Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/07

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

Contents

User implies his photos on Commons are non-commercial!

Hi there! This user has a naughty custom license: "For any other concerns, such as need for a higher resolution version of the image, or a commercial license, contact me through my talk page or e-mail me". However he's uploaded many very nice photos... Can somebody slap him into compliance? Or alternatively purge the Template:Noncommercial images. Thank you. Palosirkka (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

As long as GFDL 1.2 is a valid license on Commons - and as of now it still is - his files are licensed with a free license, as opposed to a non-free respectively "commercial" one. So I can see no reason to "slap him [or anyone] into compliance". --Tsui (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The chosen wording is suboptimal but does not imply the images are noncommercial. The intention of the wording is "for easier/more comfortable commercial use" and "additional higher res versions only available for payment". --Denniss (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
At first I thought the same. However, the wording in this template is indeed suggesting otherwise. Another point which we didn't tolerate with CC licenses from other users (resulting even in retirement of a high-profile photographer) is the "required" attribution location. While I can fully understand that, from a photographer's/contributor's viewpoint, we should be consistant in that. --Túrelio (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Multiple licensing is common and not incompatible with our aims. Purchasing a licence even for a freely licensed work is reasonable. For example, if I wish to publish a book, but it is not aesthetically pleasing to have a page of credits and legal text at the back of the book, then I would approach the copyright holder of the freely licensed work and ask to purchase an additional license for the work. For example, the picture of a duck I would like is SA3, but I am making a baby's first book of farm animals printed on waterproof plastic. If I purchase the license, I do not need to provide any attribution at all. Penyulap 07:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
"If I purchase the license, I do not need to provide any attribution at all." as a general statement is plain wrong. That would only be o.k. if the contract expressedly says so. The credit to the author is a moral right, which even the CC license don't touch. In my country, if you buy a license from a commercial photographer or agency and you don't credit them, you have to pay a fee of 100 percent of the regular rate. --Túrelio (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
As a general statement it may well be, but we aren't speaking generally, we're talking about images that already have a free license which only requires attribution. There is nothing else to pay money for except to remove the last license requirement, as in the example I outline. Penyulap 08:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
If an image, which is usable under a (free) license requiring attribution, is used without attribution, the free license is void for that use and the use falls automatically under the usual business conditions, which require payment. --Túrelio (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
So you see, the statement "For any other concerns, such as need for a higher resolution version of the image, or a commercial license, contact me through my talk page or e-mail me". makes perfect sense. Penyulap 09:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, Penyulap, there are other significant requirements in a CC-BY-SA license besides attribution. One is the requirement to make the terms of the license clear; another is to be clear about any changes (e.g. color mapping) that were not in the original, distinguishing whether your work is the original (entirely attributable to the original author) or a derived work. I've more than a few times had someone contact me specifically to get one of those two requirements waived; also, I've had people contact me to get a license in which I more explicitly promise that the photo is entirely my own work. (As for GFDL, you have to reprint the whole license, not generally useful for print uses smaller than a book.) - Jmabel ! talk 17:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you ever make enough to get yourself a new computer or camera ? :) it is good if a hobby pay for itself, but meh, if we try to be rich, we are in the wrong line of work from the beginning. Penyulap 21:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Sometimes it's good to be wrong. Palosirkka (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Maps marked as missing License

JuTa is deleting PD images. Can he be persuaded to stop? Rich Farmbrough, 02:47 1 July 2013 (GMT).

If you get a few of them undeleted at Commons:Undeletion requests that may persuade him to stop. Otherwise you could bring it up at an admin or 'crat board if he doesn't respond with justification on his talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
It would be useful to have examples, otherwise it is hard to tell what are you talking about. --Jarekt (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

All are PD and so labelled. Rich Farmbrough, 07:43 1 July 2013 (GMT).

Usually we have a bot, namely Nikbot, that marks such images as missing license if they do not contain a valid copyright tag. Please choose a template and not just the word "PD" when uploading files in future. This will ensure that our batch tools and bots recognize them as valid licenses. Also, the files are unsourced. Usually you do not draw maps from your mind. -- Rillke(q?) 09:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
They are not unsourced, they are sourced to the Latvian Wikipedia. As to tags the explicit requirement that the license be expressed in templates was, I think, added after they were uploaded (I haven't seen the policy that says "Delete if no template expressing the license" but I suppose it exists). Moreover we need to be welcoming to people who make contributions, the labyrinthine templating system is anything but. Rich Farmbrough, 16:09 1 July 2013 (GMT).
"Sourced" means that you give the source of the original data, not were the image was copied from (e.g. something like "map data from Open Street Map, converted to SVG with (PROGRAMNAME) by (USERNAME)"). The Latvian Wikipedia isn't the original source. If I as a user want to reuse the file and want to know where the data came from initially I'm lost right now. --Patrick87 (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

PD does not require a source {Judge Dredd} It is the LOAR !!! First cab off the rank File:Voleri karte.png gives one anyhow. The problem here has nothing to do with these images, which any reasonable person could see are proper, the problem is a poorly written and poorly operated bot. Penyulap 17:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

checked all of the files listed here, they are all sourced even though there is no need to, all properly labelled. If a bot is deleting them, the bot/operator is the problem. Penyulap 17:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not a bot :) In my eyes the images are not probperly sourced, that was the reason I tagged them as no license and deleted them a week after. See my answer here as well. regards --JuTa 18:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Commons:Licensing clearly says that "The license that applies to an image or media file must be indicated clearly on the file description page using a copyright tag" and those files did not have such license tags. That sentence in the policy did not change since 2005. User:JuTa did not delete the files, but tagged them with {{no license}} template and notified the uploader User:Rich Farmbrough that those files are missing the required license asking for the license to be provided. All those operations were performed without any bots.
We have on Commons many thousands of images without any license info, see Category:Media without a license: needs history check, some of them since 2005. Unfortunately we do not have very good way of quickly finding them so it can take up to 8 years to notice missing license. I do not know how Nikbot (or similar bots) operate but I think they only check new uploads done with Commons:Upload, so older files uploaded before bot was operating (or when bot was down) were never flagged. Also files transferred from Wikipedia seem to be often affected when transferred file did not have license prior to transfer or the license did not have equivalent one on Commons. Any way, Rich if that happens again, all you have to do is to provide the license. There is no need to shoot the messenger. --Jarekt (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, actually I deleted them, because on the weekend I went through the +7 days old subcategories of Category:Unknown. They got undeleted inbetween by an Commons:Undeletion request. regards --JuTa 18:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, you are right. --Jarekt (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

July 02

Listing "PD-USGov-NSA" in file upload wizard as copyright option

Would someone be interested in listing "PD-USGov-NSA" as an option in the file upload wizard? AFAIK only USGS is a sub-option for the federal government category. Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If we add that, then we should also consider adding all of the other sub-options from the government, to make sorting easier. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea :) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for supporting a non-commercial license

Whomever runs Wiki Commons...you need to offer an additional license that does not strip the copyright from the creator.

I have many photos I have taken that I'd like to share with Wiki Commons. But I cannot abandon the copyright to the images. Most of these photos are in the special collections of rare book libraires and various museums.

http://danielteolijr.tumblr.com/

http://danielteolijrcurrent.tumblr.com/

I would be willing to allow free use for educational and editorial purposes that is not commercial. So, I suggest you make up a license that allows for limited free use in the educational / editorial field while preserving the copyright interests of the creator.

Daniel Teoli Jr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielteolijr (talk • contribs) 18:53, 27 June 2013‎ (UTC)

  • None of our licenses except those that explicitly place the image in the public domain "strip the copyright from the creator." If you mean that we should allow licenses that are limited to non-commercial use, while I personally would have no objection to that, it's pretty clear that it is not the consensus to do so. - Jmabel ! talk 01:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
It is also one of the w:Wikipedia:Five pillars.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Be careful. Linking to Wikipedia policy pages may result in a flogging. Killiondude (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
meta:Founding principles should be flogproof. LX (talk, contribs) 18:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The organisation that runs Wikimedia Commons, the Wikimedia Foundation decided against nc-licences 6 year ago (see Licensing policy) and will not change this policy. --Isderion (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The licenses supported by Commons are meant to provide freedom for users. Restricting usage restricts freedom. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
That's right. Further reading along those lines: freedomdefined:Licenses/NC and http://robmyers.org/2006/11/09/why-the-nc-permission-culture-simply-doesnt-work/. LX (talk, contribs) 18:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that NC should be allowed. For our main purpose and mission (supporting the EN-wiki), NC images would be very useful. Being an image bank for others or supporting our shadowy Google connections or Wikia or the like is not of primary concern. We could have 5 times as many images for articles just by allowing CC-NC. In many cases, this makes a huge improvement in the appearance of Wiki articles. I feel the insistence on requiring commercial usage allowances is freetard and dogmatic to the point of unthinking religion.TCO (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that NC should be allowed see meta:Founding principles--Steinsplitter (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Some basic reasons for which we don't allow Non-Commercial licenses only: File:BD-propagande-2 (en).jpg --Ricordisamoa 20:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Commonist upload not working

Error message: "Hochladen von fehlgeschlagen (Connection to http://198.154.114.118:3128 refused)". What does this mean? -- Smial (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this? --McZusatz (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
thx for info. Funny problem was local and has been solved. -- Smial (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

June 28

360° photo display

Has anyone sorted out a plugin for Commons to display 360° photos in a nice in-browser solution? I have been trying these out on my old Android phone using a free photo-stitching app, and being able to "look" around a room as if you were standing in the middle of it, or in the middle of an event, is a highly engaging way of presenting this sort of higher resolution panoramic photo. -- (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Is {{Pano360}} what you are looking for? (See Category:360 panoramics for usage examples). Jean-Fred (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes. What a great feature to play around with. I'll definitely be trying to get better results from Photoaf. -- (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

June 29

Personality rights template in categories

{{Personality rights}} currently appears on roughly 70 Category: pages. According to its documentation, however, it is intended to be used on File: pages. The wording of the template message itself seems to reflect that intention (a category is not a "work" — well, not in the sense that the term is usually used around here). So, should the template be removed from the categories? Should it be replaced by a similar template (yet to be created, I assume) that is tailored specifically for use on categories (i.e., those whose scope would likely include many images depicting identifiable people)? Should the template actually be modified so it can be used on categories (changing its message when used on category pages)? - dcljr (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The English code is at Template:Personality rights/en. Can we change the existing wording in all languages to cover both in one template? "The work on this page or in this category depicts...." I don't know how the other languages would be changed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried a few other ISO 639 and they all exist:
There may be more. (Is there a way of listing all subpages of a given page?) I’d say it is simply a matter of deciding about a revised text and having it dully translated, as usual? -- Tuválkin 17:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Saskatoon plane crash

On April 1, 2011 a fugro aviation Canada limited plane crashed while trying to land. It crash landed on a Saskatoon street and hit a sound barrier. 1 killed, 2 injured. -- 18:52, 3 July 2013‎ 216.197.173.30

  • Comment: Is this a notice to ask Wikimedians on the Commons to take pictures? Did you ask the English Wikipedia too? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

An article some of you might be interested in

I just ran across this article while searching for Commons, and was redirected there from the Huffington Post. I guess this should be followed by an important discussion, but I'll let others decide whether we should start examining our file upload policies in light of this article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

That same article was linked here in commons when it was published and I think Jimbo's en:wp talk page as well. Most regulars are aware of the issues involved and discussions are happening.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
As best I can tell, everyone on commons is a troll :D
Minority removal of welcome images
#The project can't be a tool for tools, or can it? Penyulap 05:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I apparently missed that one. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the statement that Commons is "supersaturated with porn" is close to nonsensical... AnonMoos (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
There are just so many dirty jokes to put right here. So many jokes about more pictures of [.....]'s and where we could shove them and where they'd fit. Good thing I'm not into dirty jokes. Penyulap 09:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

yeah, the link name tells you that's balanced. :) the title of the article is not the same as the link name though, it clarifies things a bit. Hmm..., it's not exactly Russia today. As for trying to prevent commons being used for any of this kind of drama, I made a proposal which the majority of the community thinks is a noble idea (but don't want to support anyhow) and poor Fae was so astronomically opposed to it he actually exploded. (don't worry I think it was like one of those south park Kenny things and he'll be back). I worry about Jkadavoor though, that IS serious. Penyulap 21:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Rip-off photos with fake EXIF from Flickr user Lee Cannon

moved to: Category talk:Photographs by Lee Cannon

Not really about Lee Cannon

I found one: File:Wendy Davis 2010.jpg that I think the exif was changed in. Looks more like a cell phone image than a Canon 400.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Pictures from personal archives

My question was not answered on DR page, so I repeat it here: Since when do you need permission for items that are part of personal archives. --Miha (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Basically, for contested images, since the advent of the OTRS system. Images often slide by based on common-sense notions of implied permission but once they are contested verification of permission is needed. Dankarl (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Metadata-help

If I understand correctly, the text from this page appears with every photo. It says:

This file contains additional information, such as EXIF metadata, probably added from the digital camera or scanner used to create or digitize it. If the file has been modified from its original state, some details may not fully reflect the modified file.

Should this also mention that the timestamp is only correct if the clock in the camera was correct? It's obvious when you think about it, but maybe it needs saying anyway. --Northernhenge (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I corrected the date at File:Heron and small trout crop.jpg if you need a sample image.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

PD ineligible?

I was wondering whether this image can be considered PD ineligible? It is a composition of a PD image (File:Wernher von Braun 1960.jpg) and text only. Regards --WvB77 (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It is the same as adding a label so no copyright on simple text. If it were a long detailed caption with creativity then the text would be copyright. I just found a better version and uploaded it as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
One more image on Commons! Thanks Canoe. --WvB77 (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
You are welcome.
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

July 04

British Columbia regional district categories need title fixes.

Please see Category talk:Regional Districts of British Columbia.Skookum1 (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to bot-add categories?

Wondering if there's a bot that can add categories to search results. The new British Library collection of Canadian materials is extremely vast; in some cases the categories are clear-cut, it's just laborious going through them by hand. e.g. this search is for "Banff" and anything in it would be Category:Banff National Park.Skookum1 (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Preferences, gadgets - enable cat-a-lot. --Foroa (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I never noticed that Cat-a-lot also works for search results – thanks for the hint (and the question leading to it)! --El Grafo (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyrighted statue with decorations?

I'm wondering about the copyright status of File:Statue of Lenin.jpg. We have a fair use photo of Statue of Lenin, but the additional photo here on commons has some of the statue obscured with various decorations. Many of the statues in Fremont, Seattle, get seasonal or theme material added by local residents. So is the modified statue still copyrighted?

Also, four other articles now use File:Statue of Lenin Seattle.jpg, beyond Statue of Lenin which is cited in the fair use rationale. That goes beyond the fair use rationale, doesn't it? It appears in lists and such that don't seem to have a compelling purpose required by fair use. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Videos, Featured Videos, and Videographers - Notes on video files and documentation

Hi, I was looking around for Featured Media, and the users who contribute high-quality video works, and the users who work on multimedia-documentation...

I noticed, and wanted to note for the regulars here, that:

  1. Commons:Featured picture candidates only mentions the word "video" once, and Commons:Image guidelines doesn't mention it at all.
  2. Category:Videos and Category:Featured videos seem to be the main/root listings.
  3. Template:User/Abilities doesn't have anything for video (similarly Category:Graphics abilities). Creating those templates would help collaboration and community-integration.
  4. There are 31,000+ videos, but only 10 are featured. Better docs and guidelines would help with this!

Hopefully that will spur some activity and regrouping. (I'm not a regular here, and don't have enough time to learn it all, to do it properly, otherwise I'd try!).

