Commons:Village pump/Archive/2016/07

Brexit flags

What's next?

Now that the British have decided that they will leave the EU, it's just a matter of time before Great Britain will break up. As you know, the Union Jack is made up of the flags of England, Scotland and Ireland. The only question I have is whether Scotland will leave first, or whether Ireland will? Logically, the Union Jack should be altered by taking out either the Scottish or Irish flag, depending on who will move first. Would somebody with the right graphics skills would want to have a go creating the two possible permutations of the Union Jack, and add that to the adjacent graphic? Schwede66 19:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

This is needless speculation Oxyman (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Isn't original research also banned on Commons?? 62.252.189.66 22:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

62.252.189.66 -- The short answer is "No", not in the same way that it's forbidden on English-language Wikipedia. AnonMoos (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Oxyman. It isn't up to us to decide what flags people will use in the future. We also don't know if/when the UK (not Great Britain, which is an island, not a country) will break up. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Schwede66 -- a number of speculative flags of the UK minus Scotland were uploaded here in advance of the 2014 referendum... AnonMoos (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

See Category:Proposed flags of the United Kingdom less Scotland... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Sharpening on resized versions

Hi. This one might need an experienced Commons photographer's input. I am having issues with some high-quality images and uploading to the Commons. When uploading, the full-resolution JPEGs look great, but the thumbnail versions all look *horribly* over-sharpened.

I'm wondering why this might be, and what can be done. All I have found out so far is that MediaWiki does provide sharpening to JPEGs, and that the issue is marginally less so (but still fairly severe) when a slightly lower resolution is uploaded at first.

I understand that the average slightly blurry JPEG might need these sharpening, but when it's already pin sharp - by virtue of a good camera and perfect focus - it is making images look horrible. This is an issue for a photographer trying to provide hundreds of images, but worried about the prospect of looking bad when the average person is going to see a photo that looks over-processed.

If the on-site sharpening is causing this, is there a way to force an upload without sharpening to the resized issues? Or any other workaround, like uploading a specific resolution? Looking for a solution. KaisaL (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there's no way to override the thumbnail generation process. You could try creating a PNG version, possible at lower sizes, and see if the result looks any better. There's an old related past ticket on thumbnail sharpening at phab:T26857, but if you have several examples to illustrate the problem, it would be worth raising a new ticket in Phabricator for investigation. --Fæ (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggest bringing the question to @Adam Cuerden: , whose attention to detail has earned him an astonishing degree of expertise in this matter. Rama (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

PNG does solve the issue - albeit at the compromise of double the file size - but any other input or solutions are welcome. Worried PNG sharpening could be introduced which would bring this problem back. KaisaL (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

What we really need is a default sharpening that can be overridden on the file page; I think the sharpening applied to JPEGs is generally better than the lack that PNGs get, but defaults will never cover all cases. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: The problem I have is that the JPEG sharpening just decimated the image that was uploaded. PNG is the only option, and the thumbnails look great (because they don't need work, they're professionally shot), but now I'm worrying someone will come through and just convert to JPEG (probably badly) and destroy the work that has been done. It's possibly the images may have to be withdrawn from upload because it's too much of a risk to reputations that they might be tampered with by editors that don't understand the issue. (Also, the lack of metadata on PNG isn't ideal either.) KaisaL (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: , Suggestion: It might seem over the top, but given this is a known issue and certain images are seemingly better as PNG, could a template of some sort to indicate an image is to be left as PNG be an option? Obviously on the licensing side the images can be freely converted, but in terms of on the Commons, such a notice might indicate that due to sharpening problems it's in that format here. A sort of "This image is provided at PNG due to a known issue with sharpening, and the author has requested it be left in this format". Thoughts? I think this is a fringe issue to many but for professional photographers it could easily put them off contributing. KaisaL (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: , me again. One more thought, this comes from Commons:File types: "PNG is good for practically anything except digital camera photographs, including scanned images (though with a caveat – see the note on sharpening below), print-quality photographs, and low color depth images." Given the images are high resolution, and count as print quality, is that justification for the images to be in PNG as a preferred format and thus nobody should convert them? KaisaL (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You can also just explain this in the image descriptions. Having a special template for it does not make the point any less valid, in fact anyone later with doubts will probably make more effort to talk to you before changing anything, just because your note looks personal rather than a mass change via some bot. --Fæ (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@KaisaL: Well, remember that defaults on sharpening can be changed at any time: You don't want a situation where the defaults change, and your PNGs now don't look right (indeed, a colourspace bug (I think at least partially browser-side) has been affecting PNG thumbnails when viewed in Firefox at the moment). And not sharpening will cause problems with a different class of images, particularly older ones and engravings. So this isn't a one-size-fits-all situation, and the solution isn't to treat it as such. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Perhaps, but in the immediate the issue is that there's a lot of photos to be provided that need to be uploaded. So in the short-term I'm looking for a solution, but sharpening options definitely should be introduced. Even if it's just a no sharpen option for advanced users that regenerates thumbnails? KaisaL (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

For the time being I will request the images be left in the PNG format, but a 'no sharpen' option would be the obvious solution. To avoid misuse it could perhaps be restricted to more advanced upload tools. Perhaps this could be proposed to the relevant developers? KaisaL (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

What about using/uploading TIFF images? As long as DNG is not supported on Commons, you'll have an EXIF compliant format in that way that should bypass the JPEG thumbnailing issue... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@KaisaL: You probably want some sharpening on thumbnails: the thumbnailer, without sharpening, tends to add a slight blur to the image, which is also a problem. I tend to think the JPEG over-sharpening is better than the PNG blurriness, but neither is ideal. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: I disagree on the images in question (as did three or so people privately shown comparisons), because when the images are shot professionally, pin sharp and high resolution and full of colour and dynamic range, no sharpening is needed. PNG thumbnails look perfect, not blurred. I think that's exactly why advanced options should be available for professional users (and to encourage any silent professionals that may have been put off by the effects of processing on their work) to decide what's best for their images. If you're capable of taking professional photos, you tend to prepare them perfectly before upload. No sharpen should be an option, perhaps a lower level of sharpening too. KaisaL (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Admittedly, I'm mainly comparing older photography, like Dorothea Lange, which has some degree of film grain that limits the sharpness despite being, on the whole, very sharp; it may be that black and white sharpens less successfully, or the like. We should experiment, but, aye, we need to have the ability to tweak. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@KaisaL and Adam Cuerden: Let's put up a Phabricator feature request. Would you like to write it, or shall I? Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: I added one last night, here it is if you'd like to contribute: Link KaisaL (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: : Just for reference, TIFF files are also sharpened [unless lossless option specified, then they are treated like pngs] (Tiff files are sharpened using a different program than jpegs if the tiff file is big. Both programs use the same sharpening settings, so should look roughly the same, but its possible you might get slightly different results than the jpegs. Bawolff (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I’ve also observed this over-sharpening earlier. But depending on the image the mechanism can go wrong the other direction, cf. file Schloss Charlottenhof Park Sanssouci Potsdam.jpg in different preview sizes (as far I as know default or often used sizes here and in several Wikipedias):

(Seems it has been a caching issue. Hence deactivted.)

{{multiple image |align=center |image1=Schloss Charlottenhof Park Sanssouci Potsdam.jpg |width1=100 |caption1=100px |image2=Schloss Charlottenhof Park Sanssouci Potsdam.jpg |width2=120 |caption2=120px |image3=Schloss Charlottenhof Park Sanssouci Potsdam.jpg |width3=150 |caption3=150px |image4=Schloss Charlottenhof Park Sanssouci Potsdam.jpg |width4=180 |caption4=180px |image5=Schloss Charlottenhof Park Sanssouci Potsdam.jpg |width5=200 |caption5=200px }} {{multiple image |align=center |image1=Schloss Charlottenhof Park Sanssouci Potsdam.jpg |width1=220 |caption1=220px |image2=Schloss Charlottenhof Park Sanssouci Potsdam.jpg |width2=250 |caption2=250px |image3=Schloss Charlottenhof Park Sanssouci Potsdam.jpg |width3=300 |caption3=300px }} Deactivated: –Speravir (Talk) 22:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

And with PNG you can fall into another trap: They are sometimes displayed too light or too dark in preview, see e.g. image Marianne von Preußen.png (see also old file versions and confer preview with pure image view in your browser). For greyscale images there is a Phabricator ticket: phab:T106516, but this image was in its first version not uploaded in greyscale: Coignet-AqueducDeLaVannes.png. (Since you have already have been here: FYI @Bawolff.) — Speravir_Talk – 18:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow that's a rather stunning example of tdifferences. However, I think this is due to caching of old versions of files from some point in the past where sharpening was messed up. After purging the file, the images look much better to me. Bawolff (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Stunning to me is now, that I already had tried to purge several times in past, but nothing changed there. — Speravir (Talk) – 21:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC) (Update: Oh, I should have searched and read Help:Purge. –Speravir (Talk) 22:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC))

I think it's important to note that while a brilliant photograph, it's only uploaded at just over 1,000 pixels so wouldn't really count as high resolution. Images uploaded at 4,000px and such can look horrendous in the lower resolution versions more commonly viewed. KaisaL (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The original on Flickr is 2048x1536, not sure why it was uploaded here as 1024x768. Delphi234 (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Good finding, Delphi234. I’ve uploaded this bigger version now. — Speravir_Talk – 22:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Gender by name

This weekend we probably reach the milestone of 300,000 entries in Category:People by name. To celebrate this achievement, could an administrator please decide on the open CfDs for Category:Men by name (flat list) and Category:Women by name (flat list), which have been opened more than a year ago? (I can well understand that nobody likes to dive into the murky waters of gender-related categorization as it is a totally chaotic situation at all depth levels. But at least at the uppermost level a decision should be made before 300,000 categories are edited in the wrong way.) Well, more likely they are not edited at all, but please decide the CfD nontheless. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

July 02

Influx of copyright violations from Hindi users via Outreach?

