:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Seems so. No uploads possible (how great in the middle of a mass upload). We have space for site notices for every crap imagineable, but something like this is unannounced. --FA2010 (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

October 5

Incorrect definition for Years by country subcategories

Hi all! There was a relatively recent change on some of the countries' Years by country categories (i.e. Template:Category definition: Year in Switzerland). The source of the changes is Template:Category definition: Year in country which now states, incorrectly in my opinion, that: Images/pictures taken in in this year and sorted by month they were taken. This is not the date of the upload (check the upload date) nor the date a photo was scanned (can be in exif).. This is "narrowing" a broader scope category like: Category:1929 in France, which is focused on history (anything that happen in 1929 in France) to photographs in 1929. But actually Category:1929 in France logically contains Category:1929 works in France‎, Category:1929 events in France‎, Category:People of France in 1929‎ and so on. The category that would fit the statement, i.e. should contain pictures taken that year is Category:1929 photographs. But a photographs only category cannot contain events, works etc. We may have Category:1929 photographs in France‎ under Category:1929 works in France‎ if we need too. Additionally, the parent category Years by country, being a sister of Category:Centuries by country, goes well back in time, way past the invention of photography. See Category:208 in China or for a laugh read the description for Category:1302 in France. I am suggesting a change in the Template:Category definition: Year in country which should say for example: "{{{1}}}{{{2}}} in the history of France. This category includes works, events and anything related with that year. Note that this category is NOT intended only for photographs taken in that year, as the parent Category:France by year goes in time past the invention of photography. For the narrow scope of photography, see Category:Photographs by year.". Any thoughts?--Codrin.B (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I made {{Category definition: Year in country}} based on {{Category_definition:_Year_in_Belgium}}. I had no particular opinion on the wording and just used what was there; but it seems standard (eg {{Category definition: Year in France}} uses it, but not via {{Category definition: Year in country}}. Maybe the template should be more general, but we should be aware of the change in meaning, from "media made in this year" to "media made in or relating to this year". If we're happy with that, the tweak can be smaller: Images/pictures/media created in or representing events in. NB I'm not sure we want to lose the "not year of upload or scan" warning. Rd232 (talk) 09:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Understood. I noticed the use of Belgium as an example. The confusion started from that category. In my opinion, we should just say "This category includes works, events and anything related with the history of France in that year". Using terms like Images/pictures/media seems redundant since the entire Commons is about images/pictures/media and it is also narrowing the scope or confusing the reader. If we don't talk about media at all, we don't have to talk about "scanning" either. I'm would be fine with saying for example "Note that this category is NOT intended ONLY for photographs taken in that year, or at all for media uploaded or scanned in that year, as the parent Category:France by year goes in time past the invention of photography, scanner or computers.". But I find it weird to read such a "note" when looking at Category:1302 in France.--Codrin.B (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Contrat pro.jpg and Contrat pro2.jpg

Could someone knowledgeable have a look at "File:Contrat pro.jpg" and "File:Contrat pro2.jpg"? For some unexplained reason, the uploader blanked out the two files. When I tried to revert the blanking I received these error messages:

"
  • Could not read or write file "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/a/a0/Contrat_pro2.jpg" due to insufficient permissions or missing directories/containers.
  • Could not read or write file "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/archive/a/a0/20110306062856!Contrat_pro2.jpg" due to insufficient permissions or missing directories/containers."

Perhaps the blanking should be taken as a request by the uploader for the files to be deleted, and that this should be fulfilled on a courtesy basis? — Cheers, JackLee talk 12:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

#Possible read-only time Friday, October 5 11:00-14:00 UTC. Rd232 (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Blanking was done within 24h of upload, and the files appear to be legal documents probably out of scope, so yes, I'd say speedy delete once write access is restored. Rd232 (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, didn't realize there was a temporary shut-down. I trust that an administrator will delete the files later. — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Done.  ■ MMXX talk 14:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"Location" of painting: location of the "camera" position and the current position of painting

I recently geotagged two photos of paintings ([2] and [3]). The two paintings show each an image of an easily identifiable real-world location. The "location" field of the Artwork template seems to be for the current location (in a museum), rather than the location of the depiction. So it seems that I have used the template the wrong way. Is there a way to markup an artwork regarding the depicted location? — Fnielsen (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I have simply used two location templates in such cases: File:9 inch model 1867 firing salute in Kustaanmiekka.JPG, the first location and object-location templates are the (approximate) locations for the original photograph, last location is the museum where I took the photograph-of-a-photograph. Not the most elegant solution, certainly. MKFI (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
That works, but it can be made prettier. One option is to give the {{location}} template an extra |name parameter that allows you to specify what the location is. Rd232 (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Help please

Help

For the first time I used the command to copy the same information to all uploaded images. I uploaded 13 images and did not notice they would all get the same name. I didn't think that would even be allowed. Why is there no delete command for a situation like this so I could remedy my own mistake? I need to rename those images or re-upload them after those there now are deleted, or whatever is done in this situation. I have uploaded hundreds of images and this was the first time I tried that beloved shortcut of "Copy" all information to all images. Will some kind person simply delete the last 13 images so I can re-upload them with the proper names, &c? William Maury Morris II (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Just add {{rename}} to the images. (example: {{rename|The new correct name.jpg|1|Text reason for rename}}. cheers, Amada44  talk to me 08:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Viral licenses are not automatic - essay review?

Hi all, I'd like to get some eyes on my new essay at Commons:Viral licenses are not automatic, which was written in response to at least two relevant deletion requests in which I participated. I'd like to ensure my legal understanding is valid and augment it where possible with references to reliable sources like case law. Please leave comments at Commons talk:Viral licenses are not automatic. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

To me, your text seems to be perfectly reasonable; however, I think that such cases aren't very common, rather a rare fringe issue here on Commons... but anyway the essay will do no harm, I assume. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look, I appreciate it. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Yep, that's sound reasoning. There's a great piece in LWN from 2003 dealing with the topic, specifically as it applies to GPL. LX (talk, contribs) 21:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Image file locked as currently non-working version

See File:Emblem of the Kuomintang.svg... -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I fixed that by reverting to a previous working version of that file (though there are still some controversies about the colour and the shape of the sunlight). odder (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. odder (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal re Licensing for new Featured Picture Nominations

Please join the discussion at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Proposal: Change to FP criteria for new nominations: disallow "GFDL 1.2 only" single licensing as it is not practically free for images. Remember this discussion concerns FP criteria only. Discussion on Commons licensing for uploads belongs elsewhere. -- Colin (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Bye bye Toolserver - Bye bye Rotatebot, Magnus'tools, Cropbot, … Open Streetmap tools - Welcome Wikilabs?

See also m:Future of Toolserver

This is my personal view and without any doubt it is biased, especially the heading:

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), this time announced by Erik Möller (Vice President of Engineering and Product Development), asks (see section We can't provide and 2) We're not comfortable hosting) Wikimedia Germany (yes, of course, without the WMF there would be no Toolserver) to close its Toolserver (located in Amsterdam, Netherlands) in the near future (December 2013). Then the Foundation, located in the U.S., is the sole "owner" of all the (live-)data and can control its flow entirely. Congratulations.

A replacement for Toolserver by the Wikimedia Foundation itself is in progress but it will be never as permissive in licensing questions as Toolserver was. Also authors will likely have to migrate their tools themself adding additional time pressure to them (yes, the tool authors were volunteers). The benefits will be possibly more stable tools. But much more cash will be (and was) invested than in Toolserver.

Feel free to comment on the mailing lists, e.g. Reasons for not migrating to Tool Lab. -- Rillke(q?) 14:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm somewhat confused by what you are trying to say here, especially because of a parenthesis-filled sentence and (I think) several attempts to use the ironic mode in a language where you are pretty far short of native proficiency. After re-reading three or four times, do I correctly understand that WMF has asked Wikimedia Germany to shut down its toolserver by December 2013 and you oppose this because Wikimedia Labs software is in some unspecified way less free than the toolserver software? Is there something else I am missing? - Jmabel ! talk 15:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
    • It looks to me like WMF have asked Wikimedia Germany to shut down toolserver by December 2013, to be replaced by proposed-but-not-yet-created functionality in Wikimedia Labs? Other than the fact that we're giving up a known (toolserver) for an unknown (proposed Wikimedia Labs functionality), I don't understand the problem? cmadler (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Confusing parts were removed. The remaining part should be pretty clear: Additional work. Some bots will stop their work if Toolserver authors don't agree to the stricter terms of service by the WMF. Thanks for the notes. -- Rillke(q?) 15:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I still cannot parse Rillke's original post. It's like trying to read LISP. Regardless, the WMF Labs server already exists and there are already bot authors using it. It just doesn't have DB replication yet. Why does everyone say it is merely "proposed" and "not-yet-created"? The toolserver hasn't been very reliable for the past year or so and WM-DE doesn't seem to have much interest in supporting it. This sounds like good news to me. Kaldari (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Just because there are some bot authors it does not mean it will be suitable for all bot-authors. Furthermore, bots aren't the only users of Toolserver. Also, I have the feeling the Wikimedia Foundation is usurping control over everything, beginning with the founds and now continuing with Toolserver. I am annoyed by the strategy of professional fundraising (“a personal appeal by” where the “letter” is the product of analyzing user behavior but far away from something personal) and income maximization. It is maybe nice of you are able to read hundred of pages in English (as for understanding the founds-issue) and if you get an account (which I don't do because I can't accept certain terms of the labs-policy). -- Rillke(q?) 18:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
See also w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-10-01/Technology report... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Tile sets - gigapixel artworks on Commons

I have a number of very large gigapixel-scale artworks collected up on my local storage that I haven't been able to upload to Commons, partly due to file size limitations but also for a number of practical reasons: JPEG does not support images over 65536x65536, Photoshop does not support JPEGs over 30000x30000, TIFF files are way too big to be practical, and most applications will completely decode an image in 32bpp in RAM when it is opened, meaning that the full size images break most apps. I had been distributing them as ZIPs of the original tiles on my torrent server, but these sets (containing 50,000 tiles or more) can't be used without writing custom software.

So I came up with a compromise: I can upload the full-resolution images in the form of a small set of very large (29696 × 29696 or 882 megapixels) JPEG tile files. These files can be processed by ImageMagick and opened by Photoshop and GIMP on my PC, which is a fairly normal 64-bit PC with 8 GB of RAM (unfortunately simpler apps like MS Paint and JPEGtran can't handle them). This enables a lot of useful transformations, especially cropping. I have uploaded the first sample, a 12 gigapixel image of Rembrandt's The Night Watch, composed of 16 such tiles. The grid is shown below, along with the reduced-resolution full artwork (656 MP), to scale, for comparison:

Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x0-y0.jpg Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x1-y0.jpg Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x2-y0.jpg Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x3-y0.jpg
Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x0-y1.jpg Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x1-y1.jpg Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x2-y1.jpg Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x3-y1.jpg
Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x0-y2.jpg Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x1-y2.jpg Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x2-y2.jpg Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x3-y2.jpg
Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x0-y3.jpg Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x1-y3.jpg Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x2-y3.jpg Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x3-y3.jpg

Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project.jpg

My approach is to create a category for each set of tiles forming a single image (e.g. Category:Tile set of The Night Watch, which is under Category:Tile_sets) and each file description page is identical and based on a single template supplying the image description, cats, and tile grid (e.g. {{Tile set/The Night Watch}}). The grid is in a subtemplate {{Tile set/The Night Watch/grid}} which allows it to also be used on the cat page and on the page of the reduced-resolution complete artwork.

I would like to get feedback about my approach and any comments on how I could improve it before I continue to upload more gigapixel images in this fashion. Thank you! Dcoetzee (talk) 07:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe using {{Tile set/The Night Watch/grid}} has some pros --Martin H. (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure what the point is. If the point is only to use Commons to store these very large images, I suppose it'll work for that purpose. These files though, tiled up like this, are way too large to use in any way on any project, and I don't see any benefit of using them over a scaled down image that's as large as we'll allow in a single image. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
They're not meant to be used directly on projects - they're intended to be used for editing and derivative works. The main application is cropping (producing images of portions of the original work at the highest possible resolution - e.g. see some at Category:Details of The Night Watch). I can also imagine a number of research applications for these images (testing scaling of distributed image processing algorithms, classifying works based on detailed brush strokes, etc.) They're also useful for content reusers who want to produce very large, wall-sized prints, by printing each tile and physically assembling them. For example the above work, printed at 600 dpi, would yield a print of size 15ft 8in x 13ft 0in (4.8 x 4.0 m). Dcoetzee (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
@Martin H: Using subpages (/s) for the templates now, thx for the tip. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent idea. I can see this being extremely useful for third-party, non-WMF re-users -FASTILY (TALK) 08:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
While this is quite impressive, I have to say that I'm not sold on the actual usefulness of these files. I agree that it's important to provide high resolution images so that people can create crops of details, but this is the equivalent of looking at a painting through a microscope. Is anyone going to create a crop of a single eyelash or a single speck of paint? We could study the brushstrokes at 1/100th of this level of detail. The only legitimate case where you would want this level of detail is to do a restoration, and the people who would be doing that already have access to these images (I would presume). Kaldari (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I would concede that the 656 MP single file is sufficient for most conceivable purposes, including the ones I mentioned. Nevertheless I assign that more to my lack of ability to conceive clear applications, rather than the absence of such applications. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Update: see two additional gigapixel works at Category:Tile set of The Garden of Earthly Delights (18 tiles) and Category:Tile set of The Last Day of Pompeii (12 tiles). Dcoetzee (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's really cool! InverseHypercube 03:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the idea. --Jarekt (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Superseded images policy

Having just enacted a new guideline (COM:OVERWRITE), I'm wondering if we couldn't get rid of something to keep the number of policies/guidelines from rising... Commons:Superseded images policy seems a really easy win: just redirect to Commons:Deletion_policy#Redundant.2Fbad_quality. We don't need a policy that just says "this isn't policy any more", do we? Rd232 (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean not have "rejected policy" or "superceded policy" tags? Why not? They would provide a) historical reference and b) context for when old discussions are referenced. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
It's currently labelled (official) {{policy}}. Labelling it {{Rejected}} would also work, to allow it to be removed from the list of official policies. But if redirected as I suggested above, the talk page would remain available as an archive of the old discussions. I don't mind how it's done exactly, as long as it's not labelled official policy any more. Rd232 (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Redirected, though I also categorized it as Category:Commons rejected policies and guidelines. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
+1 But I've restored the deleted information[4][5]. (PS. My Another Edit was an unintentional mistake. Thanks Rd232) -- πϵρήλιο 10:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

October 4

Commons:Copyright rules by territory

What do people think of developing Commons:Copyright rules by territory so that it transcludes country info from individual pages, like Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany-table? I think at least for the more significant countries (in terms of quantity of contributions and complexity of copyright) we could benefit from individual pages to tie the different copyright issues together a little better. Rd232 (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I can see several benefits. It would make it easier to link directly to relevant information in response to help requests. It would break translation tasks into more manageable chunks, which would be easier to maintain than a monolith. It would enable translators to prioritise the most relevant jurisdictions for each language. It would also make it possible to do more selective watchlisting. LX (talk, contribs) 13:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support: It also allows keeping discussions about the country together, language links to the appropriate Wikipedia article/ or help/project page and being more specific. -- Rillke(q?) 11:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I also think it's a good idea and I agree with most above, however, I think it is better to have all discussions in one place rather than having more than 100 different talk pages to follow, perhaps it would be easier if we just redirect all country-specific talk pages to the main talk page.  ■ MMXX talk 21:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed on redirection of talk pages. Added a note pointing at COM:VPC too, since Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory is not meant to displace that. Rd232 (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Image permissions via SNS