Cheers! Quiddity (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that the 'voters' for featured stuff like only the stuff that looks like they made it themselves, I.E. megapixel photos. When they see stuff like kelvinsong makes, it's like huh? As for the stuff I make, well, people's heads explode. It would be lovely if there was like another editor that made videos and things, to talk to and maybe consider the merits of each other's work in a serious manner, but I can't see it happening. There just aren't any editors who DO stuff like that, or if there are, they're all alone living on the fringes. As for Template:User/Abilities and Category:Graphics abilities, I'm Anim-3 and I'm sharing it with people who's only contribution, or one of them, was to tell us they are Anim-3, and that's the plus side of it. I mean, there are dead people in my category. I don't know any actual living, breathing, drawing stuff anim editors. Still, I think we should fix up all the video pages, like the way people bury time capsules, so in 100 years, someone will come along and think 'wow, I wasn't the only one there were other, long dead, video editors too. I'm not alone.' hmmm. sigh. Penyulap 23:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

July 05

No good choice to upload derivative works

I am doing a bit of SVG maps translating lately and I have still not found an easy way to upload the derivate files: I see no obvious option for derivative works in the new upload wizard (is there one I may be overlooking?) and the old one still has the rather nasty bug that forces users to upload each file twice before it makes it to Commons. Is there a way to upload derivative works easily and quickly? Thanks!--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

upload as a new file, own work, 'asfafhjebsdgasrgw' as the file description, and then 'cut and paste' everything from the edit window of the old file into the edit window of the new file and you're done. Works for me, you could add yourself to the author field along with the original author I guess, to share some blame. Penyulap 20:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
You (Rowanwindwhistler) can use derivativeFX. -- Tuválkin 20:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
well, some can, I cannot. I hate it with a vengeance. It asks 'what is the name of the original image' or some such. Crazy. Every new image is original, it may as well ask for the name of the image that has pixels, or the name of the image that has resolution. Not for me. Penyulap 20:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for suggestion, Penyulap, though I was hoping for a more automatic tool (though your suggestion is certainly an option to be taken into account). On Tuválkin's comment, that is the buggy tool I was talking about. That tool (the one used by the older wizard) force you to upload each file twice before it makes it into Commons). The bug was reported here a long time ago but it is still there...--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Rowanwindwhistler, I didn’t know you were dissatisfied with derivativeFX — if you had mentioned it by name, I would not have wasted your time. I, for one, making use of a web browsing technique called “back button”, have been able to upload most my files using derivativeFX, circumventing the the bug you mention. -- Tuválkin 21:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Calm down, I was not criticizing and I thank you for suggesting it. I was simply clarifying that that was the tool (included in the old wizard) that has the bug I was mentioning originally (yes, I could have been more specific, sorry about that). I can also work around the bug, my question was as simple as asking whether there may be another tool I do not know about that could be simpler (or have no bugs) than these two (old wizard with derivativeFX or new wizard with no specific option for derivatives) and make uploading this particular kind of file easier... So no need to be edgy or ironic, let us all keep calm...--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

July 06

shahpur maulani ,kandharapur ,azamgarh

About Shahpur Maulani Shahpur Maulani is a small Village/hamlet in sagri Tehsil in Azamgarh District of Uttar Pradesh State, India. It comes under Shahpur Maulani Panchayath. It belongs to Azamgarh Division . It is located 10 KM towards North from District head quarters Azamgarh. 278 KM from State capital Lucknow Shahpur Maulani is surrounded by sagri tahsil - — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Waqasbaig9547 (talk • contribs)

  • I suspect you meant to write this somewhere else. This is a page for general discussion of issues pertaining to Wikimedia Commons, and unless that was a response to something I don't see here, it seems entirely off-topic. - Jmabel ! talk 03:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

July 07

No-text language template transclusions

Hi, Leyo and I are wondering if it's good to make a notification for users who have created template transclusions like {{en|foo=bar}}, or {{en|}}blah blah blah, which will break the template. It would be better if we have something like <span class="error">Missing language text</span> so that the user can know there's something wrong, not leave it there until someone fix it. Any comments? Please put them in Template talk:Description#Language templates with no text displayed. Thanks. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody interested in this discussion/suggestion? --Leyo 17:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW: Category:Template:en with no text displayed that contained > 7000 files a while ago could be reduced to currently 626 files. Any help is welcomed to get rid of the remainders. --Leyo 16:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Distorted "derivative images"

User:Gardenparty has long made a habit of uploading cropped versions of Commons images featuring nudity, occasionally incorporating image effects but usually just cropping to focus on whatever aspect of the image Gardenparty likes best. Although I doubt any of these images are improvements on the originals, they are not violating any particular guideline here. Unfortunately, I have just become aware that some of these "derivative images" are not faithful to the originals. In File:01-Kneeing nude on chair.JPG, Gardenparty has substantially changed the proportions of the model's legs and hip from the original (File:Kneeing nude on chair.jpg). In the process, the image has become blurred as well. In File:00-Nudist woman standing on log.JPG, Gardenparty has enlarged the subject's genitals from the original (File:Nudist woman standing on log.JPG). Again, there is a noticeable reduction in quality. There are likely more instances of this type of "derivative image" , but I have not yet taken the time to look.

User:Gardenparty is an alternate account of a user who has already had at least one alternate account blocked. I do not know why this account or the user's main account were not blocked at that time. I suggest that there is no place on Commons for these distorted images or the user who is uploading them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Out of scope.[2] No educational value in a bunch of arbitrarily modified Photoshop experiments. FunkMonk (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
That seems obvious to me, but I am frequently surprised by the willingness of the Commons community to accept things as educational when they are so obviously done for the personal gratification of the uploader. Would this apply to the non-distorted images as well? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The non-edited ones could realistically be used for some purpose, articles on nudism and whatever, but the edited ones not so much. FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Haven't the license conditions been violated in the derivative images? 84user (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Free licenses acceptable for Commons generally allow for derivative works - sometimes a cropped or contrast enhanced alternative version of an image can be more useful in some contexts. I do not consider the User:Gardenparty images I've seen to be examples. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

July 01

Maritime festivals

Do we have a category for maritime festivals or something like that? I recently added Category:Wooden Boats Festival (Seattle) and couldn't find anything appropriate. - Jmabel ! talk 18:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I see Category:Tall ships events and Category:Sailing events if they help. Rmhermen (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
So it sounds like I should add a Category:Maritime festivals. - Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Google images trick

While using the google images gadget (see Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and Help:Image searching#Image search gadgets) for the original image of

File:23 giugno 2013- Punto in cui la luna era più vicina alla terra- 2013-07-03 12-19.jpg (I suspected it was cropped), I found the following:

  • Google images search of the uploaded file only found a larger image posted to facebook one day ago.
  • but after I downloaded the uploaded file and then cropped it to about half the area, google images (via searchbyimage) found what I no suspect is closer to the original (still no ExIF, and evidence of processing).

That was a surprise to me, I normally just use google images without thinking and not trying harder when it finds no matches, but now I will be using crops in this way. Has this been seen before? Is there a way to get a gadget to do this for us? -84user (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

As for the second question, you think of a gadget that automatically crops relevant sections? How should this work? Or letting the user manually crop on a web-interface? However, I have no clue whether subming this crop to Google would work or whether one would have to stash the file first at a server and then submitting it to Google … something to be tested, I guess. -- Rillke(q?) 14:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

July 08

Not so much a proposal, but a question

So, I was reading Mono's admin request page, since I was the person who de-sysoped him on Outreach, when I realized that there was a good discussion on the images over that there I missed out on. Does anyone know if Foundation staff members have a certain license that they are automatically blanketed in when they upload an image? The reason I ask is that I want to move all of the images over here, since they would be better-suited here, but I don't know what license to upload them with. Because it is a small project, people got away with uploading whatever they wanted, because they could and no one would fault them for it. Now, I am left with a ton of images without copyright tags, and to move them over here would mean adding them. I'm all for adding CC-BY-SA-3.0 to everything, but I just wanted to see what the community thought before I did anything drastic. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Only the copyright-holder can license their works. That's why I would be extremely carefully applying license tags to other people's uploads. Even if staff should use one particular license, you cannot assume that everything they uploaded is intended to be under this license. All you can do is determining whether they are in the public domain or not. If they aren't, you have to ask the uploader. More information about staff uploads … -- Rillke(q?) 07:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, that makes sense. I just uploaded some of Marlita's works, as she no longer works for the Foundation, but it looks like it is all good on here. I'm going to e-mail everyone else who is still active, and see what they say, so that shouldn't be too much of a problem. Thanks for the help! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding .wav support to Commons

We have merged Rahul SOC student first phase of his pronunciation recording tool, .wav support into Timed Media Handler. change here This will mean users will be able to upload .wav files to commons and they will be converted into .ogg files via TMH. This is important for supporting in-browser audio capture and upload. The latest HTML5 browsers support capture of .wav via HTML5 api. For example check out this HTML5 audio record sample. This should help make the in-browser record word pronunciation of Rahul's SOC project possible, as well as in the future improve the accessibility of adding to various Spoken articles efforts, or ingestion of original assets where the user is not technical inclined to convert to FLAC. ( which was also recently added )

If anyone has thoughts on adding .wav to commons feel free to discus here. Note we are just adding .wav pcm ( not allowing any of the compressed formats that you can package into .wav ) Mdale (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The relevant gerrit commits are 1 and 2 --Rahul21 (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the best way to keep sounds is with lossless compression like Flac. But since Flac is not very well known yet, I think it is usefull to allow Wav PCM uncompressed files in Commons to keep all the details of the sounds. It will be easier to reuse them than with compressed Vorbis files. Lionel Allorge (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Question. But they are large files—3 minutes will translate into ~ 25 Mb. Some people may have trouble downloading them? Ruslik (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Citation from above: "This will mean users will be able to upload .wav files to commons and they will be converted into .ogg files via TMH."
So this seems not to be an issue! People can always download the much smaller OGG version if they do not aim for maximum quality. --Patrick87 (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The user will download the ogg flavor of the file which will not be large and if in the future storage becomes an issue we can always convert it into flac and other formats. I hope that answers your question Ruslik --Rahul21 (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. I don't think we need consensus on this if it is just a new tool we can use. We can each decide either to use it or not. If it effects existing tools then that may need consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Occasionally introducing new features, even if people who don't like them can ignore them, results in large backlash, so we thought it would be prudent to ask first just in case. Bawolff (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support in that case then.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

seems to lend credibility to windoze though, rather than support free formats and free software, which is superior. Penyulap 17:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

WAV (at least the part we're supporting) is simple PCM. That's no "codec" by Microsoft but only uncompressed Audio data (e.g. compare uncompressed text which would correspond to PCM to a ZIP archive which would correspond to FLAC). The only thing Microsoft was involved in was the container of this uncompressed data, which actually is freely usable as far as I know. --Patrick87 (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done This is live now (It was originally scheduled for July 15, but the new version of TimedMediaHandler got deployed early to fix a bug with how embedding videos on third party sites work). Bawolff (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Do we need to edit Commons:File types to reflect the changes?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Which types of wave are supported by TMH? -- Rillke(q?) 21:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
It looks like 44,100 Hz stereo from https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:TimedMediaHandler#Installation but the link to the README is broken.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
This is just bugzilla:50398 // bugzilla:41961. It is now on https://git.wikimedia.org/tree/mediawiki%2Fextensions%2FTimedMediaHandler.git ; I was more interested in the algorithm (compression codec) supported. -- Rillke(q?) 22:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Only uncompressed pcm is allowed. Bawolff (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status of NSA-produced video on polygraphing which uses excerpts from copyrighted TV shows, and how to handle it

There is an NSA-produced video on the polygraphing process:

While an NSA-produced video is public domain, it also uses very short excerpts of footage from copyrighted TV shows: Meet the Parents and The Simpsons So, does this mean, for it to be posted on the Commons, the footage of the TV shows has to be cut out (I assume yes, but just making sure)? Should I put a request in the audio/video Commons request page for this? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think those excerpts would need to be cut for it to be allowed on Commons, unless there is some evidence that the NSA negotiated their release under some sort of free license (which seems unlikely). We could also upload the complete video to projects whose fair-use criteria allow that. --Avenue (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
We can have a cut video uploaded to the Commons, and then the uncut one to the English Wikipedia to illustrate the section on "polygraph" - the video itself is discussed in this section. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Is "very short" de minimus short? Geo Swan (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand why my correction of a factual error is unwelcome

The graphic in question.

Dear Commons community,

I changed the graphic displayed on the right by fixing a factual error. The graphic incorrectly classifies Y and У as the same. I made my change in good faith and in accordance with “Be Bold”. However, AnonMoos appears to be adamant about reverting this change and asking me to upload the corrected version as a separate image.

In my mind, this policy would result in a proliferation of multiple incorrect versions of a document. It would make it difficult for users to identify which one is the most accurate one. Is this, in fact, the desired state of things?

If I do upload a new version of the graphic and then nominate the factually incorrect one for deletion, the end-result would be a loss of the version history (including the reasoning associated with all earlier corrections made). Is this considered desirable?

Thanks for any advice. — Timwi (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

ask at COMMONS:AN or any admin's talkpage for a 'history split' and then nominate the one you don't like for deletion. Penyulap 14:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


Dude, I abundantly explained it on your user talkpage, before you wiped your user talkpage. Making people jump through arbitrary procedural hoops is not a constructive way of encouraging people to discuss things. Unfortunately for you, your actions could be seen to be in violation of COM:OVERWRITE, and in such cases the burden is really on the person who wants to change the file to come up with meaningful reasoned factual arguments as to why the file should be changed, and not just to keep repeatedly reuploading over the old file version. AnonMoos (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
AnonMoos, the proper place is the file talk page to discuss it. When he blanked his talk page he referred others to use his en:wp talk page and not the one at commons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Whatever -- most of the time people notice messages on their own user talk pages much more quickly than messages left on file talk pages. If there was an ongoing conversation on the file talk page, or there was an issue that didn't involve any particular user, then the file talk page would be the place to go. However, in the situation as it existed, there was absolutely nothing "improper" about me taking the matter to his user talkpage, or him replying on my user talkpage.
And he can do whatever he wants with his user talkpage (mostly), but if he chooses to impose arbitrary procedural barriers to communication, and I choose not to jump through his particular set of hoops, then that does nothing to move the discussion forward. AnonMoos (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
What I fail to understand is why you two reverted each other two and three times with nothing brought up on the talk page of the file. Next it comes here, then possibly at ani. It should have been discussed after the first revert on the file talk page. Dragging drama all over when simply uploading a new file page will be the solution. The projects can then decide which file to use.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
When only two people are involved, the file talkpage is not necessarily the simplest and most direct discussion path. And it's conspicuous that Timwi has offered little rationale for his actions other than a blanket assertion that his way is the only "correct" way, while I posted a fairly detailed explanation to his user talkpage (before he blanked his user talkpage). AnonMoos (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
According to w:Gamma the upper case Y is wrong in your diagram so he does have a point that it should be removed from that overlap section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

What does w:Gamma have to do with it? It's У, U+0423 Cyrillic capital letter U w:U (Cyrillic) under question. And it's not a factual error, it's a stylistic choice. Whether or not those two forms are close enough to be treated as the same is not a question of fact.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Guys, are you experts on Russian? This is NOT A STYLISTIC CHOICE. "Y" is WRONG. Take it from a native Russian speaker. It is not about style. --Romanski (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There is enough interest at the moment to create a discussion on the talkpage of the file, I've copied everything there to start it off. This is appropriate now because the Village pump would archive the discussion after a week or two and then it would be difficult to find, and even harder to add comments to the discussion. The file talkpage doesn't have those problems. If the discussion stagnates there, just leave a note on the village pump to the effect of "Please comment at File talk:Venn diagram gr la ru.svg so that someone can assist. Penyulap 21:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Movement of discussion in progress reverted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

{facepalm} Penyulap 21:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

(addressing the OP) I would just create a new version with a different filename. You could then cross link both files via the other versions field. If I felt strongly about the correctness of any version, I might post a heads-up to the talk pages of some of the wikiproject pages that use the original image, to inform them there is now a choice. -84user (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of anything else, the original correction by Timwi is correct. Latin "Y" and Cyrillic "У" do not differ only on stylistic details (a point that can be correctly made about other letter pairs, such as "K"/"К" or "ŭ"/"й") — to prove it behold Cyrillic letter "Ү" (lowercase: "ү"). This point could be argued on historical grounds, refering to the pre-Soviet, even pre-Graẑdanskaâ, state of the cyrillic scripts, but if so the letterforms of all three scripts should be changed to reflect the period in question, as well as their repertoires (no "J", for one thing); any deeper analysis of this subject should not ignore things like Cyrillic "Н" being based on Greek "Ν" and being only visually similar to "H"/"Η" in a later phase, and many other counter intuitive details. This Venn diagram as it presents itself — a simplistic, syncronic assessment that leaves aside historical and typographic details, should not state that "Y"="У". It should be corrected for useful use. -- Tuválkin 01:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Tuvalkin -- this diagram has absolutely nothing to do with history at all. It compares only the typical visual shapes of the uppercase letters of the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic alphabets as they are found in modern serif non-italic fonts (and the only form of Cyrillic considered is Russian). That's all it does... AnonMoos (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
That’s exactly what I said. This kind of simple diagram has no business in considering that Cyrillic "У" comes from Greek "Υ" — its modern upper case letterform is different from "Y" (so much that there is even a modern Cyrillic letter "Ү", as said, used constratively in some Turkic languages, as different from "Y" as modern Latin "U" from "V", or "I" from "J", and history be damned; not a stylistic difference as said above, unlike Greek shaped "Л" and "Д") and therefore the diagram as it stands now is simply wrong and needs to be corrected — exactly because it «has absolutely nothing to do with history at all». I’m glad that we agree. -- Tuválkin 06:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
First off, any Cyrillic developments not included in standard Russian are not relevant to this graphic. And the matter is less simplistically black-and-white "correct" than you seem to believe. AnonMoos (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
“Second off”, I understand that this diagram purports to consider only “regular” cyrillic letters (as it doesn’t cover “oddballs” from the other scripts, such as "ẞ" or "Ϙ"), but still "Y" is not an acceptable stylistic variant of "У" in the eyes of any Russian litterate person, just like for the typical educated English speaker "Þ" looks a bit like a "D" but a bit too off. This is not comparable with the “monumental” versions of "Л" and "Д", which do look like their Greek counterparts, as «you seem to believe» it is — here’s a few easily found counter-examples: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
You can make a case for keeping a chalkboard photo showing "5+5=8", on the grounds that file history must be kept and that anyone is free to upload a changed derivative, but you cannot claim that the original is useful or educational or even correct. -- Tuválkin 17:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 84user: we should upload a new file with the "corrected" version. And once this discussion dies down I would either link to it from the file talk page or copy it there as suggested by User:Penyulap. --Jarekt (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this discussion should be moved to the file talk page. -- Tuválkin 06:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

