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.
We have a Category:Asian culture in the United States, but do not have anything comparable for Pacific Islander culture. In fact, Category:Pacific Islanders is about a rugby union team. Before I try to set up categories in an area where I'm not expert, I figured I'd check here to see whether I'm just searching the wrong terms or if someone more knowledgeable can start building the relevant categories.
@Odysseus1479: That's how you fix that, yup. Went ahead and destubbed it, using the (nifty) tool here. The 'alternative names' are a bit ugly, tho... every possible variation. Revent (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
It is now Done, but I stil find that there should be a way to keep the older non-corrected versions from cluttering the categories. Most readers are absolutely not interested in these.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, could someone take a moment to dig into the formats of the following two examples? This will help me decide how to proceed with handling a significant number of duplicates:
Image from BHL Flickrstream
Image from BHL archives
The two images are identical in resolution, but have different file sizes. My assumption is that image quality is identical, but the process of releasing the image on Flickr has re-transcoded it in some way and the versions to be retained should those sourced directly to the BHL archives. If my assumption is wrong, there could be some interesting changes/choices to me made in the way I go about 'upgrading' the images and merging duplicates.
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
To me, the one with BHL in the filename appears very slightly sharper/more contrasty and has slightly more visible compression artifacts. But the difference is negligible, IMO. (I just put them into layers at 1000%, and flicked the top layer on and off, so nothing fancy). Storkk (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Fæ: I've been cleaning up (many) of these duplicates as you flagged them... unfortunately, we might have killed the wrong ones in some cases. I've been messing around with the FotoForensics website recently, and this was a good chance to play with it. The Flickr image was saved at 90% quality, which the BHL image was saved at 75%. Also, there's a technique called "Error Level Analysis", that can detect compression and generational loss... from my understanding of the results, the BHL version is considerably worse. Also, the 'originals' of these are available at the Internet Archive, though in jp2 format. After converting the copy of this image to jpeg (one generation of loss) and running the same analysis, it gives results almost identical to the Flickr image (the larger one, saved at 90%). It looks like the BHL is saving disk space by storing lower-quality images.. (though some of the other BHL images, the ones that were higher resolution, might not give the same result). The 'visual' difference is, as mentioned, quite minor tho. Revent (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Excellent feedback. I'll add some thoughts when I'm at home...
...Here's my cunning plan.
The BHL uploads will carry on as they are, using the (sometimes inferior, other times superior) jpeg files from their archive website.
I'll continue to match up Flickr versions with the BHL versions, but I'll only mark using {{duplicate}} when the BHL upload is significantly larger in resolution. Though some are the same resolution, others have been double the size. In these cases the compression used is a secondary consideration.
This bit implemented. I'm rerunning my duplicate detector, but only marking those with a 20%+ increase in resolution and skipping any with non-bot edits on the Flickr versions (to avoid upsetting fellow contributors).
I'll re-investigate the JPEG2000 versions. The last time I experimented, the zipped version of an entire book could be downloaded from the Internet Archive, then each page in JPEG2000 format could be extracted. However the major stumbling block was that the files numbered in the zipped version did not match up with page numbers used for IA display. Further, I have no idea how well the zipped file can align with BHL page numbers. It's probably do-able, but will take me significant volunteer time to tease this out.
Once I have a workflow of Commons File -> BHL PageID -> ItemID -> BookID -> Internet Archive book zip file -> unzipped file name match to BHL PageID, then I can transcode the JPEG2000 at a minimal compression (99%?) to produce a highest possible quality jpeg and then overwrite the existing BHL Commons File.
If the above works out, then there will be no question that the BHL Commons image pages I'm directly creating from the BHL API will become our definitive high resolution versions, and we can choose to bin the Flickr versions (and reuse information from those image text pages if they are better). Just to reiterate, if this works then the images on Commons will be much higher quality than the pages viewable on the Internet Archive viewer or the BHL viewer.
@Fæ: No panic, heh. I rather trust that it is your intent to get the 'best' version here, and it can of course all be sorted out in the long run. As you noted below, some books were scanned and archived multiple times, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to keep both versions. It's worth noting that the BHL website gives a 'View at Internet Archive' link... works with a "raw_jp2.zip" or an "orig_jp2.tar" version would apparently have been processed by the Internet Archive on a Scribe, and then provided to the BHL... that would make the version on the Internet Archive the 'authoritative' one (though, unfortunately, both in an unusable image format, and lacking useful metadata). The images you linked below trace back to different Internet Archive copies ([1] for one, and [2] for the other) and so are not duplicates for our purposes, at least in my opinion. They are also visually different, not just in the colors, but in the cropping. Revent (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I just need time to experiment a bit. It may be that I'll create lossless PNGs, but how we then merge the files will be a puzzle. The next few days are painfully busy with ghastly chores, so I'm deferring any choices until later. Fæ (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
As a small extra note, it's worth keeping in mind that some apparent duplicates are scans of different copies of the same book. This means that the scans are not duplicates and we should probably retain these different files as someone might use them together to create a digitally enhanced version of the same book plate/illustration. Example:
Example 'digital overlay' of a low-res colour scanned lithograph with a high-res b&w version, making a new high-res colour derived work giving a better impression of the 1825 print.
In the first example they are scanned from the same page (see the same blob on the right upper side), but in the last example there are spots on the page. It is easy to remove them and these kind of imperfections I remove on scans of postcards (even as dust imferfections by slide scans). I have to be careful not to remove real information. Sometimes a blob is real horseshit on the road or a hole in the wall.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Some volunteers have created nice cleaned up versions of these types of bookplates, both in the BHL collections and from the Internet Archive book plates project. In fact, for a scan of older material like this, digital enhancement is expected if you want to promote the image on Wikipedia as a Featured Image, or here on Commons as Featured or Quality Image. These can look better when reused as a thumbnail in a Wikipedia article (e.g. turning the background into clean white paper rather than yellowed paper), but my preference is to make a new Commons file as a digitally enhanced derived work, rather than overwriting original archive versions with "fixes". Using a tool like Gimp, you can overlay the different scans to test if foxing or other marks are intentionally in the print, or are an accidental result of ageing or use. --Fæ (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
You really have two choices here: just add Category:Hotels in Egypt (or a more geographically specific category) plus a geographic category and possibly a category for any relevant hotel chain, year of construction, etc. to each photo, or (probably more appropriate if there are three or more photos for a single hotel) create a category for the hotel. There's no particular requirement that something be "famous" to merit a category. - Jmabel ! talk16:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Help someone fix a small bug in your code project: It's Google Code-In time!
Are you a developer and have small, self-contained, "easy" bugs in your Wikimedia code that you would love to get fixed?
Would you enjoy helping someone port your template to Lua?
Does your gadget use some deprecated API calls?
Does the documentation of your code need some improvements?
Do you enjoy mentoring to a new contributor fixing small tasks?
Google Code-In (GCI) will take place again in December and January: a contest for 13-17 year old students to provide small contributions to free software projects. Wikimedia will apply again to take part and would like to offer a wide range of tasks.
Just one example: Multimedia saw some impressive achievements in last year's contest!
Tasks should take an experienced contributed about two-three hours ("beginner tasks" also welcome which are smaller) and can be of the categories Code, Documentation/Training, Outreach/Research, Quality Assurance, and User Interface/Design. For more information, check the wiki page and if something is unclear, please ask on the talk page!
Someone in German Wikipedia asked a question, that is IMO worth investigating: File:Pavillon URSS.jpg must perhaps be deleted from Commons, but I am not familiar with the historical and recent copy right laws in the USSR and Russia:
It seems to be a reproduction from 2006 of an original (1925) prospect or similar sources. 2006 is only 11 years ago.
The architect of the building was en:Konstantin Melnikov, who died end of november in 1974, so about 41 years ago.
In most countries you need 70 years after death of originator for end of copy right. In addition, here we have a special situation according to en:Copyright_law_of_the_Soviet_Union#Copyright_Act_of_1925, but maybe this part is obsolete.
(In)dependent of all this the inclusion of template Template:PD-Art into the file description is not correct, see the red warning text. Note: Already asked on German Commons forum. --Speravir (Talk)01:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The second argument is not really valid. We frequently use scans and other simple reproductions of old works without problems.(example postcards)Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The note in the US template only reminds contributors to add, when applicable per the internal policy of Commons, a tag about the status of the work in the country of origin, in this case the United Kingdom. For your other question, about reproductions, you can see also this page. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
November 03
Problem with Template:Watermark
There’s something odd about Template:Watermark right now — at the bottom, it shows this:
Yes. perfect now. Thanks. Your change only effected the preview size image, the original still looks the same. My trick was to change the brightness until the preview looked right, but that made the original look washed out. Thanks you again. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I think grayscale is just a space saving measure and is not strictly necessary (though MediaWiki seems to sharpen grayscale PNGs images differently to RGB images that happen to be grayscale). When exporting in GIMP as a PNG, there will be a dialog window with a bunch of check boxes, one of which is "Save gamma" or similar. Ensuring this is checked is the key. See http://docs.gimp.org/en/gimp-images-out.html#file-png-save-defaultsStorkk (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Just as a 'tangential' note, desaturating an image in GIMP won't actually change it from RGB to grayscale, it will just make it a 'black and white' color image. The option to change the image 'mode' to grayscale is on the Image menu, under 'Mode'. Revent (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
.png vs .PNG: duplicate file and name change?
"File:World population density map.png" an accidental duplicate copy by User:Stefan040780 in 2006
"File:World population density map.PNG" currently in use
Hi, there:
Here I found recently two files with highly similar names. I'm just curious that, on Commons, is there any rule about this? I mean, in this case the two files are duplicate (see their histories), and the name of the extra copy is actually better I think? (lower case "png"). So, should these two be merged, i.e. delete the left and move (change-name) the right to to the left?
@Bidgee: well.. I was actually worrying about global calling, when people are putting down the file name in a thumbnail, in an infobox, etc, ain't the smaller case much more intuitive? At least I personally can't recall seeing any image suffix capitalized. -- SzMithrandir (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
There is {{Dupe}} to mark duplicated images. Looking at the history, it seems like the lowercase version was meant to overwrite the uppercase version at one point in time. BMacZero (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I would guess that the one on the right is the original, created by someone with normal colour vision: and the one on the left is a version of it modified to be useful to someone with the commonest form of colour-blindness. Maproom (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Deepcat Gadget: intersection and subcategory search on Wikipedia and Commons
The possibility for intersection and subcategory search was one of the top-wishes from the TOP20 of the Germany Community Technical Wishlist. In order to fulfill this wish, the Software-Development Team at WMDE (TCB) developed the so called “Deepcat” gadget that is now ready to use not only in German wikis but also internationally.
The gadget allows to go deeper in the category search and generates results not only for a certain category but also for its subcategories. Furthermore, it supports intersection search (among other: searching for articles or pictures that are in two different categories e.g. “Art” and “Technology”). The gadget works on Wikipedia, on Wikimedia Commons, as well as in many other wikis. For performance and technical reasons there is a search limitation of 15 categories in depth and 70 categories in total that the gadget can search through (you will see a hint about that while using the gadget). The gadget doesn’t load on mobile devices however once you switch to desktop-view, it should work as usual. The gadget can be used via typing the keyword “deepcat:” into the regular search field. An instruction how to install Deepcat and a detailed description of its functionality can be found on the respective infopage. Bugs can be reported here.
We hope it will serve you well! --Kasia Odrozek (WMDE) (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
From the perspective of commons, just by itself, I think FastCCI serves the usecase better then DeepCat. But it sounds like deepcat might be useful as a part of other tools for more advanced search. Bawolff (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Kasia Odrozek (WMDE), I did not test it yet but I agree that between CatScan3 category tree intersection and even Quarry tools there is a lot to choose from if you want to do category intersections. So I am surprised it was top-wish of German Community. But we can always use more as many of those tools have tendency of timing out when working with large categories. --Jarekt (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
In principle, deepcat (And FastCCI) should be much quicker then CatScan3/category tree intersection/Quarry as they use a different data structure for storing categories, that is much more scalable with complex queries. Bawolff (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Suppressing display of empty maintenance sub-categories?
I'm currently in the process of thinking how best to do a batch upload project (about 2,500 images from scanned books of old maps & plans initially, with a possible 8,000 to follow in the short term, and up to a further 40,000 in the longer term).
I can get some way towards categorising what the maps/plans depict, in terms of place and scale, but I have no reliable title/description information.
For categorisation, the plan I am thinking about would be to create quite a large number of "diffusion" categories, based on place and scale, (each one maybe containing only a handful of images), but in the expectation that many of the images may be end up being moved out of the diffusion categories into more qualitative or specific categories.
In this way a fair number of the diffusion categories may end up being totally emptied, at least until some new images get dropped into them.
So my question: is there a good way to list only the subcategories of a particular maintenance category that still do actually have some images in them? Or alternatively, a good way to show the intersection between a category tree and an overall tracking category (eg "images needing category refinement"), suppressing any categories with no matches?
There are a lot of files categorized only by hidden categories. Considering that hidden categories are for maintenance purposes, these files can be considered as uncategorized. Some primary researches show that there are up to 15000–16000 such files only with names starting with #–A until "B". Probably all files in this situation should be tagged as {{Uncategorized}}.
Essentially, it is designed to find artists willing to create portraits for articles that have no free image. We get the image. They get expososure. It is all set up. All we need now is participants willing to contact colleges, Flickr groups, Facebook groups, DeviantArt groups, etc, to show them the project.