I can't be the only one noticing the increase in copyright violations from Hindi users with crosswiki activity on outreach:. Does anyone know what's going on? What are these users (not) being told? Are the Upload Wizards instructions in Hindi lacking? —LX (talk, contribs) 00:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@LX: First off, thanks. I have alerted the Outreach community. Simply put, the standards for plagiarism and respect of copyright are very low in many places throughout the world (and, speaking as an American, there are a lot of problems with them in my country as well--please don't misunderstand me). I think that the issue is not one unique to South Asia but it's one that I have noticed more from users from there versus (e.g.) China because I am an English speaker and many South Asians have a decent grasp of my language. I think this is a useful microcosm for reflecting on the fact that implicit in all of the WMF projects is a set of values and not just a software that allows for some cool stuff. And broadcasting those values as well as ensuring the community norms uphold them is very difficult. Especially so if you are trying to coordinate amongst 250 language communities spread across the entire globe. I'm not sure if I have any good solutions but those are my immediate observations. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

اپلود ویدئو

چه فرمتی برای ویدئو انتخاب کنم و اینکه چرا ونمیتوانم فیلم اپلود کنم و خطای عدم دریافت تصویر کوچک از فیلم میاید — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hosseinme (talk • contribs) 06:41, 02 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hosseinme: Commons:File types العموم فقط يقبل حر ملف أنواع —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate or not?

Look at this: 2006 User:AndiF, which is the original photographer Andreas Fränzel, uploaded File:Potsdam St. Nikolaikirche 2005.jpg. In 2013 User:GUMPi created an file update with perspective corrections there. But independently in 2012 a bot moved the same photo in smaller resolution from Wikivoyage to Commons under the name File:Potsdam-Nikolaikirche.jpg. It has been clearly a duplicate then, but should we treat this the same way nowadays? I would say, yes, but want to ask you before doing some further action. — Speravir_Talk – 17:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It is a duplicate but not an exact duplicate. You'd better to proceed by openning a deletion request. Ruslik (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hm, some more opinions? — Speravir_Talk – 22:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I had another idea. — Speravir_Talk – 17:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Speravir (Talk) 17:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Ships, circa 1890s

I've been categorizing a lot of images in Category:Images from the Frank La Roche Photographs Collection to check. There are quite a few identified ships for which we lack categories, mostly in photos from the 1890s. I'm not entirely sure how to go about building categories for these and could use some help.

Many of the ships are at port in Seattle. If you are not sure about the geographically-related categories, please, when adding ship-related categories, leave them in Category:Images from the Frank La Roche Photographs Collection to check and I'll get to them. - Jmabel ! talk 15:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

There are even more identified ships like that in Category:Images from the Wilhelm Hester Photographs Collection to check. I found two sites that have a lot of these ships and have most of the info you need to make a category: [1] [2]. I thought about making a tool to take care of the boilerplate of making these ship categories - might try it this weekend. BMacZero (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I threw together a pretty basic tool to generate ship categories. It might save you a little time. You can try it by adding mw.util.addPortletLink('p-tb', 'javascript:importScript("User:BMacZero/shipcat.js")', 'Create ship category'); to your common.js, and it will add a "Create ship category" button to the left side "Tools" bar. BMacZero (talk)

Thanks, I'll try that at some point, though it looks like it depends on knowing more about these ships than I know. - Jmabel ! talk 21:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Most of the info is optional, the only mandatory field is the Name, and at least one of the years would be nice if it's know. BMacZero (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

South African wikipedians: photo request: Chlorophytum comosum

All of the photos of Chlorophytum comosum are of garden cultivars; Commons does not have one single photo of the species growing naturally in its native environment in South Africa. Can any of our South African contributors help out, please? More info on the species (including where to find it) at PlantZAfrica. Thanks! [PS yes I know there's a dedicated Commons:Picture requests section, but it is defunct]. - MPF (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth 2016 Photo contest

Hi:

I don't know what is the purpose of this contest but it was particularly taken to heart by Indian contributors (Wiki Loves Earth India 2016 Photo contest) and is causing numerous problem to picture categories. It attract new users to upload tons of photos that are over-categorized by them, most often into 4 categories or more and most of them either unrelated or vague or redirection to other categories.

For instance, many images are uploaded with categories like :

• Nature, Landscapes, Beauty... all mother-categories that becomes glogged with pictures that must be redistributed into better related sub-categories or the category eliminated.
• Redirections to real categories: Sunset instead of Sunsets, Landscape instead of Landscapes, etc... Even categorizing into the real and redirection categories at the same time.
• Using mass uploading with a series of categories when each picture clearly represent diffrent things, most often not related to the categories used.

I just wonder what is the use of uploading such a large number of pictures that are not at all used by articles of Wikipedia and why the uploading process is not providing better suggestion of categories, avoiding the redirection ones at least???

Pierre cb (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• It would be good practice if upload tools respected the use of templates like {{Categorise}} or {{CatDiffuse}}. Perhaps someone who follows the WLE India contest can advise which were the most used tools? For my mass upload projects where I aim to autodetect suitable categories, I always test for the presence of these templates, and so using these templates becomes an easy solution against often flooded main categories. A simple example of this in practice is at User:Fæ/Project_list/NYPL#Categorization for an upload of significantly more than 100,000 images. I skip redirected categories by finding the target (bots can use the Commons API to work this out), however category redirects which use the redirection template may be used and get tidied up within a day by RussBot without any drama (though the category they are moved to just might be one with a CatDiffuse template!). --Fæ (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Pierre cb, that’s hardly any consolation but the issue you refer to concerning WLE2016 has been routinely happening in all "WL" campaigns: A flood of mostly uninteresting items that becomes a nightmare to curate. Yet "WL" campaigns are celebrated as a great thing, and there are money prizes and accolades for the winners — while when you work hard hundreds of hours to curate that material and make it actually useful, nobody even notices.

That said, two remarks:

1. Four categories is not too much, in absolute terms. (I often categorize regular “tourist” photos into 15-20 cats, see example; it can be done when the depicted subjects are themselves categorized in detail.) Of course, four badly used categories is too much, but then again even one is.
2. Being used in Wikipedia articles is merely one of several inclusion criteria. There are many thousands of excellent media items hosted in Commons which are not, nor ever will, be used in Wikipedia: Commons is a curated free media repository, not just a common upload space for other WMF projects.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

They also added ~5k files to Category:Media with erroneous locations. I fixed about 1k with my bot, but much more has to be done and many issues will have to be fixed by hand. --Jarekt (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there any way to have these competitions address a more specific scope? I didn't maintain the uploads for the past two weeks to categories that I would normally keep an eye on and now Category:Nature went from a "clean" category to 1000+ uncategorised images, mainly from "Wiki loves..." competitions. I'm not going to clear them out any more, it's just too much work! If competitions in future could be targeted more precisely, to fill up specific categories to which the entries can be uploaded instead of trusting the hordes of newbies to correctly categorise their uploads, or, as seems usual here on Wikimedia, to hope that these uploads magically recategorise themselves, i.e. dump them onto the people who try to maintain the categories, the workload on contributors such as me would be greatly reduced. That way we can get on with doing more important things then just cleaning up other people's mess. - Takeaway (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm moving the thousands of images that have been dumped straight into Category:Nature, Category:Landscapes, Category:National parks and such into their respective "uncategorized" subcategories such as Category:Uncategorized images of nature. If anybody feels like going through them (the Wiki Loves... organisers for instance), please do! At least this way I can keep track of what is coming in new. - Takeaway (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Huge inflow of files with bad names

Lately, there has been a large inflow of images of nature (plants, animals, birds etc.) with bad names. Many of them seem to be related to Wiki Loves Earth 2016, but from different countries. Is there a documentation page which Wiki Loves Earth users read and misinterpret when naming their files, or is there some other way to reach out to Wiki Loves Earth users before they upload badly named files? It takes a lot of time for other users to come up with appropriate names for the files, and it would be better if the uploaders could name their files approrpriately themselves. Here are some examples of badly named files:

• 
  Ursus thibetanus pair, National Zoo, Delhi.jpg
• 
  Brassica field, 2016.jpg
• 
  Cebidae monkey, species unknown, in Pantanal Matogrossense National Park, Brazil, 2015.jpg
• 
  Piglets of wild boar in Parambikulam, India.jpg

Stefan2 (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I saw that too and I even went so far and opened some DR on files of, let's say, "sub standard" quality (blurred, unsharp, noisy, bad crop), when it was a common subject, by the rationale that it's an abuse of our collaborative working principle to discharge images here on Commons without taking care for at least a little bit curating work for reusers. But, when thinking about it - this "Wiki loves..." stuff is a competition, isn't it? I tend to believe that those names are an attempt at making an entry stand out somewhat by evoking some emotions, a thing that people would have learned from game shows akin of XX's Next idol or I'm a celebrity, take me out here, or simpler, by observing what kind of story or media provides the maximum of positive feedback or successfully on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram or every other social media asset, thus reinforcing some behaviour as shown here (emotionally named images). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not only the file names, we get even more invalid categorizations from these competitions. It's a great thing that new users are attracted to Commons, but we need to tell them how this project works. The local competition pages should put a bigger focus on this, and most of all, If we'd put just a little more work into the upload form, we could save a lot of extra work. Every input field of the UploadWizard needs a simple and straightforward explanation of what to put there and what not, including examples that illustrate frequent mistakes. These help texts must be adaptable to local languages. Especially in the categorization field, non-english users need some extra input so they select existing and appropriate categories, instead of thinking up descriptive category names in their local language. Another field prone to errors is geocoding. There do exist tools that understand a wide range of coordinate formats. Our UploadWizard, however, seems to be unable to interpret the most common formattings of coordinates in Germany. Ideally, a tool like GeoLocator would be integrated into the upload form. --Sitacuisses (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd noticed this too, and concur fully with the above comments. Additionally, far too many of these new pics (particularly those from the India competition) have textual location info put where geocoding should be; this is again due to poor wording in the upload form. And definitaly agree, that better guidance on categories is needed, like "for photos of animal or plants, use the scientific name of the animal or plant shown for the category". - MPF (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we generally have a hugely better standard of documentation than many other repositories for user images. I often find a nice image copied from Flickr, which I cannot use because of lacking descriptions. It is not surprising that many new users first follow those lower standards. Categories, on the other hand, are a real problem for non-English users. I think writing descriptive names in a native language is much better than just using a general valid category name. If I stumble upon "kråka" "Sundsvalls kommun" it is easy to substitute "Corvus corone cornix" and "Nature in Sundsvall", while a "Birds" "Sweden" is more difficult to put in those categories (unless the information was put in the description instead). How many users know scientific names by heart? How can you know whether something is a sledge or a sleight? A hut or a cabin? There are lots of very confusing category structures on Commons. Having a decent description and some existing category is probably the most important. Specifics on what we want from the description differs too much by subject to be put in the upload form. --LPfi (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