OP’s comment: After reading this discussion, the message I take away is that Commons does want to fill itself up with lots of subtly wrong versions of files and require users to comb through them to find the correct one. This severely lowers my perception of it as a source of useful stuff. Consequently, I am much less motivated, not only to use it as a source, but also to contribute to it. — Timwi (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Does Commons want that? And who exactly is Commons? Apparently not me — and that makes me a sad panda. -- Tuválkin 20:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Timwi -- unfortunately for you, you seemed to be quick on the file revert button but rather slow to adduce reasoned factual cogent substantive arguments as to why the file should be overwritten (taking into account COM:OVERWRITE), and in fact you seemed to go out of your way to create unnecessary hindrances to discussion. In this context, assuming that your unsupported assertions should be glaringly obvious to all, and getting upset when others don't treat them as glaringly obvious, does nothing to resolve issues. AnonMoos (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
His assertions, however unsupported, are glaringly obvious to anyone with a shred of actual knowledge of Cyrillic typography. AnonMoos, you understand that there are millions of Russian elementary school students potentially pointing and laughing at you, right? (Vicious little хулиганкы, they are…) Step down from your high horse, and please allow this file to be corrected to actual usefulness — anything else will just spread even wider the stain on your reputation. -- Tuválkin 08:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Luxemburg railway bridges

I recently added some pic of railway bridges in Luxemburg city. There seem to be some confusion with names. There are two categories who seem to be referring to the same bridge: Bisser Bréck and Viaduc de Clausen. It is first railway viaduct north of the city railway station and carrying the railway line 1 to Gouvy (Belgium) and the railway line to Wasserbillig. Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think they are two different viaducts, at least they have separate articles in the Luxembourg wiki: lb:Clausener Viaduc and lb:Biisser Bréck, and they have different lengths. However the spelling is different for Biisser Bréck. ghouston (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The images in the two categories aren't necessarily assigned to the right bridge, which will add to confusion. The Biisser Bréck seems to be the one with the white metal frameworks over the rails for the infrastructure (I'm sure they have a technical term), and also has a green tower crane present in some photos. ghouston (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I think this is Biisser Bréck: [9], then scroll this map north a very short distance and you find the second viaduct, which would be Viaduc de Clausen. ghouston (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Then there's a third one, which may be Pfaffenthal/Pafendall Viaduct. ghouston (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I moved some pictures to Biisser Bréck. Those I am certain are taken of the first bridge from the station. There also enlargement works on this bridge to provide separate tracks for the line to Germany. Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Iv'e created the Category with the correct spelling Biisser Bréck. Moved some files from Bisser Bréck to Viaduc de Clausen. Must say that I was confused at first too, but on these files you see on the upper left a house with a very typical round dome on Plateau Altmünster. Hope this helps. --Jwh (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I've now added the Category: Pafendaller Viaduc, some of the pics were misplaced in Viaduc de Clausen, on one of these photographs you have the Pafendaller Viaduc in the foreground which continues to the Clausener Viaduc in the background.
Btw I think that there are a lot of misplaced pictures on panoramio.com. You may prefer to use this link, it's the government geoportail. A search for "Pfaffenthal (Luxembourg) (Pafendall)" will show the 3 bridges clearly, starting south with the Biisser Bréck, where the railline splits going East towards Germany and North to Viaduc de Clausen followed by Pafendaller Viaduc. --Jwh (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

July 09

Digital washing out of photos.

This file File:20060714 defile p1040618.jpg has been modified (albeit five years ago) to wash out the background and have only the subject (a military vehicle) in true colour. Is it right to digitally alter images in this way, the user who altered it was not the original contributor? Should it be reverted back to full colour, or a file history split be performed? Liamdavies (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  • This should have been done as a derivative, not a replacement. And I think a history split would be in order. - Jmabel ! talk 15:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree - I don't think it violated usual practice at the time, but would be frowned upon now. Dankarl (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I was leaning towards a history split as a derivative work myself, where would I request that? Liamdavies (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This file has a similar treatment. Liamdavies (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please inform both users of this thread, they might know each other (I'm not 100% sure). --PierreSelim (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Done, but I don't think that a history split would harm anyone's work, it would just mean that both the altered and original images would be usable. Liamdavies (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes a history split is in order, but given that it's been so long, most of the usage is for the washed out version. The work we will harm is the project editors selection of a washed out image. So whoever does it should go through the existing usage and choose the version most appropriate to each use. (or perhaps for this special case the washed out version could be the one left at the original file name). --99of9 (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I've only checked the EN:WP history, and it appears that the image was in use before it was overwritten, but that was five years ago. I think the best way to go is your second option of splitting the original out and leaving the washed out as 'primary' in both cases, with an alternative link within each image. Liamdavies (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

July 10

Creative Commons license icons license and authorship ambiguity

The following files:

  1. File:Cc-by_new.svg
  2. File:Cc-sa.svg
  3. File:Cc-nc.svg
  4. File:Cc-nd.svg

have somewhat strange license and/or authorship information. In file #1 the stated author is User:Sting and in #2, #3, and #4 - User:Rei-artur. The #2, #3 and #4 also reference Rafał Pocztarski as someone who edited original yellow GIFs in GIMP.

Isn't Creative Commons the actual (or at least first) author of these images?

Also, the licenses of these files are strange. The #4 contains both {{pd-ineligible}} and {{cc-by-2.0}} license tags. Other files simply state they're under {{cc-by-2.0}}. Aren't the images all in PD because of the threshold of originality?

Finally, only #4 contains the {{trademarked}} tag while all the CC license icons are trademarks: "The double C in a circle, the words and logotype “Creative Commons,” Creative Commons license buttons, and any combination of the foregoing, whether integrated into a larger whole or standing alone, including but not limited to CC+ (within a circle or standing alone), are Creative Commons’ trademarks" [10].

Since these icons are used on Wikipedia article about Creative Commons Licenses it is important that the authorship and license information of these files to be correct. --YurB (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Be a bit careful with adding {{PD-ineligible}} to an SVG file. Many SVG files are copyrightable as computer software even if they aren't copyrightable as artworks. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The threshold of originality can differ by country. If something is explicitly licensed CC-BY, then it's good to keep that license as that should apply worldwide regardless of the local law's meaning of originality and the ambiguities that come with it. So yes, having both licenses can actually make sense. I tend to agree that these typically would not be copyrightable in the U.S. (as graphic works anyways), but that may not be true everywhere. Also as Stefan4 says, it might be possible for the SVG text itself to be copyrightable as a literary work or computer program, regardless of whatever picture it is drawing. If the first one was just downloaded from Creative Commons' site, then the uploader should not add their name as an author. But if they created the SVG themselves to more-or-less re-create the image, there might be a thin claim of authorship there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers. So these are adaptations of the original CC icons. One more thing: shouldn't we add {{trademarked}} to all of them? --YurB (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I would think. Especially if they are registered trademarks. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

502 error page

While trying to open https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:1208_Monnickendam_065.JPG&action=edit I received an error page:

502 Bad Gateway
nginx/1.1.19

I tried again a moment later and the page opened normally. I didn't note the time but it was probably about two hours ago, Rybec (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Opens without problems now. Ruslik (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

A/V sync hell and subtitles on Creative Commons Wanna work Together? video

I've translated the subtitles for the mentioned video but then saw that the video plays back slower than sound: the javascript player reports duration of 3:34 while the actual video duration is 3:07. This was happening in Firefox (17) and Chromium (27).

Then I've re-uploaded the original video from creativecommons.org as a newer version on top of the same file (I thought the previous file was corrupt) but the problem didn't go away.

Interestingly, when opened directly by the ogv URL, video plays back correctly in both these browsers.

Moreover, I've downloaded the video with my subtitles and played it back in VLC, and discovered that the timestamps no longer match the audio (but the A/V sync itself is correct.) So I opened the audio track in Audacity, edited the timestamps in the .srt file accordingly and uploaded the subtitles back to Commons. But now the timestamps don't match the audio track in the javascript player.

I believe there's some strange incompatibility of the file with the javascript player UI used on Commons. How can I help fix it? --YurB (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional note: the first (WebM) version of the file was indeed corrupt: it's playing incorrectly locally with VLC and mplayer. --YurB (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Need simple way to add Commons category interwiki links

Relevant discussions (that either died or do not fully address the usability issue):

Cross-posted to en:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) here.

Ever since wikidata was rolled out to automate the display of language links I have been frustrated by the loss of a way to easily populate Commons categories with interwiki links.

I made the following post at [11]:

Before wikipedia used the wikidata automated tool that displays links to other wikipedia language projects, it was simple to copy the list of interwiki links from any wikipedia article and use it in a Commons category. One would just copy the list, add the source language link and paste to the end of the commons category page.

Well, now I am quite stumped. What is needed is a a simple way to trigger wikidata to show the language interwiki links in
each Commons category.

I tried and failed to do this at [1], but I may have succeeded some months ago only by tedious trial and error.

How about a means for the wikidata page to extract all the links as a single page in copyable plaintext? It appears that functionality has been lost and is sorely needed (by me if noone else). I will back link my posting from the Village pumps at wikipedia and Commons. -~~~~

-84user (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

We are in between working systems and there are no good solutions out there. I just add a single interwiki link to a single wikipedia and wait for wikidate support for Commons. --Jarekt (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Until something firm is done that makes this an "automated" process, please use Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2013/06#Commons_interwiki_links_generator_tool as an easy way to add those interwiki links to our categories here. russavia (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Watch entire category

Is there any reasonable way to add all photos in a category to my watchlist, or do I have to go through them one by one? - Jmabel ! talk 15:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Idea: 1. Use Catscan2 to get a list of all files in the category as a CSV-file. 2. Load that into your favourite spreadsheet program (LibreOffice, Excel, …) or use some magical Commandline-Fu to get rid of anything but the bare filenames (but keep the "File:"). 3. Copy & paste to Special:EditWatchlist/raw. --El Grafo (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
For reference this is tracked by bugzilla:1710 (However that bug has been there forever, and nobody is actively working on it currently so it is likely to remain open for some time more). Bawolff (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • El Grafo: Workable, but a rather ugly solution. - Jmabel ! talk 16:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Can't deny that ;-) Would be a little less ugly if Catscan2 would have a simple raw text output – might be worth a try to ask Magnus about that … --El Grafo (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
El Grafo, did you try the "gallery" output option of the new CatScan2? it is just a list of files with <gallery> tags in first and last line. --Jarekt (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
wget -qO - 'http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=categorymembers&cmtitle=Category:Your_category&cmtype=file&cmlimit=500&format=xml' | grep -oE 'File:[^"]*' | sed -e 's/&quot;/"/' -e "s/&#039;/'/" should give you a list to stick in your Special:EditWatchlist/raw. It's probably not very robust. For example, it only handles apostrophes and quotes, and there may be other special characters that need to be handled. LX (talk, contribs) 18:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I take it that is Unix shell script. I'm on a Windows machine. Also, it's not obvious to me what there are constants and what are variables. Obviously, Category:Your_category is a variable. Is anything else a variable? - Jmabel ! talk 00:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
    Not so much a script as a one-liner, but yeah. You could probably get something similar working under Windows with a bit of work. It uses wget to download an XML file through the Mediawiki API, extracts the file names using grep (searching for expressions starting with File and ending just before the first " that follows), and finally uses sed to substitute &quot; and &#039; to " and ', respectively. The only thing you should have to change is Your_category, but there may also be other characters that need conversion at the end. LX (talk, contribs) 10:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
// In categories, creates a toolbox link "Create plain list" which, when clicked creates a list at the bottom of the page
importScript('User:Rillke/genCatList.js');

-- Rillke(q?) 19:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Rillke is amazing! :-) Killiondude (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

If you are watching some larger categories, don't forget there is the handy-dandy special page changes related to. For example, here are the latest changes to pages in my LACMA uploads, which would make a simple bookmark in your browser, and perusing this special page for the latest changes would save adding tens of thousands of pages to your watchlist. -- (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Google Earth on Toolserver

For the past two hours, when I click for Google Earth on a picture that has coords, for example File:Lincoln Av Elementary Orange jeh.JPG, the browser says it cannot contact Toolserver. Google Maps works okay. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

ToolServer issues are known. Will be good idea to move tool to WMFLabs. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
So, I returned a few hours later to find it working. Thank you, whoever repaired it, if anyone did. And yes, I hope the frequent problems with coords and other features can be made less frequent, somehow. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm still having this issue with Google and Bing Maps on the English site, with it not giving me all of the coordinates for a category, so I don't think it's solved perfectly just yet. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

User:IAidanBarry passing copyrighted material as their own

I want to draw attention to User:IAidanBarry who has uploaded two screen shot images taken from the soap opera Hollyoaks. They are obviously not his own work and they are copyrighted to Lime Pictures who produce the show. They probably need removing now as they have gone unnoticed since April 2013.Raintheone (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Images filed for deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 19:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

July 14

WMF intends for Only VisualEditor to be usable on Talk pages; representative states he would "dearly love to kill off Wikitext".

The VisualEditor thing hasn't affected commons much yet. If anywhere is less suitable to it, it's here.

However...

Jorm is a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation, who are in charge of all of us. He's responsible (I believe) for developing "Flow", the new talk page system. And he's saying some things that no member of the WMF should be saying.

""You should strive to achieve Zen acceptance that the only editor for Flow will be the VisualEditor. If, by the time Flow is released, the VisualEditor supports a native code editor, it will likely be there. But nothing is promised - nor can it be." - Jorn (WMF)"

He went on to add "It is entirely possible that the data for each post will not be saved as wikitext because there are considerable performance issues that arise when doing so. If this is the case, things like templates will simply be unable to be supported." and further added "I would dearly love to kill off Wikitext."

I apologise if the links are a bit weird - they use LiquidThreads there, and linking to individual threads is buggy.

Is Jorm acting in a rogue manner? Perhaps. But until the WMF denies it, we need to presume this is true. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the idea is to produce low-quality HTML output, like every other WYSIWYG editor out there. The code usually renders OK but is an utter mess. But it is a whole lot cheaper and easier for the WMF to build. What I find strange is the huge overhead costs for developing rather simple software projects. Spending inordinate amounts of money on features that should be cheap to build means the complex, important stuff rarely gets done. —Mono 01:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Ugh. I quit editing one of the Googlesite wikis because it was so hard to do anything with text that wouldn't misrender. The code is so simple and clear.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
«I would dearly love to kill off» Visual Editor (and Flow). Where to I join like-minded wikipedians? -- Tuválkin 11:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
So far, with limited experience on my part, Visual Editor is slow and it is difficult to see the highlighting (might be better with a different skin). It is not an improvement in usability. Dankarl (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Representative Jorm -- whoever you are -- you and proponents of this new visual editor seem to have forgotten that the commons, and other WMF projects, rely on volunteers. Did you really assert that the visual editor should replace wikitext because it requires less computing power? My programming mentor admonished me, long ago "Never worry about computer efficiency!" The cost of computing power was dropping all the time back then, and it is still dropping today. If you really think that you can push volunteers into adopting an inferior interface -- or even what they perceive as an inferior interface == then I suggest you should not hold any position where your opinions affect volunteers.
Some people assume, without any reference to genuine human factors testing, that WYSIWYG interfaces are easier to use. For some people this is so obvious that it is not even worth testing, not even worth asking the actual end users.
I don't believe the visual editor is easier to use. And, without regard to whether it consumes less resources at HQ, it consumes more resources at my end. I don't like that. Geo Swan (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Brandon doesn't represent the entire Foundation when he speaks, nor does he on this point. Adam is, frankly, overreacting and being somewhat histrionic. If you look at the discussion happening on enwiki, you will see a lot of clarification of what Jorm meant and discussion of what will be done in practise, rather than in theory. This is not clarification or discussion Adam saw fit to post when he spammed several projects and noticeboards with this notification - why, I can't say. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it's about User:Jorm (WMF). I have to admit that I like the idea behind VE; it should just work as expected and volunteers should be free to use whatever they like (VE/wikimarkup) best. -- Rillke(q?) 13:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
This was posted in a number of places and the initial post unfortunately did not point to a central place for discussion. It would be helpful if everybody interested in interpreting these words would respond in one central place at Wikipedia talk:Flow instead of a number of different wikis. Only if you don't want to repeat or copy&paste your statements, of course. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
That's presumably en:Wikipedia talk:Flow. DMacks (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Problem with Template:WTFPL-1

I see that something strange is happening with this template. Its {{Lang links}} template in /lang subs or in Template:WTFPL-1/layout shows properly, but directly in the template displays available languages of another Template:WTFPL or sometimes display current file with this transluction, instead of text. For example in File:WPrefs.xpm.png. --Rezonansowy (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, this issue seems to be solved for now, no action needed. --Rezonansowy (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Lawsuit over photo

A photographer whose photo was posted to the Wikimedia Commons and licensed CC BY 2.0[12] is suing a company I'm affiliated with for using the Commons photo on the company's Facebook page. I believe the crux of the complaint/suit is attribution, but I'm not sure. I'm not versed in the whole CC licensing thing.