Some users asked me whether it is possible to forward permissions gained via social networking services (e.g. Twitter, Facebook) to OTRS. Well I don't know about this area, so I could not give accurate and helpful answers. Recently, many media files are uploaded to SNS and getting permissions via SNS is very convenient. So I propose the guideline about permissions via SNS to be established. Your opinions are appreciated. – Kwj2772 (msg) 04:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean permissions received via private messaging on SNS, or non-public parts of Facebook? Because otherwise they're just websites. Rd232 (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
What I meant includes public statements and private message. – Kwj2772 (msg) 10:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you mean User:Idh0854? permissions needs to be verifiable and we should be able to archive it, a Twitter permission, written in less than 140 characters is never sufficient, let alone a copy-paste like this (ko:사용자:Idh0854/저작권#두 개의 문) with no deep link. as I understand COM:OTRS is available in Korean too, so it shouldn't be a problem for User:Idh0854 to understand what to do.  ■ MMXX talk 16:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

SVG rendering for specific sizes

Please look at User:Gauravjuvekar/Sandbox. File:Associatividadecat.svg does not render with correct fonts at specific sizes of 30, 100, 150, 180, 200, 300, 500 px. Is this a caching issue(it happens for only these specific sizes)? Purging the cache does not help. The same happens if these sizes are viewed from the links on the file description page (This image rendered as PNG in other sizes...). Thank you--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't see what the problem is... AnonMoos (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
All sizes mentioned were sans-serif. -- Rillke(q?) 10:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I can't tell anything about the 29px-30px-31px thumbnails, and I didn't wait for the larger ones to load, but all of 99px, 100px, 101px, 149px, 150px, 151px, 179px, 180px, 181px, 199px, 200px, 201px display serifed for me... AnonMoos (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed All of them serifed correctly for me now. Earlier, the 30, 100, 150, 180, 200, 300, 500px were rendering sans-serif. Probably just a caching issue. Thanks anyways --Gauravjuvekar (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

October 7

Media needing categories that have already categories

Checking images in the Category "Media needing categories" I found many images that have already categories. For example this one. Is it possible that a bot deletes the "Media needing categories" in such a file or changes it to "Check categories"? Wouter (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC) Note: This should be done only when the image have existing categories. Wouter (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Slapping one category on an image doesn't always mean that it no longer needs thought about its categories. In general, this template should be removed by a human who has decided that the image is now decently categorized. - Jmabel ! talk 23:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I think it is not just slapping a category on an image. In all cases the Upload Wizard has been used and the categories have not been added by somebody else afterwards. See for example also this I think that the Upload Wizard has been used in a special way. See also the comment below about "Upload Wizard incorrectly marks file as uncategorized". Wouter (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Content with a little disruptiveness in it xD

Just to let you know. See pages listed here.--Dixtosa (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I've started to remove the inappropriate self-description. --Túrelio (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Upload Wizard incorrectly marks file as uncategorized

I uploaded File:Nikolai II Hietalahdessa Verkkokaupan näköalatasanteelta.JPG with Upload Wizard after having problems with the old upload form. Despite having multiple correct categories the image has been marked as uncategorized. I was too lazy to select categories one at the time, so I simply pasted a list of categorylinks into the "other information" field. Upload Wizard should check if the file is actually uncategorized, not simply check if the user filled the category field. MKFI (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Please open a bug (good choice) for this or write it as a suggestion to Commons talk:Upload Wizard (likely not requires a discussion there). Commons administrators or users can't change Upload Wizard with reasonable efforts. -- Rillke(q?) 10:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Failed upload warning for successful upload

I twice uploaded File:Creole House in Prairie du Rocher.jpg (note no differences between the two uploads) because of a warning during the first upload; after receiving the error a second time, I decided to check my contributions and found that it had gone through. I didn't keep the first warning, but the second one is "Could not move file "mwstore://local-NFS/local-public/0/05/Creole_House_in_Prairie_du_Rocher.jpg" to "mwstore://local-NFS/local-public/archive/0/05/20121007205429!Creole_House_in_Prairie_du_Rocher.jpg". Any idea what's going on? The directory names in the error message are completely unrelated to the directory names on my hard drive. Nyttend (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The directory name you have seen represents the structure of one of the Wikimedia Foundation's servers that is used to host the image, and the problem you got is probably related to the outage of this server that happened earlier today (see this e-mail as a reference), though it might have occured at one of the servers in the cluster mentioned in that e-mail, too, I am not sure. We have all been experiencing some errors today, but there's nothing to worry about; it's a server issue that should have been resolved soon, I guess. odder (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

October 8

Image in Vasari painting

Hi!

Painting by Vasari.

I'm hoping someone can help me identify an object in the painting by Giorgio Vasari of "The Mutiliation of Uranus by Saturn". Above the scene, apparently peering out an opening in a dome-like cage, is an object that looks like a telescope or something similar. At the left end of it is what appears to be an aperture lens and at the other end an objective lens. Help or suggestions are appreciated. --Marshallsumter (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Whole thing is some kind of Armillary sphere... -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
It would be the sceptre, the symbolic attribute of the ruler of the deities and of the universe. It was an attribute of Uranus and is about to pass to Cronus. The nature of a sceptre as a phallic symbol seems especially obvious in the context of this painting. The ruling god and owner of the sceptre during a given mythical era is also the main progenitor of that era. (Thus mirroring an alpha male in primate and some other animal societies.) -- Asclepias (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Let first give a chance modifying own image to the author

When a new edited version (cropping, enhancing, retouching etc) of an image is needed within all the Wikimedia projects, normally who needs the new version or someone else does it as per the license offers. I propose, first request to the original author, who photographed/draw the image, if he/she is original author, active and willing to do so. A time span, say seven days may be given to the author if he/she fails, then only the modification may be done by other.
Suppose, who shoot in .NEF for by Nikon camera, the image delivered in .jpg format in Commons, when a .jpg is edited and saved again in .jpg format, that suffers a loss of colors and tone, but if that is modified from the original .NEF file the result will be the best. example Obviously it will not applicable for the up-loaders of others’ works. -- Biswarup Ganguly (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If the author has a better-quality file available than the one uploaded to Commons, the results from any editing may be better, yes. There's nothing to stop people asking authors for help now. What exactly are you proposing? Rd232 (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I suspect most of us aren't able to do significant modifications of the images; and I don't know how many of us are using cameras that output JPG, but I suspect there's quite a number working from low-end cameras that do. And if the author wants to do a better job, they can upload their version over yours. Retouching or serious enhancing take enough work that it may be a big deal to do it twice, but it's also something that most people can't do, or at least can't do well.
Cropping as a general rule should be lossless; jpegtran and other tools can losslessly crop jpegs, and other photographic formats are naturally lossless.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
If you are unhappy with the quality of someone else's cropped version of your photo, you can always replace it with a better crop. - Jmabel ! talk 15:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
This is precisely why Commons should accept camera raw files. Vote for my bug to add DNG support. Meanwhile, my unofficial site Commons Archive is accepting camera raw files for images on Commons. Provided that original authors can be persuaded to upload their raws, there is no reason that anyone cannot make improvements to them - indeed, others may be better at postprocessing than the original author. The proposed policy would amount to giving a sort of limited ownership of files to the original uploaders, which is counter to our principles and culture. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd upload raw files, just for the sake of giving them an offsite backup. I'd also believe that somebody else could process them better. It's very rare however that anybody else would modify one of my images. Most of them are nothing special. It should be possible to consider any raw format to be "open" if there is open source software that can process it - the source code will function as documentation. ghouston (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I would expect considerable opposition to uploads of proprietary camera raw files, for reasons of principle. However DNG is an open, royalty-free format, with open-source batch converters from proprietary formats, and Adobe is actively seeking to have it standardised. I think that makes it an excellent contender - but it's been ranked so low priority that I might have to do the work myself if I want them to accept it. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Brno trams

I get frustated when I try categorise this tram image File:Stelplaats Vozovna Pisárky in Brno.jpg. All the trams are categorized up to individual trams. I cant recognize the tram type. To complicate matters most trams are only visible in there modern versions. There should be category type image so you dont have to be an expert to know what you are looking fore.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  • All of the trams visible on the photo are Tatra T3.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    Oh, I see you already discovered that. Well, the individual numbers are not visible, so that we can not do anything about it.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    Where I get confused is that all the examples of T3 I saw where single cars, while these are articulated trams.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, you are right. Looks indeed more like Tatra K2. You probably need to ask an expert.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

October 9

How to remove date stamp?

I took some picture but the camera automatically created some date stamps. Now I want to remove them, what should I do? I usually use GIMP to edit pictures but I am not very good at that.--Jack No1 (中文/English) (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

  • If by "date stamp" you mean something visually on the picture (rather than just in EXIF data or something similar) there is no real way to remove this without somewhat falsifying the image. Depending on the picture, this may be easy or difficult to do with reasonable integrity. If you can point to an online example of the pictures you are working with, it's more likely someone can help you. Also, you might get better advice at Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop than on the Village pump. - Jmabel ! talk 05:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:speedydelete translations error

I made this [correction] in en-gb but I think had to be made to all translations.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 10:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Bot warning re licence problem

After uploading an image at Commons, I got this message. I have since added this Freedom of Panorama licence, but I'm not sure if that addresses the problem or not. Can someone please advise? Hamiltonstone (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The FOP template covers the copyright of the painting, but you also need a license tag to cover the copyright in the photo of the painting. This could be {{PD-Art}} (in this type of case only!) or {{PD-self}} (if you took the photo yourself), for instance. Rd232 (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah. In that case, I will have switch to fair use rather than free use, as I did not take the photograph itself, and I'm not in the same city as the work, so I won't be able to as a practical matter. Can someone arrange deletion of this image from commons, or do I need to take that request elsewhere? Hamiltonstone (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? The photo would appear to be a faithful reproduction of a 2-dimensional work, and would therefore have no copyright of its own. - Jmabel ! talk 16:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but in trying to apply {{PD-Art}} here, I see that the template says it applies to faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art. Since the painter (en:Constance Stokes) died in 1991, the painting itself is not PD. It can be photographed under {{FOP-Australia}}, but PD-Art doesn't seem to apply. Rd232 (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
How would FOP-Australia apply to this work? -- Asclepias (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, actually it doesn't - FoP only applies to paragraph (c) (+ sculptures and buildings) here, so paintings (in para (a)) are excluded. COM:FOP#Australia clarified. Rd232 (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, excuse me, I misread your remark & presumed the work was public domain. Sounds like the only way we could host this is explicit permission from the heirs or estate. - Jmabel ! talk 00:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

SVG textpath doesn't thumbnail in mediawiki?


US Antarctic Program images - unfortunately not PD-US

Hi all,

I've recently discovered (see OTRS ticket 2012100210009946) that material taken from the US Antarctic Program photo-library is not actually PD-US; they didn't produce the images, but merely host them for a number of private photographers, under what is effectively a noncommercial-use-only license - see here.

The ticket originally named two images - File:Diving emperor penguin.jpg and File:Emperor Penguin Kiss.jpg - but this potentially affects a couple of hundred images, including a fair chunk of the material tagged {{PD-USGov-NSF}}, and most of the results at Special:LinkSearch/photolibrary.usap.gov.

I've not listed any for deletion yet (though the original photographer has marked the "kiss" photo above) but we probably need to work out how to list and remove all the images originating from the photo library. Advice appreciated! Andrew Gray (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue. I remember that a couple of years ago there was this very large discussion about if images made by sailors on a navy ship were PD, which I think ended with "depends on wether the person was on duty at the moment of photography". BTW. BAD organization for not preventing such copyright ambiguity in the first place. TheDJ (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, the permission slip is clear enough. Delete all, unless it can be proven that the author was working for the US government at time of photography. TheDJ (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Uploaders also linked http://web.archive.org/web/20080102231658/http://photolibrary.usap.gov/information2.htm. Thats not a free content permission (derivatives? perpetually? destribution, yes, but commercially?).
Also one can think that this photographers are employees of the NSF. E.g. File:Fryxellsee.jpg suggest so, but no, its only required to credit the NSF, see the permission point 6 (http://photolibrary.usap.gov/documents/PermissionForm.pdf). So File:Fryxellsee.jpg is for no reason public domain, the NSF credit is a source credit, not a copyright holder credit. File:Treadmill.jpg is for no reason the property of the NSF, nor is the photo free for any purpose. And so on, see LinkSearch. --Martin H. (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not quite as simple as delete all - some of the NSF material is taken from things like blogs and reports rather than the photo library - but, yeah, 95% of it will have to go. How do we go about this? Individually list them all for deletion? Some (like the Emperor Penguin above) are quite complex - they're FPs on multiple projects and there will be a lot of tidying up to do. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I've started pulling a list of these together, and it should be ready for a bulk deletion request by the weekend. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

October 10

WSM meanings

When you look at WSM, you are referred to the Samoa category: I dont understand the connection. In the Dutch langauge there is an other meaning: Category:Westlandsche Stoomtramweg Maatschappij. There may be other meanings to WSM. Could someone look at this? Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

WSM is the three-letter en:ISO 3166-1 country code for Samoa. MKFI (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes but how do you arrange a choice WSM (Samoa or Westlandsche Stoomtramweg Maatschappij) There must be other country codes wich have more meanings. With a redirect it is to late: I cannot place a link in the category Samoa for (Westlandsche Stoomtramweg Maatschappij). That would confuse everybody. A Dpintro? Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Many such country codes are not used as redirects this way (e.g. US, MX). I don't see any reason we can't make this a disambiguation of some sort. - Jmabel ! talk 00:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I created a redirect (:Category:WSM (Railway company). The current redirect should be renamed or included in an disambiguation page as: WSM (Country code Samoa)Smiley.toerist (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrong name

Hi. One year ago in es:WP the son of Bernardo Roselli reported this is not his father. I put a message in the TP of the uploader, but the description and picture is still there. Today we received another message about the one in the picture is not BRoselli, wich is easy to see here. Even Commons' picture it's from 2009, it's very clear in my opinion it´s another person. What do you suggest to do? Rename seems not possible, since I don´t know who the yungest man is. Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

As the uploader didn't do anything in reply to your message in one year, that probably means he doesn't know who the person is. If you think there's any hope of ever identifying the person and that he is a notable chess player, maybe rename temporarily to something like "Unidentified chess player in Dresden 2008". If not, a photo showing nothing other than a face of some unknown person is not likely to be of any use and a deletion request could be considered. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I would say the image shows Roselli's opponent in the 6th round game of the Dresden chess olympiad 2008, es:Rubén Felgaer. The EXIF date of the image gives November 19, 2008 as the date; at that day, the sitxh round was played, opposing Uruguay[6] and Argentine[7], with the pairing Roselli vs. Felgaer at the top board (1-0). Looking for images of Felgaer, the likeness to the images shown at [8] (see especially at the bottom) makes me believe that File:Roselli mailhe bernardo 20081119 olympiade dresden.jpg actually shows Rubén Felgaer, even though he's wearing different glasses. Lupo 21:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think that is more accurate. Thanks for your work. Is it possible to rename it? --Andrea (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Done. File is now at File:Felgaer Rubén 20081119 Chess Olympiad Dresden.jpg. Lupo 21:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Formatnum

I've just come across the fairly complex template {{Formatnum}}. Is this not superseded by the Formatnum magic word? (Compare en:Template:Formatnum, which is just an error message telling people to use the magic word.) Rd232 (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

October 11

Freedom of Information Act image releases

I uploaded aerial images of the September 11. attacks on the World Trade Center. The images were taken by Greg Semendinger, a member of the NYPD's aviation unit.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) a federal agency was tasked by the 9-11 Commission with conducting a forensic investigation into the collapse of the towers. The NIST put out a call for photographers to "voluntarily" submit images to the agency "without restriction" i.e. copyright claims.