@Anna Frodesiak: This looks to me like a mess waiting to happen. Won't most of the artwork we get be derivative work based on copyrighted photographs, and therefore exactly as problematic as the photographs in question? - Jmabel ! talk03:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jmabel. Maybe a mess waiting to happen. Maybe a success waiting to happen. It is an experiment. And we have been very explicit when it comes to derivatives. We shall see. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
This experiment has already been done. You can see Commons:WikiArS, although it has been done in other places (for example, I can remember an unrelated Estonian experience). As far as I've seen, avoiding derivative portraits of non free photographs is among the most challenging aspects of this kind of projects, in part because here on Commons we are more strict about it than most places where professional designers use their work. Despite some problems at the beginning, recent projects have been successful at producing portrait drawings that aren't derivative of any other work. Anyway, en:Wikipedia:Donated artwork should inform contributors about what is a free image and warn them about derivative works. If it doesn't, you will get a lot of images that will be deleted.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The “welcome“ page linked from there does contain a pretty prominent statement about avoiding DW, but it might be worth expanding (perhaps with positive suggestions, like consulting multiple sources) and reiterating elsewhere.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Copyright of logos is the same as any other artwork. They may be protected as trademarks, but that doesn’t affect their eligibility to be hosted here—we just tag them with an advisory message. Very simple logotypes may not be eligible for copyright, depending on the country of origin. The only general advice I can give on the “historical” aspect is that if it means something created before 1860 CE or so, it’s almost certainly fine to upload; otherwise it depends on many details.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The InstantCommons feature has stopped working since yesterday. That left all of my wikis (7 wikis with lots of visitors) full of red links where there should be icons and images instead. I know it couldn't have been something I did because it happened to several different sites at once. This is unacceptable! Since someone starts to use this feature then they depend on it. And there is no information availiable as to what might have happend. So, does anybody know what happend and when this issue will be resolved? --Ioannis Protonotarios (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@AKlapper (WMF): Thank you for your quick reply! It did solve my problem! I use versions 1.21.2, 1.23.6 and 1.24.0 so until I upgrade I did the workaround proposed in T102566 and it worked just fine for all 3 versions I use. Btw, going back to the InstantCommons page I now see that there is a mention about this issue but it's a bit cryptic if you don't know what you are looking for. I think it would more helpful if there was something like a "known issues" section at the end stating plain clear "if InstantCommons stops working do that". Thanks again for the quick support! --Ioannis Protonotarios (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
My teammates live in six different countries, and we need to talk to Wikimedia users around the world. The ideal candidate is an experienced Wikimedian who can speak English and write at least one other language. If you are interested, please read the information about how to apply and submit your application as soon as possible. Interviews are starting now. Please share this information with other community members who might be interested. Thank you. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
There isn't sufficient information on that page to be sure. It dates from 1915, but there is no information about the photographer who would presumably hold the copyright. If that photographer lived to 1945 (quite possible) then the image would still be copyrighted. Looks like one of those damnable cases of an "orphaned copyright." - Jmabel ! talk20:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Wanted downtown Detroit 1978-2003 streetcar photos
Category:Detroit Citizens’ Railway: This category has an rather complete tree of subcategories (covered all but two fleet items) all pretty much categorized — it is only lacking photographs (or other media items). I tried to populate it using stuff already in Commons and in other free media repositories, to no avail. Any suggestions…? -- Tuválkin✉✇23:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
November 07
Is Vladmir Putin objectively a beefcake?
I recently submitted a move request for File:Vladimir Putin beefcake-1.jpg, because the name is a poor description of the photo, doesn't meet commons NPOV policy and is generally an inappropriate file name for an image of a head of state. My move request was rejected. I have discussed the issue with the file mover who rejected the request, and have decided I want a second opinion. Do people agree that this filename keeps to Commons' policies and guidelines? --Brustopher (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
In general I don’t think that there’s any requirement for filenames to be “objective” to the same standard we expect of descriptions. That said, I don‘t object to the renaming in this case, but it should be clear it’s not because of subjectivity alone. Should all these be renamed, and myriads more like them? (Rhetorical question, I hope!)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I changed the licence (there is doubt this is PD), only I dont have a date or author (I suspect anonymous monks for a collective work). This is why I asked the question. Is maybe a bit clearer? It is nearly the same picture.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Smiley.toerist, while there’s a lot of authorship layers there (original text, possibly multi-author, both synchronically and diachronically, calligraphy, illustration, and maybe restoration), no doubt that the photographed subject is {{PD-old}} indeed — as for the photo, it needs to be licensed separately, and its author (you, I presume?) mentioned. -- Tuválkin✉✇01:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist: In the case of that image you just linked, it looks like you have done a large amount of manual work in cleaning up the background.... you might want to experiment with something like converting the image to grayscale, and then applying a 'threshold' transformation to simply remove the grey areas. It can be far less effort, for a similar result. You can also use a threshold to produce a layer with 'only' the grey areas, and then subtract it from the original image. Revent (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: The transformation you describe sounds interesting, but some of us reading this wouldn't know how to do it. Would you be interested in writing a how-to guide (or adding to one that may exist) to explain this (and other advanced methods you may know) for other users? It might be very productive for Commons in the long run. Wnt (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, we were looking at this for a while. The text in the center is definitely Gratianus, the work actually has an article on enwiki... en:Decretum Gratiani. This (and the page Yann linked) is just the very beginning..... it's actually a quite long book. The 'initial section' of it is known as the "Tractatus de legibus", hence the different name. No clue what the surrounding text is, though.
After skimming some related articles, here and there, it's quite likely a gloss, basically a type of commentary on the original work written by other authors. Revent (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Policy for deleting copyrighted art, esp. in public spaces? (speedy vs nomination)
Is there a set policy for users/admins deleting copyrighted art, particularly in public spaces?
In the former category, most of my speedy deletions were carried out, but with images from the National Historical Museum, JuTa removed my speedy templates and replaced them with nominations for deletion. I'm not here to complain, I think he did so with perfectly valid reasons. I'm just trying to figure out why my speedies had different results, and we could try to ensure consistent action in the future.
Nominations for deletion allow the deletions to be easily sorted into FOP case folders (e.g. Category:Albanian FOP cases) in case FOP laws change, and also to be placed in undelete categories (e.g. Category:Undelete in 2081). COM:FOP#UPLOADING specifically asks that if FOP does not apply to a certain copyrighted image, "please file requests for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests." To me, these seem like good reasons not to file speedies for images of copyrighted architecture/art in public locations.
On the other hand, the desire to file under "undelete in year x" would be a valid reason not to speedy delete any image of copyrighted art, at least when the artist has died, regardless of where the photo was taken. It's also hard to organize policy to prepare for laws that might change, because we have no idea how they might change. FOP laws could, theoretically, change to allow FOP inside public buildings (as they do in some countries) or to photograph two-dimensional art.
Please allow me two comments. First, to address directly the question "Is there a set policy for users/admins deleting copyrighted art, particularly in public spaces?", well, I don't think it's "clearly written", but yes there's an established practice to the effect that deletion requests about works of art located in public spaces are not speedy but are normal deletion requests. Even for images of works such as sculptures (which can actually be copyright violations on Commons, which is not the case for images of buildings), the practice is to proceed with normal deletion discussions. That is based on the principle that for images of works of art, many factual details may enter into consideration, so each such image is a particular case, because the details of the image are evaluated subjectively on various criteria. What does the image show exactly? How much of the work of art is visible on the image? What is the importance of the work of art in the image, relative to the whole context? Etc. The second comment is that the rationale in the second paragraph above (about copyright violations) would not be exact. It is important to keep in mind that images of buildings are not copyright violations on Commons, in the United States. They may be copyright violations inside Albania. For example, someone could not publish them in a magazine that would be distributed on the territory of Albania. On Commons, they are, at worst, considered by some users as contrary to an interpretation of the internal policy of Commons, but they are not copyright violations. The template about "buildings-category" does not speak of copyright violation. A potential deletion, if it occurs, would be based merely on an internal practice. That template's sentence about "without further warning" may serve to scare users, but it does not reflect the practice of deletion discussions about images of works of art located in public spaces. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Asclepias, but I would add that the very reason to exist a speedy process is that if some kinds of images underwent normal deletion requests they would always be deleted, and that makes unnecessary to discuss them. However, FOP-related deletion requests not always end in deletion. Therefore, deletion requests are shown to be necessary to sort out some images that don't need to be deleted.--Pere prlpz (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I've certainly learned my lesson, but I would hope it might be spelled out more clearly (in a more visible spot, like Commons:Deletion policy?) for others in the future. Threatening deletion "without further warning" is certainly a good way to discourage uploaders, but from my point of view, it also appears to give a green light to deletions. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: FWIW, I doubt any admin would really object to an actual "DR" opened for an image, to cat it as 'undelete in XXXX', while also speedying the actual image (if it was a valid speedy). Quite a few DRs end up closed (by admins, or other users) as 'this was already deleted'. Just note it in the DR so people understand what's up. Revent (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Make me smile!
I made a search about use of my works outside scientific papers and the result makes me smile! :)
@Jkadavoor: Nice that they are properly attributing you on the product pages, too bad they aren't (voluntarily) giving you a bit of a kickback. :) Revent (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Gadget-GalleryDetails
At Category:Trams in Lisbon, 32 new images were added last night, which fills me with joy. If I had MediaWiki:Gadget-GalleryDetails.js, I'd diffuse them in a few minutes over breakfast (using also Cat-a-Lot and/or Visual File Change); without it, it will take me consederably longer. Can it be fixed? I cannot belive it’s only me sorely missing this tool… -- Tuválkin✉✇10:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
You still didn't understand it. The Wikimedia Foundation isn't out for efficient contributors. Their goal is to have a large number of new contributors. And keeping this strategy in mind, I feel this gadget shouldn't be fixed. -- Rillke(q?)11:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
@Rillke: The WMF has no time to fix important stuff (a lot of high prio tickets open for years on phabricator/bugzilla). Of course the WMF has time to create unneeded and annoying surveys and creating new tools which are not helpful. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I pretty much understand it, and that’s why I am posting this here, not opening a Phabicator ticket or e-mailing the WMF. Their strategy and vision is transparent to me and I abhorr it — they should be ousted and the whole thing (i.e., the office branch of Wikimedia projects, both technical backing and PR fronting) be recreated from the ground up, taking in the least possible from the current set-up. Also, along with that bunch of leeches, we should get rid of those among us who espouse the view that «The WMF owns the projects and allows us to play here, so be grateful and shut up». Now, can we, meanwhile, have Gadget-GalleryDetails back in order, please? -- Tuválkin✉✇11:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
cough [5]. Regardless of if you think the wmf doesnt care for power user, more time has been spent complaining about this then it would take to fix it. Bawolff (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
@Bawolff: Looks like it dos not fix the problem: Error: javascript:GalleryDetailsLoader.load%20(); at line 1: ReferenceError: GalleryDetailsLoader is not defined --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
@Bawolff: Last time you raised a question. I think the answer why we are breaking things is because if using RL implicitly would fail for some reason, it usually breaks all the following mw.loader.implement calls and the whole site's JavaScript may error-out, given a user has enabled the affected gadget and the gadget is loaded before some critical module. If it does in a $(document).ready() callback, it certainly does. Apart from these technical reasons, I think Krinkle may assume that gadgets not converted to use RL need a general overhaul or to be removed given they had no maintenance for a long time. -- Rillke(q?)11:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Superprotect was introduced by the Wikimedia Foundation to resolve a product development disagreement. We have not used it for resolving a dispute since. Consequently, today we are removing Superprotect from Wikimedia servers.
Without Superprotect, a symbolic point of tension is resolved. However, we still have the underlying problem of disagreement and consequent delays at the product deployment phase. We need to become better software partners, work together towards better products, and ship better features faster. The collaboration between the WMF and the communities depends on mutual trust and constructive criticism. We need to improve Wikimedia mechanisms to build consensus, include more voices, and resolve disputes.
There is a first draft of an updated Product Development Process that will guide the work of the WMF Engineering and Product teams. It stresses the need for community feedback throughout the process, but particularly in the early phases of development. More feedback earlier on will allow us to incorporate community-driven improvements and address potential controversy while plans and software are most flexible.
We welcome the feedback of technical and non-technical contributors. Check the Q&A for details.