What I'm wondering is if this is the type of thing that Wikimedia administrators want to know or would be interested in? Essentially, that a photographer who has consented for his work be used in a "freely usable" collection is now attempting to litigate. Woodshed (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if admin or the WMF needs to be notified. http://creativecommons.org/contact may be interested though. They may help settle it with a list of legal precedents before the lawyers take too much money from both sides. He does have the legal right to attribution according to they way I read the CC site.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Attribution essay.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Not especially the administrators, but considering that there have been only a very small number of actual lawsuits involving free licenses specifically, then yes some users could be interested to know about your case, in particular if it involves some interpretation of a section of the CC-by license. It depends, really. You haven't been telling much. Is it something simple like you forgot to attribute? Is it something more complex? Is the photo still on the page? Maybe you could give us a hint about the photo or the company? -- Asclepias (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Did you attribute? If not, then clearly you didn't conform to the license. "Free" is not the same thing a "public domain." - Jmabel ! talk 00:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
There have been several known occasions in Germany where users send an en:Abmahnung (link goes to en.wp) to organisations/people who violated the licence terms (for example here: 14.000 EUR for not attributing). There is nothing Commons administrators should do in such cases. If people think that their copyrights have been infringed it is their right to bring the case to the court or use other forms of legal enforcement. --Isderion (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
@Woodshed, if the suing party says the image is indeed under a CC license, but the license terms were not met with this kind of use, the general outcome of the legal dispute (if disclosable) would be of some interest to us. If, on the other hand, the suing party said the image was never released under a CC license, which would make its hosting on Wikimedia-Commons illegal, we would be very much interested in knowing about which image this case is, in order to prevent other re-users getting exposed against similar litigation. --Túrelio (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I may contact you privately at some point.
As for the attribution, the question is not merely "did you attribute?". The license says: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor." So the dispute may be whether the defendant attributed it in the proper manner. I've not been able to find any boilerplate on what a typical acceptable attribution might be. Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0 offers a parameter for attribution instructions, but it was not used in the case I'm referencing. I'm sure that sometimes (often?) the uploader to Commons (or sister projects from where photos get ported) is not the creator of the work, and may not know what to specify. (To complicate further, the photo used in this case was actually a retouched/cropped version of a previous Commons upload. The retouched version kept the CC BY 2.0 license and is identified as a "derivative work", which I assume is correct.) Woodshed (talk) 09:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
It would probably help if we knew what file this involves and where it was reused. Failing that I'm assuming it was a CC-BY 2.0, according to that license the image must both contain a link or reference to the license, and name the 'Original Author' (per section 4 subsection b), if you have failed to do this you are in breach of the license. Did you comply with these conditions when the picture was used? i.e. did it contain a link/reference to license, and state who created it? If not then you breached the conditions of the license. Liamdavies (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
We could play guessing games, but that would probably not be useful. Can you please tell what file it is on Commons, what company reused it and how it worded the credit line. At least, we could see what attribution was actually specified by the author for the original work and if the derivative work was properly attributed on the Commons page. Then, it should be simple to compare the attribution specified by the author with the attribution given by the reuser and tell if they're identical or not. If the attribution specified by the author (in the author field or otherwise) is "John Doe, for the Landmowers Association", then that's the phrase a reuser must reproduce for attribution. (With the other elements required by s. 4 of the CC license: url of the license, etc.) -- Asclepias (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

July 11

userpage tabs

Out of pure curiosity, can we/do we have userpage tabs like we do at en:User:WorldTraveller101 or en:User:Mrt3366. These are cool tabs that would likely be useful for editors trying to navigate? Like? Dislike? If so, I need help making them so the codes and parameters work. Thanks. WT101 (TalkStalk) 21:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

They are just links that look like tabs. They link to different pages, simple as that. I suggest you copy the wikitext of HTML of the original and tweak it. -- Tuválkin 13:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

July 15

Copyviol images, vandalisms and menaces

User Mevesager uploaded some metro maps in copyviol, taken from the official sites of the transport company without any authorisation (see [13] and [14]). I proposed those files for deletion, but the user continues to remove the requests and attacks me for that ([15]) and tryes to intimidate me, with a menace to report my contributes to the police ([16]). Is that allowed?--Friedrichstrasse (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

100,000,000th edit

Let's party

Here is the 100,000,000th edit on commons. Congrats! //  Gikü  said  done  Monday, 15 July 2013 06:02 (UTC)

Juhu, that is quite a lot. Let's celebrate. Especially that's it's not a copyvio or low quality penis pic. :D --Isderion (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I've mentioned it in the :de and :en articles about Commons[17][18]. --Túrelio (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Wow. Being cited on wikipedia feels so good. Thank you pal. //  Gikü  said  done  Tuesday, 16 July 2013 21:05 (UTC)

Undelation request of the 15 files by Krantmlverma not listened so far

TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN: I have already posted my request on the talk page of Fastly! like this - "Kindly see this thread wherein you have very clearly mentioned Once OTRS processes the email(s) you claim to have sent, they will restore the files. Please note that OTRS is extremely busy at the moment, so it may be some time before they are able to attend to your request. Thanks for your patience. But till date not even a single file was restored. Please see where these files have gone? Thanks for the trouble." But so far as I understand all of these files have been deleted because not even a single file is available on wikicommons. Kindly look into this matter if you can. Krantmlverma (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

If you did send an email to COM:OTRS and if you want anybody to investigate, then you probably need to mention your request ID as the very first step. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
HAY Mr.AKlapper! First of all I thank you for listening to me. Excuse me for the trouble again. As mentioned above I have posted all 15 undeletion requests which are archived here with a clear note "This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive." Its thread is also given here You can find the related details of all my deleted files where individuals OTR requests were filed by the concerned uploader viz. Krantmlverma. Kindly see it once again and then advice me properly what else I have to do further? Regards Krantmlverma (talk) 04:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Video worth grabbing

My puny netbook isn't up to video conversion and editing, but it would be great if someone could grab the 100-year-old Lancashire, England, newsreel trailer from http://vimeo.com/m/67647513 then remove the modern backing music, and upload it.

Slicing it into sections would allow its use on several Wikipedia articles, such as those on the transporter bridge, tram system, and police force depicted. Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. odder (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

July 18

Need a photo theme for Commons brochure

We're getting ready for the next draft of the upcoming Commons introductory brochure, and I'm trying to come up with a new theme (in place of the adorable dog in the current version, since the consensus seems to be that this might encourage too many personal pet photos and undercut the educational focus of Commons). Please post suggestions here, especially of specific photos / sets of photos that are:

  • high quality and interesting
  • easily recognizable across cultures
  • relevant for both a specific Wikipedia article and a specific Wikivoyage article (since the brochure will have screenshots from those two projects)

--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Origin of empty stuff

Where does this empty stuff in certain uploads come from:

;Other information:
{{en| }}

See sample removal. How can the addition to file description pages be avoided in future? --Leyo 08:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

But why should it be avoided? This seems to be useful in many cases. Ruslik (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Not if it is empty. --Leyo 16:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
That file was uploaded through en:Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, so this is probably a discussion for en:Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard. LX (talk, contribs) 10:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I copied the thread to en:Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard#Origin of empty stuff. --Leyo 12:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Join an IRC Chat about Multimedia this Thursday

Hi folks, we would like to invite you to join an IRC chat about Multimedia, which we're hosting on this 'office hours' channel, this Thursday, July 18th, at 18:00 UTC (11:00am PDT).

This one-hour online discussion will bring together community members and the foundation's new multimedia team to discuss how to create a better, media-rich experience on Wikipedia and Commons. With your help, we hope to create new ways to view, discover, curate, publish or upload media files, and grow our audio-visual knowledge base in the process.

For our first steps this summer, we would like to discuss a few simple features that would make it easier to use multimedia on our sites. Before we go too much further, we would love to hear your thoughts about how you use audio-visual files today and how we might be able to better support your work.

To kick off this discussion, we will post some of first feature ideas online later today and tomorrow, and link to them here as well. For now, here is our multimedia project hub, which will be updated in coming days. More to come ...

Please RSVP below if you are interested in joining, so we know how many people to expect.

Thanks for your consideration. We look forward to meeting many of you soon! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, and when/where to discuss instead whether «to create a “better”»(scare quotes inserted by me)«, media-rich experience on Wikipedia and Commons»? Where can users express the view that they don’t want Wikipedia and Commons transformed into some kind of eye-candy content-void media circus that brings to the projects nothing but drama, trolling, and spam? Where can users can gather and organize to put a stop to all this? Is there a place and time to discuss that? -- Tuválkin 00:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Please ignore the rant above. Albeit framed with the same kind of promotional spin used for things like Visual Editor, the Vector skin, and many others, this is a good thing. Sorry about that! -- Tuválkin 04:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tuválkin. Thanks for your clarifications. No worries, we're glad to hear from you, and happy that you think this initiative has potential after all. Rest assured that we will do everything we can to serve our users -- so we can all enjoy a good multimedia experience on our sites. : ) Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Update

Multimedia Project Slides

Hi folks, here's a quick update on today's IRC chat about multimedia, which starts at 18:00 UTC (11:00am PDT), on this 'office hours' channel: #wikimedia-office .

Our new multimedia team is hosting this one-hour chat to discuss our plans and first feature ideas with community members from Wikipedia, Commons and other wiki projects. You can read more about our current plans here on our Multimedia project hub.

During this chat, we will ask you how we can improve your multimedia workflows, as well as discuss these new feature ideas:

  • Media Viewer
  • File Notifications
  • File Feedback
  • New Gallery Layout

To learn more about these projects, visit this feature ideas page -- where you are welcome to add comments.

Thanks to all who have responded already. If you haven't yet, please RSVP below if you plan to join the chat, so we know how many people to expect. Even if you can't join this IRC chat, we'd be grateful if you could spread the word in your community, and comment on the feature ideas page, to help us plan our next steps for this important program.

Thanks for your interest. We hope to speak with you soon! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: This is happening in 5 minutes. Bawolff (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

RSVP

I plan to attend
Please add your user name below if you think you can join this event.
  1. Yuvipanda (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. MarkTraceur (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oh look, all the devs are going ;). Bawolff (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. I'll try the channel, but the heat in London seems to have sent my wifi adapter back to the 1980s. (talk)
  5. Trizek from FR 17:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  6. --Isderion (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  7. Quiddity (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  8. Helianth (talk)


I can't join this one, but I am interested in future events

Please add your user name below if you cannot join this event, but would like to be contacted about future discussions.

Additionally, if anyone can't make it, but has things to say, they should feel free to contact us (via irc, talk page, carrier pigeion, etc. Whatever works). The IRC meeting is meant to have a discussion about what to do (and what not to do), but people shouldn't feel like that's the only opportunity to talk to us. We're happy to get feedback where-ever and when-ever. Bawolff (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  1. Time to sleep here. :) – Kwj2772 (msg) 23:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. Flying. (Thanks for trying and opening up the (almost) early phases of planning.) --Nemo 08:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nemo, sorry you couldn't join us this time, but hope you can participate in future events, so we can benefit from your insights. : ) Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

3. ...

Also, if anyone is going to Wikimania in Hong Kong this year, we will be hosting a special Multimedia Roundtable to brainstorm new feature ideas together on Thursday, August 8th at 10:00. We still have a couple seats left for that pre-conference session. Please sign up on this page if you would like to join this hands-on creative workshop. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

IRC Chat Notes

Media viewer mockup

Here are some first notes on our IRC Chat about Multimedia, which took place on the WMF 'office hours' channel on Thursday, July 18, 2013, from 18:00 to 19:20 UTC.

This community discussion was hosted by the foundation's new multimedia team: Fabrice Florin, Rob Lanphier, Mark Holmquist and Brian Wolff, and was attended by a couple dozen community members, including these active participants: ragesoss, Trizek, kleinerMann, Thehelpfulone, Dmcdevit, quiddity, twkozlowski, marco09127, JeanFred, Fae, darkweasel, prtksxna, helianth and Pyb -- along with other WMF team members brion, guillom and YuviPanda.

We discussed the community's current media-related workflows and key issues, as well as the multimedia team's initial plans and new features under consideration. Participants expressed concerns about the lack of support for video formats like h264, the confusing user experience when you click on thumbnails in articles, as well as a number of other issues. We also discussed several new feature ideas, including a proposed Media Viewer, File Notifications, File Feedback and New Gallery Layouts. The Media Viewer idea was selected as a favorite by a majority of participants.

We will post more detailed notes in coming days, after we have processed all this great feedback. For now, please visit these pages for more information:

Thanks again to everyone who participated for your good insights and advice. We look forward to our next chat in August! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

July 17

Breakup of gigantic user gallery requested

Can someone - it'll need to be someone with a hyperfast internet connection and a multi-gigabyte-size RAM - split up User:RaffiKojian/gallery (several thousand images) into about 100 separate pages, please? It crashes my computer if I try to open it. The creater user has been inactive on Commons for 2 years, so can't be expected to do it themselves. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

first try your browser settings, goto preferences and see if you can uncheck a box that says load images automatically. Then you should be able to open the edit window and copy with ease. A good idea to make new pages as subpages of your own userpages, rather than re-arrange someone else's pages, it's more polite.
Another method is to open any page for editing, and then change the URL to edit the gallery page, then you can open the code and copy slabs into sub-pages of your userpages. Penyulap 10:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Splitting it now. Though links will have to be added once completed, as it takes a fair time for the database to process that gallery page. Bidgee (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Did you know? You can do batch editing with VFC. Choose full page name and paste the name... --McZusatz (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
If a script I used couldn't handle it, I'm not sure if that could. Now split into 45 pages. Bidgee (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the right template?

I have downloaded File:Commandeurskruis van de Orde van de Heilige Michael Beieren.jpg. I have asked the owner of the website where i found it for permission. The permission, in the shape of an Email is on the file. But i could not find the right tag... Megan C. Robertson has given more permissions to publish photo's from her website. Who can help?

Faithfully yours, Robert Prummel (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Template that best matches the case described in the email would be {{PD-author}} or {{CC-zero}} ({{PD-self}} matches the text, but this template should be used when the uploader is also the copyright holder). However the email should really be sent to OTRS and not pasted into file description page as this causes some privacy problems; there is now an email address visible in the image description. MKFI (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Educational value of masturbation videos

We have 39 from this decade alone, and another 12 from the decade before (I can hardly believe that there's a categorization for masturbation videos by decade, but I digress...). Surely 50+ videos of men masturbating can't all be distinct enough from each other to provide educational value. I suggest that we slim this category down considerably. — Scott talk 13:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Pictogram voting question.svg Question How many such videos do you suggest we require in the repository? russavia (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
That is a good and valid question, and to be perfectly honest I don't have a better answer than "not fifty". I would say enough to satisfy the joint criterion of media quality and diversity of representation. At a glimpse of those thumbnails, there's a lot of average white dude happening there. — Scott talk 15:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Problem: to trim it down, at least a couple of users would have to look at all of them, then discuss their merits based on a number of criteria (the mere concept of a discussion about the criteria to keep a masturbation video is entertaining) then decide which may stay...I sure would like to see that talk page ;-) Asavaa (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • To compare with some other subjects; we seem to have 3 videos of sneezing, and if we have a video of hammering in a nail I couldn't find it. Without having spent time watching a representative sample of the videos but having experience with the plethora of images uploaded by people who think Commons is an appropriate place to upload blurry snapshots of their penis, I strongly suspect that the number of videos could be significantly trimmed without loss to any potential in scope usefulness. It is the long running issue of trying to balance between human sexuality being a legitimate topic within project scope, and the gaggle of bozos who wish to use any opportunity to yell "HAY L00KIT MY PEEN1S!!" I'll yet again bring up my suggestion that making a simple rule could eliminate the vast majority of such problems: Sexual material can only be submitted by users who have also contributed non-sexual in scope material to Commons. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
If someone feels like watching them and checking the quality we could delete low quality ones as "Out of scope" the way we do with images.--Jarekt (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a ridiculous situation. Since no one (understandably) wants to check each file, the category will inevitably continue to grow even larger and harder to sieve through. Reminds me of the poor policemen who have to watch hours of child pornography for the sake of documentation. FunkMonk (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe we can reduce the potential effort by hammering out some triage guidelines beforehand. Here's one to start off: if the person in the video couldn't even be bothered to fully remove their pants, nuke it.
As I started this discussion, I will reluctantly put myself forward for the unenviable task of going through the videos. (I have no qualms about the content, I just dislike dull and amateurish crud.) But I'm not going to do it if my opinions will immediately be dismissed; there need to be uncontroversial criteria to work with. Is there general consensus that there are too many of these? That's the first thing that needs to be agreed upon before anything can happen. — Scott talk 11:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Scott, this is quite a polarizing issue. Some people feel that we have too many practically "out of scope" images in a lot of categories, for example Category:Kittens, and paying more attentions to sexually explicit categories is a form of censorship. Others feel that sexually explicit categories have to be more closely curated. I think there is a consensus that low-quality sexually explicit amateur images are out of scope, see Commons:Nudity, {{Nopenis}} and {{Nobreasts}}. Videos are no different. So as long as in your deletion request you mention that the file is out of scope per Commons:Nudity guideline and that we already have similar media with higher quality or resolution ( may be provide examples), then you should be OK. The files also have to be unused on any projects, and I would concentrate first on new uploads. Finally, as with any deletion requests, try a few and than wait to see how they are received by the admins closing deletion requests. --Jarekt (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Jarekt, I was aware of all of that, and have filed a number of DRs based on the same criteria. Given the actual resistance that some of them received, I would need a far stronger basis to work on to address this issue. And this is an issue; doing nothing about it is not a solution. — Scott talk 18:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Jarekt, given that you mentioned kittens, we do need one freely licenced photo made available to us; perhaps you are in a position to help with this. I don't believe we have any photos of kotbasa on Commons. We seriously need to rectify this situation :) russavia (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
About this proposal above: «Sexual material can only be submitted by users who have also contributed non-sexual in scope material to Commons.» At 1st glance it struck me (no pun intended) as a good idea, but then on a second take seems to me that it would benefit only users who enjoy a previledged status concerning non-anonimity, or the risk thereof, within their home society at large, within their family, friends’ and work circles, concerning their gender, age, body image, and any other obstacle to expose their own most intimate physical likenesses and behaviours, even for bonafine educational goals. I would reccomend to all unpreviledged people wanting to contribute thusly (including 100% of females of any age, ethnicity, and home country) to shield their privacy by means of a dedicated “meatpuppet” account, regardless of how anonymous their primary account is. The proposed guideline would shoot down this protective measure by design, and therefore I consider it ill advised: It would keep trolls at bay from our repository, but would also keep from contributing people who need themselves to keep away from trolls’ attentions. -- Tuválkin 00:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to ask editors about these two videos, part of a larger series of similar videos.