ABC News submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the release of all available inages in possession of the NIST in 2009. The request was granted and approximately 2,700+ images were released on 3 CD's, amongst them were the 250 digital images taken by Semendinger. I uploaded 5 of these images and placed them in a category: Freedom of Information Act image release.

Images released via a FOIA request are, according to, Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996.:

Section 2. Findings and Purposes
"The findings make clear that Congress enacted the FOIA to require Federal agencies to make records available to the public through public inspection and upon the request of any person for any public or private use. The findings also acknowledge the increase in the government's use of computers and exhorts agencies to use new technology to enhance public access to government information."
"The purposes of the bill include improving public access to government information and records, and reducing the delays in agencies' responses to request for records under the Freedom of Information Act."[9].

Once the images were posted on the ABC News website they were availble for use by "any person for any public or private use". Said images are legally displayed on various websites.

There is no appropriate tag for "Freedom of Information Act image releases". So one needs to be created. I would do it if I knew how. 7mike5000 (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If they're made by a U.S. govt. agency, just use {{PD-USGov}} (or a template more specific to the particular agency, if one exists). If various private parties released them for unrestricted use, use {{Copyrighted free use}}. I don't think FOIA has much to do with it. -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, FOIA releases of copyrighted materials are just a form of fair use, according to the Justice Department. See FOIA Update Vol. IV, No. 4, 1983, OIP Guidance: Copyrighted Materials and the FOIA for details. --Avenue (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Also I uploaded 5 images, and now there are mysteriously only 4. With no record of the 5th image having been uploaded, it just.....disappeared. Weird just like an administrator who was misusing his "tool" on the English Wikipeda, the same pecker whi then blocked/banned me. And this litttle episode for me is the coup de grace with the whole Wikipedia, Wikimedia arrogant, obnoxious petty stupidity. Maybe somebody can delete all of these too[10]. I couldn't care less. Bye Bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7mike5000 (talk • contribs)

If it had been deleted by an admin, there would be a notice like this. Images magically disappearing without any trace sounds much more like yet another bug in the Upload Wizard. That thing does some really crazy stuff from time to time. --El Grafo (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
File:North Tower burning-9-11 attacks.JPG was deleted (per copyvio). Jean-Fred (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
If the image was deleted "per copyvio" (which it was not) why was there no speedy deletion tag placed on it first. Why was i not given the courtesy of being informed first. Why does it not appear in my edit summaries that I uploaded it. Why does it not appear in the edit summary that I posted it on a few Wikipedia websites, like the Swedish Wikipedia...just curious.7mike5000 (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
A {{copyvio}} tag was placed on the image about 5 hours after you uploaded the higher resolution version, and the tagger raised his concerns on your talk page (admittedly without specifically mentioning the tag). The image was deleted about 5 hours after it was tagged, and has since been restored by the admin who deleted it.[11] --Avenue (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm bored, and also a kind of a glutton for punishment:
"His photographs re-emerged recently after ABC News’ Diane Sawyer obtained them from the 9/11 Commission under the Freedom of Information Act. ABC identified the photographer, who had made sure to label the material when handing it over to the panel chaired by former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean. “That opened the floodgates. The Associated Press reprinted some of them, then Newsday, then magazines and newspapers from all over the world. I once had one TV crew in my living room, a second one in the basement having coffee while it waited, and a third one out on the front door,” said Semendinger, who lives in Wantagh with his wife and 12-year-old daughter.[1]. He put his name on the images via a watermark, because he's human and wanted to insure he was accredited for them.

The same as a painter signing his work. A watermark is not a copyright. This is a United States copyright symbol Copyright symbol.png, which is absent from the watermarks on the images because the photographer did not copyright the images. The explanation is quite frankly fairly clear as to what type of images, how they were obtained and why they are public domain and said explanation is available on various websites of organizations that are considered credible resources, such as the New York Times, which is a newspaper of record in the U.S. So this: File:North Tower burning-9-11 attacks.JPG was deleted without cause. "My image" was not deleted Wikimedia's was. 7mike5000 (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright symbols are irrelevant. After 1989, all works published in the US are automatically copyrighted to the author, notice or no notice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

NPR News: "The pictures were released after ABC News filed a Freedom of Information Act request. Semendinger is glad they're out. "The rest of the world should see them," he remarked, because they provide "a total perspective of what happened that day."[12].7mike5000 (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

NBC News ( 2/10/2010): Semendinger said he gave the digital images to the 9/11 Commission and believes those images were released by the NSIT.[13]7mike5000 (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Semendinger being "glad they're out" is not necessarily the same as him being happy for his photos to be put to various commercial uses. In that same NBC article, we're told nine of his images were published in a book without his consent. If he's still rehashing that 10 years later (the book came out in 2002), I think we'd be wise to be cautious about the idea he's willingly released all rights to the photos. News organisations can claim fair use, but fair use is not allowed on Commons. --Avenue (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete template is broken?

Tagged these two obsolete redirects for deletion with the "speedy delete" template but the reason for deletion doesn't show after save. File:PSM V51 D026 Global male stature distribution 16.png and File:PSM V51 D026 Global male stature distribution 256.pngIneuw 06:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The = sign you used in your rationale was interpreted as template_parameter=... I'm fixing it now by removing the = --99of9 (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes! Thanks for the reminder and the edit. I've done this elsewhere once before. Guess one lesson wasn't sufficient. — Ineuw 08:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Please make the numeric parameters explicit: {{Template|1= abc = abc}}. -- Rillke(q?) 16:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

F2ComButton

Re User talk:Odie5533/F2ComButton. This used to work on my PC, but it stopped working about 4 months ago. I guess that it might have stopped working because of incompatibilities with new versions of MS Windows, GreaseMonky, Flickr, or Firefox, but it could be due to a problem elsewhere. The author has not edited here for a long time. Is there anyone who can fix the script or explain how to get it to work. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Search field does not recognize text in description field

Please answer my question on File talk:Oil spillage.jpeg. -unsigned

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 15:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Clean way to undo an unintended upload over an existing file?

Hi, what is the clean way to undo an unintended upload over an existing file? Reverting to a previous image does not solve the problem, as it makes the reverter the author of the image. As an example see file:Hohe Kanzel.jpg. How is it possible to credit User:Königshofen in his file-list again?

BTW: It looks as the new UW does not check any more for existing files and the old upload form never did (not sure about that - did not use if for long time, except for uploading new versions). --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

UW should not allow upload over an existing title, and indeed I'm not able to reproduce this in Chrome (it checks the title against existing files while it's being entered). Which browser/OS did you experience this with?--Eloquence (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
FF 15 on Mac. Maybe it depends on the responsiveness of the Ajax requests to check. But I entered an existing name (without suffix) and waited for minutes, no complaint. But this is a side notice, the primary question was about undoing. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Bug or some strange image format ?

Both File:Amalienborg Slotsplads - equestrian.jpg and File:Nordre Toldbod - colonnade.jpg are identical to the Flickr source images but at Commons they show a glitch that isn't visible at Flickr. Any idea? --Denniss (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

October 12

Correcting perpectives

HAL Rotterdam terminal en schip.JPG
HAL Rotterdam terminal en schip1a.JPG

Is there some procedure or tool to correct perspective problems? (leaning towers etc) One example is File:HAL Rotterdam terminal en schip.JPG, where someone corrected the image with File:HAL Rotterdam terminal en schip1a.JPG.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Lens correction tools can do this. See a tutorial at [14]. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Gimp, among others, does it. Gimp 2.8: tools/transformation/perspective --Jwh (talk) 08:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
But GIMP does not have the ability to correct barrel/pincushion distortion, does it? /ℇsquilo 12:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
You can find this tool under Filters > Distorts > Lens Distortion... There's a documentation about it on docs.gimp.org. Make sure you've got your GIMP updated to the latest version (although the lense correction feature has been already added in GIMP 2.3.12 beta). Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! /ℇsquilo 19:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks too, Peter! --Jwh (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a dedicated software for this. Its called ViewPoint from DxO. Details are here: http://www.dxo.com/uk/photo/dxo_viewpoint/introduction - Amada44  talk to me 08:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I use ShiftN, downloaded from http://www.shiftn.de/. I find it very easy to use. Also for getting horizons horizontal. Best regards, MartinD (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Import a gadget from Spanish Wikipedia

In Spanish Wikipedia we have this Gadget. It show the history and all specials pages (like contributions) as a numbered list. I like this gadget and I think that it is a good tool. So I request an administrator add it in Special:Preferences> Gadgets > Interface:. Or put this gadget like default changing it the dots. I like the two option (change). The description phrase is "Show the history and all specials pages as a numbered list." For questions, contact me. --Vivaelcelta {discussion  · contributions} 01:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You should only copy and paste

body.ns--1 div#content ul, div#content ul#pagehistory {list-style: decimal}

into User:Vivaelcelta/vector.css. No gadget needed. --El Caro (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
But adding the gadget all users can activate with only marking a box. And this way they have to copy and paste the code, but it is difficult and people that don't know to create this.--Vivaelcelta {discussion  · contributions} 20:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

copyviol

I think. Most artworks here are by Category:Jose Carlos Ituarte Gonzalez dead in 1992. thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 18:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Please create a deletion request which include them all. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

October 13

Template:GFPLM-image-full

I'm trying to nest {{GFPLM-image}} into {{GFPLM-image-full}}, but the empty params seem to be showing through. Can someone let me know what's wrong with the code?Smallman12q (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I added pipes between the template parameters.[15] PrimeHunter (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

October 14

Request for Checkuser rights

This is to inform the community that there is a nomination for Checkuser rights here. It was agreed a couple of years ago that such requests and for Oversight which are quite rare should be publicised due to the high level of trust required in users with these rights. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Maps of Palestine, and maps of Palestinian territories

Discussion moved to Commons:Requests for comment/Palestine and Palestinian territories
Timestamp for archive -FASTILY (TALK) 00:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

September 4

do these images meet threshold of originality?

this logo (#1) and this logo(#2).-- Infestor  TC 10:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, IMO. Surely per U.K. copyright/jurisprudence. --Túrelio (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
oh, it depends on country? these are from turkey. no turkey-specific information about it on commons (afaik) -- Infestor  TC 16:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
By US standards probably the first does meet TOO, not sure about the second. Per Turkey standards I have no idea. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

"Nominate for deletion" notifies all contributors

...which seriously annoys the person who wants to notify only the original uploader. Is there a way I can tweak the .js a bit so it does so? Hurricanefan24 (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

In many cases original uploder is no longer around, or someone cases we had filename wars where multiple people were fighting for "desirable" filename by reuploading over each other. Ofter The current image has nothing to do with the original upload. I think that it is better to notify too many people than too few. --Jarekt (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
This is intended behaviour. People who just reverted are not notified. Perhaps one could offer an opt-out for this feature (which makes only sense if implemented for the recipient side) but this requires an additional API-request, thus slowing down the procedure. -- Rillke(q?) 17:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I personally appreciate it; if I've done any sort of work on an image, I'd rather be notified when someone is deleting it. I remember an article I was a contributor to on Wikipedia that got deleted, and would have liked to have some more warning then a mere line in my Watchlist.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I get notified even for images that my bots have automatically rotated on request, images where I've removed a border or watermark, etc. which generally don't concern me at all. But the messages are rare enough that I can merely revert my talk page. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Please confer to Commons:Bots#Notifications to upload bots. -- Rillke(q?) 10:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Illegal Code for image re-use on Commons

As I wrote on the German Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen, in the German Forum (=Village pump) here and at http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/165211461/ I see the attribution according the CC licence using the title-attribute not as legal. It urges the user to a mouseover and doesn't work for old browser and - this is important - for mobile devices using iOS. You cannot see the attribution on an iPAD or an iPhone. Even Apple isn't accepting the HTML 4 standard for iOS you cannot expropriate the creators by recommending an attribution mode not appropriate for iOS. Furthermore Commons should make it more clear that any re-use without the URI of the CC-license is illegal --Historiograf (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to suggest something specific, please mention this at MediaWiki:Gadget-Stockphoto.js. As long as we don't have such a policy or similar, which enforces proper template use, our code for embedding is not reliable, anyway. -- Rillke(q?) 20:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Does it show the attribution if you click on the image? Isn't that sufficient? It's harder than that to find the attribution of a line of text in Wikipedia, where the same considerations would apply (the author information, which can be found by studying the article history). ghouston (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
This is no argument, all re-use recommandations we give should be 100 % license conform --Historiograf (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Histograf. This is a Wiki. Meaning you can edit it. At least the associated talk pages. If you would like a specific change for a non-controversial request (which is implied by your use of illegal), then please make an {{Edit request}}. Everything for generating the code is at Commons. Please confer to Help:Machine-readable data. -- Rillke(q?) 21:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The URI of the CC license is required? Is that true? Keep in mind many potential reuses are not in a web context, where such a URI could seem very strange. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes, but it is so impractical that Creative Commons plans to move away from it in the 4.0 version. Jean-Fred (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Really? I grabbed the Handbook of the IPA from the shelf, from 1999, and found within 5 seconds two URIs. Likewise with the 2012 book I had sitting around. Both the calendars I have up have URIs on them. It's not unusual at all in a modern environment.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Licensing of images release by political parties in Germany

Hi,

regarding licensing of images released by political parties in Germany:

On Commons:Free_media_resources/Photography#Germany we have this section "Some chapters of German parties, federal, state and communal level, or politicians release photos under free licenses on Flickr:". On Commons talk:Free media resources/Photography we have a comment "Public domain or free?".

I think we should keep all sources of acceptable licenses in one place and remove the claim it is just public domain (and also not just Flickr). See talk page.

Just added a section for the Piratenpartei who runs a wiki and explicitly mentions CC BY-SA 3.0 for its logos but then also has quite a few more images without license templates, or at least i could not see them right away. See the second link. This is the license, but then some images _may_ be excluded, "Manche Inhalte (Dateien/Bilder) stehen ggf. unter einer anderen Lizenz.", and there are all these but what if they don't have license templates?

Further, i added File:Tobias von Pein.jpg from the SPD Flickr account, which was cc-by-2.0. (the de.wp page was missing an image, added it there).

I also tried to find a source for the CDU, and there is Junge Union Fotoarchiv. It has this copyright message in German: "Urheberrechts- und Coyrighthinweis: Bei Quellenangabe sind die Fotos honorarfrei einsetzbar.", which roughly translates to "if source is attributed, reprint free of charge". How acceptable does that sound to you?

I am trying to find more sources and add more political parties, also smaller ones, for completeness, and categorize images by party. Ultimately to add photos to politician stubs/articles on de and/or en.wp missing a photo. I have no personal relation to any of the parties.