+1 It's been said on the village pump many, many times before, but Commons categories need a massive rethink. Unfortunately it's hard to imagine re-inventing the way we use categories in small easy steps. As an example, there's no Category:Cornish chough or even the basic noun Category:Chough, instead I would have to pretend to be a birder or an academic species taxonomist and use Category:Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax or other Category:Corvidae subspecies. My past experience from attempting to create useful category redirects from common names to the scientific name has been that some keen deletionist with sysop powers will later delete them, so I now don't waste my time. From the viewpoint of 99% of the real public, the perverse obscurity of categorization on this project is nuts. --Fæ (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fæ: IMO using scientific nouns for biological genera or species in our category system is the sole system that allows for any kind of multilingual support in this field, as common names aren't precise and unique enough. That said, I'd support any kind of compromise for using common names as redirects in cats. But to avoid highjacking this thread, we would need another place to discuss this, why not by working on a RfC (which would avoid any hassle with the so-called deletionists)? Is there any specific "forum" for discussing categories here on Commons (as it is on several Wikipedias)? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The best place to discuss a new 'norm' for when category redirects should be left or created for common names would be this Village pump, though obviously under a new thread. I don't want to invest a lot of time working out a new proposal (I'm really short on decent volunteer time) but would be happy to chip in if someone creates a thread and starts a meaningful proposal for a guideline on when to keep redirects that would probably be simplest if then added as a section in Commons:Categories. --Fæ (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fæ: please take a look here. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons

Hey may you please mind if you can help me create a Wikimedia commons Swahili. I l would be really happy if you do that. Thank you Trunzep (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you mean by "a Wikimedia commons Swahili". Could you expand? Unlike Wikipedia, there is only one Commons; it's a multilingual project, although English is specifically preferred for some purposes. - Jmabel ! talk 16:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
• Perhaps he means doing a Swahili translation of our main page? INeverCry 22:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Translating the most important help and guidelines pages, and setting up a village pump in Swahili, would be needed too, to get a working Swahili environment for contributors. The most important is of course to have enough Swahili speakers around, but an own village pump is good for letting them find each other. --LPfi (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:User sw may help too. --ghouston (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

July 03

Illustrate content related to art techniques

Dear all, I am an art teacher and I would like to offer my students to illustrate process, concepts or material of art (drawing, watercolor, charcoal, tempera ...). I have seen that are few images on those articles and I was thinking to ask them to my students as a assessment for the class. Anyone has a particular request about these subjects? Or any suggestion? Thank you very much{{|16:45, 03 July 2016|Merileri}}

@Merileri: I'm not completely sure what you are specifically asking. If English is not your native language, feel free to post in your native language. Wikimedia Commons is a multi-lingual project and someone else who speaks your language may be able to help you. BMacZero (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

They are proposing getting students to create images that show techniques etc., for creating art. It's possible that Commons does have some images on the process of creating art works, even if they are not used on the relevant Wikipedia articles. Somewhere under Category:Art techniques perhaps. Using the search box for particular words may help. --ghouston (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, I think such a project would be very useful. If there isn't any such project hidden somewhere (and I doubt there is), we might have the odd image on the subject, but not complete series of the different aspects. Those could now be made and uploaded. Once the categories are set up, it is easy to add images found, but I think that is just an additional bonus. Setting up a good category hierarchy would be an important part of the project, but help from us who know Commons would probably be needed for that part. The categories or the image descriptions (preferably both) should also make clear the intent, as somebody might confuse them with "amateur art" (which often is not regarded to be in project scope). --LPfi (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all that. The problem with the existing categories in Category:Art techniques is that the categories generally seem to contain finished products and not aspects of performing the techniques. --ghouston (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@ Merileri Suggest you ask this question on our sister project Reference desk/Humanities. Although we have an article on such subjects as Tempera that will not be of much use to your students as it does not explain how to prepare the egg yokes but other editors may give you leads. For instance, I used to use Fuller's earth but this following method is as good as any :Egg tempera . Also, don't be prudish and avoid introducing them to 'Life Studies'. You could even offer oneself as model for them, in the interest of the exploration of art.--P.g.champion (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

yokes => yolks. - Jmabel ! talk 19:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for your suggestions, I am glad that you think this is a good idea. I will try to find the right category hierarchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merileri (talk • contribs) 22:17, 05 July 2016 (UTC)

July 04

Euthanasia Coaster

Hi, today I uploaded two pictures of a model of the Euthanasia Coaster (File:Euthanasia Coaster at XX1T International Exhibition, Milan - 1.jpg and File:Euthanasia Coaster at XX1T International Exhibition, Milan - 2.jpg) but I am afraid that there is possibly a copyright problem. The model was at a public exhibition and it is not an artwork itself or a model of an artwork but of a conceptual art of a non-existing coaster, thus I am not sure about copyright rules for Commons. If there is a copyright problem, please delete them. Thanks! --Nungalpiriggal (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nungalpiriggal, It depends on the laws concerning Panorama rights in the country where the photo was taken. Even though the photo is your own work, the artist of the artwork of which you made a picture, also may have rights on the pictures that are being made of his/hers artwork. Please read Commons:Freedom of panorama. If the picture was made in Milan, Italy, then the Italian laws on Panorama photo's apply. What I advise you not to do, is to put the responsibility of correcting mistakes you possibly make on the community of Commons. Not when you on beforehand realize there may be a conflict with copyright laws. Then you should consider asking advice before you start uploading files. In this case I suspect nomination for deletion is on it's place. I'd wish those specific laws where different, but they aren't. Regards, --OSeveno (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for you advise and sorry for my mistake. I learnt the lesson and next time I will be more careful before uploading an image. I put both file in speedydeletion. Thank you again. --Nungalpiriggal (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem, mistakes are human. Glad to be able to help out. --OSeveno (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Correct color categorization of flowers?

Recently I wanted to categorize flower colors and realized that color names and presented color samples are different from those defined by the W3C standard, see Template talk:Navigation Flowers by color. Could we agree on some defined color model than just on (perhaps) “oh my gut feeling is guessing this could be violet” ;-)? What procedure is to follow to come to an agreement? --Andreas () 12:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Duplicates & duplicates

Would it be right to tag File:City of Seattle (steam ferry).jpeg as a duplicate of File:Steam ferry CITY OF SEATTLE, Puget Sound, ca 1891 (LAROCHE 222).jpeg? It's not an exact duplicate, but it seems to be an inferior scan of the same underlying photo. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't... I can see how it would be more useful than the "better" version (closer crop, less distracting background), and in fact it is in use. They should certainly link to each other through the "other versions" field, though. But in any case, I think if they're not very close duplicates, it should go through a DR rather than {{Duplicate}}. In such a DR in this case, I would {{Vk}}. Storkk (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

These may be scans of different prints, but it's hard to tell. I would keep in a DR as multiple old prints of the same photo or artwork are useful if anyone wants to try a digital restoration. --Fæ (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-27

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• A daily email summary of notifications could be sent even when there were no notifications from the wiki. Now no email will be sent if there is no activity. [3]

Changes this week

• The "⧼citoid-citefromidtool-title⧽" button in the visual editor's toolbar will move into the "Insert" menu except for Wikipedias, Wikibookses and Wikiversities. This is to make it less prominent on wikis that don't use it as much. [4]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 July. It will be on all wikis from 7 July (calendar).

Meetings

• You can take part in the next office hour for Wikidata on IRC on July 8 at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

July 05

Possible altered picture of a moose

As stated here there are some doubts about a moose picture, namely this one. it is from NBII (US gov't, now closed), but an IP on itwiki pointed out that some details are odd. He pointed out the way the scratches of the tyres stop, for example, I am not sure about that, but as far as I can see the contrast of the moose looks too "neat" and its shadow is darker than the shadow of the tree in the background.

Is this picture "retouched" or maybe a fake? I mean we've been using it on many articles for years as if it were true, but maybe it is not.

Also, if some expert photograph can "prove" it is "retouched" , what should we do?--Alexmar983 (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The assertions are vague. If there is proof then a deletion request is next, on the basis that the photographer's release may not be sufficient to include creative manipulation by others. --Fæ (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks genuine to me. The tyre scratches stop if the car is standing still or the driver releases the break. The shadow from the moose is darker than that from the tree because the moose is a solid object whereas the leaves from the tree always let same light through and so the shadow is diffuse. --Magnus (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the tyres are a doubtful detail, I was just reporting it. I already though about the difference between the shadow of moose and tree (and the street light) and I was coming here to compare with the shadow of the edge of the road. I downloaded and enlarged the picture and I am not 100% sure yet. Also, the shadow of the ear on the body is darker compared to that of the shadow of the "female antler" (is it the correct name?) and I see like a vertical line created by two shades of brown of the fur above the ear that it's tangent to the border of the ear's shadow. In general I am not fully convinced by the position of the shadows compared to the legs. But I am not an expert so if you think it is ok, fine.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

image with lines to investigate lighting situation

Instinctively, this looks totally wrong to me, but it's hard to tell why. The lighting of the moose looks different, making it pop out of the environment in a way that doesn't look natural to me. Its shadow looks weird as well. Trying to turn this subjective feeling into something more solid, I couldn't help but using part of my lunch break to further investigate.

I identified some fix-points on the moose from where I drew lines to the corresponding point of the shadow on the ground. With a very distant light source (the sun) and an even surface (the road directly around the moose is reasonably flat), they should all be parallel to each other. However, I found two sets of parallel lines at the front and rear end of the moose (green and red, solid lines), which seems to suggest that the shadow has been digitally altered.

Unfortunately, there are no such fix-points in the environment. But drawing another 2 lines at a 90° angle of the 2 groups of lines should give us the direction of the shadow of a an ideal pole-shaped moose (not as good as the proverbial spherical cow moose in a vacuum, but should be enough for our purposes ;-). Those are the dashed green and red lines. Picking the shadows of some actual pole-like structures in the environment, I drew some more lines along them (dashed blue). They are not totally parallel to each other due to changes in the terrain, but they have a mean angle that's pretty different from the dashed moose lines, which shouldn't be the case if they shared the same light source.