They feature text screens in German (with occasional typos) advertising them as "Sex-education materials for pupils, teachers and parents". A translation of the text screens in these two videos is given under each thumbnail. What do editors think of the fitness of this material for its stated educational purpose? Is it in scope? Andreas JN466 12:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking at that user's uploads as a whole, it's obvious they exist purely for reasons of exhibitionism. My personal feeling on examples such as this is that the entire upload list should be deleted as a discouragement to further similar activity on their part, and possibly accompanied by a warning that any further uploads they make will be subject to much stricter assessment. Frankly, we need to take a stronger stand against people making a mockery of Commons' educational purpose in this fashion. (That doesn't mean I am suggesting every picture of a penis, etc. should be deleted, so let's get that particular straw man out of the way before someone's tempted to use it in this discussion.) — Scott talk 18:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
We do have the rule "Commons is not an amateur porn site", so clearly exhibitionism is a valid reason to delete a file (or all files) uploaded by a user. --Conti| 18:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Note Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hansy2, closed as Keep, 4 February 2013. Andreas JN466 01:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps DRs like these should be kept open until their participation is not limited to those with a recognized interest in increasing the amount of amateur porn self-taken penis photographs on Commons. — Scott talk 15:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Bump. More comments please, the issue remains. — Scott talk 13:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Starting off by deleting the worse quality portion (be it 1/4 or 3/4) for reasons of quality I think would be a good start. Blanket deletion requests for EVERYTHING in such sexually related categories tend to be contentious and often go no where. There's often a counter argument that at least *some* type of example media could be useful in scope, and some resist anything that might be seen as an attempt to bowdlerize Commons. So it can be dealt with similarly to any other case where there's an overabundance of redundant media of no particular use - for example while the human face is within project scope, we routinely delete poor quality "selfies" of non-notable people. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘

I tried a slightly different approach but doing an automated global usage check of Category:Videos of ejaculation by decade and all it's subcategories (it's an quick adaptation of script made for something else, so if something seems odd please ignore it :)). Here's the result:

I counted 42 occurrences of not used, which could very well be the 42 worst quality versions. Given that I do not wish for anyone to do as Asavaa suggests, my simple, yet crude, opinion is to delete those 42 as unused and out of scope. I guess that had they truly and purely been in scope, somebody would have used them. One could add a form of "refuge" for those that have been uploaded within the last 6 months, but I doubt that there is a need for that... --heb [T C E] 15:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

As no objections have been raised to this proposal, I have filed a mass DR. I also collapsed the list above to make this discussion easier to read. — Scott talk 18:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Inevitably closed within minutes by mattbuck. Next proposal please, pump readers, this problem is not going away. — Scott talk 20:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
As I explained, a mass DR is not appropriate for "out of scope" discussions with wildly varying conditions. I agree, some of those videos are rubbish, and so I have nominated a few for deletion. I actually did go to the trouble of watching them in order to find out which weren't worth it. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Just a thought: File:Nocturnalemission.ogv, if genuine, should not be in the "masturbation" category, and is probably a useful video of a rarely recorded bodily function, even if it is currently not in use. 85.170.80.194 16:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Heb, could you run a similar thing on Category:All Nippon Airways aircraft at Tokyo International Airport. There's 779 photos in that category; perhaps ignored userpage usage on ja.wp (likely mine). It would be interesting to see how many of those photos are in use; and should we also delete those which aren't currently in use for being out of scope due to them not being used? russavia (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Russavia, I don't know if this is a point intended by you or not by mentioning Category:All Nippon Airways aircraft at Tokyo International Airport, but I think it's a valid one: We don't just go into a clean-up deletion process, just because they are "redundant" - in fact the policy on deletion of redundant files as it is now, requires a case-by-case deletion request. The reason for me suggesting skipping it in this case, is simply that I don't feel anyone should be "put in" to watch something like 40 videos of male masturbating. In general I do agree on following established procedure, however given the content of these (which do differ somewhat from airplanes) I think there should be an opening for deviating from established procedure. For the airplanes I have changed the script slightly, so it now put's them under two headlines: Used files and unused files. In kind regards, heb [T C E] 19:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Renaming

I refuse to take sides in this quaint dispute between immature trolls and stuck up prudes, but this caught my eye:

(diff | hist) . . m Commons:Village pump‎; 20:12 . . (+117)‎ . . ‎Mattbuck (talk | contribs)‎ (File renamed: File:Beim Onanieren.OGG → File:Man masturbating to orgasm, featuring glans close-ups.ogv)

English is supposed to be, for Commons, a matter of necessity, to be used in (most) discussions and category names, but translating file names to English is not acceptable. If the old filename was not good enough it should have been fixed (like Man Masturbieren zum Orgasmus, mit Eichel Nahaufnahmen.ogv, but in better German), not translated. -- Tuválkin 20:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I was trying to get a more descriptive name, if that is the german translation then please rename it. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Better German: "Mann masturbiert bis zum Orgasmus, mit Nahaufnahmen der Eichel.ogv". I don't have filemover rights though, so somebody with those rights should do that. darkweasel94 21:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. It shouldn't have been renamed in the first place. Even if a new filename would be more descriptive, that is not a reason for renaming a file (Commons:Renaming). Only if the old name would have been completely meaningless, it would have been ok, but the old name was ok. --Isderion (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Commons sign-in bug?

Starting last night, I've been having problems with staying signed in on Commons. I normally stay signed in at all times, even when I close my browser for the day, when I come back I'm still signed in the next day. But now every time I close Commons and later come back, I have to sign in again. I keep clicking the "keep me signed in for 30 days" thing when I sign in, and I also have that clicked in my user preferences. Is anyone else having this problem? Fry1989 eh? 19:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried clearing all your cookies related to WMF Wikis once? I had similar problems on Commons and MediaWiki, but this seems to have solved the problem. --Patrick87 (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The login system was changed yesterday (see w:WP:VPT#New Single User Login system, login success page going away). Maybe your problem is a result of the new login system? --Stefan4 (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The timing makes it seem likely it's related to the SUL updates. Fry1989, are you logging in on commons.wikimedia.org directly, or on another wiki? If you're able to delete all your WMF cookies as Patrick87 mentioned, and see if the problem persists, that would be helpful to know as well. CSteipp (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I just nuked all my browser cookies, haven't done that in probably over 2 years. I only ever log in on Commons or Wiki-EN, and I made a unified login years ago. I never log out on purpose, some times I accidentally hit the logout button, but otherwise it shouldn't happen. Just a while ago, I logged into English Wikipedia, and then when I moved down here it showed me logged in, then I clicked my watchlist and it said I was logged out, but then a moment later it logged me back in without me doing anything. Acting really strange. Fry1989 eh? 01:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I have 20 cookies just from commons, and plenty more from various wikis. Some have easy to decipher names, some could probably use a help-page or infopage to explain them. Some cookie names are easy like commonswiki_session, or commonswikiUserID, some are not apparent, like rRot commonswikiPostEditRevision9999999 (it is a different number, not 99's) templates-used-list uls-previous-languages wikieditor-0-booklet-Edittools-page vector-nav-p-tb. Penyulap 02:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm still having this problem. I closed my browser a few hours ago and went out, then just got home and Commons said I was signed out again. Fry1989 eh? 05:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Which browser do you use? Does it work when using another browser? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Wondering if this is related to bugzilla:51644 --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I use the Opera browser. The problem appears to have corrected itself, but only time will tell for sure. Fry1989 eh? 00:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

July 19

Copyright violation at Angelhalo wiki

Hello. I saw "angelhalo wiki"(aka. Enha wiki. 엔하위키, famous wiki at south Korea). There are many pictures At enha wiki. But i think there is too many commons pictures without source.

For example this page has picture File:Keisei-takasago-sta-north.jpg without link to wikimedia commons. And there are many examples like this.

I think we should block enhawiki because there are too many copyright violation.--콩가루 (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I forgot enhawiki was renamed to "rigveda wiki"(리그베다 위키).

There are more examples.

If you want to find more examples, check any page and view source. Then you can find image of wikimedia commons.

There are no link to commons's file. This is a big problem.--콩가루 (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if it's possible. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
do you mean "I don't know we can block enhawiki" or "I don't know there is copyright violation at enhawiki"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 콩가루 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 19 July 2013‎ (UTC) (UTC)
I don't know if we can block enhawiki. Reason: The image is embedded in the code, so it's actually the clients who download the image. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
if not possible, how about protesting copyright violation at "enhawiki"?--콩가루 (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure who's in charge of that. Maybe it's better to tell the administrators at "enhawiki". --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no one "in charge" of that. The only one who has any legal standing to object to copyright violations (and the only one who can be certain whether or not a separate copyright arrangement exists between them and the other site) is the copyright holder. You can let them know on their user talk pages. LX (talk, contribs) 11:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
but when i tried to search "upload.wikimedia.org" site:mirror.enha.kr Google said me there are 270,000 pages. And I think most of pages have no link to source.--콩가루 (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

And.. Does commons allow to link picture by embadded link?--콩가루 (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

 ??? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Commons specifically allows external sites to hotlink to Commons images: Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia#Hotlinking or InstantCommons. It is still a copyright violation if the site does not respect license requiments. MKFI (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

There is discussions at "Enhawiki". Admin of enhawiki,Cheongdong, is try to input source of Commons Files. He noticed copyright violation yesterday. If you can read Korean, try this discussion at enhawiki.

--콩가루 (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Changing username/Current Requests

Please look at some requests as it is full of requests including mine. Receptie123 (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

July 21

Upload form not loading

I've tried getting it to load but I'm only getting the old basic upload form, anyone else having the same problem? Bidgee (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

  1. Make sure the default gadget ImprovedUploadForm is enabled (Activate the ImprovedUploadForm gadget now!)
  2. Purge your browser's cache.
  3. Report errors from your JavaScript error console (Ctrl+ Shift+J in Firefox) here.
  4. Try with debug=true.
-- Rillke(q?) 05:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I have that checked. Also cleared the cache and purged.
I'm getting a fair few "orange" errors and one "red" (including using debug).
The red error below.
Timestamp: 18/07/13 5:50:33 PM Error: TypeError: d is null Source File: http://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=user&only=scripts&skin=monobook&user=Bidgee&version=20130527T024215Z&* Line: 1
Timestamp: 18/07/13 5:47:20 PM Error: TypeError: d is null Source File: http://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=true&lang=ownwork&modules=user&only=scripts&skin=monobook&user=Bidgee&version=20130527T024215Z&* Line: 3
Bidgee (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Two things:
  1. Do not use document.write() to load scripts. Your User:Bidgee/monobook.js appears to be broken.
  2. Your User:Bidgee/common.js is also broken and is the source of this error message. Delete it.
HTH, Lupo 08:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
BTW, it's not that hard to figure out. The error message gives you a URL; that contains "modules=user&only=scripts&skin=monobook&user=Bidgee". This means the error is in the script files for user Bidgee, monobook skin. I.e. somewhere in your User:Bidgee/monobook.js or in User:Bidgee/common.js. Visit the link given: [19] and you'll see that there is indeed a variable "d". If it's null, that means that document.getElementById("n-uploadbtn") returned null: there is no such element on the page. Lupo 08:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
If I had the time to take a deeper look, I would've worked it out. User:Bidgee/common.js (now removed) wasn't an issue until today. Working now, thanks to Lupo for taking the time to workout the problem. Bidgee (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry. Looks like I was the culprit. But IMHO this was a wrong decision; that now can't be undone. If you would like to disable the UploadWizard link, I suggest turning off the gadget "upload wizard". When referring to DOM nodes like this, it is either better to use a maintained script or to test whether they exist before using them. -- Rillke(q?) 11:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, already wondered when and why this was changed. I had an an ID reference to "n-uploadbtn" myself which naturally broke when this change became live. --Patrick87 (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
And change the change back again... Face-wink.svg. ID is back to "n-uploadbtn" as it was before. --Patrick87 (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

RfA

How does one go about requesting admin rights on commons? I'm from en-wiki so I'm new here. Thanks, Retrolord (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see COM:A. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I filed my RfA. Will it automatically transclude onto the main requests page? Retrolord (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
People who cannot answer that should not be admin. Seriously what are you doing here? Bored because you are currently blocked on en? --Isderion (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The blocking admin on en.wiki states "Calling people "members of Yugoslavia Supreme Court" is the same as calling others "Nazis", "A Lynch Mob", or other such titles." BWilkins. I think there are easier ways to interact than dissing the Yugoslavs, maybe like this:
"To be entirely honest, your highness, I don't trust your judgement. -Salvio" link Penyulap 04:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Let it be known that I was maliciously blocked by an involved admin, who also revoked talk page access to protect himself from scrutiny. I will be contesting this block at WP:AN/I when the block is finished. Retrolord (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Please don't bring disputes from other wikis here, especially not so unnecessarily. This is a relatively peaceful place and should stay that way. :) darkweasel94 07:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Commons is not the place for revenge actions and you can't hold us liable for what you experienced at en.wp. Please read Commons:Guide to adminship and Commons:Administrators#Community role. Applying for adminship with nearly zero edits is not the way to go because it doesn't prove that you could be trusted and that you are experienced. -- Rillke(q?) 07:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

July 22

Number of files in category given is incorrect

In Category:Language templates with no text displayed it says:

“The following 200 files are in the current category.”

However, when clicking on “next 200”, there are another 35 files being shown. Is this a known bug? --Leyo 12:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it is related to the fact that is a new maintenance category is added by an old template {{description}}. I do not fully understand it, but it seems like all files using this template were not refreshed so the files show up in the category if and when they are "refreshed" for some other reason. This process can take months or years (if template inclusion can be any guide - for example {{License template tag}} was indirectly added to most valid license templates, 2 years ago, and only recently I stopped finding files with proper license, but which claim not to transclude {{License template tag}}). That is why you often find files which belong to a category if you look at their file page, but the category does not list them. --Jarekt (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The message says that the following 200 are in the category. It makes no claim about how many files are in the category in total. (This message is used when MediaWiki has no idea how many files are in the category in total. Due to various bugs, some categories have an incorrect count of the total number of files in a category). Bawolff (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

July 20

Oversight nomination

Per our custom, I'd like to inform you that I have just nominated PierreSelim for oversighter; you can take part in the discussion & vote at Commons:Oversighters/Requests/PierreSelim. odder (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

No maintenance categories for reference errors?