Thanks for comments or edits, Mutante (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

October 15

Upload (updating an image) error

I keep trying to add a new version to this image, but after waiting a minute or so it keeps giving me the following error:

A database error has occurred. Did you forget to run maintenance/update.php after upgrading? See: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Upgrading#Run_the_update_script Query: SELECT 1 FROM `image` WHERE img_name = '17L_2012_5day.gif' LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE Function: LocalFile::lock Error: 1205 Lock wait timeout exceeded; try restarting transaction (10.0.6.41)

I have tried uploading several times. Could somebody please help me? Thank you in advance. (also it's kind of odd that the last few revisions of the file are blank) –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thumbnail issue for all new thumbnails

I cant produce new thumbnails: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Citi_Private_Bank_1.png/641px-Citi_Private_Bank_1.png yields: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/pymodules/python2.6/eventlet/wsgi.py", line 336, in handle_one_response result = self.application(self.environ, start_response) File "/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/wmf/rewrite.py", line 368, in __call__ resp = self.handle404(reqorig, url, container, obj) File "/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/wmf/rewrite.py", line 197, in handle404 upcopy = opener.open(encodedurl) File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 391, in open response = self._open(req, data) File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 409, in _open '_open', req) File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 369, in _call_chain result = func(*args) File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 1161, in http_open return self.do_open(httplib.HTTPConnection, req) File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 1136, in do_open raise URLError(err) URLError: <urlopen error [Errno 110] ETIMEDOUT> --McZusatz (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

As of now this is working for me. It might have just been a temporary issue -FASTILY (TALK) 08:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Did you also tried another *px count or file? --McZusatz (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Seems it takes very long time to create a new thumbnail. --McZusatz (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

2012 october 15 : no upload possible

Hello.

When I upload files with commonist, there is an error message : "unexpected response 504 gateway time-out". Why ??? --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This problem is may be resolved. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Two files uploaded, but not appearing in preview or in Wikipedia as thumbnails

I uploaded two files. The first didn't appear properly, but opens correctly when clicked upon. I figured some type of error occurred, so tried again, and the same problem occurred.

Here are the two pages:

  • File:Kedjenou with rice.jpg
  • File:Kedjenou with rice 1.jpg

Signed: Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Requested deletion of File:Kedjenou with rice.jpg by tagging it with the duplicate template. The latter is of higher quality. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Same problem. Must be a tech issue. Others at IRC complain of the same.
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The images are now loading correctly at commons and on Wikipedia. Appears to be some technical adjustments occurring that temporarily rendered the images blank. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 15:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Video player localisation

Hi, is it possible to localise (translate) video player messages, like "Wikimedia.org is now fullscreen.", "Video loading stopped." etc? --Eleassar (t/p) 12:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Korean War Veterans Memorial statues by Frank Gaylord

I notice a number of images of the Frank Gaylord statues have been uploaded to Category:Korean War Veterans Memorial since the deletions in March 2010, despite the warning on the category page. I'm wondering if the warning on the category should be strengthened to say that photos of the statues will be deleted. If anyone thinks a further deletion debate is required please create it, as I don't and won't. William Avery (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Please: How do I upload a simple photograph?

I agree with no. 24, "Copyright of a photograph". I am trying to do a simple thing but Wikipedia's 100 million copyright rules and laws and pages and pages of subjects to read first just put one off. It is impossibly complex. In future I am not going to read anything. I will try to upload a photo and will first contact you with my specific request and ask you to tell me what to do. I will archive your response and once I have covered a few different situations, will understand what to do — until I encounter a new situation. Then I will first contact you again.

I have been trying for two days to do one basic thing: A man took a photograph of a vinyl record featuring its label. He sent it by e-mail to me. He is in the band that made that record back in 1978, and wrote all the songs for it. On Wikipedia Commons I filled in a form, all the required fields, and it sticks on "Next". No prompting me for something missing. Just won't work. I scrutinise it. Still won't work. Seems to be the copyright tag, so I start to read about this: "GNU licenses", "Free Creative Commons lisenses", "Old Creative Commons lisenses", "Copyleft Attitude License", "Other free tags". Are you kidding me?

This is impossibly difficult. Even your Creative Commons has too many links to other pages that must be read — "Choose a license": "Considerations before licensing"; "How the licenses work"; "Want public domain instead?" Please ! Anything that makes my task work !

About a year ago you had a survey of Wiki administrators. editors, contributors etc. The comment was made that the number of people involved has fallen and that it is probably because it is too difficult or complicated. You think ?! I have a Bachelor's degree in English literature and Psychology and I can't understand all this. Please just help me to upload a simple photograph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theherald1000 (talk • contribs)

The problem is that copyright for this record label may belong to the recording company that made it, not to the artist. Ruslik (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Here's the basic notion: you can't license a copyrighted work when you're not the copyright holder. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
1. The record company closed down in 1980, a point that I had made on the Wikipedia Commons form — if I could only have got past the page. Whose copyright would it be, now?
2. I'm sorry if I what I wrote above indicated that I was very frustrated. I'm happy to compy with all the copyright laws — as a photo-journalist, myself, I get it — but there are so many basic clarifying articles, so I would request your specific advice to assist.
3. I have obtained an e-mail from the man I describe above giving me permission to use the photographs. Will this suffice?Theherald1000 (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Please forward the email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. An agent there will be able to advise you on whether the email is sufficient, but it's unlikely. Because Wikimedia projects (including Commons and Wikipedia) are "free content", we only accept material that is provably freely licensed or out of copyright—that excludes even content we're 99.99% won't get us sued for copyright violation. I suspect that the image you're trying to upload falls into the latter category, which means it isn't free for anyone to reuse or modify, so we probably won't be able to accept it. Sorry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Can you say which company? Ruslik (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Issue from a 9 October discussion, and relating to Australian FoP

Moved to "Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Issue from a 9 October discussion, and relating to Australian FoP". — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Royal Navy ships versus Category:Naval ships of the United Kingdom

Perhaps did I miss the discussion before. The Netherlands and a few other countries also have a Royal Navy, with Royal Navy ships. Not so usefull to add e.g. the ships in Category:Naval ships of the Netherlands to Category:Royal Navy ships. Where can I start the discussion to transfer the ships in Category:Royal Navy ships to Category:Naval ships of the United Kingdom? Category:Royal Navy ships then only has categories like: Naval ships of the United Kingdom, Naval ships of the Netherlands, Naval ships of Canada, Naval ships of Australia and so on. I don't think it is correct to have two categories for the same British naval ships. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that two categories for one purpose is wrong, it does seem that they actually have slightly different objectives. Category:Royal Navy ships "include ships commissioned into Royal Navy service", whereas Category:Naval ships of the United Kingdom "include naval ships designed, built, or operated in or by the United Kingdom". As I see it the latter is more inclusive than the former. The instructions for moving are here (they look somewhat like a policy in fact) and the place to discuss it is here. In kind regards, heb [T C E] 07:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll copy this part and discuss it at Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/10/Category:Royal Navy ships --Stunteltje (talk) 08:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion requests page for October is not working

Commons:Deletion requests/2012/10 - It should include every subpage for October, but only goes up to October 10. The source wikitext looks like it should work ... purge didn't fix it either - David Gerard (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a well-known problem: these month pages hit template transclusion limits. It's difficult to do anything about it (eg split to a weekly basis) because it would break an unmaintained bot which handles the DR archiving. Rd232 (talk) 08:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Rotation problem?

Hi, I recall a problem with the rotation of thumbnails, but this photo is showing correctly on my computer as a thumbnail, but shows up rotated when I click to open the thumbnail. Any ideas? The original is not rotated. Jane023 (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Strange, I see it fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Fundraising localization: volunteers from outside the USA needed

Please translate for your local community

Hello All,

The Wikimedia Foundation's Fundraising team have begun our 'User Experience' project, with the goal of understanding the donation experience in different countries outside the USA and enhancing the localization of our donation pages. I am searching for volunteers to spend 30 minutes on a Skype chat with me, reviewing their own country's donation pages. It will be done on a 'usability' format (I will ask you to read the text and go through the donation flow) and will be asking your feedback in the meanwhile.

The only pre-requisite is for the volunteer to actually live in the country and to have access to at least one donation method that we offer for that country (mainly credit/debit card, but also real-time banking like IDEAL, E-wallets, etc...) so we can do a live test and see if the donation goes through. All volunteers will be reimbursed of the donations that eventually succeed (and they will be low amounts, like dollars)

By helping us you are actually helping thousands of people to support our mission of free knowledge across the world. Please sing up and help us with our 'User Experience' project! :) If you are interested (or know of anyone who could be) please email ppena@wikimedia.org. All countries needed (excepting USA)!

Thanks!
Pats Pena
Global Fundraising Operations Manager, Wikimedia Foundation

Sent using Global message delivery, 16:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Many AP and AFP images on Commons

See Commons:Deletion requests/AP images from VOA site and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-USGov-VOA. Many of this pictures has AP (Assotiated Press) and AFP (Agence France Press) watermark on source. Need to check and delete all of this. --Sasha Krotov (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

OK: review set up at Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/PD-VOA review. It's about 1400 files need checking - not as daunting as some of the other PD reviews (COM:WPPD), so feel free to help, people! Rd232 (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm.... may not be as black and white as some might think. I started working through anumber of images in the PD-VOA category and deleting when the larger image had the AP watermark. I noticed that most of what I was deleting was pictures by David Byrd, and not every image could be located on the VOA website or via the archive.org site. So I decided to Google the chap to see if I could confirm him as a AP photographer. Instead I come across this page on VOA as well as his Twitter statement which makes it sound like he works for VOA, which means if that's the case then his photos are PD. SO I turned around and undeleted what I'd just done. And this is relevant as two of the images at the DR which started it all (File:Chad Hedrick at 2010 Winter Olympics 2010-02-27.jpg and File:Speed skating - men's team pursuit gold medalists at 2010 Winter Olympics 2010-02-27.jpg have David Byrd as the author. Tabercil (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
deleting when the larger image had the AP watermark - you mean the files on VOA had an AP watermark? Or they had a watermark on another site? Being PD, it's conceivable that AP takes VOA images and slaps their watermark on them when they distribute them... Rd232 (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Here's an example: File:Julie Chu at 2010 Winter Olympics US Women's Hockey press event.jpg came from this page. The small version on the page has no visible watermark at all. If you click on the image, it brings up a larger version as a pop-up which does have an AP watermark in the bottom right corner. Now I sent an email to VOA on the 13th to try and get more details on what the arrangement is with David Byrd, VOA and AP but I've not heard anything back as yet. Tabercil (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Subdivide "Dead men" by year/century/other?

Yo girls and guys. It's been lately agreed that dead (deceased) men – as much as dead women – make up a whole too big of a load of ctegories to introduce within a plain flat Dead men/Dead women category, which has given rise to the idea to organize dead women by time of passing and dead men by time of passing, an idea I find very constructive, and I would like you to approach the talk page to help determine whether this should by by year/decade/century/other factor. Both Category:Dead men and Category:Dead women form an important historical branch-on category directly speaking to men and women's cats respectively. Be sure to help optimizing the use of them. Cheerz, Orrlingtalk 13:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

We already have a whole lot of categories such as Category:1689 deaths, Category:1932 deaths etc. AnonMoos (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
No. Here we speak about dead WOMEN / MEN. Note the difference. Orrlingtalk 09:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I really don't see what the benefit is of duplicating Category:1689 deaths with "Category:Men dead in 1689" and "Category:Women dead in 1689"... What possible value would the latter two add? -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I’m with AnonMoos. Could someone explain to me what is inherently wrong with so-called « overcrowded categories », which is more or less the only reason stated for subdivising categories again and again? Jean-Fred (talk) 08:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Image note of math File:Dourtenga school.JPG

Hi! At File:Dourtenga school.JPG I tried to make an image note of the mathematics on the board. But when I hover the mouse, nothing seems to display. What is happening? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

After a bit of experimenting, I found that the {{fr}} template does not accept the equal sign. I replaced it with "&#61;". — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Village pump/Archive/2012/10#Speedy delete template is broken?
This has nothing to do with a special template. If you write stuff like {{fr|abdcdee <br/> abc = first 3 letters}}, MediaWiki (the server software) "thinks", you would like to pass the value first 3 letters as a named parameter (parameter name: abdcdee <br/> abc) to Template:fr. -- Rillke(q?) 16:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure. I didn't intend to suggest that this was an issue confined to {{fr}}. By the way, why do you insist that adding "1=" is necessary? Just curious. — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
{{fr|1=now you can write as many "=" as you like :=)}}
Français : now you can write as many "=" as you like :=)
without escaping/encoding them. -- Rillke(q?) 17:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! WhisperToMe (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

October 17

family snapshots from the 1920s

I have some family snapshots from the 1920s I wish to upload for use in an article. There is no record of who took these photographs, nor is there the remotest likelihood that anyone would or could claim copyright over them. I do not own the photographs - ie the 'hard copies' from which scans have been made - though as far as I know ownership does not produce copyright. The owner has given written permission to use them, but he is a very elderly man who would certainly not be up to filling in one of the Commons forms. Any advice? Paul Barlow (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ownership of original negatives might be presumptive evidence for ownership of copyright in some contexts (photographs not so much). Otherwise, I can't advise on the technicalities of this, but there are plenty of similar photos already on Commons. Of course, if they could be considered published, and were from before 1923, then it would be a simple case of {{PD-US}}... AnonMoos (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
It's unlikely such photos have been published - if they had, presumably the owner would know. So they can be considered unpublished, and the most plausible is to assume that the owner has inherited the copyright, and can publish them, as {{PD-heirs}} or {{CC-BY-SA-3.0-heirs}}. I'm not sure how COM:OTRS would handle this situation if you try to act on the owner's behalf; if no-one clarifies here, just contact them and see what the response is. Rd232 (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. They were never published, and in any case exist in the UK, not the US. The owner of the prints does not have the negatives. Paul Barlow (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

October 18

Catmovez: "Country" or "countries"? "Orthodox wedding" or "Christian Orthodox weddings"?

Hey there! We're continuing in re-titling mistaken category-titles, now it's "Category:Buildings in unidentified country" which wants to become the customary plural form, that is, "unidentified countries", come and be heard in the talkpage! And don't miss Category talk:Orthodox weddings (=needing your majority to become Christian Orthodox weddings) Orrlingtalk 01:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Help in displaying Pashto

Hi! At Category:Pashto language I am trying to display the Pashto name, but I am having difficulty in doing so. Why isn't the "ps" one displaying? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what goes wrong for you (which Pashto name on that page?). Could you maybe attach a screenshot of the area that has the problem (but make sure that no private or confidential data is shown on that screenshot)? Which browser and which browser version do you use? --Malyacko (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

October 16

About Still images

Hi,

I have made a dozen, or so, still images from this NASA channel old video on Youtube.

NASA_Cultural_Resources-Nike Smoke Youtube video.

It is fair to upload and use these images, specifying NASA as the author, in Wikimedia Commons?

Thanks.

--Marcric (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

While you're at it, you might as well upload the video too. Here's an ogv rip of the video. Be sure to check the option for "Chunked uploads for files over 1MB in Upload Wizard" in your preferences under the Upload Wizard tab -FASTILY (TALK) 10:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, the video itself is not my target by now. My doubt is about the still images. I have uploaded these before but as "my own work" (meaning the work of selecting each still), but they were deleted by "missing information on the origin and copyright". So, I think my mistake was not to specify these still images as NASA work right? If I upload it again with the "someone else work" option, and specify NASA as the source, everything is fine? Thanks --Marcric (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done File:Smoke Trail Wind Shear Measurements - YouTube.ogv. Jean-Fred (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap references

Following a discussion on the OpenStreetMap wiki, there seems to be very rough consensus for OpenStreetMap users to start including references to Wikimedia Commons categories for places. This means very simply that it is possible to say that the Empire State Building on OpenStreetMap is the same thing as Category:Empire State Building in Commons.

Why is this useful? It isn't immediately useful if you are just using the OpenStreetMap website, but it enables people who are building tools, applications and services on top of OpenStreetMap to link through to Commons and reuse images from Commons. (Personally, I'm interested in using images from Commons and data from OpenStreetMap to build an open source alternative to check-in services like Foursquare.)