Does this methodology make sense? If so, I'd say this looks like an almost (but not totally) convincing montage. --El Grafo (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

To answer the question of what to do with it: I'd say copy this discussion (once it's ended) to the talk page, add {{Fact disputed}} to the file description page and be done with it. It's up to the re-users to decide whether or not they want to use an image that might be a montage. --El Grafo (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

that was also my original idea, I just wasn't sure about commons rules. i don't think it is a problem to keep it even if we prove it is "retouched"... but I would encourage to be informed so everyone can think twice before inserting it in the ns0...--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

any further comment?--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@El Grafo: Your methodology looks sensible. But take a look at the surface of the road pavement at the top of the small elevation in the background. I see a slight convex bulge there, that would be expected as any road surface is not fashioned plainly flat but somewhat bulged or canted to make sure that rain water or molten snow could drain of. In that case, the moose is not at all walking on a flat surface, but it follows a "downhill" grade. As these animals are nearly as long as a standard street lane is broad, we have to consider the actual geometry of the surface and cannot simplify it to a flat plane when analysing the shadows. As those are quite short, the shot must have been taken around noon, with light casting a shadow of the moose's buttocks "uphill" and from its snout "downhill" on the curved road surface, and making a possibly wet or clean fur shine. Have you ever been in nordic countries? As far as I remember my holiday trips to northern Sweden in late summer years ago (actually beyond the polar circle, too), this lighting looks natural. I'd say that this is a genuine photograph. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's fake, at least not obviously so. I agree that El Grafo's analysis is good, but I agree with Grand-Duc that we can't assume the road is flat enough to use the slight differences in the angles cast by the shadows to suggest any fakery. Besides, if someone was going to fake the shadow, it would be easier to assume a flat surface than it would be to assume a curved surface (or a light-source nearby). So I think what we're seeing is most likely the effect of the curved road surface. Most roads have a convex surface anyway, to assist with water runoff so it fits what I'd expect to see. I do agree that the lighting on the moose looks slightly out of place and the edge of the moose particularly around its legs looks a bit too sharp and defined for an animal with fur (perhaps its just very short around the legs). And the shadow behind its ear is almost black, rather than the deep blue shadow on the asphalt. Still all this is not enough to make me think it's clearly fake. Could be the processing used (both on the negative/slide and digitally, since it seems to be taken with film). If I had to say, I'm about 80% sure it's real, with a remaining 20% doubt. :-) Diliff (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc and Diliff: Thanks for your input, I think you are right. Another point I noticed: Have a look at the white line on the road in the area to the right of the moose's nose. This seems to be one of those thick types of road markings rather than just thin paint, as the shadows of the vegetation show a tiny bump where they hit the right edge of the marking. The shadow of the moose's leg seems to have the same small bump at the right side of the white line. I'm tempted to say that if this a montage of two images, whoever did this had an amazing sense for detail. About the shadow of the ear looking darker: suppose that could have to do with the area receiving less scattered light from the surroundings than the road? Also, film does render things differently than a digital sensor (light sensitivity of a film is not linear etc.), and different films behave differently. So maybe that just fooled my instincts (I've started shooting film again a while ago, but mostly B&W so color-wise I'm still internally calibrated to digital). --El Grafo (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

"Analogous film" reminds me of something else. I also enjoyed the classical fashion of photography and digitized some of the results but encountered notable difficulties in making the slide lying flat on the scanner (a Canon MP980 with an adapter for film scanning), so I think that geometrical artifacts and distortions could easily be the consequence of slightly warped film slides. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

so we agree it is a true picture? Fine.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth: To my eye this moose is montaged with an altered/added shadow. If you extend a line through points where the shadow and moose can be seen to correspond the sun would be quite high. If you extend lines from either side of the shadow that falls behind the moose's eye the sun is much lower in the sky. Looking at the pixels at the edge of the moose's body it is clear where the edges have been sheered off in places. There are also shadows on the front of two legs indicating that the moose was originally in a different setting where the light falling on parts of the legs was obscured. There is also a remnant of something brown under the jaw indicating something that is not the moose. There are also a couple of places where the moose pixels have lightened the pixels on the yellow road line in one place and not in another when both would be expected to be the same. Comtos (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Why not just ask John J. Mosesso  ? Lotje (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm in China and I don't use VPN so no google. I looked for the name on bing and yahoo before opening this thread but I got nothing. I was hoping he had an official mail as U.S. civil servant, so if you can find it... maybe he retired?--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

19th century anonymous work of art in a French museum

Greetings. I wonder what is the policy for a 19th-century anonymous work of art in a French museum? I suspect that if the caption has the following "© Musée d’Aquitaine, Bordeaŭ" it means that it is not in the public domain. Just wanted to make sure. Thanks. --Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 16:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Published in 1825, it is public domain everywhere. The museum has no copyright claim on copies. --Fæ (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed... it is inconceivable that the author of a document published in 1825 has not been dead for 70 years. Storkk (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to disagree and advise caution. This is not only a work of art but its reproduction with manuscript message. 1825 is not necessarily the date of its creation as such not to mention its publication. If you need to use that image, I suggest you use it as external link or ask the museum.--S.P.R. Lewitt (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The publication date is given as 1825 by the museum. The date printed on the lithograph is also 1825, so the lithograph was created by or before 1825. The artist is given by the museum as anonymous. The lithograph is claimed to be in the style of Jean-Charles Develly, who died in 1862. The handwriting on the lithograph has no separate claim of copyright (and I would hold is copyright ineligible) but by the signature appears to be that of Jean-Pierre Boyer, d. 1850, and looks similar to other samples of his signature you can find on the internet. I see no reason to doubt my first view that this is firmly public domain. If you have doubts, by all means write to the museum and ask for a clarification for their claim of copyright, in the meantime this is well below the level of doubt described by COM:PRP. --Fæ (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fae: .-Although I find sarcasm not exactly appropriate when dealing with other people's property issues (I certainly would not waste my time nor the museum staff's, when I expressed the burden of proof should be on those who wish to use the work freely, and you understood that), I sincerely have to apologize. This is me not agreeing with rules that I deem to permissive, and not only on Wikimedia projects. This was not the place for expressing my lack of consideration for this state of the world and the internet, for that matter. Thank you for your detailed reply and search. Yours,--S.P.R. Lewitt (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

June 27

Common names of biological entities as category redirects towards scientific names, RfC

During recent WLE activities, a problem about categorization showed up (again), exposing a deficiency in the categorization schemes. Albeit using scientific nouns for categories is stringent and pretty straightforward, also from a multilingual point of view, it poses hard hurdles for people who aren't accustomed to them. A way to ease this situation could be an allowance of category redirects using common names, e.g. a "Category:European carp" for Category:Cyprinus carpio or "Category:House sparrow" and "Category:English sparrow" for Category:Passer domesticus. I thgink that there are good arguments for such a proceeding (it lessens the need for cleanup work on files of biological subjects as the uploaders aren't always asked to dig into the depths of taxonomic naming) and less so for prohibiting it (it is a explicitly stated e.g. on COM:FR that "redirects are cheap and usually don't break anything"). Of course, there is no miracle cure for categorisation issues, so we'll need some guidelines for this kind of category redirects. Let us draft them here and now!

Basically, I think that only one thing is paramount here: no category redirect could be allowed where a common name stands for more than one biological entity. A German example: the common name Butterblume stands for a lot of plants, Ranunculus acris, Caltha palustris, Ficaria verna, Trollius europaeus and Taraxacum officinale. That means that obviously no one can claim a category redirect for this term of Butterblume as it is not clearly defined; but redirecting a "Gemeiner Löwenzahn" to Category:Taraxacum officinale should be encouraged.

I suggest an addition to Commons:Categories stating the allowance of redirects of well-defined common names to the corresponding scientific names of biological entities. It could be worded as such: Category redirects made of common names for biological species and genera towards their scientific names are allowed, as long as the common name only describes a single species or genus.

Please offer your thoughts about this. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd have no objection, although I don't know why we couldn't have them now. Has someone deleted such redirects in the past? In the cases where a common name refers to more than one thing, a disambiguation category could be made. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I also had the sense that all of Grand-Duc's suggestions were already fairly standard practice. As Auntof6 suggested, Category:Butterblume could be made into a disambiguation category especially if it's being added to images despite not existing. That would at least put the category into Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories for maintenance.

Incidentally, a more difficult challenge involves various culturally-related sub-categories of plant and animal categories, especially in art. Does Category:Malus domestica in heraldry really make more sense than Category:Apples in heraldry? What to do with Category:Wolves in art when "wolves" could refer to various subspecies of Category:Canis lupus and also other Category:Canis that might be indistinguishable from the art? There are times when common name seems to work better, because the people creating the content weren't thinking in taxonomic terms. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

A problem which could occur with common names could be, (expanding on Grand-Duc sparrow example) that all sparrows will end up in Passer domesticus. Does someone who can't look up a scientific name know the difference between Passer domesticus and Passer hispaniolensis? Amada44  ^{talk to me} 07:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Those misleadings could be avoided by having a redirect from sparrow to Passer sp. (I guess that the military could be relied upon to identify the eponymously named missile as AIM-7 and not simply saying "sparrow"). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

i created a few such category disambiguations and redirects already in the past (Category:Buche, Category:Eiche, Category:Bäume etc), often because photos were uploaded with such a "red" category. i think it is very useful a) especially for more popular names, and b) if we use category redirects only in really "safe" cases (to prevent misidentifications like in the sparrow example), and – if uncertainties can be expected – if we prefer disambiguation categories (or, for redirects, "Unidentified genus" type categories as link targets). Holger1959 (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fæ: you hinted at some examples where this kind of categories got deleted. As the previous postings show a significant amount of support for this concept, I'd like you to provide us with those negative examples, so that they could be discussed or taken into account for further proceedings. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Real example of a category with a common name which became a disambig due to multiple species with same name. Josve05a (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem with disambig categories is that (unlike redirects), files are not automatically transferred from them. So someone - a real person - has to remember to keep an eye on them and sort them out from time to time. - MPF (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Extra long filenames