Don't we really have anything like en:Category:Pages with citation errors here on Commons? I just discovered this fact in File:1941 airmail stamp C30.jpg (permalink). --Leyo 15:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Commons:Citing errors? -- Asclepias (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
This category does obviously not consider all types of reference errors… --Leyo 19:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, people added stuff to various pages in the mediawiki namespace to make the citation categories work correctly, the error tracking categories for cite are not part of the software itself in general, which is why they don't appear over here. Bawolff (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Local modifications of
exist. I don't understand why the first one does not trigger the categorization of the file mentioned above. --Leyo 22:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Not 100% sure, but I would guess the includeonly stops it. (The MediaWiki namespace messages aren't included like normal templates. It depends on the message, but in many cases <includeonly> on such a message, would mean show only on pages that are transcluding a page that has the error, not the page itself. You could probably work around it with some hack like {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|MediaWiki:Cite_error_group_refs_without_references||[[Category:Commons:Citing errors]]}} instead of includeonly. Bawolff (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
That is probably the reason. An alternative would be to use a separate treatment of namespaces as it is done in de.wikipedia (code):
{{#switch: {{NAMESPACENUMBER}}
| 0 = [[Kategorie:Wikipedia:Seite mit Einzelnachweisfehlern]]
| 2 = <span style="display:none;">[[MediaWiki:Cite error group refs without references/Benutzerseiten]]</span>
| 8 = 
| #default = [[Kategorie:Wikipedia:Seite mit Einzelnachweisfehlern|! {{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}]]
}}
If so, we would need to define which namespaces are to be considered. What about “File”, “Category”, “Gallery”? --Leyo 16:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I implemented it, but it does not seem to be working properly. --Leyo 16:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible that really nobody has a clue?! --Leyo 23:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Since its not a real template, editing it does not update all the pages that use it. A null edit to File:1941 airmail stamp C30.jpg seemed to fix the issue. Bawolff (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried the same, but the interface language needs to be English to make in work. Hence, Category:Commons:Citing errors will be filled as soon as other edits in the relevant pages and with the right interface language are made. Not a very satisfactory solution…
With de interface, the category is thus also not shown in the file page. Is there an alternative to editing language subpages such as MediaWiki:Cite error group refs without references/de in this case? --Leyo 18:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Update to UploadCampaigns

Hello!

As part of upcoming work to be done to support use of UploadCampaigns from Mobile, I've spent time rewriting the underlying infrastructure for UploadCampaigns. This has no changes for people who use UploadWizard to just upload images, but plenty of changes for people who administer and maintain campaigns. The most important changes are:

  • Campaigns are maintained by creating and modifying pages in a new Campaign: namespace. Special:UploadCampaign and Special:UploadCampaigns have been removed.
  • Pages in the Campaign: namespace have all the features of normal pages, and so have page history (solving bugzilla:30645), a talk page, can be watched/moved/deleted/undeleted, etc.
  • Full wikitext support in most fields - header/thanks labels (fixing bugzilla:39910) and in the field labels (solving bugzilla:39911). This should make customizations and internationalization simpler.
  • Arbitrary number of custom fields where the user can enter text while uploading, and such text is included in the uploaded image's description, are now supported (previously you were restricted to two fields)
  • As a negative, the GUI interface for configuring campaigns is now gone (temporarily). Currently the Campaign configuration is stored as JSON, which is edited by hand. There exists minimal validation so that corrupt data is not saved. A point and click interface would eventually be added at some point in the future. Documentation for the current JSON format exists.

This change is currently live on the commonsbeta site, and can be tested there. This is on schedule to be rolled out to Commons on Monday, July 22 - unless large unforeseen bugs arise.

Thanks to MarkTraceur, Odder and Brion for their help! YuviPanda (WMF) (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Note: For anyone who wants to be granted the required rights to play with this on commonsbeta, please drop me a talk page note / email with your user name there and I'll grant you that. Odder (and several other people, I think) also have 'crat on that wiki. YuviPanda (WMF) (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

What is “UploadCampaigns from Mobile”? -- Tuválkin 07:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
A rough draft of that is available at mw:User:Yuvipanda/Mobile_campaigns. It'll be fleshed out a bit more over time. YuviPanda (WMF) (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
This is now enabled on testwiki. You can see the campaign config for wlm-pl at [20], and test the uploading at [21]. Thanks! YuviPanda (WMF) (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
This has now been deployed! Me and Romaine are tidying up the individual campaigns, and everything seems to work fine. Yay! \o/ YuviPanda (WMF) (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
First step is done. Checking if everything is in order will folow for the wlm ones. Romaine (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

July 16

Null location templates added by UploadWizard

It appears that UploadWizard is adding {{Location dec|0|0}} to all images uploaded by it. This seems to be only UploadWizard; images uploaded with the old form are not showing the template. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. And it does not add [[Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard]]. -- Rillke(q?) 12:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I uploaded some test files. For File:UWtestfile.svg I clicked on the 'add location' text but did not modify the text fields; for File:UWtestfile1.svg I did not even click on the text. Both images still have the null location template, indicating that UW is adding null templates for all files uploaded with it. I'll head over to Bugzilla now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The fields longitude and latitude in Add location and more information ... seem to be pre-filled with "0". -- Rillke(q?) 13:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, the problem is that the template is activated even if the user never clicks to add it (and relatively few UW uploads are given actual locations by the user, so most are left with the null template). Reported at bugzilla:51879. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Pywikipedia is migrating to git

Hello, Sorry for English but It's very important for bot operators so I hope someone translates this. Pywikipedia is migrating to Git so after July 26, SVN checkouts won't be updated If you're using Pywikipedia you have to switch to git, otherwise you will use out-dated framework and your bot might not work properly. There is a manual for doing that and a blog post explaining about this change in non-technical language. If you have question feel free to ask in mw:Manual talk:Pywikipediabot/Gerrit, mailing list, or in the IRC channel. Best Amir (via Global message delivery). 13:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Problem with Upload wizard

For a couple of days I have had a problem with the Upload Wizard. After the first upload, it will not react to hitting the "Continue" button (I am using Firefox 22.0). Apparently I am not the only one experiencing this problem. Could this be fixed and/or the Wizard temporarily disabled until it is fixed, please? --Concord (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Son of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

Town crier Tony Appleton who announced the birth of the Prince of Cambridge, at an event in 2010

Any chance someone photographed the notice of the birth posted outside Buckingham Palace and the town crier who also made an announcement? :) — Cheers, JackLee talk 22:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we crop this image and apply a PD-text license?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be better if the photograph showed not just the notice itself but also the frame and easel, and the Buckingham Palace gate. — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Is this the crier? We may be able to email him for an image.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, apparently the town crier who made the announcement was indeed Tony Appleton. — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Found some free images of Tony Appleton wearing the same town crier uniform at an event in 2010! — Cheers, JackLee talk 20:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Good finds! Should we start writing articles on w:Tony Appleton and the kid? I think we may have enough RS and images help.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
"The kid" already has enough people working on his article, I think. Not sure if Tony Appleton is notable enough, but by all means go ahead if you're interested. — Cheers, JackLee talk 21:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Since they jumped the gun, so did I.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm ... good luck trying to find a free photograph of the baby. By the way, the category now needs renaming to "Category:Prince George of Cambridge"— Cheers, JackLee talk 17:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I created the new cat and re-directed the old one. There is an image in it now albeit before he was born.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


July 23

Audio player not working on some MAC machines

Several times in the past couple of months, the audio file player has ceased to function for me, which is a real problem as I would like to continue uploading audio files for Wikipedia and Wiktionary. And now, once again, the player module used here and on those other projects no longer plays audio files. In fact, it doesn't seem to respond at all except to change the Play arrow to a Pause symbol. Nothing else happens anymore. Is this a known problem, and is anyone working to fix it? This is a huge issue for audio files. Imagine what it would be like if image files wouldn't display anywhere. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't heard any issues. I think it may help if I add a sample here for people to test their setup and give you feedback on sounds on their system.

right click here, open in a new window music should play immediately. (700kb)

Here is another sample using an on-screen player, 5 Mbytes.


I use Linux (Ubuntu), Firefox, and it plays for me. Penyulap 02:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know many things that you can try, except the cure-all which is a live-cd. If you download a ISO from www.ubuntu.org and burn it to a CD or DVD, you can test a completely different operating system and browser without touching anything on your current system. It all runs from the CD/DVD in memory, and when you restart the system without the CD/DVD in the drive, everything goes back to your regular system. You can work out if it is something at your end, or something on commons instantly once you run it. Penyulap 02:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I guess I wasn't clear about the problem. I'm not experiencing a personal problem unique to me; this is a systemic problem. The on-screen player does not work on Wikipedia, on Wiktionary, nor here. It used to work. I used to use it all the time, but it's been changed. It stopped working a few months ago. The player is therefore broken by some change, and I know I'm not the only person affected. The problem does appear to be Mac specific, from replies I've gotten on other projects, but it's going to affect all Mac users. So, unless you think every Mac user on MediaWiki should have to go through the procedure you've outlined above, I recommend fixing the player, so that it works again for everyone. Until it is fixed, all the pronunciation files on Wiktionary will be unplayable for a significant proportion of its users.
I do a lot of work recording and linking pronunciation files for English and Latin words on Wiktionary (see e.g. Category:Latin pronunciation, where I created most of the listed files). But sometimes I need to hear the files to make sound checks of compare pronunciations. So right now, the only way I can tell the difference between the pronunciation files
and
is to dowload the files to my computer, open them up in a separate audio program, and play them there. That's a lot of work just to hear how a word is pronounced, and it used to be simpler back when the on-screen player worked for me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to mis-understand you, I do not know and cannot help, except possibly to direct you to mediawiki's wiki, possibly. There are also bugzillas mentioned here sometimes, with links, but I don't know how they work, I'd have to search for it same as you. Penyulap 04:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I started a bugzilla report once for a Commons-Wiktionary interaction problem that resulted from the implementation of case sensitive linking. Ffiles with incorrect capitalization on Wiktionary still link fine, but don't show up in usage lists, which is a problem for Commons Delinker, since it can't find those active links. As a result, we often end up with broken links on Wiktionary when files are deleted or renamed. But after three years, nothing has been done about that problem. So, I have no faith in bugzilla. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I misread that again at first, brain works not. I think a robot would need to iterate the entire database there to find and fix, that can be done though. Penyulap 05:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry your bug wasn't fixed. We get a lot of bug reports, some more difficult than others. Some get fixed quickly, some don't. Please still continue reporting bugs as we definitely can't fix issues we don't know about. Bawolff (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Can you be a bit more specific as to the machines you experience this on (especially OS X version and browser)? We use the pronunciation files quite often on Mac systems (OS X 10.7.5 & FireFox 22.0 currently) and I haven't heard of any problems. As you have probably seen above the Extension:TimedMediaHandler, which does the actual playing has been updated quite recently. Before that it would probably have been back in March with REL1_21, but I can't say for certain as I don't really track all of this. As far as I can see it is not a known issue though. In kind regards, heb [T C E] 07:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually Wikimedia doesn't use the external releases (REL1_XX branches). Instead we use submodules with wmf/1.XXwmfY branches, which get deployed more or less once a week. So a new version of TimedMediaHandler gets deployed roughly once a week (for commons, usually on mondays). See mw:MediaWiki_1.22/Roadmap for the schedule. As for the actual issue, version numbers would be very helpful. Checking your javascript console for any errors would also be helpful. Bawolff (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah - I didn't know that :) Thank you :) --heb [T C E] 06:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

One set of discussion occurred at wikt:Wiktionary:GP#Audio_files_not_playing back in May/June. The details from two of us who experienced the problem are given there. The behavior seemed to be "fixed" as I described there, but has since stopped working again. The behavior right now is that nothing discernibel happens. No errors, but nothing happens. I posted a new thread there on the same issue, but have yet to receieve any comments. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Given the descriptions there, my immediate thought is that this is local issues, rather than problems with the Wikimedia extension. As I wrote previously we have not experienced any issues here. Initially try clearing out your local cache and then purge one of the affected pages. If that doesn't move anything, the following information would be helpful:
  • Browser request headers (from i.e. ip.ter.dk or xhaus.com)
  • Java version (In MacOSX: Open a Terminal (UtilitiesTerminal) and type /usr/bin/java -version)

By the way: Are you experiencing the same issues with videos from Wikimedia? In kind regards, heb [T C E] 06:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Clearing the cache doesn't help. The cache only applies to items I've previously visited, and newly visited items have the same problem. Now that you mention it, videos aren't working either, though I hadn't noticed this before (I seldom play videos from here). Videos also used to play for me, but don't now. I do have the XiphQT component installed as recommended, but it doesn't seem to make any difference. FWIW, I've also noticed that, on WP pages like, where the audio file is supposed to play when you click on the icon, it now downloads the audio file locally instead of playing it as used to happen. That, however, could be the result of a template change at Wikipedia.
Which information did you need from xhaus.com? It gives me 11 different data items. My Java version is 1.6.0_45 1.6.0_51 --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I just uploaded the latest Java, and got some additional updates for my Mac through their App store. I'm still not getting audio or video, but the sypmtoms have changed. Now, the timing counter in the on-screen audio player and video player advances, but I still get no sound nor video. I've adjusted but my computer's sound output and the player's output, but no sound. Otherwise it acts like the audio file is playing now, which it didn't do before. I tried the video on the Commons main page again, and got a black window only. The counter advanced, and repeatedly looped back to 0:00 after a few seconds, but never displayed any of the video. Again, this is different from the previous symptoms, but I'm still not gaining access to file content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Clearing the cache also would most likely refresh the player itself; I don't think it is fetched each time you play a media file. I'm not sure however.
I was in fact interested in seeing all the headers from xhaus.com. It is however easier to copy and paste from ip.ter.dk (first link); just grab everything in the yellow box. That said I don't think that is the place to look, given the latest development. Initially I think you should go to http://player.kaltura.com/docs/ kaltura.com] and see if the player (HTML5 initially - then try the Flash version) works there. If it does not either, I'm quite sure that the problem is localized to you and a few other. I have heard of the current problem before; it was related to a combination of a faulty filtering proxy (Bluecoat I think it was) and browsing the secure (https) version of Wikipedia. If you use the secure version, try the insecure and vice verse. Other than that, I can only think of trying to install another browser i.e. Google Chrome and try it from that one and check if you have accidentally blocked Wikimedia in your Java settings in Safari. --heb [T C E] 14:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Some replies: (1) The player.kaltura link does not return a page for me. Please check the link. (2) I am not using the secure server, but using it makes no difference. I get the same problematic behavior on both. The problem is not limited to Wikpedia; it also occurs on Wiktionary and Commons, and I have also tried the secure version of Wiktionary. (3) I have checked for blocking in my browser; nothing is blocked. The player is specifically allowed, because it prompted me for that. But if I have to go to another broswser to get Mediawiki sites to work, then that's not a local issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that the solution is my original suggestion. That's because if you have altered the symptoms by altering your system, it stands to reason that the problem lays in the Mac's operating system installed on your computer, there must be some non-critical corruption of the operating system or browser (or java?) software. So, it goes back to my struck advice, I can't see any other way, even if it seems a chore. Penyulap 02:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I have just checked the link on three different machines (2 running MacOSX and 1 running Windows 7) and it returns a working page on all machines. Link is good.
The suggestion of using a different browser, was to try it out with a different/clean configuration. As I have written several times, the player works fine here, using either of the three following browser on Mac OS X 10.7.5 (11G63) (Darwin $$$ 11.4.2 Darwin Kernel Version 11.4.2: Thu Aug 23 16:25:48 PDT 2012; root:xnu-1699.32.7~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64), java version 1.6.0_51:
  • Safari 6.0.5 (7536.30.1)
  • Firefox 22.0
  • Chrome 28.0.1500.71
Similar on an old Mac OS X 10.6.8 (10K549) (Darwin $$$ 10.8.0 Darwin Kernel Version 10.8.0: Tue Jun 7 16:33:36 PDT 2011; root:xnu-1504.15.3~1/RELEASE_I386 i386), java version 1.6.0_45, that we have for some odd reason lying around:
  • Safari 5.1.9 (6534.59.8)
  • Chrome 28.0.1500.71
I really don't think it's a general problem with the player and Mac, but either, as Penyulap also mentions above, a local non-critical corruption of some settings or other or something that is buggering your internet-connectivity, such as a transparent proxy or a web-filter. To me the problem of opening player.kaltura.com suggest the latter to me. --heb [T C E] 11:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Did you try the Kalutura link as you gave it? I get a page, sort of, but it's a 404 Error - Page not found. I can't access the page, and am not sure what I'm supposed to find there, but a 404 error is hardly likely to be a problem at my end. And if it is a problem on my end, then why does User:Mzajac report experiencing the same symptoms with the on-screen player? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes - I simply click on the link and then I am taken there :) Could you please try take a screendump of your browser showing the 404 along with the URL address field of the browser?
As far as I see, the problem described by User:Mzajac on wikt:Wiktionary:GP#Audio_files_not_playing was that his browser would play but with silence, then it stopped working, like your description, but I wasn't sure that it had followed your update per 20:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC). At this point I can only recommend to try out a different browser. For one thing Safari is not exactly famed for being a good and stable browser, and second it will - as I have previously mentioned - give a view on a "fresh" browser install. --heb [T C E] 11:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Works for me on a Mac (running latest version of Mountain Lion) using FF22. Killiondude (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, then I guess I just can't do anymore audio work. My computer is screwed up in some unspecified way. Thanks for trying to help, but I still don't know what the problem is or how to fix it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree that your computer may be screwed up in some unspecified way, but I can't agree with a solution that doesn't help fix your computer. The unbuntu live CD only costs a blank dvd, or I think you can write it onto a USB stick instead, I can and have done that, I used one yesterday, installed an operating system from a usb stick, but that wasn't a mac. I've seen a lot of people give up editing before, and please pardon me for saying, but your reason completely sucks! I mean seriously, don't take shit from a mac, I see people take shit from windows before, and really have to wonder why they have no brains at all, but end up thinking, 'well that's windows users for you', but taking shit from a mac, you'll get steve jobs turning over in his grave. That blasted computer is meant to do your bidding, you tell it who is boss and threaten to replace it's lazy ass with something better if it doesn't behave itself. You don't even need to spend money to carry through with your threats about it's operating system. Don't put up with it ! Penyulap 23:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
here is the instructions, so yes, you can install a completely new operating system on the mac if you care to. If you follow those instructions, you can try it out as well, without going through with installing anything.
I use ubuntu for years now, and convert my friends to it too. It's a million times better than fiddling with all the licences, paying lots of dollars, or being moronic enough to persist with anti-virus and anti-spam and anti-malware on a windows machine. I do all of my everything on ubuntu, watch video (VLC) listen to music, run bots on wikipedia, draw lots of pictures and animation (see my uploads) there is a lot I wouldn't be able to do on windows, and nothing I can't do on ubuntu. It's worth more than just a look. Penyulap 23:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't afford to buy a USB stick. I still don't understand why you're admant that it's a problem at my end, since I'm not the only person having this exact problem. As I noted above, User:Mzajac reports exactly the same symptoms from his Mac, so it's not a problem unique to me or my computer. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