If you are active on OpenStreetMap, it'd be great if you could start linking from map objects to both Commons and Wikipedia using the media:commons tag. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, here's a OSM changeset that adds Commons links to 70+ places in London. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks alot, I'll keep that in mind. --El Grafo (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tom, could you please give an example of using the media:commons key?
Though I am all for strengthening links between Commons and you-name-it (OSM being top one), I find it strange not to leverage on the existing effort of linking OSM & Wikipedia − especially since WIWOSM − can’t we jsut loop on the Wikipedia keys and follow the relevant CommonsCat template there?
Also, could you point us to the relevant pages on the OSM wiki you mention?
Thanks, Jean-Fred (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Example: Russell Square tube station, which links to Category:Russell Square tube station.
The discussion on the OSM wiki is here.
As for iterating through all the wikipedia links in OSM and inferring Commons categories for them from Commons cat links... that seems very reasonable. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Does this have to be mono-directional. When the iteration /bot is launched- couldn't it back-link and write a geotag template onto each Commonscat page?... brief pause to see if the sky falls in! --ClemRutter (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
You mean linking back to Wikipedia, or to OSM, or both? —Tom Morris (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I think ClemRutter asks whether you could add {{Object location}} automatically to the categories your object links to, e.g. Category:Russell Square tube station. -- Rillke(q?) 16:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
As well as {{GeoPolygon}} I guess. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Basically a good idea ..but, the set of Commons categories is not much congruent with the set of Wikipedia articles. We have a lot of monuments, buildings etc. categories without an equivalent article on Wikipedia. But for a initial setup it might be imaginable to use a bot to create all this Commons links out from the existing Wikipedia links. --Alexrk2 (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Did you consider using wikidata for this? OSM could just link to a wikidata object and a category here too tying it together with many Wikipedia articles about the same subject. Multichill (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This is great stuff. I'd like to see a bot doing much of it (and for Wikipedia too): find a Commons category (or Wikipedia article) which is geo-tagged and categorised as being one of a list of suitable types (say, a railway station, a statue, or a bridge); look on OSM for an entity tagged as the same type (e.g. a railway station, etc) near those coordinates; check there isn't another entity so tagged within a reasonable distance (say, 500m for a station, 50 for a statue), add a tag to OSM, linking back to the Commons category or Wikipedia article. If automated tagging isn't acceptable a list could be provided for humans to verify.

As well as (or instead of) using object location templates, we should have a way to link back to OSM entities. It's a pity we don't have tagging, then we could use triple-tags: OSM:object=123456, OSM:relation=987654, or suchlike.

Could you link to the discussion on the OpenStreetMap wiki, please, Tom? Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see above, some answers to the points you raise / questions you ask have already been given. Jean-Fred (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Aside from the request for a link to the original OSM discussion, which I've now found, I can't see where my points are addressed. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Loss of copyright if owning company does not exist anymore

L.S. Can someone point me out to a (past) discussion or answer me if non exists, about the following question: When a company who had copyright on products (like toys for example) does not exist anymore and was not taken over by another company, what happens to the copyrights? Regards, Alf -- 12:23, 18 October 2012‎ User:Alfvanbeem

Theres no simple answer for this it'd be different for every country. Specifically it would depend on, where the company was based, what works are under patents or are trademarks and where, how the company was wound up including how assets were distributed. In a general basic sense assets of the company would be distributed/disolved to the beneficeries like owners, creditors, etc it may also be possible for copyright to returned to the original creator. I recommend getting professional advice from the appropriate juristiction rather than just relying on the opinions and speculations that may be expressed here. Gnangarra 12:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
In general, intellectual property doesn't get destroyed. It may be very hard to track down who has taken ownership of it in situations like these, but someone does have it. Rd232 (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
We have an article Orphan works. So far, for the United States, Congress has rejected passing any law that would make any special accommodation for "orphaned" works (Orphan works in the United States)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
What Gnangarra said. To simplify, one can think of the intellectual property assets the same way as of the other assets of the company: its buildings, its furniture, the money in its bank accounts, etc. Upon dissolution of the company, its assets are distributed to its creditors, its shareholders, etc., depending on the situation and the provisions of the bylaws and of the law. The ownership of each item or group of assets passes to someone. If not specifically mentioned, an item would pass to the residual beneficiary. In the unlikely event that assets remain without ordinary beneficiary, they would be transferred according to the provisions of the law of the relevant jurisdiction, often to the State. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response AnonMoos. It answered a lot of my questions, but also raises a view others! One question i now have is the following: Is it not so that almost all photo's of say toys or electronic equipment build after WWII should immediately be marked for deletion? Question two:If not, why not? Regards, Alf -- 15:12, 18 October 2012‎ 217.122.139.150

  • It depends on a lot of things. For example, anything from the U.S. prior to 1978 needed an explicit notice to be copyrighted. Also, much electronic equipment falls under the heading of practical objects and, in the U.S., cannot be copyrighted. Some toys might fall under that same heading. Similarly in the U.S., clothing cannot be copyrighted (although, for example, an image on a T-shirt could have a copyright in its own right), but in some other countries (e.g. France) it can be, but has a short term of copyright. Yes, this is a morass. - Jmabel ! talk 16:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all the quick answers of you all! Great that the community answers so quickly and clearly! Regards, Alf

Claiming my 'Wiki Takes' images

153 images which I took, and uploaded using the "Wiki takes" tool, are not shown as being uploaded by me (e.g. under "my contributions"), and have no link to my user page. They also have the wrong date. Is it possible for any or all of this to be rectified (without manual intervention), please? They're all in Category:Images from Wikipedia Takes Coventry by Andy Mabbett. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Since it was uploaded by the file upload bot, there is no way to show that it was uploaded by you other than what is currently showing. To have what you're asking for, you'll would need to upload (over the existing upload) the file, (example Special:ListFiles/Bidgee), and edit the file page to fix the date. Bidgee (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification opt-out

Is there any way (could there be any way) to opt users out of receiving automated messages/notifications, to avoid this situation? Rd232 (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it better to design the script to simply skip talk pages which are fully protected? If a talk page is fully protected, the contributor is usually dead, so there's no point in notifying the contributor. Besides, if you're not a sysop, the script fails altogether and skips adding the request page to the daily log (see MediaWiki talk:VisualFileChange.js#Fully protected user talk pages). --Stefan4 (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, full protection would do it for these cases, if scripts respect that. Rd232 (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Software update leading to image non-display

For a long time (ca. 2005-2010), including xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" in an SVG file's header was optional. After that, it began to be enforced for new uploads. With a recent software update in the last few days, it's now apparently being retroactively enforced on all SVG files, which means many older files are probably not working. I was able to track down five of my old uploads (e.g. File:Urantia three-concentric-blue-circles-on-white symbol.svg) and fix them, but it would nice to be able to know which others are out there... AnonMoos (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Aargh, this is bad. Files are going to be broken all over the place. Another one is File:Electronic linear filters.svg. I'll try to fix that one but either this change needs to be reverted or a bot needs to be put onto the task of fixing the broken ones as a matter of urgency. SpinningSpark 14:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Reported on Bugzilla Bug 41174. SpinningSpark 14:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
By the way, it's easier and safer to just open the SVG file in a plain-text editor and add xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" to inside the enclosing <svg ... > near the top of the file (resaving in Inkscape can sometimes create problems of its own...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
What exactly happens now for files without this line? How do they break? Rd232 (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
^ indeed. [16] views as XML, this isn't likely to be MediaWikis fault, it seems to be a browser related issue. More information would be very useful. Reedy (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The symptoms are that the article displays a link to the file page instead of the image, the file page displays a vector graphic icon instead of the image, and the thumbnails in the file history are blank. This is not a browser issue, these images have been working for years and now suddenly they are not. If the image (icon) is clicked I would normally see the image in my browser, but now I see the XML code with an error message (Firefox 15.0.1). IE8.0 (at least in my setup) downloads the image to Inkscape instead of displaying it itself. Inkscape does not have a problem with the images, even though none of them were created by Inkscape, and images created by Inkscape all display ok. I fixed the one above by resaving it in Inkscape. SpinningSpark 15:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
When served originals, MediaWiki does not do anything to the files. Downloading them locally also displays them as XML (and causes IE9 to crash)... Reedy (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

File not visible

Hi, why this file doesn't appear in good condition on this page? --Nevertime (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't answer your question of why. But to fix the display on that page, if nothing else works, you can try changing the size of the thumbnail. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to you. Now, it's ok !--Nevertime (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 17:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

October 20

Talkback template now allows links to the Village Pump

I thought regular Village Pump readers would appreciate knowing that Template:Talkback now allows links to the Village Pump. Just put in the full link as the first template parameter then add |other=1 at the end of the template. This also means that it allows links to a sister wiki. For example:
{{Talkback|Commons:Village_pump|Talkback template now allows links to the Village Pump|other=1}} would link to this discussion
{{Talkback|:en:page name|other=1}} would link to the appropriate page on the English Wikipedia
If a discussion started elsewhere would be better served by continuing the discussion here (or joining the discussion already in place here), just drop the talkback template on the page, linked to the appropriate section, and they'll know right where to go. :) Banaticus (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming software changes - please report any problems

Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg

(Apologies if this message isn't in your language. Please consider translating it)

All Wikimedia wikis - including this one - will soon be upgraded with new and possibly disruptive code. This process starts today and finishes on October 24 (see the upgrade schedule & code details).

Please watch for problems with:

  • revision diffs
  • templates
  • CSS and JavaScript pages (like user scripts)
  • bots
  • PDF export
  • images, video, and sound, especially scaling sizes
  • the CologneBlue skin

If you notice any problems, please report problems at our defect tracker site. You can test for possible problems at test2.wikipedia.org and mediawiki.org, which have already been updated.

Thanks! With your help we can find problems fast and get them fixed faster.

Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: For the regular, smaller MediaWiki updates every two weeks, please watch this schedule.

Distributed via Global message delivery. (Wrong page? Fix here.)

I looked and looked and I still can not figure out how that upgrade applies to templates. There is some talk about Parser Function Extension. There are some mw:Extension:Parser_function_extensions at mediawiki too. Are those related? --Jarekt (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Also see the discussion on the mailing list. --Malyacko (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

See also section "Software update leading to image non-display" below... AnonMoos (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I can't view deleted image revisions anymore, has this been experienced by other admins as well? Firefox can't display the image because it contains errors. --Denniss (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

USFWS Flickr photostream images tagged by-nc-nd

The USFWS's regional Flickr photostreams are a crazy quilt of licenses: most are PD, as befits works of the US gov't. But the images in the Alaska Region stream are tagged by-nc-nd, and the Southwest Region's are tagged as copyrighted, all rights reserved.

I'd cheerfully ignore the licenses and just tag uploads from these photostreams {{FWS}}, but for two concerns: first, FlickreviewR is not going to find a compatible license for the images on Flickr. Second, it's possible that some files in the photostream may not be by USFWS employees even though they're being hosted on USFWS feeds.

What I'm thinking about doing is avoiding any that don't explicitly credit the USFWS, but ignore the license as erroneous when the USFWS is explicitly credited, treating them as PD, and presume they'll pass a human review even if the bot squawks. Thoughts? Rrburke (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you should contact the USFWS and ask them. It's generally not wise to presume anything where copyright was concerned. Were the pictures taken by an employee or an independent contractor? Were the works commissions for hire? Ask 'em. Banaticus (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I intend to. That said, the images I'm principally referring to are credited to the FWS, and the photographers named are FWS employees. Rrburke (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

October 19

Delete

Hi, how can I delete my own files? I want to remove its. Vitor Mazuco Msg 15:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure that you can, after you've released them under a CC license. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
You can request that they be deleted at Commons:Deletion requests. Banaticus (talk) 06:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Please refer to Commons:FAQ#I have uploaded an image, can I revoke the licence later? — If there are privacy concerns, please contact one of our oversighters directly. Otherwise use Help:Nominate for deletion. -- Rillke(q?) 10:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Upload of large file

I´m going to uplaod an old map of Gothenburg from 1888, donated to Wikimedia Commons by the Regional Archive in Gothenburg. The file is in TIF format and 254 MB, but there is a limitation of 100 MB for uploads to Commons. Can anyone help me?--Historiker (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You can upload files up to 500 MB with Commons:Chunked uploads. MKFI (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much! It was not possible to upload via the wizard, as I got error messages, but with Commons:Up! it worked.--Historiker (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Bad JPEGs in the category: The Royal Portraits of HM the King and Queen and the Princes of the Royal Family

Several images I examined (and apparently all of those) are made up from 6×6 square pixel blocks, each having a uniform color (grey level). What to do?

  • Convert all to PNGs with resolution 6 times lower?
  • Convert only those which are currently used to PNGs?
  • Wait for the uploader's reaction?
  • Just drop it?

Note that converting to PNG is not a full solution because conversion to JPEG (which use 8×8 structure) and back produces a noticeable moire interference. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The images in question are directly taken from an e-book mentioned in their Summaries. But I haven't finished uploading the pictures from the book, since I still have no spare time to do so. For the same reason, I have no objection if anyone will, on my behalf, correct the problems as he thinks fit. The images to further be uploaded will be in line with such correction, if any. --Aristitleism (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Is possible to contact the creator of that PDF? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it is possible. As far as I know, the above-mentioned pdf link is a mirror link of the original one. The original file was produced and provided by Thammasat University, my university, but the University's e-book website doesn't work for a so long and I don't think they will or will soon originate a better file. --Aristitleism (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Robert Crumb

Someone on en.wiki removed File:Robert Crumb 2011.jpg from the Robert Crumb article saying it is not Crumb. I've added a new photo which clearly is Crumb, File:Robert Crumb 2010.jpg, but am unsure what to do about the 2011 file. I don't know if it is or is not Robert Crumb. Appreciate any thoughts. Hiding (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

One option is to tag the photo {{disputed}}. The subjects in the two photos look like the same person to me though... Rd232 (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
He also appeared in Brazil at the time the disputed picture was taken. Hiding (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Would tag the photo {{Fact disputed}} -- Template:Disputed is for copyright matters... AnonMoos (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Wait a sec. So there's some en-WP editor who claims in his first and so far only edit that the 2011 picture didn't show Robert Crumb. Why should I believe him? The man in the 2011 picture looks to me like he might well be Robert Crumb. The picture is claimed to have been taken in Brazil at the "Festival Internacional de Quadrinhos" (FIQ) 2011 in Belo Horizonte. I don't know if Crumb was there or not, but it seems plausible. Before using any dispute tags on that picture, I'd want to see some evidence corroborating en:User:Mjeacoma's claim. Lupo 06:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh I totally agree with the need for corroboration. If we tag the image as fact disputed, would that aid in someone corroborating that it is Crumb? Hiding (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Black and white photographs