"Superprotect was introduced by the Wikimedia Foundation to resolve a product development disagreement." < so atleast they agree that it was created to boost Erik's ego, and now that he is no longer part of WMF, it can be removed...funny how he denied that it was nothing to do with the german wiki all this time(for those who followed the events)...--Stemoc23:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stemoc, please don't give to my (rather descriptive and neutral) sentence a meaning it doesn't have. The point that my post wants to convey is: if community feedback and reviews start well before the deployment phase, blockers and other release criteria can be identified earlier, and disagreements about product development don't need to be resolved after deployment, editing or protecting backdoor pages like MediaWiki:Common.js. I'm interested in knowing whether you agree on this point, because mw:WMF product development process is the important part of this post. I have explained all this in more detail in the Q&A: Why is Superprotect being removed?. In any case, thank you for expressing your interest in this topic. :) --Qgil-WMF (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
@Qgil-WMF: Cool to see that this unneeded drama stuff has been switched off. A little step in the right direction :-). But WMF still ignores community consensus: Media Viewer is switched on for logged out users on commons. This makes editing for anons very hard. It would be nice if this could be changed as well. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
November 06
Categories for streets in Bucharest
I recently found myself correcting Category:Șelari street, Bucharest to Category:Șelari Street, Bucharest (proper nouns in English are always capitalized, and "Street" is considered part of the name) but I find it odd that the English "Street" is being used at all here, rather than the Romanian Strada Șelari. I realize we tend to favor English, but I can't imagine us turning (for example) Rue des Artistes in Paris into "Artists' Street" or Bergstraße in Berlin in to "Berg Street" or "Mountain Street". I don't see any reason we should handle Romania and Romanian differently. - Jmabel ! talk06:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
When you look in the Category:Streets in Bucharest you see most streets as "strada". So I suggest to create the category Strada Șelari, move the 8 images from Șelari street into it and either have the category Șelari street deleted or make a redirect. Wouter (talk) 08:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree, use the name used on street signs and maps, possibly adding a disambiguation. (Personally, I prefer disambiguation in parentheses, but this handled inconsistently on Commons.) --Sebari (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The same is true for Hungary where it makes even less sense. At least in Romanian strada has some similar root to street. With Hungarian, the translation to street, avenue or boulevard is even less helpful and more arbitrary. Themightyquill (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Paintings and wikidata
How to connect wikidata to paintings that have more than one picture on Commons? In my opinion the wikidata is connected to the physical painting, and not to the picture of the painting, and therefor I think that all pictures of a specific painting should have the same wikidata number. I am right or wrong, if I am wrong what to do then. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
A painting, in Commons, regardless of how many reproductions of it we host, should always have its own category (where will also be subcategorized things like details of said painting, derivatives, a.s.o.). The Wikidata connection should always be to that category, never to an individual filepage. -- Tuválkin✉✇22:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Unfortunately, 'how you phrased that' can lead to some WikiData drama... there are objection there to interwiki links that cross namespaces, so adding a link from a Wikidata object connected to an 'article' about a painting, to the 'category' on commons, will likely be reverted on WikiData. There is a property called "Commons category" that can be used to connect them, but it unfortunately doesn't provide interwikis. Having multiple file pages with {{Artwork}} templates pointing at the same WikiData item won't cause issues, however, since those are not interpreted as interwiki links.
TLDR; WikiData item about the artwork should use the "Commons category" property (P373) to point at the category, and the "Image" property (P18) to point at the 'best' image. The individual file pages should all point at the same Wikidata item (since they are images of that physical object) in the wikidata parameter of their {{Artwork}} template. If there is a 'gallery' page on Commons about the artwork, it can be linked directly from WikiData.
All paintings on Commons should point to one wikidata page, using "wikidata" parameter in {{Artwork}}, and this wikidata page should have a link to commons category, using d:Property:P373, and a single "best" version of the painting (the one most people would choose to use in wikipedia article), using d:Property:P18. --Jarekt (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
buggy styles can often look different between browsers, and sometimes what is painfully obvious to one person can look normal or intentional to another. So its important to describe what you see. I see a bunch of extra middots. Is that what you are referring to? Bawolff (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, Andy Mabbett maybe means weird dots between empty (not filled) parameters. Yesterday we discussed the same issue on the cswiki. I also asked for fix here on Commons' template talk page. --Dvorapa (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Where can I request photos? (and a request for EVF photo)
I didn't find any place to create a list to request photos here (I'm not talking about Wikipedia), there is a place? It's work?3
I needed a real photo for this effect to explain EVF, could some one help me here? -- RTA19:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The Community Tech team at the Wikimedia Foundation is focused on building improved curation and moderation tools for experienced Wikimedia contributors. We're now starting a Community Wishlist Survey to find the most useful projects that we can work on.
For phase 1 of the survey, we're inviting all active contributors to submit brief proposals, explaining the project that you'd like us to work on, and why it's important. Phase 1 will last for 2 weeks. In phase 2, we'll ask you to vote on the proposals. Afterwards, we'll analyze the top 10 proposals and create a prioritized wishlist.
While most of this process will be conducted in English, we're inviting people from any Wikimedia wiki to submit proposals. We'll also invite volunteer translators to help translate proposals into English.
Your proposal should include: the problem that you want to solve, who would benefit, and a proposed solution, if you have one. You can submit your proposal on the Community Wishlist Survey page, using the entry field and the big blue button. We will be accepting proposals for 2 weeks, ending on November 23.
Given the size, and skillset of the team, as well as the approximate scope of the type of tasks they've taken on so far, I would be pretty shocked if they took that on. Bawolff (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I would like to implement a filter that would prevent anyone (except myself) from using my personal template for file description while uploading files. For example, is someone wants to upload a cropped version of one of my photos as a separate file. Is it possible? Who can help to find a proper source code? --A.Savin21:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK, wikitext in uploads don't go through the AF process (phab:T89252, breaks AF69{{PermissionOTRS}} detection during uploads). This is one of the proofs that WMF is not spending their time on more important stuffs. (btw, I never really heard of personal filters) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The copyright on the .mp3 files does seem a bit dubious. However, per their terms page: The University of California makes no claims or warranties as to the copyright status of the original recordings. The copyright status of sound recordings in the U.S. is a horrible mess, with the result being that most of those originals are probably still under U.S. common-law copyright and will be until 2067. The usual 1923 rule does not apply. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Wikimania 2016 scholarships will soon be open; by the end of the week we'll form the committee and we need your help, see Scholarship committee for details.
If you want to carefully review nearly a thousand applications in January, you might be a perfect committee member. Otherwise, you can volunteer as "ambassador": you will observe all the committee activities, ensure that people from your language or project manage to apply for a scholarship, translate scholarship applications written in your language to English and so on. Ambassadors are allowed to ask for a scholarship, unlike committee members.
If you look on this SVG picture, it has wooden decorations on its stand. But if you look on its history log, smaller sizes of that SVG picture haven't got any wooden decorations and look broken. Every time that picture is used somewhere (so it goes through internal SVG-to-PNG convertor) and its size is 100px or lower, its stand loses all wooden decorations and seems broken. Even a little bit larger dimensions are still missing a part of that stand. I also checked the picture using [6] on wmflabs tools, but there should be no problem in that file at all. The svg itself renders ok. Just its PNG thumnails are broken. This picture was supposed to be used all over the Czech Wikipedia and was also supposed to be a template for many derivatives, but because of this issue my colleague created just one (also) broken derivative and gave it up. We just can't use it or make new derivatives. How could we make the convertor leave wooden decorations on stand as they are? Or is it caused by a hidden issue in that SVG file, that haven't recognized any of tools I've tried? Could you fix that file or MediaWiki convertor to make good thumbnail even if smaller than 100px? Here is an example of an ordinary insertion of that SVG file in three sizes on the Czech Wikipedia to compare:
Correct look (300px):
Less broken (120px):
More broken (70px):
I don't know why, but if I insert them here, I have to set smaller sizes to see them broken, but if I insert them into Czech Wikipedia, 100px wide one looks like the last one (70px wide) here. On Czech Wikipedia this problem is even worse. You can see it here. Does anybody know why and how to fix it? Because ordinary use of this picture would be about 100px wide. --Dvorapa (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Can we get a bug assigned to fix the PNG convertor? This file was rendered fine through 15 May 2015, but since 27 May 2015 has been horribly trashed. Delphi234 (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure it would be great to create a new bug report (if I understood you correctly), but I don't know more about how or where :/ --Dvorapa (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, now I understand. According to the discussion on phabricator it looks like my issue is caused by gaussian blur. If removing the various gaussian blurs from the SVG helps, your file has got the same issue as mine. --Dvorapa (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Mine is not gaussian blur, but character location. In this map of the US, the ND of North Dakota are unspaced, along with others, but not SD (click to see it rendered in your browser), but in the chart, the characters are on top of each other. The general issue is the same though, how PNGs are made from SVGs, and it would be nice to open up the Phabricator bug to address both issues, not just yours. Until recently the SVG check was still rendering text correctly, but now is doing the same thing, messing it up. Something happened around May of this year to mess up the text location. Delphi234 (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
And now yours (T118112) has been closed as a duplicate of T44090. Can someone open a new one for the text positioning in the SVG to PNG converter? Delphi234 (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Just try it. This issue on phab was my first one I've created and it is not so hard to report a bug as it seems to be. --Dvorapa (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Over the last few years our guidelines on photographs of identifiable people have expanded considerably in length, while decreasing in usefulness. They now mix up without explanation legal issues with Commons community consensus on what we are prepared to host, and further muddy the waters by talking a lot about third party commercial re-use which has nothing at all to do with us. The pages are a real mess, and need substantial review.
I'd be happy to work towards improving these guidelines, and to look in more detail at the very misleading and partly incorrect UK law section, though it's a big task and I may not be able to commit significant time to it for a little while. Greater legal clarity is definitely needed, and more importantly closer community agreement as to the type of images we will and will not accept. The work will need to be done slowly, carefully, and with full community input, as this is a field where quite a few editors have extremely strong views. Once we have a reasonable agreement from active editors as to what our guidelines should say, we ought then to open an RFC to get final community feedback and approval.
Would anyone care to join me in setting up a small team to look at this in a systematic way over the next few months? To keep things together, please comment or express an interest here. Many thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
This lizard on coastal rocks in Madagascar is certainly a Cryptoblepharus. But wich one? All the subspecies mentioned in the Commons all come from the Indian or Pacific oceans but not from Madagascar. How is the Madagascan one called? And is it a match?Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that the distribution mentioned is: Mauritius and nearby islets. (not Madagascar) And it has a lot of uniform white spots. Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I created a new category. As this is a large island I am not surprised that there are local differences in the patterns, however one or two match very closely with my picture.Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Both the old and the new names are acceptable, so the renaming — requested six months after upload and under unclear pretenses (criterion 11 applies to these… how?) — was against COM:FR. Admin User:Alan should value Commons’ filename stability over author’s whims. -- Tuválkin✉✇22:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I am guessing this was intended to be criteria 1? "Unless there is a compelling reason not to, uploader requests should be honored." The ones I checked are not used anywhere, so I see no "compelling reason" for not moving them. Delphi234 (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The script for adding the {{Rename}} template inserts strange criterion numbers in the edit summary. You can find the correct criterion number by looking at the source code of the page. In this case, criteron #4 seems to have been used by the user who added the requests. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
This is not a valid request, because #2. He wanted to harmonize photos (#4), but his requests were soundly rejected. So he chose the "hack" (#1). But, it is not right. In this case, I recommended him to create separate categories for the same (sub)taxons, and in case of need to give a description in the preamble to the category in any language (as here, for example). --sasha (krassotkin) 08:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I am confused. #2 only says you can not rename a file just to make it English. It says nothing about changing it away from English. I suspect the files are much easier for them to understand in their native language. "Files should NOT be renamed only because the filename is not English and/or is not correctly capitalized." Now that they have been renamed, #2 would prevent them from being returned to English, though, although in my opinion would not rise to a "compelling reason" if an original uploader requested changing a file name to English. As to six months, I see no reason for having a timelimit to original uploader privilege - I would certainly would want to be able to change the name of something I uploaded six or sixty years ago - once again, unless there was a compelling reason that it not be moved. I can not say that they "chose the hack" as that was suggested to them instead of #4 on 10 November. ("Change the search criteria. I can not change the name of the criterion number 4 ---, but I can change this name if you use the criterion # 1" - Google translation) I would have rejected #4 too, as there are also English names in that category. Delphi234 (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Those are just examples of when requests should be declined. Just as you shouldn't change a non-English name into English, you obviously shouldn't change an English name into a different language.
The note about English names seems to me to be a situation where you should decline requests to rename files under criterion #2 (non-English names are meaningless to users who only speak English, but are not meaningless to other users), whereas changing the language of the file name seems less controversial under criterion #1. The renaming requests were made by the original uploader. It is in my opinion irrelevant if the uploader states the correct renaming reason in the {{Rename}} template as long as there is at least one criterion which applies (but the filemover should correct the criterion number in the edit summary if the template states the wrong renaming reason).
Criterion #4 is for files which are used by templates (such as BSicons) and pages of books. Photographs rarely fall in either category.