SVG rendering bug

Can anybody figure out what happened with File:Modern Greek dialects en.svg? It used to look like its model, File:Griechenland Dialekte.svg, and it still renders correctly for me when downloaded and rendered directly in my browser (Firefox), but apparently the svg->png rendering on the server is choking on it now. What can be done? Fut.Perf. 14:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the German-language version, like previous versions of the English-language version, have an embedded JPEG (with visible artifacts), so you don't actually see anything of the SVG. Not a good idea, really. darkweasel94 16:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I had quite forgotten there was an embedded bitmap in this one. Still, this doesn't explain why the German version and other SVGs with embedded bitmaps still display fine, while this one suddenly ceased to work. Fut.Perf. 17:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't exactly see the problem? For me the file looks, apart from the fonts, the same whether rendered by librsvg or Firefox. darkweasel94 17:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The current version does. Somebody thankfully made a new, clean SVG version while this thread was open. But look at the older versions in the page history. Fut.Perf. 20:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah ok, hadn't seen that, sorry. darkweasel94 21:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

July 24

A question

How do I get my account renamed globally across all WMF projects? WorldTraveller101 19:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Only by asking to be renamed on every project where you are active. Ruslik (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I think I read somewhere that this is going to be changed soon, so I'd just wait some months. darkweasel94 21:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Never mind, I have a different solution in mind, but thanks to the both of you. Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg WorldTraveller101 22:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unified_login about merging user accounts globally soon. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Bogus coordinates being inserted into most new uploads

For some reason the template {{Location dec|0|0}} seems to be being inserted into the image description page of most new uploaded files. AnonMoos (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems restricted to Special:UploadWizard. When grownups’ upload tools, such as Commons:Upload and Special:Upload, are used there’s no unironed bugs messing around with our «wiki experience». -- Tuválkin 03:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
see above and Commons:Bots/Requests/RillkeBot --Isderion (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Photographers in the UK re "go home or face arrest"

example of a billboard truck

There are UK government billboard trucks with the message on the side saying " go home or face arrest " driving around, a photo or several would be brilliant. Penyulap 09:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Why are user categories hidden?

For categories related to creators, if I wasn't a Wikipedian, I could have a readily-viewable category naming and crediting me for my work, but, as a Wikipedian, I may not; the category must remain hidden. This seems at least a bit perverse. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This has been discussed (quite lengthily) at Commons talk:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy. Jean-Fred (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll review that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe this practice aims more to draw a line between "notable/not notable" rather than between "Wikipedian/not-Wikipedian". Jean-Fred (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Huh. That just makes it more confusing. So, do I have to hide my category or not? Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The best way is to leave Commons altogether. Then you will no longer be a user and your categories will be unhidden ;-). This is of course ridiculous. So why are prolific quality contributors (like e.g. A. Cuerden) discriminated versus let's say Flickr user that have no account here?  B.p. 12:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Personnally, I would be more inclined to hide the Flickr user category too − I basically hold author categories to the same standard than Creator templates. But that’s just my opinion. Jean-Fred (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I don’t know. Personally, I would rather think yours should be hidden (is there a Wikidata item about you? ;-) but I would not really care if it was not hidden. To me, a user category is a technical tool for this user (to count, track content, make database queries, look at pictures and have fond memories, whatever), so I must say I have a really hard time understanding folks who seem to be thinking along the lines of « I deserve this author category with all the good I provided to Commons » − but based ont Penyulap comment below, I suppose this is because I am not a Real™ contributor to this project. Jean-Fred (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Commons and Flickr are open for everyone to register an account. That is, just an existence of a Flickr account doesn't make a photographer professional, deserving a common category like those in Category:RIAN photographers, which seems quite reasonable to me. On the other hand, we are pretty liberal with notability requirements here, so that - for example - some functionaries of national WMF chapters (like this one) have their own unhidden personal category, although they presumably wouldn't achieve the notability threshold on any language's wikipedia. --A.Savin 13:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Arguing about cats and deletion exist so that people who can't take good photos can at least have something to do. Penyulap 13:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course. Because all there is to Commons is snapping pictures, and thus untalented photographers have to resort to pretend work. Oh well, that explains the busybodies. What explains trolls, though? -- Tuválkin 13:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I recall my friend who produced a range of award winning work, not commons awards, professional rewards. National Geographic and a list of others too long to name. He was hounded and driven off wiki and commons by trolls claiming his work was not good enough. Penyulap 13:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
And of course you have links and diffs to make that accusation more than your usual trolling, just like you had here. -- Tuválkin 14:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
That's an opinion in an election. Thank you for defining misuse of the word 'troll'. Troll on commons EQUALS anyone whose opinion differs from your own. Of course people who are well-adjusted socially don't have a problem with people who have opinion that vary from their own. I quite like disagreeing with my friends and having them disagree with me. Penyulap 15:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Penyulap, I really wish that you could refrain from border-insulting a significant range of the Wikimedia Commons community (of which, incidentally, I happen to be part). Jean-Fred (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
What group is that ? Are there people who will seriously claim that work which is good enough for national geographic is below par for a commons full of dick pics and numberplates ? The only group I refer to is those who hounded and drove him away, are you sticking your hand in the air saying oooh oooh that's me that's me ? seriously ? Penyulap 15:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
re-reading that and looking at the indentation, I think you may have referred to the 'Arguing about cats and deletion' part. Sorry about that, I didn't stress the Arguing part enough. I've seen many discussions about deletion and cats that doesn't need to turn into name-calling and so on, but then again there is a lot of it which is. Penyulap 15:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for new template

As I don't know where else to ask, I do it here: Recently, my username had to be changed due to SUL finalization from Jeppi to Jossi2. In en:WP there exists a most helpful template to redirect from the old user/díscussion page to the new one: en:Template:Alternative user. As far as I can see, Commons has nothing of this kind. As I am a complete noob with templates myself, I would like to ask if anybody could add this template to Commons (no rocket science, I guess). There have been some name changes in connection with SUL finalization, so this could be useful for other users, too. Thank you. --Jossi (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Alternative user. I just copy/pasted the code from en:wp. It probably needs tweaking yet.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Reimport done. Nice Template. thx Canoe1967 --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I assume you are being sarcastic. No problem if you are. Thanks should go to Steinsplitter for fixing the ugly mess I made.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick help! --Jossi (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
You are very welcome. I tried it on User:Jeppi. You may wish to edit that page further.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

July 26

resizing big images will get faster next week (VipsScaler)

On Thursday 18 July, Wikimedia Foundation is planning to deploy something new on the sites: the VipsScaler extension.

We expect this to make resizing big JPEGs and PNGs faster and more reliable, leading to fewer errors -- no matter whether you get a different size by clicking on a link like "Other resolutions: 320 × 239 pixels" or by hand-editing the filename to something like https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Thompson-Pond-2009.png/1000px-Thompson-Pond-2009.png . Also, right now, there is an "area limit" -- we don't let anyone upload a PNG to our site that's more than 50 megapixels. The area limit will go away; that should be nice for Wiki Loves Monuments! (There will still be a filesize limit, of bytes).

Downside: We'll see slight changes in visual quality, and a few images might break. We've already tested this ourselves, but we'd love more testing ahead of time to check for bugs so we can fix them early next week.

There's a test page at https://test2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:VipsTest that you can use to test this and find bugs before we roll this out on Thursday the 18th. This blog post helps you understand how to report a bug in Bugzilla. If you would prefer to mention problems in this thread, I can understand that -- we will respond but it might be a little slower than if you use Bugzilla. :)

Thanks to volunteer Bryan Tong Minh who wrote most of the code, and to WMF's Greg Grossmeier, Jan Gerber, and Tim Starling for working on this! Please feel free to comment here with any questions. Sumana Harihareswara, Engineering Community Manager at WMF (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I just played around with Special:VipsTest a little bit which basically left me with one question: What default settings for the Scaler will be used on Wikipedia?
My tests yielded that bilinear scaling should most probably be on (what is used when this is unticked? Nearest neighbour?). The Amount of sharpening should probably be left at "0" (probably off?), it's already much sharper than with the old scaler anyway. --Patrick87 (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The default settings of the extension (which I assume are the one's that will be used but I don't know for sure):
  • If its a jpeg file, and the thumbnail size is <83% of the original file size, then bilinear is not checked, and sharpening is set to 0.8
  • Otherwise for jpeg files, bilinear is checked, and sharpening is set to 0
  • PNG files have sharpening of 0, and bilinear not checked.
Bawolff (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm... no bilinear resizing for PNGs? I mainly tested PNGs yesterday and the quality is pretty poor in my opinion. What is the resizer used when not usig bilinear? Is it nearest neighbour (looks a bit like it from the output).
I'll do some further tests this evening and report. Is there some talk page dedicated to VipsScaler (I don't want to directly file a bug as was proposed in the inital comment). --Patrick87 (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Just put comments here. I'll make sure the relavent people see them. For reference, which PNG's have you been testing? As for bilinear - Checking it makes the scaler use im_resize_linear instead of im_shrink (I'm not personally familiar with the precise differences). Bawolff (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Patrick87: Any update on your testing? I would love to hear specific reports of where Vips isn't performing up to expectations. I know you said you don't want to report bugs, but I'll just end up copy/pasting them there, so if you could, that'd be great :-). Greg (WMF) (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Just commented below with my new tests and filed bugzilla:51400 (actually saw your message only after I had posted that comment already). --Patrick87 (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • As mentioned before I did some tests with the new VIPS scaler on PNGs. The results are... mixed. See bugzilla:51400 for details and the testcase I created for it showing various real world examples (PNGs used from Commons, used on Wikipedia, rendered in the size they are shown in the respective articles) side-by-side. --Patrick87 (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

problem with new thumbnailer

Unfortunately, there's a big problem with the thumbnailing of File:Shield of Trinity Aveling 1891.png. The current 595px thumbnail is a rather optimized 16bit grayscale+alpha image 82kb in size, while the 595px thumbnail under the new algorithm is a 32-bit RGB+alpha image 155 kb in size (or almost twice the filesize). It took about 6 years to get grayscale PNGs to generate grayscale thumbnails (one reason why some people still preferred GIFs for such images until relatively recently: File:Harleian Ms2169 St Mihell arms tricked original.gif etc.), and I would be quite disappointed to see such belated and hard-won progress suddenly be reversed at this point... AnonMoos (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Filed as bugzilla:51298. Bawolff (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Delay

This launch is delayed till we can fix bug 51370 regarding the default settings for the VipsScaler extension. Release Manager Greg Grossmeier is ill right now but he'll have more information when he returns to work. Sorry for the delay. Sumana Harihareswara, Engineering Community Manager at WMF (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Deployed

This is now deployed on all wikis for large PNGs only (so far, until we can fine turn Vips to create good quality thumbnails of other images types/sizes). Let me/us/bugzilla know if you run into any problems! Greg (WMF) (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

For reference, big here is > 35 megapixels. PNG files smaller than that still use old scalar. Some examples that used to not work, but now do (picked utterly at random):

Bawolff (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, apparently there still are limits. This 162 megapixel road sign doesn't scale. Hmm, maybe the thumbnail (since the thumb would be rgba) goes over the file size limit or something. Bawolff (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Also file:Agriculture_characterisation_map,_Flanders.png, file:Basemap_for_Afil.png, file:Drapeau_hillion.png. So it seems the new limit is somewhere around 140 megapixels. Filed as bugzilla:52050 (But realistically, at some point there's going to be a hard limit, so don't hold out too much hope for super-huge files). Bawolff (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Commons tools not functioning

Image galleries have an option to view the geocoded images on a map. This can be done either using the "map" tab or the GeoGroup template. Recently, however, when using either tools, no images appear on the map, and a message appears "no geocoded items found". This has been the situation for quite a long time now, although both tools were functional in the past. Has anyone tried to fix this? Thanks. Gidip (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If I recall correctly most of the tools do make use of a database in para's toolserver account. -- Rillke(q?) 12:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I suggested Para to to migrate GeoCommons to WMFLabs. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to you both! Gidip (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Help me if you can

Kindly see my talk page where each and every file uploaded by me has been deleted by some users. When I approached here on the village pump my edits were immediately deleted by some one. You can see this thread for ready reference. Please help me if you can. Thanks Krantmlverma (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Your village pump edits have not been deleted. #Undelation request of the 15 files by Krantmlverma not listened so far still exists on this page, although the section is due for automatic archival very soon. Your only village pump edit prior to that was this message posted in April 2012, which was automatically archived after you received one response and one follow-up question (which you did not respond to). LX (talk, contribs) 14:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Krantmlverma, it seems like you are trying for years to add images of Krant M.L.Verma or other people, and those are being deleted on the basis that you are not the photographer. I guess the simplest solution would be to upload photos you personally took of the subject and upload full resolution version of the photo (or scan) instead of tiny blurry thumbnails with irregular borders which can not be easily cropped. Many thumbnails you were uploading, like File:P.K.Khanna1425.gif, look like they were downloaded from the web, same with images like File:Krant reciting poems.jpg which look like photograph of someone else's photo. Similarly, many images were deleted because they were front covers or photographs scanned from books by Krant M.L.Verma, however people had doubts you were the author of those photographs or front-cover graphics. Also many images were so blurry or of such low quality as to make them unusable on Wikipedia. So far the most usable image I have seen was File:Krantji & Rajju Bhaiya.jpg which according to its description was taken by your son Swadesh Gaurav. If your son uploaded the image or sent an email to OTRS than I think it should be reuploded or undeleted. Krantmlverma, it seems to me that you have uploaded so many images with clearly incorrect copyrights, and took part in so many deletion request discussions where people were trying to clearly explain the issues with no impact on future uploads, that now all your new uploads receive extra scrutiny and people no longer spend much time explaining the issues. For example many times you were advised to use OTRS system for images of other authors, but OTRS database does not have a single email related to your uploads. --Jarekt (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Mr Jarekt! for taking pain in my matter. I had earlier sent an undeletion request for 15 files which was not resolved. You can see it here. My e-mail address is already given on my user page as krantmlverma@gmail.com. I think you have not seen even a single amongst these 15 files for which I had sent the earlier undeletion request. File:Krant addressing wci mumbai1584.jpg, File:Krantmlverma.jpg, File:Ishwari Prasad Gupta.jpg, File:Baba Ramdev 1529.jpg, File:Ram Prasad Bismil2615.jpg and File: Ashfaq Ulla Khan.2657.jpg are some of the examples to be reviewed at least. I did not understand where to send my OTR request. I simply did what I was told on my talk page. Even then if something is not understood by me the community should provide some genuine help as you did here. Thanks once again for giving you the trouble. Sincerely yours Krantmlverma (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Krant, I'm afraid that you are still not getting it. Some of those images are definitely not acceptable and you have been told why on numerous occasions across numerous Wikipedia projects. Even OTRS, for example, cannot accept the book covers as being your own work (the photo of them may be, but not the covers) and the Wikiconference photo is not your own work but that of someone else. That you feature in an image and perhaps even have a copy of it doesn't make it yours. This latest discussion is typical of the problems and I am at a loss regarding how to explain these matters to you any better than has been done in the past. Many people have tried to do so over a very long period, and you've been blocked for competence issues on other projects when patience finally ran out. I think we have reached the end of the road here, sorry. - 2.221.215.167 13:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Sorry, that was me. No idea why I was logged out but not bothered about the IP showing. - Sitush (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • If you just need a picture for your articles it may be easiest to have a friend take one an create an account to upload it. If you want to add a new background then see Category:Sunrises or similar. I have a little how-to page at User:Canoe1967/Montages.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed. If it were not for the fact that Krant has a history of lying, misrepresentation, block evasion and self-promotion both with images and text. I don't mean to sound harsh but Krant supposedly has a doctorate and is a "senior fellow" (of what has never been determined) and yet it is not merely that he struggles to understand explanations in English but he has also struggled to understand those given to him in Hindi, which is the language used by Krant M L Verma in his books. I understand that Commons is (hopefully) sopmewhat less toxic than en-WP but even with an OTRS ticket there is no certainty. Or is the point of OTRS that it shifts the legal burden on to the person who makes the declaration? I am a bit hazy about the effects of OTRS, sorry both to Krant and everyone else. - Sitush (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't looked at the talk page. Hopefully a friend will upload a new image with exif for his articles before the latest one is deleted. It reminds me of a poor singer here that had the same image deleted 20+ times before I helped her and her photographer through OTRS. The image is happily licensed and in her article now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this logo simple enough to be PD?