File:Catalogue des tableaux anciens et modernes - par Juan de Arellano, Goya, Van Goyen - dessins anciens et aquarelles modernes - le tout dépendant de l'imporante collection de M. D.- de G.- (1896) (14781984105).jpg is ridiculous. In this case I found the corresponding painting: File:Les Braconniers dans la neige.jpg. I would say keep the catalog name, but use real relevant names. I notice that there is no US license for the paintings of Gustave Courbet. I have added a few pre 1923 licenses, but this needs to done systematicaly.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

This was uploaded 11 months ago with the license of {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}}, which is an okay license, but more specific licenses can be mass-added to the 47 images grouped in the parent category using VFC or similar as an improvement. Various people have ways to do mass renames, if you suggest a mapping to a shorter name that can be automated I can rename these. You can suggest improvements like this on my talk page and I normally get to them in a day or two unless I'm travelling. If you would like to know more about the mass upload project this was part of, take a look through User:Fæ/Project list/Internet Archive. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

There's plenty others nearly as bad, and perhaps worse, contributors using a descriptive essay as a filename, e.g. File:2014-08-25 12 57 42 Pitch Pine along the Appalachian Trail about 8.2 miles northeast of the Delaware Water Gap in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, New Jersey.JPG or File:Verreaux's Eagle (Black Eagle), Aquila verreauxii bringing baby eagle nappies to the nest at Walter Sisulu National Botanical Garden, Johannesburg, South Africa (14548427890).jpg. A sensible limit on filename length would be a good idea, say, 30 or 40 characters? - MPF (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with File:Verreaux's Eagle (Black Eagle), Aquila verreauxii bringing baby eagle nappies to the nest at Walter Sisulu National Botanical Garden, Johannesburg, South Africa (14548427890).jpg? The number on the end is unnecessary, but the rest is perfectly clear and easily copy-pastable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Instead of stressing about the filename, wouldn't it be more important to fix the image to match the original? If you check the book page, the crop has taken off essential parts of the original image. The new filename is inaccurate, to boot; it's not a drawing, it's merely a black and white representation of the painting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Open call for Project Grants

Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals from July 1st to August 2nd to fund new tools, research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds, Project Grants can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

• Submit a grant request or draft your proposal in IdeaLab
• Get help with your proposal in an upcoming Hangout session
• Learn from examples of completed Individual Engagement Grants or Project and Event Grants

Also accepting candidates to join the Project Grants Committee through July 15.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 15:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Question: Considering that eleven months ago a drive-by “user” created this “grant” by merely entering the template with unmodified pre-fill default values and in the meanwhile nobody cared to delete such an obvious misuse, how actually serious is this whole thing anyway? I have a pretty clear idea of what’s going on, but would still love to see here an official response. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(obviously unofficial response) When anyone can submit a grant request, and even the silly ones are kept for posterity, you are going to get some stupid things. I think its more fair to judge the program by things that actually get approved (or are close to approval). [For full disclosure, im a subcontractor for one of the succesful grant proposals from a previous round]. Bawolff (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, Bawolff: I’m sure we can all agree that keeping tidy and complete archives is a fundamental tool of historical research and accountability, but keeping cruff like that listed in the main page of the Ideas’ Lab instead of tucked away in a separate listing for rejected and “undeveloped” grant proposals shows that this is not about being inclusionist, but merely sloppy. Please note that resources were found to clown up redesign this page with graphical elements that are not usual in a typical WMF wiki page (because grant documentation needs to be “sexy”, unlike regular Wikipedia pages, which are for dorks only, amirite?), so it is not a matter of being underfunded/understaffed, just a matter of being lazy or sloppy, and/or of having one’s priorities elsewhere. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

July 06

Grateful Dead train liveries?

Could someone look at File:Jerry Garcia at Red Rocks taken 1987-08-11.jpg? For some reason, it is in the Category:Train liveries by company, but I see no trains in the image and I can't tell where that category is coming from. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Rodrigolopes (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! To think it was because of one extra letter! --Auntof6 (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Batch uploading Chinese character files

Hi all. I hope this is the right place for technical assistance.

I'm from the English Wiktionary and I would like to batch upload Ancient Chinese character images (perhaps up to 10000 images), using pregenerated Template:ACClicense for copyright. I'm trying to find the best way to do this. I found the page Commons:Ancient Chinese characters:Linux tutorial which looks very helpful, although the initial login API has been deprecated and I have had no luck trying to modify it to make it work (I was using clientlogin and it kept saying the token is invalid).

Could someone please advise me on how to configure API for batch upload on Commons, or if there is an better alternative method, how to best approach this? Thanks in advance. Much appreciated, Wyang (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Try changing to https. Http API calls are no longer accepted. You could investigate using COM:GWT. --Fæ (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

How to delete a redirect after renaming a file ?

Mistakenly I had identified and named a file as File:François Doubleth (1642-1688), Burgemeester van Den Haag.png. I requested renaming the file to File:Unknown person on The Hague Magistrates by Jan de Baen (1682).png. After that was achieved, I would have liked to upload the correct file of "François Doubleth (1642-1688), Burgemeester van Den Haag.png". Regretfully, the person that renamed the original file has created a redirect, where a search for François Doubleth (1642-1688), Burgemeester van Den Haag, will automatically transfer to File:Unknown person on The Hague Magistrates by Jan de Baen (1682).png. Is it possible to have the redirect removed, so: a) people searching for François Doubleth won't end up at the wrong file of Unknown person on The Hague Magistrates. b) I can upload the correct file for François Doubleth, using my standardized naming format. The redirect really has no use, but to confuse. --OSeveno (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Just edit the file to replace the redirect with {{SD|GD2}} and it should be deleted soon. Delphi234 (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Delphi234, but should I add the {{SD|GD2}} at the redirect page ? How to do that since the page File:François Doubleth (1642-1688), Burgemeester van Den Haag.png is immediately being redirected to File:Unknown person on The Hague Magistrates by Jan de Baen (1682).png ? --OSeveno (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

When you get there, look just below the words "From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository" to see:
(Redirected from File:François Doubleth (1642-1688), Burgemeester van Den Haag.png) and click on that link. Delphi234 (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

OSeveno -- quick and dirty way is to add "?redirect=no" onto the end of the URL in your browser; so https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fran%C3%A7ois_Doubleth_(1642-1688),_Burgemeester_van_Den_Haag.png should become https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fran%C3%A7ois_Doubleth_(1642-1688),_Burgemeester_van_Den_Haag.png?redirect=no (if the URL already contains a "?" character, add "&redirect=no" onto the end instead). AnonMoos (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. I now understand how it works. This goes into my personal notebook, so to say. Regards, --OSeveno (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Bare image link in category page

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T87645

On my screen for Category:Fairchild Metroliner, I get the following, containing a bare link to an image:

Pages in category ‘Fairchild Metroliner’

This category contains only the following page.

F File:Swearingen SA-227AT Merlin IV C Private N577MX, LUX Luxembourg (Findel), Luxembourg PP1317232892.jpg

Problem is, I can't find a way to get rid of this bad formatting. I desperately tried renaming the image file, but now the link remains to the redirected version. So far, no response on category talk page. How can this be fixed? MTIA,PeterWD (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

This looks like a database problem, the file redirect is incorrectly showing up as page on the category. MKFI (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

its due to this page which has a messed up namespace (probably can be deleted via api). Bawolff (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

phab:T87645, I'll delete it --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done log --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Sus verrucosus

Hi! Please, you can get a free picture (photo) of the Javan warty pig (Sus verrucosus). I need it. Thank. OJJ (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Here: Category:Sus_verrucosus -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Here is another one: https://www.flickr.com/photos/internetarchivebookimages/20775550221/ Offnfopt^(talk) 21:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Great find, Offnfopt! This photo should be soon showing up at Category:Mammals of other lands (1917) — right, Fæ? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Offnfopt: Thankǃ The image is here. --OJJ (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

July 07

Commons:Photo challenge May results

Birds in their habitat: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Stork-billed kingfisher with catch, Kole wetlands Thrissur	Chennai, India	Japanese white-eye
Author	Manojk	Mymoon Moghul	Laitche
Score	25	15	14

Congratulations to Manojk, Mymoon Moghul and Laitche. -- Jarekt (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hats: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Aufgenommen in Oelsnitz bei einer Veranstaltung in Oelsnitz/Erzgebirge (Landesgartenschau 2015).	Hut als Blumentopf umfunktioniert Hat converted as a flowerpot	Hats at the Green fair, Rome
Author	Kora27	F. Riedelio	Albarubescens
Score	33	23	9

Congratulations to Kora27, F. Riedelio and Albarubescens. -- Jarekt (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

+1. Congrats; all winners! Jee 17:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Moloch.jpg

The thorny dragon (Moloch horridus) ... or is it?

Something weird is happening with "File:Moloch.jpg". If you open up the file, you see a photograph of a type of lizard called the thorny dragon (Moloch horridus). However, the thumbnail displayed on the category page as well as in the file history is that of a drawing of the Ammonite god Moloch. Can the thumbnail be aligned with the file? I tried purging my cache but that had no effect. (@Mark Marathon: for your information.) — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Better now? --Magnus (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yup! What did you do? — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Purged the server cache for the thumbnail with https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Moloch.jpg/120px-Moloch.jpg?action=purge --Magnus (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

note that ?action=purge on thumbnail urls should have no affect (or at least not any affect thatd be different than any random url parameter, which will cause a cache bypass for just that request. The only url parameter that upload.wikimedia.org looks for is ?download). ?action=purge only works on image description pages) Bawolff (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

That's interesting because just after I executed that request the correct thumbnail showed up on the image description page and the category view for me. --Magnus (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

July 09

adding a glossary of terms at the end of a chapter

Hello We wish to add glossaries at the end of each chapter of the wikibook we are working on. https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cognition_and_Instruction Obviously we could just write them in, but I understand that there is a way to automate this much the same as the TOC is autognerated. I suspect that there is a snippet I need to add to the page header, but either don't know the snippet or can't find the header. My proof of concept page is https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Dwt2/sandbox Any ideas or suggestions appreciated. Dwt2 (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You might want to ask the people at the Wikibooks reading room, either the "general assistance" or "technical assistance" pages should be helpful. --rimshot^talk 19:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Speravir (Talk) 01:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright question around signatures