Note that the renaming criteria were changed in 2014. The changes were added to the English version of COM:FR, but didn't make it into all language versions of the page. You will find slightly different renaming criteria if you look at the French version of the page. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
As I see it, and the google translation of the French version says there is no reason to favor English over other languages, there is no reason to favor English, but there is often a reason to favor another language for a particular file. I did a graph for Spanish use in the Spanish language and even though I speak almost no Spanish, I used a Spanish language file name because that was the only thing that made any sense. The same would have been better for File:Solar capacity.jpg, in Russian, but I could not change the name as I was not the original uploader, and the file has been replaced with an SVG anyway. The entire point of the criteria is to not force everyone to only use English for file names, even though they currently need to do that for categories. There is a huge difference between saying "there is no reason to favor one language over another" and saying "there is no reason to favor English over other languages". I would not support the former as a guideline. There are serious problems with the French translation of the guideline - there are not even the same number of criteria - 7 instead of 6. Perhaps someone could review all of the translations and see that they are up to date through the latest change to #2. Actually the Italian one points out "Bear in mind that the only official text is the English version." Only the German, English, Polish, and Dutch translations have 6 instead of 7 criteria now. Delphi234 (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
For example, Clinopódium vulgáre is not the English but Latin (scientific) name. This name is used in all editions of Wikipedia, including Russian as a full synonym and it is a generic name. Experts from all countries understand this name. Most likely, they will upload files with similar Latin names. Therefore if tomorrow someone wants to harmonize all these files, probably all of the names will be given to the Latin name. Commons is a multilingual project. Therefore in this case no arguments for renaming files with a "good" name (understandable to all experts) to "bad" (understandable only for those who speak the same language). In my opinion even the original uploader cannot degrade a existing quality name of file. --sasha (krassotkin) 09:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
yes, its probably because there is too much text on the page (or a very big template was included), so mediawiki stopped expanding templates. Try archiving old posts. Bawolff (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@Optimist on the run: That's not a 'transclusion of a template or parser function' as is meant by that policy, it's the server itself trying to internationalize the word "talk", and failing. {{int:Talkpagelinktext}} is part of the 'standard' signature you get if you haven't customized it. Revent (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I have uploaded some photos from Flickr, taken by Larry Lamsa. They are available under the CC-BY license. Now I suddenly notice in the Exif metadata it says: "Copyright holder: Larry Lamsa". Does this give us a reason to question the validity of the CC-BY license? See for example File:Finnmarken Bergen 01.jpg. Blue Elf (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Not at all; it actually supports the licence, by asserting that the photographer owns the rights that the licence releases, therefore is not giving away someone else’s property. If the copyright holder is not the identified author, or if the notice includes restrictions incompatible with the licence, there’s a problem, but not from a simple statement of ownership.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
the slightly higher base line isnt really indicative of a problem. It means more things use the job queue then they used to, but provided stuff is leaving the job queue at the same rate its fulling up, that's ok. Bawolff (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I suppose Views categories are somehow topical, saying something about what is depicted in an image. Such an image isn't necessarily a photograph. The Photographs category is more of a meta-data category saying something about how a photograph was created or its style but not much about its topic. "Aerial photographs" says something about how a photograph is created, so should be a subcategory of Photographs, although "Aerial photographs of X" becomes topical thanks to X and may be a subcategory of Views of X. Panoramics is similar. Featured pictures etc., are meta-data categories but not necessarily photographs, so they are a subcategory of Images instead. --ghouston (talk) 07:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Template {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-1996}} adds file to non-hidden Category:PD-Art (PD-old-100-1996)
Each time there is a new combination of templates a new category is created. You just have to go to one of the existing categories and copy the settings. --Jarekt (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Seeing this DR, I wonder if it would not be possible to archive Web pages when we check upload licenses. I mean when the license is reviewed by a file reviewer or by an administrator, can a BOT make an external action as to add an archive there :[7]? Or at least to automatically open a link to a WEB archive in order to manually enter the source page as an archive. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I think a BOT could easily generate entire address as the one I mentioned above, there would be more to the reviewer than to click on "Save this url in the Wayback Machine". --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
This has been discussed before, mainly in relation to sources for Wikipedia but the same principles apply. There are issues around automation of this, so it is worth checking archived discussions. --Fæ (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
In all way the WEB archive I linked above can't work with all web sites, and I think it is the case with some Utube contents as someone saved the page at 11:58 (UTC) and I can't open it. They seems to have some protections. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Web Archive can't store some websites (due to robots.txt); Youtube apparently works well (video will not played but information is successfuly stored), and Flickr will show a blank page when archived. In the cases that no archived source is available, just trust in the user who reviewed the file (for that reason the Admins and License reviewed are also called Trusted users).
I agree that a BOT is a great idea, its functions can be integrated with upload bots available, or with a separated bot that search for valid sources with recent uploads. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
My Flickr friend John Flannery (DrPhotoMoto) is willing to relicense his works on organisms to CC BY-SA 2.0. He is a great butterfly enthusiast and I uploaded two of his Flickr albums (butterflies and dragonflies) here. Doing categorization now. Any help appreciated. Let me know if you're interested in any other of his albums. Jee16:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Spelling
Hi all, I have a question related to spelling. For example in this file, the spelling (typo) section Original upload log states: auhtor, I was wondering if it is okay to correct the typo or if it should be left alone. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The Multimedia team is entering a cycle of experimentation with a new project, namely, a tool to create derivative files from existing files and a set of changes, or to apply a set of changes to an existing file.
...clicks on a link in the toolbox to go to Special:EditImage/(filename)
...enters a destination filename (which can be the same as the source filename)
...chooses an action (rotate, crop, rotate|crop, or crop|rotate)
...inputs options for each action - degrees, color (for dead space created by rotation), x, y, width, height
...submits form, image gets created at destination filename
We're considering a much nicer interface for this, including live previews. What I'd like to know is this:
Do you think an image editor is a tool that Commons needs?
Would you use a tool for creating derivative images from existing images on Commons?
Would you use a tool for editing existing images on Commons?
Would you use the rotation tool?
Would you use the crop tool?
What other operations do you perform on images frequently, that you would like this service to perform for you?
This project is not likely to show up on Commons anytime soon, we are simply playing with the idea. Also, one of the stated goals in some of the current documentation is allowing syntax like {{#file:Foobar.jpg|rotate|degrees=90}}, but that feature is not included in the extension yet, and likely will not be until we have finalized the features above.
@Steinsplitter: I'm not sure what you mean - Special:EditImage does rotate the raw file. The {{#file}} syntax isn't finalized yet, and I'm not even sure how it will be implemented, but "the community" has a lot of opinions, and I certainly intend to work through all of them in order to come to a decision about that feature. --MarkTraceur (WMF) (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I think such tool would be very useful. I think rotation operation done by 90/180/270 degrees and possibly mirror image (right-left flip) are operations which should be done on the original image without a need to create derivative image. I think separate process mimicking current work of User:Rotatebot, but done instantaneously is the optimal. For other rotations and cropping I think a tool you described would be very useful. Other operations could include white balance and some automatic color adjustment. However one messy issue I foresee, is the creation of proper metadata of the derivative image. I assume that none of the operations would require mentioning the person performing them as a "co-author" and a separate license for derivative work would not be necessary, so the metadata should mostly have different "source" field. However if the new image is uploaded under the name of the user who did the changes, than templates like {{Own}}, {{Self}} or {{PD-self}} might have to be replaced by other templates. The tool should also work for images using all major Infoboxes, not just {{Information}} template. Maybe we could copy the edit history of the original file to the new file (copy entries from revision table in the database) so we do not have to create the crazy Original upload log section in the image to properly attribute all the people that changed the file description. In the past Commons:derivativeFX tool was used for creating metadata for derivative works and this tool was creating a lot of nonsensical metadata we will be cleaning up for a long time. I would like to avoid that with the new tool. --Jarekt (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jarekt: I would greatly appreciate links to past efforts in marking files as derivatives. I don't think copying the upload log and edit log of an image into its derivative is a wise idea, since the attribution requirement is fulfilled by linking to the old file (which we will do from day 1, of course) - as long as it's clearly marked as a derivative, it should be fine (though, I am not a lawyer, so I will be sure to run the attribution requirements past a proper lawyer before that decision is finalized). Thanks for the links, I'll start going through them now... --MarkTraceur (WMF) (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Generally a good idea; I'm a little hesitant about making it easy to do a crop as a new version unless by original uploader (crop under a new file name is fine); at the very least we might want to limit access to such a feature. Even without a tool to make it easy, I've seen a lot of controversial crops lead to arguments. - Jmabel ! talk21:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Notification of DMCA takedown demand - The Boeing Company
In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me.The takedown can be read here.
The 1589 date is when the illustrations were done. One of the versions should be kept (not sure which is best). The other one should be replaced with the Santiago attack illustration (or that can be uploaded again separately). Confusingly, this image is in the edit history of the first image above, see here. What probably also needs doing is for someone to check all the usages of these files, as one of the files was being used incorrectly on en-Wikipedia, and the same might be true on other wikis as well. I will try and do some of the checks, but I think some help will be needed to sort it out fully. Hope someone here can help. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I have now uploaded the correct version of the second file. The original version was uploaded from this site, which misdecribes it. For some reason, the thumbnail image in the file history section has not yet been updated.
Many thanks. Pedantically, there is an error in your edit summary, but the right image is now there which is perfect. Annoyingly, there seems to be a cache or job queue issues somewhere, as when I refresh, the image is there correctly now, but the thumbnails (including the 300px one used in the article) aren't refreshed and show the old images. I know how to do a null edit to force a template update, but can't seem to find instructions anywhere on how to force a thumbnail refresh. OK, found Help:Purge, but the tricks there aren't working either. Carcharoth (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I realised almost immediately after I had completed the upload that I had mistakenly written Santiago, Hispaniola for what should have been Santo Domingo, Hispaniola. I have now managed to update the thumbnail by following the instructions on the Help:Purge page (thank you for pointing to it). The correct image now appears on all the Wikipedia pages that use the image, although you may need to reload the page to see the current version rather than an old one from your browser's cache.
There are actually higher resolution versions of these images available from the Library of Congress website, which I will upload shortly.
Hey dudes, who manages Facebook page? They seems just re-sharing WP posts, do you know who they are? Because in Commons:Social media, we don't have any information. The FB is not sharing community activities, as Photo Challenge, Featured pictures, Picture of the Year... -- RTA06:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
And hey dudes, who is in charge of attribution for the posted images on Facebook? By a short look there, I didn't see a single correctly attributed image according to our licences. Hence all (or most) pictures posted on this facebook page are blatant licence violations. At least in the texts to each image I would expect the attribution of the author and the link to the Creative Commons licence and a link to the Commons page. Take this example: Somebody even made a derivative, which obviously is also not attributed. --Wuselig (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Ralf raises a serious concern about using share-alike CC/FAL/etc licensed-images on Facebook -- the terms of those licences are incompatible with Facebook's terms, which are essentially a rights-grab. Anyone posting images to Facebook is required to offer Facebook a licence for those images (to basically do what they want with them). Such a licence is not compatible with any existing free content licence that has share-alike terms. So unless you own the works yourself, you can't grant that licence. It would be possible to post CC BY images that are not SA, provided the post includes the appropriate attribution, as well as CC0/PD images. Can we inform the owners of this discussion? -- Colin (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
FB can't legally acquire rights to the images simply because they are uploaded by someone who is not the copyright holder. - Jmabel ! talk18:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
That's true, but it doesn't mean it won't cause problems to allow the practice to continue, because Facebook is unlikely to realise that the uploader is not the copyright holder if it does somehow decide to use the images. Diliff (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
You can't post cc-by images to Facebook either. You can only post images to Facebook if you can grant Facebook a licence to use the image without attribution, if I remember correctly.
A user who posts a cc-by-sa image very clearly violates Facebook's terms of use (and thus risks being sued by Facebook), but it can be debated whether the cc-by-sa licence itself is violated if you provide proper attribution in the Facebook post. Note that Facebook's terms of use require you to grant Facebook a worldwide licence, so you can't depend on copyright expiration unless the copyright has expired in all countries in the entire world, and you can also not depend on exemptions from copyright protection (such as fair use or FOP) unless the exemption exists in all countries in the entire world. It is obvious that Facebook isn't enforcing its own terms of use. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
eerr, you changed the topic, and no, we can post images under CC-By-Sa there, we need to link to file page here, and that's it. This license incomparability myth appeared when FB tried to owned the photos of their clients a time back ago. Now it's kind of obscure:"you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content"... and they talk about open source in apps, no restrictions to free licenses... Moreover, they don't have any power to exchange the license previously published, we need to talk with the Wikipedia guys to ask them to attach a link on their publications.
Are you sure? From reading the relevant sections of en:Oblique projection I would expect a cabinet-perspective drawing to be more foreshortened. At any rate I don‘t think there’s any obvious error deserving of a move. Perhaps you could leave a query on the file’s Talk page.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. The 500 px version just seems to have rippled through, but the rest are as yet unaltered. Could this be a very long backlog on some render queue, or a cache invalidation problem within the WMF cluster? -- The Anome (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm having problems myself. I uploaded a new version of File:Parisattacks.png about an hour ago and pages throughout Wikimedia are still displaying the old version in thumbnails. Manually purging, cache-clearing, and hard-refreshing have not helped the issue. -- Veggies (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Sonia Sevilla: Can you explain this? Because there are a lot of times in the past we have had to remove images you uploaded as your own work that turned out not to be your own work. - Jmabel ! talk21:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Up until at least 20 June of this year, the PNGs created were accurate and the text generated and located correctly, but as of 3 July [12] the PNG convertor really badly trashes the text of the PNG images created from some of the SVGs created by Template:SVG Chart. This template is used by quite a few images, many of which are updated monthly or annually. Up until June, these updates were fine, but now they can be completely unreadable. See for example and A work around was done for by converting text to a path but this does not work for files that use switch. The SVG is valid, as confirmed by this tool. Could someone please at least open a Phabricator tag or bug report for this issue so that it does not continue to be ignored? Delphi234 (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
According to the comments inside the template you should search in 6th namespace using following structure: ns6=1. Parameter ns is also for following structure: ns=all and its purpose is clear I think. But yeah, documentation would be really helpful in this case. --Dvorapa (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The Community Advocacy team the Wikimedia Foundation has opened a consultation on the topic of harassment on Meta. The consultation period is intended to run for one month from today, November 16, and end on December 17. Please share your thoughts there on harassment-related issues facing our communities and potential solutions. (Note: this consultation is not intended to evaluate specific cases of harassment, but rather to discuss the problem of harassment itself.)
Hi, unsigned-above User:PEarley (WMF). Please consider the fact that very proeminently among the harass-related fears that assault the mind of Wikimedia project volonteers looms largest the possibility that they might be singled out by the WMF itself and be subjected to disproportionate pressure due simply to mere disagreements, risking loss of working tools and of control over project content, and risking even to be disappeared away with no chance of appeal. Oh, and learn some indenting, too, please, while you’re at it. Cheers! -- Tuválkin✉✇16:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Copyright status of works by Jordanian government/Royal Hashemite Court?