On the Hindi Wikipedia, a user suggested that en:File:Toronto District School Board Logo.svg may be simple enough to not be copyrightable, and therefore eligible to be uploaded here. Is this the case for this logo? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Commons:TOO#Canada many would say it is okay. You could ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. They may decide either way or recommend a DR review after uploading.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a new discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Is_this_Canadian_school_board_logo_PD.3F - Thank you, Canoe :) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Two language selectors for anonymous users

I noticed that we have two language selectors for anonymous users: one if Commons-specific, another - Universal Language Selector. Unfortunately Universal Language Selector doesn't work for anonymous users, and this seems not logical, since language settings may be stored on client side too, if account on server does not exist.

Current state of affairs definitely does not improve to user interface consistency :-)

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

And how should we change that? Disabling our local one is not an option… hacking it into ULS… and the next change to ULS will break it. Suggest asking Krinkle whether ULS offers an API for integration of such tools. -- Rillke(q?) 12:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Move and replace

Hi all, the move and replace tool seems to occasionally make null edits, apparently thinking the page contains a rename template when it doesn't (example). Does anyone here know how to fix this? Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

There's page.text = $.trim(this.pageContent.replace((this.templateRegExp || /(?:([^\=])\n)?\{\{(?:rename|rename media|move)\| in the code. I guess a line break at the top is a white space. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed -- Rillke(q?) 13:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Doubt so. I don't see any difference if I compile the JS in my mind. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
if (newText === this.pageContent) { return this.nextTask();. -- Rillke(q?) 15:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, didn't notice it. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Link repointing

Firstly a diff : http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Flag_of_the_Mongol_Empire_2.svg&oldid=100614944

The local file was also moved to Commons.

Can someone explain how I would get a list of Pages containing links to Local files, so that checks can be made to see if the links are actually 'local' and not just alias of files already here on Commons? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand correctly. You want a list of pages (from where? enwikipedia?) that have local images on them (or do you mean link to them in a non-embeding sort of way)? Essentially a Special:UsedFiles? That would probably be a fairly easy db query (but also have a lot of results). Or do you only want a list of pages that embed local files which are duplicates of commons files (harder given the info is spread out across multiple databases). Or something else? Bawolff (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
From this diff, I guess he means that some of the target of the interwiki links have been moved to commons, but the links didn't update. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Zhuyife1999 is correct, Interwiki target that is now Commons, is what I'd like a list of. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, the closest thing I know of that exists in mediawiki proper is this list of interwiki links to wikipedia. I ran a query on the toolserver of pages in file namespace that link to wikipedia but the link is pointing to a file that also exists on commons (no guarantee that they are the exact same file, only that it has the same name. The data is there for if the file is exact same, but its a lot harder to access). Obviously there are also cases where its appropriate to link back to the original file on wikipedia even if that file now exists on commons. Anyway, here's the first 2000 results of that query, I hope its useful. Bawolff (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Is that report convertable into a Database Report? Or better a script that categories affected images into a maintenance Category? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
You'd have to ask the people who maintain the db report stuff. I included the query used at the top of [22], so it should be pretty trivial to turn it into a db report. I do not think its appropriate to use a tracking category for this sort of thing (also not the easiest to do). Many of these sorts of links are entirely appropriate. Bawolff (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, One tweak I'd suggest is to ignore entries where the local file and Commons file have the EXACT same name, most of the examples of that seem to be of the 'Orignal description was here [[link]]' Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

July 25

Cascade protection of description pages

Who came up with the absurd idea that description pages are "protected" (=blocked from edits) by cascade when the image is used at whatever main page of whatever project? I understand that the image should be protected from overwriting. However, why to freeze the description page? The exposed use of the image is a valuable occasion to attract interest of editors which can improve the file description and categorization. To impede such chance is counterproductive, harmful, senseless. --ŠJů (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Where? I don't see them cascade protected, for example: File:WMCommonApp_c.png (cascade protected) => Template:Cc-by-sa-2.5/doc (fully protected) => Template:Cc-by-sa-2.5/doc (semi-protected) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Cascade protection is not vs the good users, it's vs the bad users/IP trolls. Those images are like magnets for vandalism. If there's something to improve either directly ask an admin or use {{editprotected}} on the file's talk page with your proposed changes. --Denniss (talk) 10:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, I think the OP is referring to images such as those that appear on the English wikipedia's home page, today it's File:DeWitt Clinton by Rembrandt Peale.jpg. We at Commons cannot edit the description of that image, nor add or change any categories. I remember in one example I had to upload a duplicate of such a protected image merely to improve the description, which later got merged back to the original. I quite agree with the OP and I propose that we (somehow) remove the block on editing the description, but keep the block on uploading new versions. -84user (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
@Denniss: Those images are "magnets" for all users, not more for vandals than for good users. The block obstructs all edits and dissuades all users, not only vandals. Some fatal error can be corrected through {{editprotected}} but when somebody want to make some minor improvement, the block discourage him quite surely. I think also, there is very much various waiting work for admins on Commons, we don't need to burden them with such redundant pointless tasks. --ŠJů (talk) 03:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with ŠJů, descriptions should not be protected but reuploads should. I often notice it when trying to correct image I was just looking at on my user page. However since I am an admin, it is not an issue for me. --Jarekt (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Logging oregon.jpg: an expert on ancient photography needed

For several years this “historical” image illustrated a Wikipedia article w:Lumberjack. In November 2012 I noticed some disproportionality in objects displayed, and my further investigation revealed also errors in lighting, explicit traces of a montage, as well as such egregiously implausible detail as a hanging bottle. All these details I labelled with help:ImageAnnotator, so that annotations are now available. Of course, I also kicked the “photo” from English Wikipedia and fixed its caption in the gallery.

For a half of year there was no further development of this case. 6 days ago recently appeared user Lylemcglothlin (talk · contribs) posted a rebuttal on the image description page. Actually, I’m a mathematician not a photographer and this dispute can be difficult to me, especially because I’m not a native English speaker. Can a couple of experts present an opinion about my arguments of November 2012 and Lylemcglothlin’s arguments? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Those were good observations and questions you raised, worth a discussion, but it doesn't necessarily imply the conclusion that the photo is a montage. The comments from the other user sound serious. Also, it looks like this type of pose was popular with the lumberjacks. It was either a popular type of photo or a popular type of montage. Compare with this other photo (attributed to Wilhelm Hester). It also has a bottle attached at about the same place. I guess it could have been part of the typical equipment. Or this other one (attributed to Darius Kinsey). The photo attributed to John Fletcher Ford doesn't seem to be in the collection of the U. of W. or in the collection of the OSU, but it is in the collection of the Oregon Historical Society, who doesn't seem to question it. The light bars could be some effect left by a subtle OHS watermark. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

July 27

Category:Court houses in Australia and subcategories

For some strange reason, some websites maintained by governments of Australia (mainly state ones) use "court house", but not even in Australian English, or any other English I am aware of, is "court house" a correctly spelled/spelt term.

Should we not rename things to "courthouse"; or, why then is this category, subcategories, and pages named "court house[s]"? "Courtroom", after all, is never "court room"; and, "courthouse" is a one-word compound noun, like "courtroom". --Qwerty Binary (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

When is a "disputed map" issue solved? (wrt File:Ripuarisch.png )

File:Ripuarisch.png received a "disputed map" tag. Afaik the sources are given correctly. The only remaining issue is a nice-to-have addition request from an anonymous user. Who decides when the tag is removed? Hans Erren (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

If you think that all substantial issues have been resolved you can removed the tag. Ruslik (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done thx. Hans Erren (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Flickr User-Box with a space in my name

Hi, I tried to use the Flickr user-box, but it does not work properly because my Flickr username has a space in it. I tries enclosing my name like in "name" or 'name', but it did not work. --Xicotencatl (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You must specify either the path alias or your flickrID in {{User flickr}}. -- Rillke(q?) 20:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Image renaming

I'm new here and I don't know how to get an error in a file name fixed. The file in question is File:Ron Kupla watches fan reaction to his blown call.jpg. The name "Kupla" is misspelled (the proper spelling is "Kulpa"). Could someone fix this and explain to me where to take such concerns in the future? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, You can see the explanations for use of the Template:Rename. It may look a bit complex on your first use. Have a look at the page with the explanations about the numbers for the renaming reasons. Glad to help with your mea Kulpa. :) -- Asclepias (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your help :) AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I added the link to the header of this page. We should actually put a synopsis of the number scheme one the main page of Template:Rename as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
You may use the automated script for that (described at Help:RenameLink). Jean-Fred (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done as requested, using filemover rights. Also added the watermark warning and a few categories. -- Tuválkin 08:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Search and Category license options

I followed an invitation link to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/AppropriatelyLicensed, which I read one third through, then started skipping through, then skipped to the end of and found it had sort of stalled in a quagmire, and everyone went off to have a beer. It occurs to me that we should simply have a search function that simply defaults to only finding media with a truely free license (ok, that will probably be impossible to define, but I am thinking PD, CC0, or unadorned CC without elaborate attribution requirements), and you have to tick an appropriate box under advanced search to find that "less-free" stuff. Simlarly categories only show the "really-free" stuff unless you click on the "show all" (or whatever) box. Of course you have a preferences setting that defaults to "show-free" and can be changed to "show-all". So most users (all not-logged-in/IP users) just get the good stuff ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd generalize it: you should be able to filter which licenses you want to see and which ones not, because any license can potentially be too restrictive for somebody. But the default should be to show everything we have. darkweasel94 12:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

English

Hello,

What is the correct formulation:

  • x in the Cemetery Père-Lachaise
  • x in Cemetery Père-Lachaise
  • x at the Cemetery Père-Lachaise

Pyb (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"Cemetery Père-Lachaise" versus "the Cemetery Père-Lachaise" is hard, and even as a native speaker I couldn't state anywhere near a general rule. Names of places generally don't need "the", but "the Statue of Liberty" and "the White House" use them. I can imagine both "Lowell Cemetery" and "the Lowell Cemetery", though the latter might imply that it is the cemetery of Lowell, and the first that it is a cemetery named "Lowell Cemetery". I wouldn't stress too hard either way.
I would generally say events happen at the cemetery, but things are in the cemetery. I'm sure there are subtleties I'm missing here, but "we're going to the funeral at the Cemetery" and "the grave is going to be in the Cemetery."--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for your answer. Pyb (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
In English, I would refer to Père-Lachaise, Père-Lachaise Cemetery, or possibly the Père-Lachaise Cemetery. Cemetery Père-Lachaise falls halfway between French and English. - Jmabel ! talk 02:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, Père-Lachaise Cemetery and the Père-Lachaise Cemetery are equally OK. The former uses Père-Lachaise as part of the name, the latter uses it as an adjective to clarify what cemetery. I might not capitalize Cemetery in the latter. - Jmabel ! talk 02:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Rotatebot malfunction

The Rotatebot has not worked since July 16 and the Backlog is now more than 1,000 images. Hopefully, someone (a techie?) can fix this bot's problem and get it to work. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Luxo, the operator, seems to be lost in space without access to the Internet (Mails may not reach him). That's another Bot who needs at least another user with access rights to restart the Bot in case of problems. Or we need some public logs to have an idea what happened to the Bot. --Denniss (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think accessing is possible without a person with root access on toolserver. In most cases, the home folder of the user (~ or /home/username/) is read-protected. But there might be someone who can re-setup that script. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
There are multi-maintainer accounts for this reason. The source code is available:
svn checkout https://svn.toolserver.org/svnroot/luxo
-- Rillke(q?) 10:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
It is designed for toolserver, where I don't have any access. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
You can request an account at tools:accountrequest, tswiki:Accounts -- Rillke(q?) 07:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Already done before, but I canceled. What's the good of having a toolserver account when I have a tool labs account? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

May it be an option to try using the clone that was originally set up to help with mass rotations? --Denniss (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed by DaB. (Thank you DaB.) Face-smile.svg; See Special:Contributions/Rotatebot--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Counting uploads

Does anybody know of a simple way to count the exact number of files a particular editor has uploaded? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of edit counters, here is one: [23]. MKFI (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Perfect; that tells me my number of uploads. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
You might want to try the dedicated (and quicker) Commons Uploadcounter by Pleclown. Jean-Fred (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

July 29

credit-line-template buggy

Seems if it corrupts the following self-template here. --Itu (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed {{Credit line}} must be used as value of the other_fields parameter of {{Information}} − as it is indicated in its documentation. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. --Itu (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Search images by size

I am adding banners to Wikivoyage articles.

To do this, I need an efficient way to see all images in a category that have a width > 2100 pixels.

Is there a way to get this?

If there were a project similar to dbpedia but targetting Commons, I could run SPARQL queries... is there such a project?

Thanks a lot! Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, cool project!
Hmmm… CatScan2 won’t do it, as you can filter by size but not broken down by width/height.
I just tried, and have two difficulties. 1) After I enter "Paris" as a category and changes "Namespaces" to "File", I always zero results. 2) When I change "Project" to "commons" I get "Unknown MySQL server host 'encommons.labsdb'". Any idea how to solve these problems? Nicolas1981 (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
You could run SQL queries on the ToolLabs databases − see the layout.
(I believe there are plans to have a dbpedia for Commons, but last time I heard of it it was nowhere to be ready, not even started).
Jean-Fred (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Resources are needed for more important things like VisualEditor, I guess. I predict they will next develop a talking paperclip to assist users with their contributions. -- Tuválkin 14:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Note db-pedia is done by totally different people than Visual editor (WMF vs I'm not sure who, but somebody not associated with WMF), so the projects are not competing for resources. I have no idea about db-pedia plans. There are some plans for wikidata, but I'm not sure if they would meet your use case. Anyhow, if you have access to tools lab, you can run sql queries to find this info. Efficient is not the word I'd use, but provided you're doing categories with less than 100000 entries, its probably efficient enough. The query you would use would be:
SELECT img_name, img_width
 FROM categorylinks
 INNER JOIN page ON page_id = cl_from
 INNER JOIN image ON page_title = img_name AND page_namespace = 6
 WHERE cl_to = 'Some_category_name' AND cl_type = 'file'  AND img_width >= 2100;

Bawolff (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

For immediate use the gallery details gadget will show the resolution of images in categories. You might be able to combine it with RegexMenuFramework to quickly filter small images from a single category page (200 images). MKFI (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Apparently RegexMenuFramework is usable only when editing articles, applying regexes to the text of the article. It does not have any impact on browsing files. Nicolas1981 (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

User category for derivative files created by other users?

I failed to get responses at Commons talk:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy so I will drop this question here:

Is it allowed to create a user category for files uploaded by other users but based on my uploads (Category:Derivatives of files by User:MKFI)? For example, File:Multitech Microprofessor II Tietokonemuseo (cropped).JPG is uploaded by User:Ubcule, but it is a crop from File:Multitech Microprofessor II Tietokonemuseo.JPG photographed and uploaded by me. I already have a user category Category:Files by User:MKFI for images that I have photographed myself. MKFI (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I have created the derivative file category. MKFI (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
A bit late to the party but for what it is worth: I would have supposed you would add the category Category:Files by User:MKFI even to those derivs ; but if you don’t I don’t have any issue with you having this Derivs one. Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

July 28

de-adminship discussion

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Bidgee (de-adminship)

Penyulap 20:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Mr._Malibu_.26_Maria_Shriver.png takedown update

Ahoy all,

Following up from a DMCA takedown we had about a month ago I've posted an update on the DMCA notices page. In short, after some internal discussions and an unofficial request from the uploader, we talked with the DMCA filer and they have officially withdrawn their claim. Jalexander (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping us informed.--Jarekt (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

July 30

One more trouble with location zeros

Is it only me, or file pages using {{location}} after {{artwork}} are showing next to it a lose "0"? (Example.) -- Tuválkin 15:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Also after {{information}} — (example). -- Tuválkin 15:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Zero? Which zero? -- Rillke(q?) 15:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I also do not see any loose zeros. --Jarekt (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
There was previously one, seems to have been fixed. darkweasel94 19:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is gone now. -- Tuválkin 19:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Flickr uplaod bot failure

FUB has failed with File:Jewellery Quarter Station - watch sculpture.jpg (a later upload succeeded). Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

August 01