Dear Commonists

I have a question. In a museum (La Rochelle) in Zimbabwe is a glass wall with the signatures of some of the time's and region's more famous people and some of Zimbabwe's liberation activists. They were etched into the glass by a diamond stylus and include the signatures of Rab and Molly Butler, Sybil Thorndike, Julian Amery, Julian Huxley, Laurens van der Post and Denis Goldberg - as well as Herbert Chitepo, Garfield Todd and Leo Takawira among others. A friend of mine has recently taken photographs of these signatures and I have convinced her to put them up on Commons. What is the procedure? Is there copyright on the signatures? She is in touch with the curator/manager of the museum and we just need to know the process. Obviously having the images of their signatures would be a great addition to some of their articles. Can anyone advise? Islahaddow (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You can use {{Pd-signature}} for those files. Ruslik (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Ruslik !! Islahaddow (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Speravir (Talk) 01:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama in Belgium starting 15 July 2016

As known this friday Freedom of Panorama finaly enters in Belgium. In the past many images of Belgian buildings were deleted here at Wiki Commons. This category lists them all: [5]. Is it possible to bring them back? --__ wɘster 17:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

However, even if FoP may hav been an effecting factor for deleting the files, other things may have factored in (such as copyvios or Flickrwashing), but the category gets added anyways if there s discussion releated to the FoP. So, please, do not undelete en masse without review. Josve05a (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

That category consist entirely FOP-cases. --__ wɘster 21:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, they will be brought back. Plus other photos sitting around off-line that were never uploaded previously .. I have 3 of Ostend, I think. --ghouston (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

To summarise: yes they will be undeleted. See also some headings above for the general announcement. Romaine (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Speravir (Talk) 18:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Roald Amundsen (colorized).jpg

Resolvednyuszika7h (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the copyright status of this image, the uploader claims it to be their own work but it seems to be based on an image here, which is dated 2013, though the subject died in 1928. – nyuszika7h (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a colorized version of this image, which is in public domain. The uploader probably claim copyright of the clorization, which may or may not be copyrightable. Ruslik (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see the original in Commons. I suspected it's PD because it's so old, but wanted to make sure. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Speravir (Talk) 18:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Nautical captains

Is there a category for nautical captains as opposed to military captains? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

See Category:Ship captains. Delphi234 (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Speravir (Talk) 18:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

different language versions (resolved)

Which silly add-on do I have to disable to get back to a display of all possible languages? e.g., on Subcategories of knots I only get displayed English (BTW, why English?!) names of knots! Thanks for your help, Ibn Battuta (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Preferences -> Gadgets -> Language support. uncheck the "Language select" box. Does that work? Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, great! (I wasn't even sure if it was a Commons or a browser issue.) Awesome again! :o) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Speravir (Talk) 18:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Best practices for alt text on multinlingual wikis

Please advise I would like to add alt to files inserted in multilingual wikis but I'm not sure how to do this and respect multilingualism at the same time... Is there some way that I can have alt text in multiple languages? Do we have templates to handle this--maybe they can make different tooltips based on users' preferences and fall back to whatever is in English if the preferred language doesn't exist? This is a problem for c:, d:, m:, mw:, outreach:, s:mul:, and species:. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You can do it the same way as any other multilingual content - i.e. Using translate extension, or using {{int:...}} hacks. Bawolff (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Bawolff: Wait--how would this work...? You would have something like [[File:FILENAME.EXT|thumb|alt={{int:This is a man standing}}|Howie Mandel in 2010]] I'm pretty sure that would not work. Would it? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

On commons, you can do things like [[File:Example.png|40px|alt={{#switch:{{int:lang}}|en=English text|fr=French|#default=None of the above}}]] - . This is a hack, and will work less easily on other wikis. As far as best practice goes, I would recommend using the Translate extension for translating page content. Alt text is no different then any other page content. Bawolff (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Bawolff: That is fantastic--thanks so much! I'm interested in using it on species:, where translating anything in the main namespace doesn't really make sense--I'm just using {{int:}} for the very little text that we have there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Löschprüfung

Mein englisch ist zu eingerostet, deshalb auf deutsch. Irgendwer wird sich schon kümmern :-)

Ein Gewinnerfoto von WLM 3013 wurde heute wegen angeblicher Copyrightverletzung gelöscht. Laut Google-cache hatte unser Bild eine Große von 3722 x 2898 Pixel. Wenn das angebliche Original auf der Website kleiner ist, stammt die runterskalierte Version von uns und nicht umgekehrt. Hier ist das Bild noch einmal zu sehen, auch in verkleinerter Form, muss also ebenfalls von commons kommen. Also bitte wiederherstellen und die Löschung in den einzelnen Artikeln, wo das Bild eingebunden war, rückgängig machen. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• I habe eine Bemerkung auf der Diskussionsseite gepostet.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
• I posted a undeletion request, seems to me the image should not have been deleted. Nightflyer you can post a undeletion request when this type of issue comes up. Offnfopt^(talk) 13:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nightflyer: , the undeletion request has been processed and the image is now restored. With all the requests that are processed there is bound to be a mistake. If such a issue comes up again, feel free to post a undeletion request. Offnfopt^(talk) 18:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my english is very poor, so I do so like this. Thanks! Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Ergänzende Frage: Den Eintrag vom CommonsDelinker hab ich rückgängig gemacht. Aber ein Gewinnerbild eines weltweiten Wettbewerbs dürfte weitaus häufiger eingebunden sein. Laufen da andere bots und gibt es eine Möglickeit, die Löschung in anderen Sprachversionen auch zurückzusetzen? Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happens in that regards, maybe @INeverCry: or another admin that reads this can comment on that. Offnfopt^(talk) 22:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

If something gets deleted, the delinker removes it's usage. You can view this on toollabs. I undid the remaining edits. It's good admin practice to undo the delinker edits if you had a slip up. How to find the log: [[:|file]] -> history -> logs -> delinker log. Multichill (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Goddess nut.jpg is of unknown source

File:Goddess nut.jpg is a file from 2006, uploaded by someone who hasn't edited since 2008, and is used all over the place. For those reasons, I hesitate to put it up for deletion, but we really need some sort of source, not just for copyright reasons, but for authenticity reasons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: The template says that it was taken by the user, which is plausible; perusing Tineye, I don't see anything alarming--most of the crawls are from the past few years and the oldest one I saw was from 2010; reliable sources like EB use it; and it's just a photograph of a work out of public domain anyway. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe it was taken by the user, but you say it's a photograph "of a work out of public domain". I don't know that. What work is it a photograph of? It certainly doesn't look like a millennia old work, so even if it is public domain, it may not accurately represent Ancient Egyptian religion. Which lasted for millennia itself, so even if it is an accurate reproduction of something from then, the question of what still matters.

I don't see what you're pointing to with those EB links; I don't see the image on those pages at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

[6] seems to be a different photo of the same object, and says "Papyrus copy of Egyptian cosmos". It would be nice to have it better sourced. --ghouston (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

[7] says "Egyptian cosmos. The Goddess Nut bending to form the sky. Papyrus copy based on late Egyptian temple at Denderah." --ghouston (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Odd. Tineye said that EB used it. Oh well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's a some kind of modern souvenir papyrus [8], in which case the copyright and usefulness are both questionable. --ghouston (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Best I can find, seems you are correct. Every image I find of something similar is a picture of a souvenir papyrus. I've found multiple of the same papyrus painting from different artists. I could be wrong, but seems to be based on this artwork or similar in another tomb. I know nothing of the subject matter at hand, just making these statements based on what I found via searching, so take everything I say with a grain of salt. Offnfopt^(talk) 23:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

July 11

Tech News: 2016-28

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• A new image scaler fixed a number of bugs for showing SVG files. Some new problems turned up. [9][10][11]
• Notifications are grouped by types. They are now counted by number of notifications and not by unread groups. That change may increase the number of notifications displayed. The earlier way of counting was often incorrect. Unread notifications will also be displayed first. [12][13][14]
• Special:Notifications now has a maximum width for the notifications list on desktop computers. This allows long titles and descriptions to be cut properly. Notifications are now also better parsed. [15][16][17]

Problems

• On 5 July Wikimedia Commons had problems and could not be edited for 20 minutes. For a short while after that the recent changes log and some gadgets were not working properly. It affected administrative actions on other projects too. [18]
• Users who have multiple unread notifications can mark them as read by visiting Special:Notifications page on their wiki.

Changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 July. It will be on all wikis from 14 July (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 12 July at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

July 12

180,000 historical images from the New York Public Library

NYPL mass upload project page

Live NYPL GLAM dashboard reports

Over the last 6 months the largest collections of images from the NYPL archives have been gradually uploaded to Commons. There are now a grand total of 180,000 images amounting to 6.4 terabytes of data being mirrored on Wikimedia servers (you can imagine this as a library of around 1,400 data DVDs). The uploads are not all the collections, however the largest collections are now available on Commons and represent more than 90% of the public domain images released by the NYPL. The gallery below highlights the types of collection with some comparative numbers, these vary from songs and dance to postcards and ancient monuments. Follow the linked project page above for a more complete listing and explanation of upload methods used. You can hover over a collection image to see a collection category link and uploaded numbers.

• Largest NYPL collections uploaded
• 
  57,999 R NYPL The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs: Photography Collection
• 
  17 R Vinkhuijzen collection
• 
  17,176 R NYPL American popular songs
• 
  11,461 R Emmet Collection of Manuscripts
• 
  33 R Detroit Publishing Co.
• 
  5,520 R Samuel Putnam Avery Collection
• 
  9,347 R NYPL Manuscripts and Archives Division
• 
  9,011 R Theodorus Bailey Meyers Collection
• 
  Phelps Stokes Collection, ~3,335 maps in this tranche
• 
  3,207 R Jerome Robbins Dance Division
• 
  1,613 R Monuments from Egypt and Ethiopia to the drawings of the kings of Prussia, Friedrich Wilhelm IV to these countries sent by his Majesty and ausgefuhrten in the years 1842-1845
• 
  2,597 R NYPL The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs: Print Collection
• 
  2,903 R R. H. Burnside Collection

The upload has had several challenges such as bad TIFF formats, unknown bugs with Pywikibot, working out how to improve categorization (it is still far from ideal), automatically identifying scans of blank pages and handling corrupt images created due to server or internet drop-outs. Amongst the challenges for improving the images are:

• finding ways of rotating and cropping large TIFFs (many of these images are greater than 100MB), at the current time Cropbot cannot handle them
• how to deal with an ongoing problem with Firefox incorrectly representing the colour profile of some images
• how best to use the available NYPL metadata such as dates, artists, topics, titles to map to better category names and category hierarchies
• better ways of navigating around several pages or book plates from the same book

Questions and suggestions for improvement can be raised on the project talk page or my user talk page.