Category:Black and white photographs says it should have no subcategories. Does this mean that Category:Black and white photographs in the 20th century should be have that removed as a parent? Do our policies about Category:Black and white photographs also mean Category:Black and white photographs should be added directly to all images in Category:Black and white photographs in the 20th century and its subcategories? - Jmabel ! talk 00:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably it means that there should be no Category:Black and white photographs in the 20th century, as it already exists as the intersection of Category:20th-century photographs (resp. its subcategories) and Category:Black and white photographs. I'm not sure what the prevailing doctrine on Commons is in such cases... I know that over in the German Wikipedia, such "Schnittmengenkategorien" (intersection categories) are traditionally frowned upon by many. The idea is that MediaWiki should someday contain a more powerful and easier to use kind of "CatScan" which would make such categories unneeded, as you would only have to enter the criteria "20th century" and "black and white" to get your results from the existing categories. I notice that Category:Black and white photographs in the 20th century is a relatively new category, only created this August, so I think it may be questionable. However, as far as I know, in the English Wikipedia, intersection categories are very popular... Gestumblindi (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Good question. Some have suggested -- insisted even-- that "Category:Black and white photographs" must be a kind of magical category completely separate from the rest of Wikimedia's category scheme. I, among others, have never understood why this was necessary nor desirable. A great many categories exist (eg, Category:Black and white photographs of New York City etc etc etc) that one might expect to be in the same category scheme, and I think it reasonable they should be. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, not magical - but for every single photographs category on Commons you could create a "Black and white photographs of..." counterpart, ultimately nearly doubling the number of categories, and what for...? So, I lean towards the German Wikipedia approach in this case: Do not create categories such as "Black and white photographs of New York City" (I'd rather delete the existing ones, but don't have the energy to try it and causing lots of debate), but use the combination of "Category:Black and white photographs" + appropriate subject categories. MediaWiki is currently rather poorly set up to handle categories and we have to use the kludge (very helpful, but still a kludge) of CatScan to handle intersections, but I very much hope this will change in the future. (Although such practical matters don't seem to be always as much on top of the WMF's priority list as they should, IMHO...) Gestumblindi (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
At this time, that the German Wikipedia is set up differently, allowing category intersections, simply because of size differences. For instance, there are over 14 million files here, not including pages like this and template pages, etc. There aren't even one million files on the German Wikipedia, and that does include pages like this and template pages, etc. Searching for a photo with a cat and a dog in it on the Commons, something like Category:Felis silvestris catus + Category:Dogs, would require a whole lot of server-time on the backend compared to checking a preexisting Category:Cats and dogs. Banaticus (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
"would require a whole lot of server-time" - that's the problem. The WMF would spend the donated money very wisely, I think, if they would set up better features (including the required server power) to manage categories which would make "intersection categories" unneeded. It would make categorizing so much easier and more straightforward! Creating thousands of intersection categories jusn't isn't a good solution. But Category:Cats and dogs isn't a good example, this category is of course okay, because it's a category for "cats and dogs together" - this can't be created by Category:Felis silvestris catus + Category:Dogs, because they contain images of cats and dogs alone. "Cats and dogs together" is a specific subject that warrants a specific category. Gestumblindi (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Not really. When you say Category:Felis silvestris catus + Category:Dogs, you're not being precise. Do you mean Category:Felis silvestris catus AND Category:Dogs, or Category:Felis silvestris catus OR Category:Dogs? (Here AND and OR are logical operators.) If it's Category:Felis silvestris catus AND Category:Dogs then it will only show photos which are categorized as both cats and dogs. -- King of ♠ 10:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
You're right, of course, my bad. I thought of an OR. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Translation of a field's name in template:Photograph

Hi,
I speak Hebrew and while using the template "Photograph", I found it weird that a very important word has not been translated: author, which appears at the end as "Photographer" (as you may see in this picture for example). Can you please take care of it? The relevant word in Hebrew is " הצלם " . I simply couldn't find how to do it, but it shouldn't be very difficult... I think. Thanks in advance, Ldorfman (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I think {{occupation/he}} is what you are looking for. I have quickly created a localized one into Hebrew (leaving anything other than 'photographer' as it is in English) and it seems working, for example as you can see at [17]. Could you check if you can improve it? I might have made a mistake, since I don't understand a single word in Hebrew. --whym (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for willing to assist me, but unfortunately, for now I don't see any change. Still, in the details of the picture, the only field in English is "Photographer". All the others appear in Hebrew, as they should be (maybe it's one of those things that take time till I see the effect). I also can't see anything while clicking on {{occupation/he}}. I guess it might be something only Administrators see... (is it?) If that's the case, I would have to wait for your help or the one of anyone else. If not, when I get the link to the relevant place where the change should be done, I would be able to make the fix myself. Ldorfman (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, that's strange, at least the word 'photographer' is not shown on my end at [18]. Could you try resetting the cache on your browser and try this link? As another note, the template has no visible content, but you can edit it seeing the source. The words are ordered alphabetically and the entry for 'photographer' is down there (perhaps you can search inside page for '|photographer=' on your browser to get there). --whym (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Bulk deletion - assistance requested

Hi all,

A couple of weeks ago I posted at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2012/10#US Antarctic Program images - unfortunately not PD-US about a large number of non-PD images sourced from the US Antarctic Program. I've now gone through and identified all the problematic photographs - there's 220 of them, placed in Category:US Antarctic Program photo library images. Another small group that are probably public domain (eg clearly made by military personnel in the course of their duties) are at Category:US Antarctic Program photo library images - possibly PD-US.

All the images in the first category can reasonably be presumed to be not free - the copyright belongs to a named photographer who's believed to not be a federal employee. Is there an easy way to list all 220 for deletion? I looked at VisualFileChange.js, but I'm worried this would spam dozens of notices to people's talkpages, and that seems a bit rude! Andrew Gray (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled so here's my question: On the USAP website/portal they state: "All graphics on the web portal are free to the public; however, the National Science Foundation as well as the photographer must be credited." Specifically, I was looking at the image from "Corey Anthony", File:The Transantarctic Mountains.JPG. There's also a book out entitled, "Frozen Secrets: Antarctica Revealed By Sally M. Walker" wherein it is stated "© Corey Anthony/National Science Foundation, p. 42;" referring I believe to the same figure. Are you sure these are not in the PUBLIC DOMAIN? The photographer always has the copyright even when "made by military personnel in the course of their duties" but the image is PD. --Marshallsumter (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Have you read further? "No one may reproduce the photos for personal or commercial profit, use the photos on products for sale (i.e., t-shirts, coffee mugs) or use the photos for advertisement without express permission from the photographer." --Wuselig (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Good point! Speedy deletion would still send messages to every uploader of such an image too. --Marshallsumter (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Their recommended "Name/NSF" credit line is confusing, but it seems it's intended to credit the library rather than imply they're NSF employees or that the NSF holds copyright - I've been in touch with the photo librarian there about this (see OTRS ticket linked in previous discussion) and one of the photographers has left a note on the image challenging the license as well.
I strongly suspect that some of these may be NSF employees in the course of their employment, and would thus be PD regardless, but there's no way of telling this from the labelling on the images - short of guessing on a case-by-case basis, we've not much option but deleting the lot. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Exif model data

Hi, does anyone know which message is the correct one to fix exif wikisyntax linking to the camera model: what I currently see in the Slovene interface is "Model fotoaparata:" (meaning camera model) and then a badly formed link:

[[:sl:<KENOX S860 / Samsung S860>|<KENOX S860 / Samsung S860>]]

Thanks a lot. --Eleassar (t/p) 06:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It's exif-model-value, customised locally for en, sv and sl. The message is not really safe to use that way, the customisation should probably be made more resilient or removed. --Nemo 08:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
If you use the pseudo-language qqx, you can see the system messages used: Example. -- Rillke(q?) 09:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you a lot for this information. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Strange error with non-displaying thumbnail

Trying to view http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Lucas_cranach_%28bottega%29%2C_adamo_ed_eva%2C_1500-1550_ca..JPG/436px-Lucas_cranach_%28bottega%29%2C_adamo_ed_eva%2C_1500-1550_ca..JPG on page File:Lucas cranach (bottega), adamo ed eva, 1500-1550 ca..JPG results in:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib/pymodules/python2.6/eventlet/wsgi.py", line 336, in handle_one_response
    result = self.application(self.environ, start_response)
  File "/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/wmf/rewrite.py", line 368, in __call__
    resp = self.handle404(reqorig, url, container, obj)
  File "/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/wmf/rewrite.py", line 197, in handle404
    upcopy = opener.open(encodedurl)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 391, in open
    response = self._open(req, data)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 409, in _open
    '_open', req)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 369, in _call_chain
    result = func(*args)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 1161, in http_open
    return self.do_open(httplib.HTTPConnection, req)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 1136, in do_open
    raise URLError(err)
URLError: <urlopen error [Errno 113] EHOSTUNREACH>

-- AnonMoos (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. InverseHypercube 17:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Please Shift + Reload the page (while you are at the image file with the error message). -- Rillke(q?) 18:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
-- Rillke(q?) 18:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Problem is back (Oct 23)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/AF-ABE-administration.JPG/320px-AF-ABE-administration.JPG:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib/pymodules/python2.6/eventlet/wsgi.py", line 336, in handle_one_response
    result = self.application(self.environ, start_response)
  File "/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/wmf/rewrite.py", line 368, in __call__
    resp = self.handle404(reqorig, url, container, obj)
  File "/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/wmf/rewrite.py", line 197, in handle404
    upcopy = opener.open(encodedurl)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 391, in open
    response = self._open(req, data)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 409, in _open
    '_open', req)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 369, in _call_chain
    result = func(*args)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 1161, in http_open
    return self.do_open(httplib.HTTPConnection, req)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 1136, in do_open
    raise URLError(err)
URLError: <urlopen error [Errno 110] ETIMEDOUT>

-- AnonMoos (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have fixed itself now, though it was very annoying for a minute or two... AnonMoos (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Spoke too soon! Now http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/2008_Top1percentUSA.svg/800px-2008_Top1percentUSA.svg.png --

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib/pymodules/python2.6/eventlet/wsgi.py", line 336, in handle_one_response
    result = self.application(self.environ, start_response)
  File "/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/wmf/rewrite.py", line 368, in __call__
    resp = self.handle404(reqorig, url, container, obj)
  File "/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/wmf/rewrite.py", line 197, in handle404
    upcopy = opener.open(encodedurl)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 391, in open
    response = self._open(req, data)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 409, in _open
    '_open', req)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 369, in _call_chain
    result = func(*args)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 1161, in http_open
    return self.do_open(httplib.HTTPConnection, req)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 1136, in do_open
    raise URLError(err)
URLError: <urlopen error [Errno 110] ETIMEDOUT>

-- AnonMoos (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Cologne Blue

The Skin Cologne Blue no longer seems to allow the Quick Bar rio float left or right or be fixed right. Does anyone know who altered it? If no alterations what is happening.--JIrate (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

#Upcoming software changes - please report any problems -- Rillke(q?) 21:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Ta reported as Bug 41246 --JIrate (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

See en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-10-15/Op-ed where it says "the Nostalgia, Standard, and CologneBlue skins... all either need... a significant rewrite or to be removed completely" -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

If I had the faintest idea how the worked I'd change them, but I find the default skin is an unusable emetic which hasn't been designed but cobbled together by people will no understanding of ergonomics. It is that that needs a rewrite, and before anyone comments I have 25+ years software dev experience and have designed user interfaces. The default spanks of the design ut together by feature obsessed people with no interest in actual users.--JIrate (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I use the Classic skin, but mainly because it seems to involve a little less loading of large amounts of Javascript, and because I'm not fond of looking at swirly grey background 100% of the time... AnonMoos (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I used it because I could witch the toolbar to the right hand side of the screen and make it float so I didn't have scroll back up to access it on long pages. The wonder boy who removed them couldn't see the point, describes them as nonsense Bugzilla needless to say we are getting on like a house on fire and as soon as I can get him trapped in the burning building the better.--JIrate (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The person who deleted this functionality doesn't care, as far as he is concernedhe can do what he likes.--JIrate (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

October 21

Is the man who took the photo the same as the man who uploaded the photo?

User RunnigTide uploaded end September a series of photos. On each of the photo is a watermark “foto:Kees Jurgens”. As I questioned whether RunnigTide (user since 29 September 2011) = Kees Jurgens, I nominated one of the photos for deletion. A user with the name RunningTide (user since 14 October 2012) said “Whats the problem wit this?”. Then I gave a more detailed explanation. RunningTide did not give any further comment. On 20 October the file was deleted.

Then I nominated all the other files (all with the watermark “foto:Kees Jurgens”). User RunningTide added at the Deletion request page “RunningTide =Kees Jurgens=the author of all the pictures you want to be deleted”. So that gives the impression that RunnigTide = RunningTide = Kees Jurgens.

As Kees Jurgens is a known person in Hellevoetssluis in the Netherlands I can contact him and ask whether this all is true and ask to upload at least one of the photos again but this time without watermark and with meta data. But I think this upload of a new version is more a task of RunningTide. On the discussion page of RunningTide I will point to this discussion and suggest that he uploads the photos again without watermark. I am only nomination because I have serious doubts about the copyright. What is the best procedure? Wouter (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Assume good faith is the best procedure. I don't see any evidence that these photos are published anywhere else. It is quite usual for people to use an alias, rather than their real name, as a login. It is quite common for new users to put watermarks on their photos until they recognise that our policy is that they are more useful without them. It is not exactly unusual for infrequent users to forget their login/password (especially if it is mistyped in the first place). I see no reason for you to have "serious doubts". Withdraw the deletion requests (to show good faith) and thank the user for their great contributions and request the user to upload them again without watermarks as the watermarks will eventually be edited off anyway, but they will look better if uploaded without them in the first place. --Tony Wills (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Dammit people, stop biting the newbies. Just ask someone to confirm their identity in OTRS instead of scaring them off by nominating all their files for deletion. Multichill (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, contacted the user, got his identity confirmed in OTRS #2012102210004047. Undeleted the image, closed, the deletion requests etc...
Please, in the future, when in doubt please do this before nominating stuff for deletion. Thank you, Multichill (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

October 22

Upload Wizard feedback abandoned

This page looks abandoned (although it's not): requests are mostly archived without a reply and even some which look like spam or mistakes are not addressed (removed). Someone please watch this page more closely (the WMF has no resources on this now). --Nemo 08:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

  1. If WMF prefers to spend their money for campus ambassadors, for creating their own bureaucracy, for paying for people traveling around the world ($ 1.159.000 in 2010/11) like Sue; if WMF engages developers who do not actually use MediaWiki very often or not those features they invent. The answer is: «No».
  2. Do those who report something through a form really check back to this page?
  3. Why should we distinguish between feature requests, bugs and nonsense? Sometimes it's hard. But in most cases the reporter knows what he/she would like to report.
  4. Why the give feedback does not ask important/specifc questions and provides a form-field for each of the question so the user is pressed to fill them all in?
  5. Why doesn't Upload Wizard try to distinguish technical stuff from Commons-related stuff and forward technical bug reports directly to Bugzilla? Lots of people are even unable to report bugs to Bugzilla manually because the Bugzilla interface is not translated.
  6. Why doesn't Upload Wizard offer any help or a Q&A wizard?
  7. Did you know that some people here are 100% busy working on lists of bots which implement features that should have been in MediaWiki for years (e.g. the work of some license checking bots, commons delinker, Rotatebot) or maintaining these bots.
  8. It must be possible for WMF to get enough resources for the development of MediaWiki.