Is works by the royal court public domain? And does that answer change if the works are posted on Instagram? Their official page has interesting works.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Magedq (talk • contribs)
Very few governments have laws making their works public domain. I'm not aware of any such law in Jordan; do you have any reason to believe there is such a law? Nor can I think of any reason that posting on Instagram would affect the copyright status of anything. Is there some reason you think it would? - Jmabel ! talk23:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah thanks. I just assumed most governments works are made public domain, but maybe being posted to a private company would change that. Magedq (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment You can see at the top of that page the (slightly difficult to see) remark "A WMF deletion of a critical database table has broken the report. I'll amend the programme within a few weeks, real life commitments creating a backlog. Fæ (Discussão) 11:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)". Hope it helps. Tm (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Everything in the exposition is copyrighted The materials incorporated within the Studio Tour including, without limitation, any sets, props, wardrobe, text, graphics, images, artwork, illustrations, photographs, animations, music, video, audio, audiovisual works, designs, logos, software and any other content (together, “Material”) are protected by copyrights, patents, trade secrets or other proprietary rights owned by us and/or our licensors and/or J. K. Rowling (“Intellectual Property Rights”). Some of the characters, logos or other images incorporated within the Studio Tour are also protected as registered or unregistered trademarks, trade names and/or service marks owned by us or J. K. Rowling (“Trademarks”). We respect the intellectual property rights of others and ask you to do the same.[13]. The terms seem clear to me: we can't keep the pictures.Traumrune (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama gives an exemption to copyright law for making photographs of sculptures and buildings. I'd say anything that could be considered a sculpture, or not copyrightable, would still be fine if the other conditions of FoP are met. I don't think we need to care about "patents, trade secrets or other proprietary rights". How could something on public display be a trade secret anyway? --ghouston (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I think Traumrune is right, at least according to my reading of 17 USC 104(b). The Wikimedia servers are in the United States and Warner Bros. would almost certainly be considered "a national or domiciliary of the United States", therefor I advise the deletion of those images not covered under FoP-US. Allen4names (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
From what one understands, trademark restrictions and "house rules" are not applicable to Commons. Copyright is applicable, though. The current policy on Commons is to allow (with possibly one exception as of now) photos of artistic works that are covered under foreign FOP even though US FOP does not extend to artwork. Such photos should be tagged with something like {{Licensed-FOP|{{FoP-UK}}{{Not-free-US-FOP}}|{{XXXX}}}} where {{XXXX}} is the license tag for the photo itself (see File:Minimundus117.jpg for example.) Photos of architectural works that were photographed outside the US can be tagged with something like {{Licensed-FOP|{{FoP-UK}}|{{XXXX}}}} where, once again, {{XXXX}} is the license tag for the photo itself.
Agreed. No time to dig into this now, but the majority of the images are of posters and other printed designs. FoP does not apply, and most are very obvious copyright infringements that should be speedily deleted. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
November 17
Recent changes to Watchlist pages
Watchlists have been changed so that rather than one click on a link being needed to hide minor edits, or hide bots etc. users must select from checkboxes and then press a go button. This is a terrible change, meaning that what was one easy action, now becomes two, more fiddly, different types of action. Note that this change has been implemented on Commons, but I don't see it on the English Wikipedia at the time of writing.
WMF might as well be called "WTF". While we as a community discuss changes ad infinitum before making them, they feel free to just mess things up. I would try Meta though. Mediawiki is for defining what the software can do, but each wiki gets customized and I would guess the watchlist is a customization rather than true for all wikis. WMF though, does not really participate much in MW, to my knowledge. It is a common confusion between WM and MW - they are as different as night and day. One is us, the other is for everyone. I see the button at the bottom right of the page on the left still goes to WMF instead of to WM (Meta). Perhaps part of the confusion is caused by calling WM Meta-Wiki, thus creating two MWs, instead of calling it Wiki-Meta. Delphi234 (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Ha. I wish that Wikimedia was just one out of the many different interests that develop mediawiki. Alas, MediaWiki development is pretty dominated by WMF. [However that's irrelavent to the issue at hand - without meaning to be dismisive to the people complaining, from wherd im sitting, the change seems reasonable enough. It could have just as easily come from someone not associated with wmf]Bawolff (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I have so many occasions to link that page! But in this case, without irony: this is just the wrong direction to go. - Jmabel ! talk00:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
How bizarre that we have to create work-arounds for unplanned WMF "improvements" that would fail user testing, were any user testing actually done. --Fæ (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
What's wrong with ArchiverBot here? It looks like bot didn't made any archivations here on Commons for more than 5 days. But on its user page there is a statement, that it works with daily frequency. --Dvorapa (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The Arbcom elections open for voting today, closing on 6th December. The criteria to be eligible to vote is minimal, with only 150 mainspace edits on the English Wikipedia needed (see the link above).
Arbcom have influenced Wikimedia Commons in the past, amongst other things expressing their views on Commons policies and running private investigations into Commons contributions, without involving or consulting the Admin/Bureaucrat community here.
Does anyone have thoughts on the best candidates to vote for in terms of supporting the Wikimedia Commons mission? Perhaps one of the candidates would like to say something here, on the Commons Village pump, about their enthusiasm for Wikimedia Commons?
Hi Yann, i am looking for a generic way to create a link based on some filename and the page number. I already found Special:Redirect allowing to link to the raw PDF based on its name. However, there seems to be no possibility concerning this jpg thumbnails. Single pages of PDFs as PDF seem not to exist in general. --Arnd (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
You're right, its harder to get the url generically for files with options other then width/height. Your options are:
Manually constructing the url. The format is https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/<first digit of md5 sum of file name>/<first 2 digits of md5sum of file name>/Filename/<page number>-<width>-<filename>. However, that's kind of icky. And the format is slightly different if the filename is really long.
Other things you might be interested in:
To include the image on a page, use syntax like [[File:Daheim_1868.pdf|page=111]]
I'm not sure what you mean by full resolution. PDFs are a different format then the jpg thumbnails, so there's always a conversion. Some pdfs (Although not your example) include vector graphics, which are of infinite resolution, so to speak. Hope that helps.
Hi, You could always copy additional information on talk page. I agree with you that the duplicates aren't useful. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Done The file was at File:KorporalStahlgrün.PNG for over a year, and then at File:Korporal Apfelgrün.png for over five years. @Centenier: The file moves were correct, but you don't delete a redirect from a long existing filename. It breaks incoming external links to the image, including uses through "Instant Commons". In any case, removing all content (even if it is just a redirect) from a page, and then nominating for speedy as an 'empty page', is rather misleading. Revent (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
However, the name “Stahlgrün” is simply wrong and has been replaced by correct “Apfelgrün”! Whaterver is the sense of an wrong filename? -- Centenier (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Centenier: If someone linked to that image from somewhere other than a Wikimedia project in 2009, and 'didn't care' about what color we call the file (just what it 'is') they would be rather displeased to find that we had broken their usage six years down the line. A 'redirect' is not the same as a 'filename', it's just a way for someone to find the image itself. Revent (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
It does care about what color the file shows, but the color ist needed to identify the Austro-Hungarina Infantry-Regiments. A Regiment with a collar in Stahlgrün (Steelgreen) is simply anonther one as such one with a color in Apfelgrün (Applegreen). -- Centenier (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Centenier: I think you are missing my point. Changing a 'misleading name' to the 'correct name' is a perfectly valid reason for renaming a file. BUT, if "Bob's History Blog" (as a random made up example) linked to that image, under the old incorrect name, back in 2009, then that external reuser is going to still want to be able to find the image at the new name. We have no control over incoming links from outside of Wikimedia, we cannot fix them, so we should not break them by deleting long-standing redirects. We have no way to know if someone is linking to the image under the old name. Revent (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Just to make sure I'm as clear as possible... 'changing' the redirect, as you did at File:KorporalStahlgrün.PNG after I undeleted it, is also fine... the old redirect is still in the history, and so a non-admin can figure out where the file that 'was' at that name went. There is just no reason to effectively 'hide' that File:Korporal der k.u.k. Infanterie.png was originally at that incorrect name, through deletion, and doing so is unhelpful to anyone who can't see deleted pages. Revent (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Walking War Robots
I'd posted this elsewhere but hadn't received a reply and I'm sort of worried about this. Long story short, someone created a draft article for an app game. They uploaded a lot of images from the game itself to WC under the rationale that it was their own work. I'm not entirely familiar with copyright for games, but I've always been under the impression that images taken from a game (screenshots, artwork, etc) were copyrighted to the game developers/publishers. The uploader (Pixonic) has created several of these, including in game images like maps. I'm not sure if they're the game developer or not - there is a game developer by this name (meaning that the username is a violation of guidelines if it's them or not), but I'm not entirely sure that they're aware of what's entailed by them uploading images to WC under the fair use rationale.
This actually grows a little more complicated. Per the comment here on WP, this doesn't seem to be the game company itself. This makes it more likely that I might unblock them for promotion on Wikipedia, but this poses a huge legal issue for the images on here since this means that they don't hold the copyrights. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I deleted the whole lot as copyvios. The files could be undeleted if a permission for a free license is provided to COM:OTRS by the company. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
As some of your might be aware, a small group of Wikimedia volunteers have proposed a banner campaign informing Wikipedia readers about the urgent situation of our fellow Wikipedian, open source software developer and Creative Commons activist, Bassel Khartabil. An exemplary banner and an explanatory page have now been prepared, and translated into about half a dozen languages by volunteer translators.
We are seeking your involvement to decide if the global Wikimedia community approves starting a banner campaign asking Wikipedia readers to call on the Syrian government to release Bassel from prison. We understand that a campaign like this would be unprecedented in Wikipedia's history, which is why we're seeking the widest possible consensus among the community.
Given Bassel's urgent situation and the resulting tight schedule, we ask everyone to get involved with the poll and the discussion to the widest possible extent, and to promote it among your communities as soon as possible.
(Apologies for writing in English; please kindly translate this message into your own language.)
This images are clearly in scope, and the rationale given to deletion "This is an embarrassment to Commons. This is a category for collecting pictures of scantily-clad women at car wash sponsored by a "breastaraunt" in Texas. I propose that not only the category, but all 190+ images in it be deleted. From what I can tell, these were all downloaded from Flickr and re-uploaded here because... because... oh because boobies and butts and they are all wet and stuff. The entire category is outside of the project scope." is stupid and short shited and an insult to Commons, its users and its work, by someone with a problem with the subject of this images and not its scope or lack of it. This files must be undeleted. Tm (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Moral Panick and Censorship. After your deletion of an Moral panic driven deletion request, you nominated more 100 images and deleted them 5 minutes after your nomination (instead of the minimum of 7 days) so this is censorship of images and of a discussion about the merits of your new deletion. Why dont you answer in a adult way and explaining your last actions, unlike the ";oD" you made in your closure or your last and out of topic response about atomic weapons.
About scope, and just limiting to the Wikipedia articles, some example of articles where this images are in scope:
And this is just for the first 25 images!!! What was on the other ones?
Also this images arent as you claim "poor quality near duplicates" as there was none low quality or duplicate (point two duplicate as an example, if you can). They are of good resolution, definition, colors, focus and composition, so instead of claiming this images to be junk, give concrete examples. Tm (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Tm: Accusing me of "Censorship and Moral panic"? You would better say that this is a conspiracy by the NSA, that I am an undercover agent of the CIA, or working for Al-Quida, etc. (or all that together, conspiracy theories are much more useful if you mix up everything). Seriously, you are just making yourself ridiculous. You confuse "sharing all knowledge" with "sharing all Flickr junk". These are different objectives. The DR is for all images in the category, yet I didn't delete them all. Keeping around 20 images seems reasonable, so we could still delete 2/3 of the remaining images without prejudice. Your message has failed from the very start with such a header. Anyway, thanks for the entertainment, that was the joke of the year! Yann (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
An admin who mass adds files to a DR and has strong opinions, should not then close the DR 8 minutes later. I agree, this was out of process and appears to be a misuse of admin rights from the timeline. --Fæ (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Just to note: the nominator clearly said they would have added all 190 to the nomination if they could figure out how, so to claim the admin added them is misleading. And frankly everybody has "strong opinions" on such images so that's not relevant either. We need to be able to discuss this issue without (a) unhelpful and inaccurate comments (b) the use of emotive terms like censorship and moral panic. I'm with the guy who said that most of those using the C word on Wiki don't have the first clue. And Yann has a point: just because someone's wank collection on Flickr has a free licence doesn't mean we should upload it here. -- Colin (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
These look to have been mostly low-value images in terms of Commons' goals. That said, inclusion in categories like Category:Female armpits is hardly an argument in favor of keeping them, it's more an argument for getting rid of categories that are probably of more use to fetishists than for any educational purpose. Nothing against fetishes, it's just not the goal of this project.