This upload project has been achieved with zero funding. The project relies on our Wikimedia Commons community of around 1,500 part time volunteers helping each other to resolve bugs and find better ways of making this public resource of historical images more accessible. --Fæ (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Great work, Fæ! Thank you. Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair use delete move bot

What happened to the fair use delete bot which moved content to English Wikipedia? For the life of me I can't figure it out, and I know I've used it. Category:Pending fair use deletes. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know one existed til I saw your post, but this User:Commons fair use upload bot is linked to via the templates used on those files. Offnfopt^(talk) 02:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

COM:FUUB It's on my backlog to get running again, but it's not been a priority, in fact you are the first person in a very long time that has asked about it. When I took over the bot, my plan was to get sysop powers by passing RFA first. Without the ability to delete images or undelete them, it's a bit like typing with boxing gloves on. --Fæ (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

i would suggest using it as a fall back for images in use on english, that are up for deletion. as an alternative outcome from a deletion discussion. but you will of course, enrage the anti-"fair use" clique on english. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 15:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Humilladero (Málaga)

The only picture in Commons of Humilladero, in the Spanish province of Málaga, has been retired as it didn't met this project's rules. And now what? Now we need a replacement. If you happen to be somewhere near Humilladero (Málaga), you can go there and become a local hero.
For those of you in Chile, Australia or even Dorset, it would be difficult. But I hope that somebody in the Costa del Sol, or Granada, or Córdoba happen to read this message. It is not far away and it could perfectly be the case that you discovered a new place nobody else from your home town new.
Wikimedia Commons needs you to go to Humilladero (Málaga) and take that pictures. It's far more fun than sun bathing!

Info about Humilladero:

• In English
• In French
• In Dutch

B25es (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

User:B25es, what was the filename of the deleted photograph? Or can you link to the deletion discussion, if there was one? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

July 10

Deletion of files uploaded by Serepet.gobed

Unfortunately I missed the discussion/request, but I still wondering what was the exact reason for these deletions. Is it because of copyright violations, or the lack of description? I uploaded some others of the series (file descriptions should be the same) and they're still available. --Kumincir (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The files were stated to be from 2016 and released under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, however they are obviously historical documents from the 1920s. Proper dates and authorship information was required to ensure they were in the Public Domain or correctly licensed (it would seem a priori extremely unlikely that they are legitimately CC-BY-SA). If you can supply the requisite information to verify their public domain status, we may be able to undelete them. Storkk (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Geoff Brigham leaves the WMF

Last night, General Counsel Geoff Brigham announced that he will leave the WMF in 4 days (to take a new job at Youtube).[19] Sad. --Túrelio (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

July 15

National Gallery Prague

Does anyone have an ideao how to get further with the problem of User:NGCZ mass uploads? Most of the uploads seem o.k. since they are PD-art, but there's no permission for all the photos of 2D artwork. If that user is indeed an official account of the National Gallery in Prague, that could make it possible to keep them. Does anyone have contact to this institution? The user doesn't reply to all those questions on the User talk page. If we don't find a way to ascertain that the 3D works are correctly licensed, I think they should be deleted quickly. For the 2D artworks, there needs to be at least bot run that deletes all those lifedates in parantheses _within_ the Creator template name (which makes them "red links" everywhere). --WolfD59 (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Contact page is here.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gampe: (Pinging you as you're listed for GLAM.) Wondering if WMCZ is aware / would like to be aware / might be able to help. If not, please ignore this ping. :) --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 10:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I will at least do the Creator fixes in the next days (using AWB but manually checking everything). --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

July 14

Sleepwalking?

Someone renamed "Train station of Colmenar Viajo" to "Train station of Colmenar Viago train station". Is there no revert button for these cases?Smiley.toerist (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: Link please? ★ Poké⁹⁵ 07:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Here you go: Category:Train station of Colmenar Viejo train station. --ghouston (talk) 07:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, bad name deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 15:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

ResolvedJmabel ! talk 15:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Speravir (Talk) 21:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Help correcting a mistake?

Hi, I just moved the entire contents of Category:Conservation (1908-1909) to Category:1909 books by mistake. Is there anybody who can help me undo this, or will I have to go through one-by-one? I might be able to figure out something with AWB, but I don't have access to a Windows computer today. -Pete F (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

They are all named "File:Conservation (1908-1909) ... " so you could use cat-a-lot to move them back. --ghouston (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done. --Achim (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Good point Ghouston, should have thought of that. And thank you Achim55. -Pete F (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Speravir (Talk) 21:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Prizes for LGBT+ themed Featured Pictures

Grants:Project/Rapid/LGBT/Wiki Loves Pride Featured Picture drive 2016

Good news, the WMF grant has now been approved! This gives the community a modest prize fund of $600 for photographers sharing new LGBT+ visually themed photographs on Commons which then get to Featured Picture status either on Commons or one of the 43 different language Wikipedias with Featured Picture processes. See Village Pump notice from June.

There were a couple of areas to be tightened up before the competition starts, refer to the meta grant page above for details, and feel free to chip in with further questions (or to share ideas for possible answers).

If you would like to help out with this competition, either as an experienced helper for photographers new to the Featured Pictures process, a writer to propose a couple of central notices and list announcements, or would like to help me and Funcrunch with checking that nominations are appropriately "visually LGBT+ themed", leave a note on my talk page or send me an email in confidence (it may take me a while to get back to you as I'm travelling over the coming week).

Thanks to the WMF grants people for approving the grant and to the Wikimedians that have already popped by and contributed to helping with the proposal. --Fæ (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

July 17

Proposal to change organization/naming of US categories by state, territory, etc.

I've started a discussion on this topic. Please see Category talk:Categories of the United States by state#Proposal: new naming convention for categories of the US by first-level subdivision (state, territory, etc.). --Auntof6 (talk) 06:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Font rendering

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T139543

Would anyone like to be bold and take a stab at changing the default fonts used for Template:SVG Chart? A recent change in how svg is rendered has resulted in trashing them. I replaced the font with Liberation Sans, Helvetica, Arial to make this go away. Delphi234 (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

If the issue is just changing the font-family at the top of the file, then the only place I see it referenced is on the one line currently set to font-family="Helvetica, Arial" in {{SVG Chart/Core}}, so you should be able to make the changes there. Offnfopt^(talk) 16:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Possibly related to phab:T139543. Bawolff (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Definitely related to that phab. I am worried that I might cause more damage than good if I make any changes without having a clue of what I am doing which is why I would like someone else to take responsibility for any changes. Fonts are just not something I know anything about at all. I mostly use Arial, but of course that isn't one we can use. Delphi234 (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

SVG Check has not caught up with the change. Delphi234 (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

When I switch font-family="Helvetica, Arial" to font-family="Arial, Helvetica" it works. Delphi234 (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Delphi234: The SVG bug should be fixed now. Kaldari (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

One down, one to go. rendered fine on 20 June 2015 but now look at it. Delphi234 (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

This issue only affects small font sizes. This one uses font-size: 0.836px; and 0.919px; Someone seems to have just rounded off fonts to whole digits, instead of allowing three digits to the right of the decimal place like Inkscape. Delphi234 (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

July 08

Category:Image special feature in conjunction with the container

Anybody has an idea of what this category is for? The name does not mean anything to me other that it has something to do with containers. The content is also unclear if there is something in common other than containers. Shall we just merge it with Category:Containerization? --Jarekt (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I imagine what was intended was a gallery highlighting our best/most interesting images of containers, however that is just speculation Oxyman (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

If that were the case, it would be a gallery instead of a category. If intended to be a category of best images, there shouldn't be subcategories. The individual files don't seem to be especially interesting. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion was based on the possibility that the category creator was not experienced in how to edit Commons Oxyman (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-29

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• Due to the rollback, new sorting of Notifications on the Fly-Out Menus has been deployed with a delay. [20]
• Due to the rollback, the daily special patch deployment process has been changed. [21]
• In notifications, "Messages" are now called "Notices". [22]

Problems

• On July 12 all wikis were rolled back to MediaWiki 1.28.0-wmf.8 due to a problem in the log-in system. [23][24]

Changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 July. It will be on all wikis from 21 July (calendar).
• Special:Log now has a help link. [25]
• The RevisionSlider can be tested on the beta cluster. From 22 July, it will be available as a beta feature at: German Wikipedia, Arabic Wikipedia, Hebrew Wikipedia. [26][27][28]

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 19 July at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can join the next meeting with the Architecture committee. The topic this week is "Devise plan for a cross-wiki watchlist back-end". The meeting will be on 20 July at 21:00 (UTC). See how to join. [29]

Future changes

• User scripts and bots can no longer use http:// to edit wiki pages. [30][31]
• Gerrit is going to be updated. Developers are invited to test it. [32]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

July 19

Article titles of countries/territories with multiple official languages

For a long period of time the Israel article was at ישראל - إسرائيل, reflecting that the country has both Hebrew and Arabic as official languages, with both used in drivers' licenses, on signage, on ID cards, etc. It is true that Hebrew is the language of governance and has precedence over Arabic, but the Israeli Supreme court has ruled that both are official (see Talk:ישראל)

A Commons user argued that it should be at ישראל (Hebrew only) because "Israel is a Jewish state and Hebrew is more important and prevalent language"

My opinion on the matter: I think the position taken is partisan, and could alienate Arabic-speaking Israelis and other Arab speakers from the project. Article titles should reflect the current political realities of the countries and also reasonably accommodate points of view in ethnic and sectarian conflicts. @Triggerhippie4: WhisperToMe (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Technically, Commons doesn't have "articles", just "galleries". I agree that both languages should be used in the title - not because of hurt feelings, but because both appear on Israeli government issued stamps, banknotes, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Anyway, إسرائيل is one of several Arabic words (also including أورسالم), which are more common in Israeli government terminology than among the generality of Arabic speakers)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, we aren't restricted to only one page/gallery for any given category, so we could have galleries with all the above names, and even others. The only rule I know about concerning choice of language for page names is for categories; if that's the only such rule, gallery names can be in any language. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but what would be the difference in subject matter between gallery "ישראל" and gallery "إسرائيل"? -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