“Instead of talking, you could engage in improving MediaWiki”, some devs would say. This is true but there is more stuff to do than an individual can do. It is also no fun if white space conventions are sometimes more important than functionality, it is no fun if white space conventions in code must match and there is no tool provided that automatically applies it (which is technically possible). -- Rillke(q?) 08:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

How disappointing. As a highly visible feature improvement on Commons, this ought to be a great source for further easy wins and leaving it to random volunteers seems a non-choice rather than a decision. In terms of WMF narrowing scope, I had thought this was the sort of thing that would still be in scope for the WMF dev team. -- (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
This is the problem with budgeted development. People forget to budget the maintenance and evolution cycle. I've been trying to monitor that page as a volunteer developer, but lately I have been too busy. I still track it though and intend at some point to again file all known problems in bugzilla. TheDJ (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Forwarding (summarizing) problems to Wikimedia Bugzilla (under "MediaWiki extensions → Upload Wizard") which have good instructions how to reproduce and enough information is indeed very very welcome! Thanks a lot for your help! --Malyacko (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I add my thanks. I am asking others to pay more attention to this feedback, and as part of that I reached out to our new Bug Wrangler, Andre Klapper, a.k.a. User:Malyacko. My apologies and regrets at the past lack of response. I do want to very quickly link to stylize.php. It's a tool that enforces most of our whitespace conventions automatically (always enforces spacey over not so spacey style). I'm checking now on whether it also eliminates trailing whitespace. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A few points:

  • First, yes - help monitoring Commons:Upload Wizard feedback and adding Template:Tracked links to relevant Bugzilla entries is indeed appreciated. In general, I support an approach that cultivates community ownership of feedback pages like this one -- this is something everyone can help with, and it scales better than trying to have one person answer software feedback in many languages on many pages.
  • One thing that's recently reduced the usefulness of Commons:Upload Wizard feedback is the removal of user-agent information from the submitted feedback for privacy reasons. We plan to re-introduce this shortly with a checkbox to indicate consent, see Bugzilla41291.
  • Upload Wizard is one of the most JavaScript-heavy MediaWiki components, and as such, susceptible in general to the types of issues that are common for JavaScript components (e.g. cross-browser issues) and specifically to issues introduced with MediaWiki upgrades to JavaScript libraries like jQuery or MediaWiki's own JavaScript modules. When things break, we should ideally know this well before users report it. One component of this is improved automated testing.
    We've singled out Upload Wizard as a potential component to benefit from being a pilot for automated testing, and a spec for a test is in development here, while more information about this discussion can be found here. Again, help is appreciated.
  • It's unfortunately true that no WMF devs are currently assigned to Upload Wizard and maintenance is mostly occurring alongside other projects. That said, we did do a bug fixing sprint prior to Wiki Loves Monuments and fixed moderate to serious issues that could have damaged the success of the contest. We're also planning to set up some additional features maintenance contracts.
  • In the mid to long term, I hope we'll be able to build out dedicated multimedia engineering team (it's in our 2012-13 goals), precisely because, as Fæ says, this is an area where even small improvements can go a long way. We can't build those improvements at the expense of other high priority projects like mw:VisualEditor and mw:Echo, but we do want to increase capacity specifically for multimedia-related feature development, including UW maintenance.

--Eloquence (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

reg. the notification dt. 1 1 1861

for certain properties in the civil lines area of kanpur in vicinity of lal imli it is informed that the properties are nazul land &are governed by lease deed of 1 1 1861 . But the said deed is not traceable. pl. help. regards k.c_bajpai@rediffmail.com - unsigned

  • Does this refer to some particular image? - Jmabel ! talk 15:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, we can't provide legal advice here. We are not a law firm. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Upload does not show through template

Yes check.svg Resolved

Earlier I uploaded six files [19]. They do not show in en:wiki. Underscore (for space) issue? -DePiep (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Could you indicate what files you are referring to, since your link is to a section on a gallery page, containing far more than six files. - Jmabel ! talk 03:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Resolved. I added some patience. -DePiep (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A button to automatically add the Book template in Djvu files ?

Hello,

I'm a wikisourcian (French) and I very frequently upload books for use on wikisource. We have a gadget that uses the information in the "Book" template, if it is been used, when we create the index page in ws.

It would be very convenient to have a button, or a link, (like the one that preloads the {{Creator}} on Creator pages, instead to have to copy/paste the template each time.

Would it be possible to script it, please ? I'm not a big js specialist, so I cannot create it myself.

Could you please help me ?

If possible, it would be fine if it was restricted to djvu or pdf files.

Thank you --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You should talk with User:Alex brollo from wikisource (Italian) he has some proof-of-concept codes for automatically preloding creator templates based on data scraped from en and it wikipedias. I also recall hearing about some codes for adding {{Book}} templates. --Jarekt (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Vietnamese talk

Is here somone who can understand vietnamese? Cause someodne edited a talkpage. thx--Sanandros (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Page is deleted, and the only Vietnamese content was some near-nonsense (certainly irrelevant) about a traffic accident. - Jmabel ! talk 00:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 00:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Reinstating a flickrreview

Could someone with license reviewer rights please reinstate the flickrreview of this file. A vandal had removed it and since the filedescription had already been edited, I wasn't able to do that on my own. Thank you in advance!--FAEP (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Done. I doubt that was the problem. You probably tried to undo an edit after someone else had partially restored the deleted content, and you can't undo once there are further edits. - Jmabel ! talk
  • Hi FAEP, Special:AbuseFilter/70 prevented your edit once. In future, if you encounter this, try to press "save page" again after the message (e.g. about license reviewing) was displayed. Thank you. -- Rillke(q?) 19:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 00:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

October 24

Incorrect list of files

The File:Ožbalt-Memorial plaque.jpg has User:Žarišče listed as its uploader, whereas Special:ListFiles/Žarišče shows no images uploaded by this user. Any idea how to explain this? --Eleassar (t/p) 10:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It is simple: because, for some very obscure reason (a bug?), ListFiles/XYZ systematically does not show files whose last upload was not done by XYZ itself (and the file you are referring to has been overwritten). Instead, you can see the right list if you click on Gallery Tool. --87.7.215.20 14:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Do you know perhaps whether this has already been reported as a bug? --Eleassar (t/p) 15:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
They are different tools for different information. Each tool has its uses, depending on the information you want. The list of all uploads by a user is his upload log (e.g. upload log of User:Žarišče, or in a simple case like this the full log Special:Log/Žarišče ). The Gallery tool shows a gallery of all uploads by a user and information from their description pages. The tool ListFiles shows the current file versions uploaded by a user. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
File list (shows only files where user is latest uploader)Toolserver WikiSense (all files, no JavaScript required)GalleryTool (flexible options and configuration, requires JavaScript)
The issue is known to the developers: bug search for this page, SpecialListFiles should show all uploads -- Rillke(q?) 16:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

More catmove

Yo guyz! You can come to Category talk:Artwork on Givat-Ram in case you have any contribution to further axpand the grounds for renaming this category into "Artworks on Giv'at Ram". Orrlingtalk 11:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict issues

I've been noticing a worrying issue at COM:QIC. I edit a section, use the vote helper (unsure if that's related) and, after about 15mins, click save. It takes me immediately to edit conflict but in the my text window it shows only my text - it omits the rest of the page. I think a few other people have been having problems with this too. Unsure if this is a QI issue or wider. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Clearly happened at AN/U as well. Bidgee (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Today I had two ECs here as well - with 2 edits and in-between another user edited a different section. Something seems to be broken. -- Rillke(q?) 16:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks everybody. I've forwarded this into the issue tracker at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41280 --Malyacko (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, not an EC issue, I just had it w/o EC. Bloody hell... -mattbuck (Talk) 11:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
me2 -- Smial (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
This is fixed [20] and awaiting deployment, probably soon as WMF folks in SF wake up. Aude (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll poke at the code more to make sure it's fixed everywhere and not just with edit conflicts. Aude (talk) 12:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Something similar has also happened for four recent edits to Commons talk:Featured picture candidates, by four different editors.[21][22][23][24] At least for my edit, there was no warning of an edit conflict. --Avenue (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Nothing solved until now. -- Smial (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
We have another fix and think this should resolve all the issues. If anyone still has any problems, please report it here (or bugzilla) and I can look into it. Cheers. Aude (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Maps of italian valleys with dutch name

I saw that in Category:Maps of valleys of Piedmont there are maps with the name "Turijn" in dutch, and these maps are used in many different editions of Wikipedia (see for example Special:GlobalUsage/Valpelliceposizione.png). We have prepared the maps with the italian form "Torino", but the problem with the other different editions could be more or less the same. Which is the best option?

  1. Move "FILE.png" to "FILE nl.png" and upload the english version (more international) as "FILE.png" (and the italian version as "FILE it.png")
  2. Move "FILE.png" to "FILE nl.png" and upload the italian version (the original one) as "FILE.png"
  3. Others

--Superchilum(talk to me!) 09:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I believe the first one is better, but the english file should be named "File_en.png"--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
    and nothing as "FILE.png"? In this case we should correct all the links. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 13:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Voices of Wikipedia subjects

Yesterday, I wrote a blog post, "Requesting open-licensed, open-format recordings of the voices of Wikipedia subjects for Wikimedia Commons". There has been some interest, and recordings are starting to arrive, with more promised.

I've started Category:Voice intro project as a place-holder, but it could probably do with a better name.

Please feel free to encourage notable people to make and donate a recording, saying "hello", their name, and what they do. Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Triforium (Los Angeles)

Hi. I can't see a reason why those photos of a recent 3D artwork would be allowed on Commons. Commons:FOP#United States specifies that FOP in the US only applies to buildings, and not artworks. Is there something I'm not seeing, or should they (unfortunately) be deleted? guillom 20:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Presumably should be nominated for deletion (and should be deleted if they don't have the permission of the holder of the copyright on the underlying art as demonstrated by OTRS). - Jmabel ! talk 21:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes it does: "Inscription: (On leg of sculpture:) (copyright symbol) Joseph Young 75" [25]. MKFI (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Careless, careless, careless. Assuming that's a correct copy of the notice, the copyright clock started in 75 AD and has long expired. (This site argues The Last Time I Saw Paris as an example, given that they wrote MCMXLIV for a 1954 movie and failed to renew 28 years after 1944.) I wouldn't be comfortable assuming that a court would rule in our favor, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

October 23

Request for Bureaucratship: Dschwen

As is now our custom when an application for advanced user rights is made, this is a quick note to let the community know that I have nominated Dschwen for Bureaucrat: Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Dschwen. --99of9 (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

October 26

Image not deleting?

Why does File:Iogurte de morango.jpg exist? Its log shows it as being deleted, and I can't edit the file page or view its history. Yet the image still appears on the file page. Anyone know what's going on? David1217 (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I have reported this on bugzilla, [26] Is it just happening with that one file? or is anyone experiencing this with others? Aude (talk) 08:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I restored it and re-deleted it. It's now fully deleted. INeverCry 22:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both! And not Aude, I haven't seen this before. David1217 (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

More image scaler problems

oggThumb failed to create the thumbnail
See also [27]
OggHandler requires oggThumb version 0.9 or later
Metadata uses too much space
Corrupt GIFs
Unthumbnailable SVG files
GPL Ghostscript Unrecoverable error
Error vary, multiple refreshes are sometime required
Other errors

So I've extended my verification work beyond JPEG and PNG. Above is a sample of the 600+ files with errors (contact me on IRC for the auto-updating list). How should these files be dealt with? How should they be tagged? {{Broken file}} doesn't support PNG or TIFF yet (.tif or .tiff). Dispenser (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Of the SVG files on your list, almost half generate thumbnails at some resolution, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Nassau_County_25C_NY.svg is a 404, and I fixed the rest. The most common problem was SVG files generated by something called "SVGTranslate 2", which has serious problems with the <tspan element... AnonMoos (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Those thumbnails are cached, they'll be gone if the page is purged. I've left a note in #wikimedia-tech about this thread in case its some change in the backend. Dispenser (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Not sure why you didn't cross out File:Frankish Empire 481 to 814-eu.svg and File:Gray799 es.svg. Anyway, File:Flag of Sakhalin Oblast.svg seemed to be functioning perfectly, but I fixed one semi-pointless "problem"... AnonMoos (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm just throwing in some links to bug reports about thumbnail functionality the Wikimedia bugtracker, to help getting the bigger picture: Current images thumbnail issues, Video upload thumbnail issues, PDF thumbnail issues --Malyacko (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you a lot Dispenser for these lists: they've been very helpful to identify several bugs, some of which have been sitting for several years. Here are some recently filed reports: bugzilla:41361, bugzilla:41372, bugzilla:41373, bugzilla:41374, bugzilla:41375, bugzilla:41376, bugzilla:41380, bugzilla:41381, bugzilla:41385, bugzilla:41386, bugzilla:41388, bugzilla:41362, bugzilla:41382.
I also reported several files as {{broken file}} or Files with 404 errors, reuploaded them when a re-export in GIMP (for GIF especially) or a crop (with JPEGs) was enough to improve a bit, or sent them to deletion when corrupt/copyvios/out of scope.[28] --Nemo 13:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to thank everybody here for reporting and commenting on this (and it looks like nearly everybody found this entry, as I didn't see many other duplicate posts in the forums) in order to track down the problem. There is a tracking bug for image scaler and thumbnail issues at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41371 . A bunch of Wikimedia people are looking into the problems currently, but as you can guess it's complicated. If you are interested you can follow up the process in the aforementioned tracker bug. --Malyacko (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

There's now a few dozens more images to fix or delete on Category:PNG files with errors, Category:GIF files with errors. --Nemo 08:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Licensing of Pixeden.com

There are some files from pixeden.com uploaded to commons by User:Lolametro:

As License, the pixeden.com license is stated with link to http://www.pixeden.com/license and in section Licensing, this template is used: {{Copyrighted free use}}.

But pixeden license says (bold by pixeden.com's authors):

You cannot however redistribute, resell, lease, license, sub-license or offer our resources to any third party. This includes uploading our resources to another website

So, are images from pixeden eligible for Commons? `A5b (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

IMO, clearly no. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
So, I've asked them about uploading their files to Wikipedia (Commons). They said yes. Here's the link: Pixeden's Blog Comments Maybe the license is not the correct one (in Commons), but maybe you can help out. Greetings --Lolametro (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
The licence is probably appropriate. You might want to mention explicitly on the PixEden thread the license you've used. I'd advise you to add the URL to the forum post on each of the images. Technically, they have given consent to load the images on the Commons, which is the most important thing. They have not specified what license they'd tolerate, which is not so good, but very understandable under the circumstances. And finally they have not hit the gold standard, which is to send a donation email via OTRS. How far you go to achieve the gold standard is one of those questions ... difficult, when dealing with someone who has made a donation, to say "and now would you do all this extra work". So. Clearly making the terms of the implied license known to them does at least show that the consent can be inferred to be informed. Finally, are you sure that the admin in the thread speaks for the company? Why? --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry when I'm not answering all of your questions. I'm not the best in English so I maybe not understood the question.

So, I have added the comments to all Pixeden-images from me. Soon I will send emails to OTRS. And I think that he's speaking for the company because he has in the comments a "Admin" banner and he's the only person that is representing the company. Greetings--Lolametro (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

email to OTRS is needed not from you, but from author of images or from pixeden. `A5b (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah ok. thanks. --Lolametro (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This permission would not suffice, as they may believe usage is only limited to Wikipedia. If the question is asked, "I am a competitor and want to use your images on our website, with attribution, would you allow this", I can imagine their answer being quite different. A clear statement from the copyright holder, with an explicit licence, would be required. Not what is on that thread. russavia (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The current forum post is entirely inadequate. The copyright holder needs to explicitly release the works under a Commons compatible free license. Moreover I would get permission filed in OTRS, as described at COM:OTRS, because of link rot (the forum may go down in the future). Dcoetzee (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

October 25

Problem of loading images

Begin September I mentioned the problem of loading pages of Wikimedia and also Wikipedia. I have still the problem that in particular the images will not load, including sometimes also the thumbnails. When I try reloading several times for different images and for wikimedia an wikipedia pages the problem suddenly seems to be solved, but waiting a few hours the problem starts again. From the Firebug-AddOn in Firefox I see that the main problem are things such as "GET 800px-... upload.wikimedia.org", "GET 114px-... upload.wikimedia.org".