I agree, the way Yann handled this was pretty bad, in particular adding all those new images to the DR just to delete them immediately. I'd further say that the DR was not ready for closure, as there had been comments earlier that day. I especially don't understand why Yann decided to stop where they did - some of the originally requested images are still bluelinks. Why those? -mattbuck (Talk) 07:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
(Tangent so going small) Cultural images have educational value, this may include 'fetish' images to illustrate a tricky part of sexual cultures in different countries, including the evolution of sexual cultures over the decades. The example of the female armpit category as a fetish category is a poor one; having uploaded many historical images of women with their arms raised through to medical images of body parts, there are good academic educational reasons for a category such as this. Whether hundreds of glamour shots of women in bikinis adds any special value is a separate question. --Fæ (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
This (the deletion, not Tm’s complaint) has not one redeeming aspect, and is so wrong on so many levels that I’m truely speechless. -- Tuválkin✉✇00:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
We're not here to editorialise other projects, and to say "oh, X images are enough for anyone". That line of reasoning is specious. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Matt, if these images had been uploaded to Flickr with "All rights reserved", would you write to the photographer to ask for them to be released with a free licence? Now of course, most of us couldn't be bothered to do that unless the images were special and had high educational value. But if your response to that question is to accidentally snort your tea out of your nose, and the word "ludicrous" comes to mind, then one has to wonder why so many people are so upset at their loss. We have to be able to make curatorial decisions and doing so is neither censorship nor is it editorialising other projects. We aren't some great hoover sucking up any old image that has a free licence and is in-focus. Deciding to reject a bunch of what everyone seems to agree are "low value" images, should not cause this much upset. There does come a point where a collection of images changes from being illustrative of a subject and having educational value to simply being the manifestation of sexist attitudes of a mostly young male community with no self-restraint. That these images are included in many categories is more an example of the objectification of women by Commons users, than it is of them having any particular educational value.-- Colin (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Colin, please note I did not say anything about these particular images, I was merely noting that the "X pictures is enough" argument doesn't hold water. I'm not against the deletion of these images (note further I did not vk at the DR), just saying the way it was done was problematic. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Further, while I would not ask someone on flickr to release these freely had they been ARR, I also would not write to someone on flickr asking them to release photos of the Eiffel Tower. On both counts we have lots, but that doesn't mean I think we need to start deleting what we do have. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
My point isn't that we should delete images we have lots of, but that it is curious that anyone should care so much about these images that nobody would dream of trying to acquire for the project. Generally, I've found your comments in these discussions to be among the most reasonable (if rather defensive) compared to the game-play we can see elsewhere. I don't have a solution. It's clearly not "5 bikinis are enough" as you say, but nobody is really suggesting that either. Somehow Commons needs to be able to make curatorial decisions without descending to a frat boy level of permissiveness that raises real questions about sexism and objectification. Does anyone write to complain to Getty that because they don't have 200 low quality photos of women in bikinis at one car wash then they are clearly being censored or subject to moral panic, or that they are editorialising their customers? Somehow they manage to curate their collection of images without this nonsense. That someone has objectified women into dozens of categories shouldn't become a reason to keep rather than a behaviour that is concerning. What some bloke in America chooses to do with his DSLR isn't really my concern, but why should the fact that he applied a free licence to a couple of hundred images mean that an educational media resource is compelled to hoover them all up? Why is there such an outrage when someone suggests we could well do without that? The idea of a specific policy limiting the number of images in any category is a nonstarter. I'm not a believe that we are robots who must be programmed by policy on everything. But can't the community and admins use their judgement, on a case-by-case basis, to discuss and decided that on balance, selecting a handful of images (say) is best. After all, selecting our best images for upload is what you and I (as photographers) do all the time. -- Colin (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Though Mattbuck has politely replied, the snorting comment against him is personal and inflammatory, please strike it as it can only derail discussion into focusing on contributors and put off participants from expressing their views.
Marginalizing uploaders as being sexist young males objectifying women, and colouring this discussion so that anyone disagreeing with you is seen as supporting hateful things, is unhelpful and inflammatory, you can prove no such thing about the motivations of the uploaders or those that are against this type of mass deletion. Saying that "everyone agrees" with your viewpoint when most of us never saw the DR before it closed, and the images have been deleted is polarizing and unhelpful.
I have never objectified women in my life, I have never had any sexual desire to see a woman in a bikini, yet I disagree with your viewpoint here. --Fæ (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jarekt: The only guideline we have that would support limiting the number of images is Nudity, which does not apply to these examples. If you want to create a meaningful consensus supporting deletion of all "non-best" photographs of women who are not fully covered (or however you wish to phrase the criteria), then you may want to try writing up a proposal so that we can vote on it. --Fæ (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Although Commons:Nudity may not directly apply here (I didn't see any of them before the deletion), it can be a good reference policy for handling "low quality, borderline scope" images. BTW, I don't want to waste my time for the cry of this OP who is mostly rude to anybody have a different POV. He didn't even spend some time to properly maintain his talk page. It is overflowing; may be a deliberate attempt to prevent people from healthy discussions with him. He even reverted me when I "helped" him earlier. Reminds the "Wolf! Wolf!" story. Jee12:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
My two cents,
Here in Brazil we do not have this type of activity, and even USA invading more and more, probably that we will not have this activities here (especially with this horrible bikinis, yuck!).
Wanting or not, this is a manifestation of cultural event in USA, it's easy to find, and shows some aspects of USA (I'm not judging here).
So, yes, this have a educational purpose.
Imagine that I cover Carnival here in Brazil, or Bailes Funk. This will show some aspects of Brazil, and have a lot of sexuality on those. You would say that this don't have any educational value?
See the article baile funk, ow yes, it do not exist because of prude and elitist view of WP-pt, but okay see the redirect: w:Funk carioca, nothing similar to those images on the Google Images, the article is not representative of the reality. And probably some of you never saw a baile funk, and don't have any idea of it.
Now, if it was any other event in USA (except Mardi Gras), you would made a massive deletion?... Think about that.
Another point, and we cannot say "this is enough images of this subject", who we gonna say that?
We some penis and vulvas photos, none is featured, and this are two of most searched topics across wikis, and still, we have a warning saying that we have enough... Vaginas, we have... almost none, even people confusing vulva and vagina, the vaginal channel, showing all the rings, mucosa..., we have 1,5 image... and yet, we have a warning saying that we have enough...
This is what is wrong with Commons. This, right here. There is clearly no educational purpose to having nearly 200 images of one car wash fundraiser. If it were men wearing normal clothes I think we all know there would probably be no images, or just a few, sufficient to document the event. I point this out and am accused of body shaming and misoginy, and now a censorship and a moral panic. Even better, the obsessive over-categorization of images of women in bikinis is now presented as evidence that these pictures are all within the scope of Commons because someoe bothered to come up with dozens of useless intersections of random things such as "women wearing bikinis and bracelets". This is the sort of nonsense that makes one despair of ever fixing this community and having it operate on a sane basis. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree, and in particular I don't see any female users to provide some kind of balance/sanity. But you've got to laugh rather than despair. I know this particular subject is contentious but I do wonder if there is something broken about Commons when it comes to hoovering up other people's images in general. It seems the normal curatorial restraint one might, as a photographer, demonstrate wrt uploading only the good quality, representative selection of images one takes doesn't apply when one can bot-upload a whole Flickr Album. There's a detachment that comes from not having taken and chosen each individual image. A detachment that, for example, doesn't demonstrate to the world that you spent the weekend photographing young women with a telephoto lens vs just running Flickr2Commons on someone else's album. And a detachment in the deletion discussions when the photographer isn't actually a User who might engage with the process. I see this detachment at Featured Picture Candidates too, where images that aren't taken by Commons users are handled differently and not optimally. One possible solution is for us to make more effort to get those people on Flickr who upload with free licences to join Commons and upload their own work. And Flickr2Commons should be more restricted on who can use it and encourage those using it to try to show some restraint: just because someone dumped their memory card straight up to Flickr doesn't mean you have to slurp it all here. Or even have a moratorium on Flickr2Commons altogether to force us to grow the community rather than simply freeload off of other websites. -- Colin (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Beeblebrox thinks this is what’s wrong in Commons. Well, one of the things that is wrong with Commons is English Wikipedia boffins wanting to treat this multilingual, independent project as their backyard: When they find out that English is used here as a mere tool of opportunity and therefore their wp:en clout is meaningless, they get all hurt and everything is a good excuse to try and rock the boat. Accusing Commons of hosting porn is a good way to create panic, and it “works” every time. Well, it doesn’t because it is not true, but the claim is repeated again and again because it never fails to attract a fair amount of transient drama from the hysterical and the malicious. Intelligent people will browse Commons 30 million images and will find, for each and every risqué pose, dozens and dozens of assorted maps, of photos of planes and trains, and of 19th cent. linedraw illustrations about beekping… (Really, try it!)
Objectification of women, misoginy, gender stereotyping, sexual oppression — that’s what wrong, but not with Commons: That’s what wrong with the world. And Commons does document that: We document bikini carwashes just like we document way worse cases of said abuse against women. Tarnishing users for applying to bikini carwash scenes (or indeed to any depiction of the female body) the very same level of detail we apply to, say, photos of tramway cars or of clock faces, is itself problematic and could even be accused of what it’s being used to accuse others of.
On the other hand, there are authentic cases of women objectification in Commons — most not in the mere existence of “titilating” photos in our repository, nor in the “obsessive” way they may be categorized, but in the wording of their filenames and descriptions. As an example, I challenge the irate complainers above to try and make this category a safe space: Not by erasing from Commons what may be a vitally important promo portfolio for this model, nor reducing its visibility in searches and its presence in the topical category tree of Commons, but by suggesting non-creepy filenames for her photos. Who’s game?
Thanks for the personal attacks. Don't worry, I never expected anything but exactly this, and I am not going to try and fix this broken, nonsensical website anymore. Enjoy your massive collection of useless crap. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Even crap may have educational value here, I uploaded a lot of it when helping with sanitation uploads. I'm sure you thought so when you uploaded File:Snowpoop.JPG. Feel free to come back when feel you can be more productive and collegiate, rather than describing this project as "their screwed up community" when writing on other projects. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Just a comment about the "Phillips Model" images, that you pointed out. Those filenames were not the creations of Commons editors, they are the names given to the images by the photographer. Even if we were to change the actual filenames that they are under, the terms of the CC don't let us change the 'title' that an artistic work is attributed under, and those were obviously deliberate. The photographer objectified her (with her obvious consent), not 'Commons'. Revent (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Whales and bikinis (off topic poem by an intermediate english speaker)
During whale watching, their caudal fins we can see,
OK, all of you calm down. Except Christian Ferrer, who may need some help. Please don't accuse people of being enwp stooges or virulent anti-feminists or reincarnations of Stalin just because some people think we had too many photos of a bikini carwash.
Commons is here to document the world, or at least the more educational aspects of it. That does include bikini car washes. I have no problem whatsoever with Beeblebrox or Colin arguing that that category was too big and could stand to have some deleted. That is a position worthy of respect because they know how people would react. Beeblebrox stated their case, albeit not in an entirely mellow manner, and was promptly called an "embarrassment to Commons", a "misogynist" and a "religious zealot". That is not tolerable, and I urge Tm to strike those remarks and apologise.
Sexualised images bring out the worst in Commons - not because they are inherently bad themselves, but because they're divisive. Please, everyone calm down (except you, Christian). This can be debated without making personal attacks. Think about what you've said, how you've addressed others, and then think about whether this is behaviour you'd accept from a newcomer to Commons; or what a newcomer would think if they read our admins going at each other in such a manner.
Now, if we may return to the main subject. I'm not really that fussed about the images, we still have 90, that's fine. However, Yann's actions should not be acceptable - as a closing admin they arbitrarily added roughly 100 images to the DR being closed on grounds other than copyright, and where the discussion was still ongoing. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Please Matt, have a look at the history. Beeblebrox raised a DR that asked for "all 190+ images [to] be deleted". You asked a few hours later why the DR only listed 30 rather than the full 190. Beeblebrox replied a few hours later "My first time using the batch nomination tool, and apparently I goofed it up. I'm not sure how to budle the remaining 150 or so into this now.". The DR was closed six days later, so plenty time for discussion should anyone want it. The discussion was clearly not "ongoing" unless you count the conversation Tm was having with himself -- it takes more than one editor to have a discussion and there had been no other voices since the 19th -- four days of nothing. A reasonable admin response to being told a new user had problems with the tools but clearly meant to include all 190 images would be to help them add the remainder. The text of the nomination clearly stated the full category of 190 images was up for discussion: "I propose that not only the category, but all 190+ images in it be deleted.". How is there any confusion as to the scope of the DR? Like you say, this is a divisive subject, so we really don't need anyone making specious complaints about out-of-process closure combined with the many ad-hominem attacks above against both the nominator and the admin who closed it. Really, Matt, I expect this kind of mischaracterization of the facts from some others but you're description is well off the mark. I strongly suggest you retract those allegations and close the topic. -- Colin (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
On the other points raised, I think there's need for a discussion the problems of lack of accountability that comes from amateur images hosted elsewhere and bulk uploaded via bot. I've no problem with the sort of bulk upload we see of professional image resources (whether on Flickr or elsewhere) but we do seem to have a problem with bulk upload of amateur images, whether lack of attention to copyright or lack of any curatorial consideration as to the educational merits of each image. Admins and the community need to be free to apply that curatorial judgement retrospectively if needed, without ridiculous suggestions that we need some policy saying "only nn of xx in any category". As for the self-examination you ask, I ask that we do consider there are no female voices here, and how that shifts the discussion and permits a mindset that would not otherwise exist. And for deletion reviews, I suggest we consider the "censorship" word to be a kind of Godwin's law: one has to use better arguments than that. -- Colin (talk)
I understand Mattbuck's argument. All files need to be tagged with the DR notice; then only people watching those images will get an opportunity to respond. This is more important for "in use" images in our sister projects as people have a habit to watch images when they add them to articles. But here I hope they are not used inwiki and believed to be only in borderline scope and no chance for to get used in future too. So not a "terrible mistake" from Yann's side. I can show many examples when admins delete files which are mentioned in deletion discussions while deleting the main files. (In my case, I usually copy paste the DR warnings in files I add later too; but not all people are following it.) Jee09:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Well then all the more criticism applies to Matt, as an experienced DR admin, for being told about the problem by the nominator yet doing nothing about the malformed DR for six days and using the resulting sub-optimal consequence as a weapon in an argument. And the claim that the discussion was "ongoing" is simply false. Really, it is quite obvious that some people want to make capital from minor irrelevancies in order to stir up a contentious topic, or because they dislike the outcome or have some motive to publicly scorn the admin. Which is shameful. -- Colin (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. I'll not blame Matt alone; but it is "their" usual tactics to bully the admins and scream "censorship" when a single file related to nudity is "touched". :) Jee13:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Let's explore the data, okay?