It does not make a difference which browser I use (Firefox, Safari, Chrome). I found that the problem is with computers with Mac 10.5.8 and Mac 10.4.11. The problem is not present with Mac 10.6.8 and not on my iPad with iOS 6.0. What to do to solve the problem except upgrading the operating software? Wouter (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

See the "dependency" bugs listed on https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41371 - that's where all the currently known problems with thumbnails and image scaling are listed. Also see the thread above. --Malyacko (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to thank everybody here for reporting and commenting on this (and it looks like nearly everybody found this entry, as I didn't see many other duplicate posts in the forums) in order to track down the problem. There is a tracking bug for image scaler and thumbnail issues at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41371 . A bunch of Wikimedia people are looking into the problems currently, but as you can guess it's complicated. If you are interested you can follow up the process in the aforementioned tracker bug. --Malyacko (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I hope that they find the problems soon because at the moment I don't get any image in Wikipedia and Commons pages as for example this one. Wouter (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Motion to University of Nottingham Students' Union Council

I'm considering putting forward a motion to the University of Nottingham Students' Union Council to encourage them to use and produce free media and make use resources such as Commons. I was wondering if anyone has any ideas what else I should add:

  • This Union notes:
    • That "free" media is defined as media which is published under a licence allowing (from http://freedomdefined.org/Definition)
      • the freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it
      • the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it
      • the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression
      • the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works
    • That unless explicitly released, copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author, during which time creative works are not legally available to the public.
    • That very little of student life and Union business is available freely online. Much is tied up on closed distribution systems such as Facebook, or buried on the Union website.
    • That while the Union is active on Facebook, Twitter and other social media, it has no presence on Flickr, Wikimedia, or other freely licensed crowdsourced media.
    • That Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media and companion project to Wikipedia, has only one photo of elections and Union events – all other University images are of staff, buildings and Melton Hall MCR events.
    • That Wikipedia, the freely editable online encyclopaedia, and almost all media used on it, is published under a free licence.
  • This Union believes:
    • That freely licensing media makes media easier to reuse.
    • That easier use of media means more use of media, allowing greater dissemination of Union activities to students and the public at large.
    • That greater dissemination advertises and promotes the Union and university.
  • This Union resolves:
    • To encourage clubs, societies and the Executive to publish media under free licences, such as the Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike licence, or similar.
    • To put together a free media handbook, giving step-by-step tutorials about what free media means, what it doesn't mean, and how to set up accounts on free media sites.
    • To share such media, where relevant, on Flickr, Wikimedia Commons, etc.
    • To encourage clubs, societies and the Executive to make use of free media resources such as Flickr or Wikimedia Commons.

-mattbuck (Talk) 22:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice. Does wmuk: or outreach: have some "leaflet"-like page on "why you should use free licenses" or the benefits of free cultural works? Anyway, two points:
  • Mention the Berlin declaration. It's always nice to connect to Open Access and your university surely subscribes to it a bit in some document.
  • Expect and address counter-arguments on privacy ("But I don't want those photos to be easily reused/disseminated"). In the best case, just mentioning that personality rights are not affected by licenses (and that copyright is not a good tool to defend them) will be enough. --Nemo 05:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
That can be mentioned in the proposing speech, but I'm not sure it's relevant for the motion itself. I'm not trying to make all clubs use free media, but encourage the Union as a whole in that direction. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it's important to give people clear, easy-to-follow directions on how to set up their Flickr, Picasa Web Albums, YouTube, whatever to share photos easily. It's also good to explain to people that no matter where they publish their image they can easily release it under a free license just by writing under it e.g. "Released under Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0" or whatever. It's also important to engage in a little bit of license education and, for our purposes, to discourage people from using noncommercial licenses. My usual strategy is to offer just three options (CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC0) with short explanations of each. I feel like this stuff (along with the aforementioned personality rights stuff) should just be going into some kind of pamphlet. Also, a lot of people are under the misapprehension that you need permission from anybody you photograph to publish their photo under a free license (you don't). Dcoetzee (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Again, personality rights is more for the proposing speech or seconding than for the motion itself. But yes, offering guidelines sounds good. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
How about running a pilot project? Pick one university society, and make as much of their material as possible available under an open license. This does several things. It gives you some practice convincing other people that open licensing is a good idea. It will focus your ideas about what can be made available, what works well (not all material is of interest to the wider world), and how to disseminate stuff. It will hopefully also demonstrate the benefit from opening up your content (forming links with other societies, raising society profile, etc). All this will make your motion to the Council much easier to argue. Let us know how it works out! GyroMagician (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Inaccessible image

Hi, I can't access the full resolution image of File:Aerodrom Portoroz.jpg. I get the message "ERROR: The requested URL could not be retrieved." Can someone confirm (and possibly explain) this? --Eleassar (t/p) 23:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Didn't view the whole thing, but the top of it loaded OK just now... AnonMoos (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I just loaded the whole thing no problem. May have been intermittent issue. I experienced the same error the other day with a thumbnail. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for comments. Now it loads ok for me too. Apparently it was indeed an intermittent issue. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

October 27

Great source for free La Liga/Real Madrid photos

Hi. I've discovered Jan SOLO's Flickr account, a great source for Real Madrid matches and football related photos. I highly recomend all football fans to follow that account. Other grat account is CarlosRM one, with several good and free Levante UD photos, but I usually upload those photos to Commons, so most of them are already in our servers.--Coentor (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sequence of images for POTD?

Is this sequence, just about to become FP, appropriate to appear as POTD on the main page? Is there a better way to present this sequence for that purpose? Thanks. Gidip (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

October 28

Improving communication between your wiki and "tech people"

Hi. I'm posting this as part of my job for the WMF, where I currently work on technical communications.

As you'll probably agree, communication between Wikipedia contributors and "tech people" (primarily MediaWiki developers, but also designers and other engineers) hasn't always been ideal. In recent years, Wikimedia employees have made efforts to become more transparent, for example by writing monthly activity reports, by providing hubs listing current activities, and by maintaining "activity pages" for each significant activity. Furthermore, the yearly engineering goals for the WMF were developed publicly, and the more granular Roadmap is updated weekly.

Now, that's all well and such, but what I'd rather like to discuss is how we can better engage in true collaboration and 2-way discussion, not just reports and announcements. It's easy to post a link to a new feature that's already been implemented, and tell users "Please provide feedback!". It's much more difficult to truly collaborate every step of the way, from the early planning to deployment, and to ongoing maintenance, as the section above shows with the UploadWizard feedback page.

Some "big" tech projects sponsored by the WMF are lucky enough to have Oliver Keyes who can spend a lot of time discussing with editors, basically incarnating this 2-way communication channel between users and engineering staff. But Oliver can only do so much: he has to focus on a handful of features, and primarily discusses with the English Wikipedia community. We want to be able to do this for dozens of engineering projects with hundreds of wikis, in many languages, and truly collaborate to build new features together. Hiring hundreds of Community Liaisons isn't really a viable option.

There are probably things in the way we do tech stuff (e.g. new software features and deployments) that drive you insane. You probably have lots of ideas about what the ideal situation should be, and how to get there: What can the developer community (staff and volunteers) do to get there? (in the short term, medium term, long term?) What can users do to get there?

I certainly don't claim to have all the answers, and I can't do a proper job to improve things without your help. So please help me help make your lives easier, and speak up.

This is intended to be a very open discussion. Unapologetic complaining is fine; suggestions are also welcome. Stock of ponies is limited. guillom 14:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

One possibility would be to have some Commons (or Wikipedia) volunteer "tech ambassadors" dedicated to tech matters and acting as intermediaries between editor community and WMF developers. There are, of course, several possible problems: finding interested volunteers for the task and preventing them from becoming overworked or worse, blamed for tech problems they have no influence in. Here in Commons we seem to have several admins, bot masters and others who know quite a lot of Wikimedia development and tech side (or maybe they have simply written too many bugzilla reports?), but I would prioritise admin matters and functional bots over smoother communication between WMF. MKFI (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The idea of volunteer tech ambassadors has indeed been brought up a few times, and I'm glad to see it suggested by multiple people. To me, it means that this is something we probably want to try to see how it may or may not work. The question that often follows is: who would be interested, and suited for that task. You're right that there is a community of technically-minded admins, experienced users and bot owners that we can reach out to. Hopefully, if enough people volunteer, the reduced workload will not keep them from their other activities. guillom 12:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
We have a number of Commons admins who are very tech-savvy, myself included, who know enough about both the community and Mediawiki/WMF tech stuff to mediate discussion (but also have limited time). If a role like this existed I'd be happy to volunteer. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I guess that the best way to improve communication is to avoid the need and to solve the many outstanding bugs first. Some bugs remain even not acknowledged for years. --Foroa (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Agree completely with Foroa. I have for example very often problems to load the pages of Wikipedia and Commons; in particular the images. No problem with other web pages. So there must be many others with the same problems. Wouter (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Should this file be uploaded?

I have questions concerning this image on Flickr. It's a faithful reproduction of ancient Egyptian art and is thus copyright free. However, the uploader claims copyright to the photograph (probably without realizing the damage caused by doing so – very few people use the licensing feature). Should it be uploaded? 68.173.113.106 00:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This could be covered by {{PD-Art}} but I think that can be overridden by the photographer since there is creative input in selecting lighting, angle, composition, exposure, etc. However, a reading of COM:ART suggests that this image is a faithful reproduction of an uncopyrighted image, but as a matter of courtesy, I would try to discuss this with the photographer before uploading it here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

French to English translation of info graphic

I'd like to get this info graphic translated from French to English and then uploaded as a separate new file in English. Anyone want to do this or know where to post to get some help with this? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 06:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It certainly shows an elegant use of fonts, but I'm not sure why it would be important to derive an exact graphic version of this with English text. It would probably be better just to make a new (vector) graphic which would convey the same general concepts, but without attempting to match all the design details, such as the idiosyncratic dim blue background, etc. (P.S. I think it's only the French who would wear crinoline gowns to picnics!) AnonMoos (talk) 06:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Heh, well I've actually contacted the original artist who is willing to do this, so never mind. But other alternatives, if uploaded, would be also most appreciated! :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

identifying ships by IMO number

When I try to look upp this ship name and I get [29]. The IMO refers to another ships name in the commons. Has this ship been renamed?Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. (The renaming from Maersk Flanders to Flandria Seaways shows on the page you linked.) Dankarl (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Ship names often change, IMO numbers stay the same :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Upload wizard

It looks like, given the recent changes, the Upload Wizard no longer works with Firefox 3.6.28 (which shouldn't be a problem for most people). Hyacinth (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload_Wizard_feedback might be a better venue, but as written Firefox 3.6.x saw its end of life in April 2012 so might simply be a WONTFIX. --Malyacko (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, went there. Hyacinth (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

October 29

Script for uploading from Flickr to Commons

Hi. On my talk page I've been asked about User:Odie5533/F2ComButton/f2com button.user.js. It seems it stopped working several months ago. Perhaps someone can spot the problem and help fix it? Thank you. --MGA73 (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

{{PD-USGov-DHS-CG}} not in the upload wizard

Hello there. I don't know how to edit the upload wizard, so can someone who does know how to edit the upload wizard go to the list of licenses in the drop down menu for the "It is from a US federal government source" form and swap out the Coast Guard Axillary entry and license for the one of the actual Coast Guard? The license is {{PD-USGov-DHS-CG}}. Thanks! Sven Manguard Wha? 04:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Spam filter

Hello!

Where on Commons does this "Spam filter" have its page? --High Contrast (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You might be looking for Special:AbuseFilter--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 09:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Is there a page where the websites are listed up that are considered as spam? --High Contrast (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello High Contrast, I think you're looking for MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (the local) and m:Spam blacklist (the global). Hope that it helps. Best regards. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and the global meta:Spam blacklist. MKFI (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there a Wikimedia Commons iPhone App?

Is there an iPhone app in development for uploading pictures and/or video from the iPhone to Commons? I can't believe there isn't a basic app already developed. An Android app would be useful as well. 155.201.35.58 20:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at Commons:Tools#Smartphone. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 06:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
As WM Mobile developers asked me recently to create a product called "Commons App" in the Wikimedia bugtracker I assume that there are at least plans to create one. :) --Malyacko (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I found this Wikimedia Mobile Projects. As well as Commons Mobile Upload App (for Android). 155.201.35.58 18:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Help ! Urgent !

Please, the following file MUST be deleted immediately. I uploaded it by mistake : it's a duplicate and on top of it, the description doesn't fit the image. I'm really sorry for this stupid error. Thank you. Please keep me informed on my French Wikipedia talkpage : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_utilisateur:Robert_Ferrieux Robert Ferrieux

File to be deleted : [[File:Hard Times, Bounderby introduces His Wife to Harthouse, II, 2 (Harry French).jpg]]

Pour la description, il suffit de la modifier, ce que vous pouvez faire par une simple modification ordinaire de la page. Vous pouvez demander la modification du titre du fichier en apposant le modèle {{Rename}}. Vous pouvez demander la suppression immédiate d'un fichier téléversé par erreur en apposant le modèle {{Speedydelete}} et en expliquant la raison. Cela dit pourquoi l'image elle-même devrait-elle être supprimée? Je note que vous demandez la suppression des deux copies que vous en avez téléversées (celle mentionnée ci-dessus et File talk:Hard Times, Harthouse and Tom Gradgrind, II,3 (Harry French).jpg). -- Asclepias (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Some remarks here:

  1. There are, indeed, two identical images, File:Hard Times, Bounderby introduces His Wife to Harthouse, II, 2 (Harry French).jpg and File:Hard Times, Harthouse and Tom Gradgrind, II,3 (Harry French).jpg.
  2. Neither is used anywhere. One of them should, indeed be deleted.
  3. This is nothing like an emergency.
  4. Inaccurate descriptions are easily fixed: you can edit like any other wiki page.
  5. It looks to me like the one you are asking us to delete is actually the one with the correct description.
  6. Would someone please sort this out properly before taking action? Thanks.

- Jmabel ! talk 01:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I would be most grateful if the two files were deleted as they are both wrong. After that, I would import the appropriate pictures with the appropriate captions ans descriptions correctly. Thanks. Robert Ferrieux, 07:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. - Jmabel ! talk 15:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 15:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Board members as members of Wikimedia France?

Would a former board member of Wikimedia France county as Category:Membres de Wikimedia France? I am trying to add relevant categories to Category:Sam Hocevar, a former board member. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

October 31

Wiki loves Public Domain Music!

I'm hoping that the Wiki movement will organise an event to get CC licensed recordings of classical masterpieces and tradition tunes and songs and upload these to Commons and WikiSource. Are the servers ready for such a load? Remember that the amateur musicians and sound recordists we are looking for are the perfectionists and they will want to submit high fidelity recordings to best represent themselves. Could this work? Filceolaire (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It could be, but copyright is exceptionally tricky when it comes to sound files. Not only do both the composer and the performer have copyright, but if the recording uses a different arrangement than the original composition, the person who created that arrangement has copyright, and in some cases there are fourth or even fifth parties with copyright, especially when the work is digitally cleaned up. In short, we'd have to be very careful in selecting pieces, or create a comprehensive guide to what works are actually in the public domain, as opposed to what would simply seem like it should be in the public domain. As for the servers, don't worry about the servers. We've done much worse to the poor servers. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Musopen has done some of this, including running a Kickstarter campaign to produce some PD recordings.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Generally speaking sound recordings can only be uploaded if the underlying composition is in the public domain (including arrangements) and if the performance/recording is released under a free license (which usually means performed by amateurs - since professionals usually perform modern arrangements). We do have quite a lot of these already but it's important to be careful. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

October 30