All images deleted for car washing represented 0.00064% of images at Commons;
Events as "Rail trains events" also have around 190 images... none was deleted, and we have tons of trains... One very specific, Wikimania press conference, it's not the whole conference and 170 files, none in risk to be deleted;
Analysing the "importation without criteria"
Some one here entered at the Flickr used to upload those images??
I did, one of the albums have 680 free photos of car washing, another one have 795 free photos! And the uploaded brought 115 pictures, so I'm pretty sure that was not the case of abusive use of the bot...
So the number of images are not the real problem here... Let's see the arguments used:
The argument used to nominate was "entire category is outside of the project scope.""This is an embarrassment to Commons."
And the deletion argument was "Deleted: as per nominator's rationale"
Yann stamped that this is a shame to Commons, and this outside the scope, both are not true. [ad hominem] Beeblebrox is not able to say what's shameful or not on this community
Let's try the nominator...
I have to vent some things, he is just coming here to delete thinks that in his mind should be not here, as this (a ridiculous one), this,..., see a normal here?[/ad hominem]
Now lets search bikini car wash on WP-EN Bikini car wash, oh! Direct to Car wash, barely no information, and... no photo!
On this context most of the Tm complains about "moral panic", is valuable.
Yann entered in his game, and ignored the Tm allegations, that was poorly constructed, but makes sense.
One more thing, we do not erase this images from our system, we keep them, but we hide them from the public, I can't see a reason for that, they are mostly good quality images, can be used in several opportunities, and we are a free community! How/Who you say that we have enough churches, enough trains,... that we can't make pictures of women exploitation... that we can't register a cultural manifestation...
This was a attack on the liberty of the community, and opened a precedent for future massive deletions, we can't ignore that.
@Rodrigo.Argenton: I suggest you ask Yann to reopen the DR. If Yann does not, then there are sufficient grounds to create another DR yourself. I would use a nomination like:
"The previous deletion was closed 1 minute after being created as a keep, with no opportunity of discussion. On examination I find a case here for creative design due to the arrangement of spots around the central ellipse, the use of colour, including text shadowing and highlighting in gold and the monogram/ligature shape using a type of reverse 'E' symbol. These design features go beyond what is the conventional norms for saying this is simple text and polygons."
As I'm not at the keyboard much today, the upload may fall over and remain on hold if the connection to the Flickr API drops out; I'll just re-kick the process when I'm back after dark.
NZ volunteers should probably prioritize categorization and adjusting the date parameter. The date seems obvious for many files as it has been included in the Flickr title or in the Flickr description. Unfortunately it is not a fixed format, and the original date is not used in the Flickr metadata, so the file modified date is being used based on the EXIF data (this is not the same as the Flickr upload date, which is also imported). It could be that VFC could be a useful tool to mass improve these.
So far something like 80% of files are being uploaded. The 20%-ish may be down to image size, so if you want those which are <1000px in size to be uploaded, let me know and I'll do a second sweep. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello everybody! This Flickr account belongs to a Brazilian photographer who, naively or not, has published most of his work under a libre license (CC-BY). Some of his photos seem to me to be useful to this project, but some of them are actually advertisements for copyrighted products. What to do in such cases? Can it be uploaded to Commons? How to deal with a product advertisement whose artist who created it had published it under a CC-BY license? Regards, Sturm (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention. Actually, I was looking properly in the cases that he release some "non finalized" material, with no text or logos added. See, for example, 01, 02, 03, 04 and specially 05. What do you think about these cases? Sturm (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The fact that these have been online for 7 years (supposedly always with this license) with no issues of reuse allow us to be almost sure that the licensing (regardless of it being unrevocable) was not made in error. -- Tuválkin✉✇12:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Sturm see if he is the owns the rights, because normally they are commissioned to do those photos, and don't own the work, the client those. So before the upload, get in touch with him. -- RTA21:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
1) I can't make any sense of the documentation there. "in the normal case where all= is not defined, the names [what names?] are matching only the existing unified categories [what is a "unified category"?] for French regions (in the prefered [preferred] order), but are all displaying the latest official names in French only." And I'm sure once those questions are answered, I'll still be trying to work out what that sentence means. "The tricky cases needed for conversion [conversion of what to what?] are already handled by tests." … "in the all=1 case: they [what is the referent of "they"?] are used temporarily for maintenance purpose[s] (normally only in parent categories listing all regions in order to facilitate the creation or renaming of subcategories [parents of what? An example would sure be useful]" … and something tells me that when that question is answered I'll also still have further questions.
I recently trimmed File:Mispel jm55216.jpg to remove the large, German-language caption that was part of the image. User:Joergens.mi, the image's creator, reverted this pointing out that there were 220 such images and I should make a derivative set of them instead, arguing that the captioned versions are useful because the paper label acts like a reference that proves the filename matches the real-world basket of fruit. Is it better to crop this kind of photo, or to create a duplicate cropped set? --McGeddon (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
(User:Kopiersperre recaptioned the thumbnail I put here to "Mispel", I assume as a joke about the redundancy of an in-image caption. I've changed it back to a flat filename, since it looked like I'd made the joke myself.) --McGeddon (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
If in doubt, duplicate. In this case the "caption" is part of the actual photograph, so a crop is preferable, especially if it is part of a set of similar photos. --Sebari (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@Storkk: The texts in my diagrams are no captions, they are just plot titles. And I pledge to abandon these if not necessary. The difference is that my files are computer-generated and not photographed.--Kopiersperre (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I feel that titles on graphs and captions on images are completely different. Stylistically, a graph without a title isn't correct, and seems misleading. The main reason for removing a caption would be to allow re-users to use differing captions for the same image by context (e.g. 'Mispel' on a page about Mispel and 'Mispel, a type of South African fruit' on a page about Fruit. This also doesn't seem applicable to a graph - a graph shouldn't be retitled based on context. That said, in this case the "caption" is actually part of the composition of the photograph, so I'd tend toward uploading a new file, especially if the uploader prefers that. Also, in this case a crop will still inevitably have bits of the paper in it, which doesn't look that great. BMacZero (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if Commons has a clear policy anywhere, but the {{Convert to international}} template discourages "inside labels or attached captions in a specific script or language", because they're inappropriate when the images are used on projects in other languages. A German-language graph should obviously be retitled "based on context" if that context is an English-language Wikipedia page, and the same goes for photos of fruit. --McGeddon (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a good consensus on Commons to the effect that: 1. if a crop substantially changes the image, it should be uploaded as a separate file, and 2. if someone objects to an overwriting and wants to keep the original file displayable, and unless the objection is unreasonable, then it is a waste of time to start a fight about it and the crop should be uploaded as a separate file. In this case, it is reasonable that someone may want to display the original file. Besides, it is not a "caption". It is the context of the photograph, where visible textual elements on the photograph are in the local language of the place that is being photographed. A case could be made that it is no more defensible to forbid the display of the context of this photograph than it would be to forbid the display of the context of this photograph by asking to overwrite it with a version where the identification of the fruits in the local language would be blanked. It's not more difficult to upload the cropped images as separate files. The difference is that overwriting imposes one subjective view as the only displayable option, whereas keeping separate files respects the possibility for everybody to display the versions. That is one of the central ideas of Commons:Overwriting existing files. When making this sort of crop to the context of a photograph, and especially when someone disagrees with the overwriting, it is unnecessary to argue over it, and the cropped version should just be uploaded as a separate file. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the policy link and the insight into consensus on disputed crops, those were both new to me, and are noted.
When comparing the work involved in cropping versus deriving, I had in mind CropBot (drag and click and done) versus manually duplicating (download original, crop offline, upload to new name, add licence and {{Extracted from}}, check and replace old image usage in international Wikipedia projects) - are there any tools or bots to help with the latter process? --McGeddon (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there a quick way to duplicate an image? And is there a tool for editing other Wikipedia projects which are using the uncropped image? --McGeddon (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi McGeddon, it is very polite to start an discussion here witout informing me. And only take some arguments from our discussion.
My most important argument for having the pictures with the names is for identification, because a lot of them are very similar. An I don't think it is a problem to have one set with an a second set without the names as a derivate work.
Apologies, I was under the impression that mentioning your username in a comment would notify you in the same way it does over at Wikipedia.
Filenames and descriptions seem adequate for the identification of images, and the latter can be written in multiple languages. The problems with two duplicate sets are that (so far as I understand how Commons works) it would involve more work to generate them, any articles which used the images would have to be altered to point to the cropped image instead, and anyone Commons searching for pictures of apple cultivars would have to page through twice as many images, half of them being the same but with the name of the fruit displayed in German.
Are there other advantages to keeping two sets? In what situations would a Commons user prefer a German-captioned photo over a cropped one? (The proof you mention below is a fair point, but that same proof would exist in the file history of a cropped image, for anybody who wanted to check the original printed paper sign.) --McGeddon (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Per {{Convert to international}}, isn't it better for Commons to have photos without in-image captions? If there's a set of apple photos with German text captions, I assume it'd be more useful to the wider project if we cropped all of them. Let me know if I'm missing something. --McGeddon (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi McGeddon, feel free to make a derivate set of the 220 fruits without the names. I'm not a pomologe, and the only chance for me to prove the type of an apple is a picture with the name in the picture, otherwise there will be a lot of discusions, no that's not ... that is... And a lot of them are very similar. see it as a reference, like a reference in an article. And it is easy to derive pictures without the names, and each derivate has a link to the proof of origin with it. Even if you only make the fruits you need, it would be fine. May be usefull to put all the derivates in one category --Jörgens.MiTalk17:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
People can still argue that the labels in the images are wrong, if they feel like it. If you made them yourself then they are no more authoritative than a file name. On the other hand if they were on display like that and are thought to be correct for some reason they I'd say they are worth keeping. --ghouston (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Concerning easy-to-use crop-and-upload-as-new tools, McGeddon should take a look at this: http://tools.wmflabs.org/croptool/ As for the matter at hand, when the “caption” is part of the photographed scene, not something added virtually (like a watermark), it is almost always a good idea to upload a cropped version as a new image. -- Tuválkin✉✇00:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Me three: text included in a photograph should not be treated like captions or “watermarks” that are added after the fact, even if it serves a similar labelling function.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - I'd actually not noticed that CropTool had an "upload as new file" option, that certainly makes things a lot easier. Still not really convinced that anyone would ever have a use for the originals as images (they'd look a bit odd even on the German Wikipedia), but I'll respect what seems to be a consensus. --McGeddon (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Recommendation: Have the Tineye gadget generate HTTPS links
From what one understands, Commons has basically transitioned to being HTTPS-only. Given that the TinEye site supports HTTPS, it would seem useful for the Tineye gadget to generate HTTPS links instead of HTTP links. Given the MediaWiki:Gadget-Tineye.js code, it might be possible to do this by changing imageurl = 'http:' + imageurl; to imageurl = 'https:' + imageurl; and changing mw.util.addPortletLink('p-cactions', 'http://tineye.com/search?url=' + encodeURIComponent(imageurl) + '&sort=size&order=desc', 'TinEye', 'ca-tineye', null); to mw.util.addPortletLink('p-cactions', 'https://tineye.com/search?url=' + encodeURIComponent(imageurl) + '&sort=size&order=desc', 'TinEye', 'ca-tineye', null); though I have not tested as to whether these changes would work. --Gazebo (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Make TinEye and GoogleImages gadgets open in new window
Every time I use the MediaWiki:Gadget-GoogleImages or MediaWiki:Gadget-Tineye gadgets, I want to continue to use the File: page from which I launched it rather than actually navigate to the external search site. I can't think of a single time I have used either of these gadgets and not used my browser features to cause them to open in a new tab or window (except when I forget, and then have to use my browser 'back' button:) Could the gadgets be modified to open in a new window instead of the one from which they are launched? DMacks (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Yup, that's "my browser feature"--a special/different click. Compare to the "Open external links in a new tab/window" gadget that some *.wp sites have to make this the default behavior. DMacks (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Virtually every browser opens links in new tabs by middle-clicking. This gives the user the choice whether to open links in the same or a new tab. Please don't remove that choice. --Sebari (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey all. I'm working on a bot that was previously discussed to work on cleaning up Category:Artwork template with implicit creator etc. I noticed that a lot of the images in these categories have 'Anonymous' or 'Unknown' as the creator. While there are templates for {{Creator:Anonymous}} and {{Creator:Unknown}}, is it actually worthwhile to replace these with the template? It doesn't seem to add any new information to the page like a real creator template would. If not, {{Artwork}} etc. should be adjusted to not place art with those authors in the implicit creator category. BMacZero (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
A decent amount of the "unknown"s, in my experience, are actually pretty well-documented if you check a bit. Oftentimes they'll have visible signatures. We allow a lot of sloppiness with that sometimes. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Idea for OGG viewer: displaying multiple subtitle tracks at once
I have an idea for the OGG viewer used by the Commons to display videos: The ability to use multiple subtitle tracks at once. Consider this United Airlines video which displays English on the bottom and both Japanese and Chinese at the top. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5Rh1I_BT4U - Perhaps somebody will are give a presentation/showing an educational video to multiple linguistic groups and he/she wants the ability for everyone to watch them at the same time. Having the ability to show multiple subtitle tracks would help very much!
Where do I make this suggestion? Who should receive it?
You can submit it to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org . In the project field, specify "mediawiki-extensions-timedmediahandler". However, I wouldn't get your hopes up too much, not very many new features have been added to video support in a very long time. Bawolff (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
If by "have my contributions removed from the site" you mean to revoke the licenses you've already given on your images and have the images removed, you can't do that. CC licenses are irrevocable. As for a courtesy vanishing, see en:Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing. As I understand it, we do it pretty much the same way on Commons, though someone may know some differences I am unfamiliar with. - Jmabel ! talk23:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Normally this is only possible for good reason (uploads made by a minor who now regrets it, possible future harassment material, mistakes of identity...). I have seen this done by email negotiation, which means that the reasons can be discussed in private without drawing unwanted attention in public; in that case accounts were renamed to something anonymous by a steward and links and names on images changed. If the images uploaded were the problem, then these can be deleted as a courtesy, however if the images are well established and there are a significant number (say, thousands) then the problem is that mass deletion will draw a lot of attention and possible public analysis and discussion. Even widely used and correctly licensed images have been quietly deleted in the past, with alternatives then used on Wikipedia articles, based on OTRS discussions where someone had confidential reasons to request a reasonable courtesy deletion.
Where there are potential issues of identification or unwanted outing, I suggest any specific discussion happens via email rather than on-wiki. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
"If the images uploaded were the problem, then these can be deleted as a courtesy" Not at all, this is for short time uploads, normally by mistake.
And we need to remember the purpose of Wikimedia Movement, just because discontent at some volunteers you would remove open valuable resources...
This "courtesy" should be discussed "inside" the community, not by person at OTRS, not by a Stewart.
We don't have the obligation to hide the files, we could as a courtesy, however, in this case, this "courtesy" would affect tremendously this community, and the little that I read, the problem is with a WP volunteer... -- RTA15:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I donated my photos under the condition that my attribution be correct. I had no idea that would be used maliciously upon me. I do not want to continue to expose myself to the type of public ridicule the user is subjecting me to and I simply put do not want my name associated with this site in any way, shape or form. What is more important, how my donations effect the community or how there being used to slander me and my real life work efforts? The unwanted outing started with the problem editors first edit and continues on a daily basis. I want out! Who do I e mail to get this started????? --WPPilot (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
WPPilot, I'm sorry, but it's unclear what, in terms of action from us, you actually want. If someone is slandering you, probably nothing we do in terms of your account will get them to stop slandering. We can't erase all history and make it as if you never contributed here. Is there some Commons administrator whom you trust enough to explain what is going on so that there is some chance of working out a remedy or at least an amelioration? Because it is pretty much impossible to tell from what is above what the problem actually is, other than that you believe someone has mistreated you. - Jmabel ! talk16:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Greetings: I got emails from WPPilot explaining how the situation at en:wiki is affecting his work and life. First let me say that I am grateful and thankful to WPPilot for the amazing images he has donated to Commons. I realize he's had situations with other editors and admins over the time here - but truthfully so have we all.
As best as I can see, there is a effort/project in en:wiki to remove "close paraphrasing" or "quotation" from thousands of articles. At some point in the past (long time ago) WPPilot was reprimanded for this and he apologized instantly. At present, a user who is working on that "quotation" problem, has gone around and tagged most of the articles WPPilot contributed to as possibly containing copyrighted material. The problem comes in that the claims of copyright violation affect his professional situation and income because those viewing the situation who are not wiki volunteers do not see that the tags are for words and not images. The images on these tagged pages are WPPilot's and to an unfamiliar user can look like an attack on WPPilot's pictures, not some words in the text. The tags do not appear to be personally aimed, however, that almost all the articles WPPilot has ever worked on have been tagged. I ran a spot check on articles I've worked on and I didn't find any of these copyright checking tags. So it is possible that the en:wiki admin just ran down WPP's contributions list and tagged all the pages to which he contributed. Perhaps in that en:wiki project this is customary. The end result however, is one very upset contributor to Commons - and for good reason.
I can totally understand WPPilot's frustration with the wiki system. I'd like to ask for discussion on the topic here to see what we at Commons might be able to do to keep WPPilot part of our Common's family. Would a mass-renaming of files help? What else can we actually do? I will be Away From Keys for much of today and tomorrow; please let the discussion run for at least two days without archiving! Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The EN Admin actually was able to find fault with ever page it encountered, as opposed to the prior editors whom in the early aspects of the review for the most part found none. I have granted a license to Wikipedia that my photos be used under one condition, that my name is provided as a credit on it if used. That is the ONLY way I would consider DONATING valuable professional photos to a site, for free. I DO NOT in any way allow anyone to use them with out proper attribution, and regretfully, I no longer want my name involved with this project as the EN Admin whom is clearly gaming the system with this attack, I am done.
Any normal human can see this is deliberate and has been done in a manner that is disparaging and designed to cause me as much harm and humiliation as possible, not one of the editors that address the :list: on EN did anything CLOSE to what this nut case has done going so far as to simply make things up to support the elimination of my EN contributions and make me look like a fucking fool to the people I do business with on a daily basis. I do not want my name involved with Wikipedia or Wikicommons in any way shape or form and I have NO INTENTIONS of donating my photos unless proper attribution is provided. End of story. --WPPilot (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I am Diannaa and I am the person who worked on WPPilot's CCI case on en.wiki. First let me say, WPPilot, that I'm sorry events on Wikipedia are having an impact on your off-wiki life. The following material is adapted from my remarks on my user talk page here at the Commons: When working on CCI cases, we typically start at the bottom of the page. That's for two reasons. First, a script has organized the material so that the articles most likely to have copyright violations appear at the top of the page, and those least likely to contain violations are at the bottom. Most of us prefer to start at the bottom, because the work initially goes quickly and many articles can be cleared in the first few days. The second reason for starting at the bottom is because the material there is simpler, and it gives me a feel for your own writing style and level of competence with the language so that the more complex material at the top can more readily be assessed as to whether you wrote it or copied it from somewhere. The sections at the bottom cover small edits such as 187-byte additions which may be the addition of a citation or a photograph. On your investigation, the bottom three sections (which were worked on by other investigators) were clear of violations, and as we work our way up the page, there's more complex material, larger edits, and more violations in each group. That's why I found more violations than the other people who worked on the case: the smaller edits had for the most part already been checked. This is the same for every case. Compare (for example) the case en:Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Norden1990. The bottom sections are almost completely clean, and the top section has eight so far out of the group of twenty, with five articles remaining to be checked.
Regarding the templates, there's two that are used (en:template:cclean and en:template:CCI), and they are both recommended, but many people omit placing them on the talk page. Template:CCI is recommended to be placed on the talk page when content is removed presumptively, ie, when it's a pretty obvious copy vio but the source document cannot be found. The templates are not meant as badges of shame but rather are placed there to help prevent unwary editors from re-adding the content to the page. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Intent and outcome are different things. Do you have any suggestions of how to change the way this works so that the templates are not badges of shame that can drive away contributors? A best practice limit before having a detailed discussion with the contributor could be a way forward. --Fæ (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Fæ, I don't understand your second sentence. As to suggestions for what to do, upon re-reading the instructions, I see that adding the pointer to the case page is optional, so I will go back right now and remove it from the templates I added to article talk pages for WPPilot's case. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment My observation: I remember the frustrated discussions happened when some of WPPilot's uploads faced DRs earlier. I had handled some OTRS tickets too. Everything ended as fine and calm later. My understanding from that case is that WPP responds very aggressively when something happens, making the situation out of control. I don't know what happened now; but what I understood from his EN talk is not so good. Anyway what already had happened is over. It will be wise to stay calm and negotiate with the Arbcom as far as possible. It will be nice if the block will be removed.
In Commons, the languages herea and here are not so good. Please be calm here too.
It may be possible to remove every instances of the "real name" from his files here. But the use of it in file name and in description make it difficult. He can ask Odder or any other COM:OVs for any practical possibilities. Jee06:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Ohh sure, stay calm why you look for a new job, What great advice, your a regular brain surgeon... I no longer want to be involved on anything to do with Wikianything..... --WPPilot (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Jee, "I remember the frustrated...", "In Commons...", this type of comment will just add fuel for nothing. We are trying to solve a issue, not extend it... And we are people, we have frustrations, angry, ..., suggestions to suppress this feelings are ridiculous. (Thank you)
Moving on!
"before having a detailed discussion with the contributor could be a way forward."
Hooray!!! We should discuss with the volunteer, to understand his points, and whys, not start a series of accusations, transparency should be all moments "we are initiating one task to remove CopyVio and our name appeared, could you see what's going on?" < this would avoid all this mountain of poop created. -- RTA12:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
RTA, what "issue" we are trying to resolve here? Its all happened at EN where we've no control over it. He can't comment there as he had already blocked with a very strong reason (Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked: legal threat on talk page, threatening emails). It is not our job to evaluate the merit of that block here; not our practice to allow discussions on such things here. I already explained him the point of contacts if he want to remove his names from files. (Nothing more I need to add; just pinging Jameslwoodward who closed last DR.) Jee14:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The issue is removing tons of images for courtesy, as result of WP aggressive manners. And again, "Its all... emails)." it's totally unnecessary. -- RTA15:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
"aggressive manners" that's amusing. I in detail explained via e mail the exact cause and effect this has had, and she seems to fully understand. I am not going to address the block, one that I think is really silly, never the less, I have every right to protect myself, as should everyone from harm that was/is caused from the honorable donation of valuable work. That is playing the system. No good deed goes unpunished. --WPPilot (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thank you Diannaa for driving away a feature producer. they forget nothing and they learn nothing. i would suggest that commons consider doing as the user asks and delete all his work. send the bill to english - maybe one day they will stop the outrageous witchhunts. Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge20:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response -- I was away for the Thanksgiving holiday. Jee asked for my comment because I closed the last DR. I saw there a user who wasted 2,700 words of our time arguing over a point of law that is completely clear and solidly established here. The request here seems to be much the same. We rarely delete people's contributions, and then only soon after upload, usually because a mistake was made. We never delete contributions because the uploader has decided that he no longer wants to be part of the project. Irrevocable means just that and there is no point in creating exceptions -- while we might be able to find replacements for use on WMF projects, it can create serious problems for off-WMF users. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The rights that I granted provide that my name MUST be provided as photographer in any use, that includes the EN project. In most cases off Wiki the end user simply provides the credit to Wikicommons. On ALL cases that my work has been stolen by Facebook it is nice enough to strip my name from the file name and once again credits no one on Facebook and renames the file: safe_image.jpg. That is a CLEAR violation of the CC license I granted use under and is a violation of the terms that you are kind enough to point out. Please remove my photos from this site and provide me with a courtesy vanishing. Continued display here of my images is allowing this violation to continue and make Commons complicit in the violation of the terms that these images are provided to Wikipedia, enabling people/org's to continue to violate this condition only causes me further damages and exposure to malicious users, as I outlined once already.. --WPPilot (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
See this example. So people pick right attribution even if finding my photos from the Media Viewer in Wikipedia too. (The file name is mentioned two times in Media Viewer; so T119686 is trying to solve it.)
If you need help to improve your attribution parameters in your file pages, do let me know. Deleting from Commons is not a solution for it! :) Jee03:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Done, but I stil find that there should be a way to keep the older non-corrected versions from cluttering the categories. Most readers are absolutely not interested in these.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Image from BHL Flickrstream
Image from BHL archives_(7629495340).jpg)
_BHL38946305.jpg)
Fæ (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
BHL ItemID 65713, PageID 20045902
BHL ItemID 54050, PageID 15913942
_(6029917694).jpg)
.jpg)
Thank you. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
![[3]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/Henry_Johnson.PNG/170px-Henry_Johnson.PNG){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Fixed The problem seems to be caused by phabricator:T49673 and was fixed by User:Zhuyifei1999. Please see mw:Talk:Snippets/Horizontal_lists#Empty_items. --Jarekt (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
![[8]](https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia/photos/a.10151957291753346.1073741826.33138223345/10153616437243346/?type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent.fmel1-1.fna.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-xaf1%2Ft31.0-8%2F12188054_10153616437243346_6854677321422162151_o.jpg&smallsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent.fmel1-1.fna.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-xfl1%2Fv%2Ft1.0-9%2F12193315_10153616437243346_6854677321422162151_n.jpg%3Foh%3D6363a74dd459dce642daf3e63f5d7745%26oe%3D56F4D02B&size=2048%2C1533&fbid=10153616437243346){kind=link}
![[10]](http://images.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=http://farzanirbb.persiangig.com/document/chookhe%2520(17).jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.neys.blogfa.com/%3Fp%3D26&h=960&w=1280&tbnid=Xsmh8MOCNiYLnM&tbnh=194&tbnw=259&usg=__kDgkDHuj3vTcML61q5oNMSJ69yY%3D&docid=keZXdx5rDtDXKM){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AChukhah_wrestle_-_Nishapur.jpg&type=revision&diff=179777949&oldid=102295517){kind=link}
and 
A work around was done for 
by converting text to a path but this does not work for files that use switch. The SVG is valid, as confirmed by this tool. Could someone please at least open a Phabricator tag or bug report for this issue so that it does not continue to be ignored? Delphi234 (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
![[12]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/5/54/20151120164618%21Temp.png){kind=link}
Comment You can see at the top of that page the (slightly difficult to see) remark "A WMF deletion of a critical database table has broken the report. I'll amend the programme within a few weeks, real life commitments creating a backlog. Fæ (Discussão) 11:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)". Hope it helps. Tm (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[15]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Daheim_1868.pdf/page111-1239px-Daheim_1868.pdf.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