There might not be a difference. The content of gallery pages is whatever people decide to put in them. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

If there is no difference (and I wouldn't expect any), I think the best solution would be a gallery Israel with redirects from both the Hebrew and the Arabic title. This way, the majority of users, who speak neither Hebrew nor Arabic, have a chance of reading the page title and users who search for the Hebrew or Arabic name are redirected to the correct page. --rimshot^talk 12:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, this is also the (often sole practical) approach chosen for other geographical entities with multiple official languages, like the European Union.    FDMS  4    12:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Redirects are fine, too, but there's no reason not to create separate galleries if someone wants to, just as we can have multiple images of the same thing. One person might build a gallery one way, and another person might want one organized a different way. As far as I know, there's no restriction on that. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Different galleries on the same subject are fine, if somebody wants to make a gallery a different way. Somebody turning up making a fork for political reasons is entirely a different matter. I suppose the gallery has worked fine so far, and in that case I see no reason to split it up now. I for one would be quite upset if I had made a bilingual page (on some topic in Finland, say) and someone would split it into two because "Finnish is the real language of Finland". --LPfi (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Auntof6 -- there's no rigid requirement that there be only one gallery for every category, but I don't think we want things to be so loose as to allow "John's I-hate-cats gallery" to compete with "Mary's I-love-cats gallery", or to create accidental duplication under equivalent names in different languages/scripts... AnonMoos (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You say compete, I'd say coexist. Multiples are allowed. As for duplicate-except-in-different-language ones, who says they'd be accidental? If gallery names are allowed to be in any language, as I believe they are, why would it be a problem to have duplicates? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

If you make separate gallery pages based on language within the same project there may be a possibility of POV forks. Sometimes ethnic conflicts and the like involve language as part of the debate. Part of the goal of Commons is to cross linguistic divides and have a Common project regardless of language. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I second the proposal of naming the gallery Israel. Compare it with Confoederatio Helvetica which works much better than calling the page "Schweiz - La Suisse - La Svizzera - La Svizra" or one of these names. --M5 (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

If English is to be used for countries and territories with multiple official languages, then it would also apply to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, various African countries, Finland, and Tibet and Xinjiang in China WhisperToMe (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

WhisperToMe -- Canada has the advantage that the name of the country is spelled the same (in the same script) for both its official languages (English and French). That's not true for Switzerland, Belgium, or most of the countries you mentioned (not sure about Pakistan). AnonMoos (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Pakistan's other official language is Urdu, which uses Perso-Arabic script. Another question is what to do with Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Mauritania. In Morocco de jure there are two official languages, Arabic and Berber, while French is de facto in common use. In Algeria, Tunisia, and Mauritania French is de facto in wide use even though the governments don't declare it an official language. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't even thinking about English (just what major local language of Pakistan isn't written with Arabic?) -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: - While the two official languages are English and Urdu (Pakistan is پاکستان), the other major languages are Western Punjabi (Name of Pakistan: پاکستان), Sindhi (پاڪستان), Baloch (not known), and Pashto (پاکستان). Urdu and those four are all written in Perso-Arabic script. However "Pakistan" is written slightly differently in Sindhi compared to Urdu, Punjabi and Pashto. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and attempted to move Israel... except I found I couldn't do so since something is already in its place. What should be done? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Subtitles in wiki project

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T122737

I made test subtitles to File in hebrew but could not see them in the article in he.wiki. I can see the subtitles in commons but not in he.wiki. Can somebody tell me how to do it correctly? -- Geagea (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I can see the subtitles from the he.wiki article, I just hit play and clicked the "CC" icon to select the subtitles and it shows up in the list. What do you see when you click the CC icon on the video? Offnfopt^(talk) 02:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

See phab:T122737. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks AKlapper (WMF). I can't see any of the subtitles in any language. The "CC" icon is ok but no subtitles. And I am not the only one. -- Geagea (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Has something gone wrong here?

File:Carla_Hayden.png

This is from a video. Now, video encoding does interpolate some frames, and having watched the video, I suspect that we got one of the interpolated frames by accident. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Coming Friday: Freedom of Panorama in Belgium

Hi all!

As announced earlier, Freedom of Panorama comes in Belgium into force coming Friday 15 July 2016.

• Press release: Press release Freedom of Panorama in Belgium

According to Belgian law, a law change comes into force on the 10th day after the publication in the Belgian journal (Belgisch Staatsblad / Moniteur belge). (source: fr/nl)

Publication took place on 5 July 2016. (source: fr/nl)

Some things need to be updated, like: Commons:Freedom of panorama + Template:NoFoP-Belgium. And created: Template:FoP-Belgium, similar to for example Template:FoP-Nederland or Category:FoP templates

About 1411 images that have been deleted on Commons as result of no Freedom of Panorama, need to be restored - similar to Public Domain Day. See; Category:Belgian FOP cases

Please make sure you categorise the restored files, which can mean that the category needs to be restored too.

Based on the deletion log I will collect the restored images, similar to Public Domain Day.

For those in Belgium (or close), be welcome to join our launch event in Brussels:

• Invitation to the Freedom of Panorama in Belgium launch event

Thanks all! Romaine (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I have created Template:FoP-Belgium/lang, Template:FoP-Belgium/layout, Template:FoP-Belgium/fr and Template:FoP-Belgium/en. I leave Template:FoP-Belgium unchanged until tomorrow. Could a Dutch and a German-speaker create Template:FoP-Belgium/nl and Template:FoP-Belgium/de (so that we would have the 3 official languages of Belgium)? BrightRaven (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@BrightRaven: Done for Dutch! Romaine (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus had started the German translation, and I enhanced it. I’ve also massively updated Commons:Panoramafreiheit#Belgien, the German version for Commons:Freedom of panorama#Belgium – maybe this has to be updated in other languages, as well. BTW I’m not a lawyer, so there may be same factual mistakes. — Speravir_Talk – 18:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggest not using "plastic" in the English translation, since it usually refers to w:Plastic. Perhaps "sculptural, graphical and architectural art", but I haven't searched for how the law defines its terms. --ghouston (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The full term is “plastic, graphic or architectural art” and in the English Wikipedia is an article en:Plastic arts. For German translation I used the term which translates into visual arts. — Speravir (Talk) – 01:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I have updated the entry for Belgium in the FOP "Summary table". However, I was not totally sure as to whether 2D artwork should be "Yes" or "No". --Gazebo (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Another step we can do now is to copy images to Commons that have been locally uploaded on some Wikipedias (because there was no FoP). Romaine (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This search gives a few: [33]. --ghouston (talk) 07:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Results

In total 1493 images have been restored on Commons due Freedom of Panorama in Belgium. An overview can be found at: User:Romaine/Freedom of Panorama/Belgium

If anyone knows more restored images, please add them to the page or let me know. Thanks! Romaine (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for the work. I would like to draw the attention on the limits of Belgian FOP.

• It only covers "works of plastic, graphic or architectural art", so texts (litterature) or maps (cartography) are not covered imho.
• The works must be "placed on a permanent basis in public places", so works placed for a short period (like posters) should not be covered. I wonder about the works placed for several months in the framework of a temporary exhibition for example.
• The works must be "placed on a permanent basis in public places", so works inside private areas are not covered. I don't think the interior of museums is covered either (train stations should be OK). BrightRaven (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• • • since we do not have case law, you do not know if graphic art that includes text, and posters permanently affixed in public are fop. but by all means let's have the DRV. Commons:Deletion requests/File:AlexanderHermanDeCrooWahlplakat2012.jpg File:Blake et Mortimer fresque Bruxelles.jpg File:Musee Herge.JPG you would not want to be the "chilling effect". Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 01:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

July 13

Handy tool for (generic) requests of speedy deletions?

Hello!

Is there any script around that allows for a handier way of requesting a generic speedy deletion that isn't covered by the standard options (copyvio - no source - no permission - no license) of the Quick delete tool? I could use that for factually wrong redirects left over after a filemove. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure COM:VFC can do that. BMacZero (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Grand-Duc, with “factually wrong redirects” you speak of things like, what I noticed recently, a file originally claiming, it would show Schloss Charlottenhof, but actually depicting Schloss Cecilienhof, so that now there is the redirect File:Charlottenhof2.JPG? If not, what then? Regarding your question: I accidently found m:TemplateScript (it’s the successor of RegexMenuFramework, which still is part of Commons Gadgets). I can nothing tell you about this, but linking to it. — Speravir_Talk – 20:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Speravir: Yes, this redirect from Charlottenhof2.jpg to Cecilienhof2.jpg is something that I often asked a speedy for, eg. when I had to correct via filemove a biological ID or a wrongly named geographical location. Many thanks for the link, this tool looks amazing and just like I could work with it - when I've learned some JS, though... Kind regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC) PS. Just processed some minutes ago: File:Jetstar Japan, A320-200, JA07JJ (18181746108).jpg - I put a speedy on it because the file claimed to depict the Airbus JA07JJ whereas it actually had the JA09JJ, a different plane. Hence, redirecting from "07" to "09" is simply wrong. GD

So, which reason for deletion do you give then – simply “factual wrong” do you give more explanation? — Speravir_Talk – 21:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Until now, "Factually wrong redirect" (+ sometimes "moving residue") was always enough for the admin processing the speedy. Lately, I added some more explanations, but I tend to do that only when I strongly feel that a deletion would really enhance any experience here. If you fancy it, you could check out the redlinks in my move log as those show for which cases I'm using speedies, uncontested up to now. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, thank you! — Speravir (Talk) – 16:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

US Army photos

When looking for images for en:Murder of Tracie McBride I found this obvious Army portrait of the victim (she was a soldier at Goodfellow AFB) http://www.tjmscholarshipfund.org/uploads/2/6/8/0/26807961/5066248_orig.jpg

Can this be presumed PD, or do I need to collect additional info on it first? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It is better to find its original source on a government website. Ruslik (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: I'm looking for a copy of the military portrait here published on a .gov or .mil site. It my be difficult since McBride died in 1995 (her killer was executed in 2003) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Or you can ask USA military directly whether they have this portrait. Ruslik (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: Ok. So if they say yes I can submit the info to OTRS WhisperToMe (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: Sadly https://www.army.mil/contact keeps giving me 400 bad request WhisperToMe (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

"Photographs of"

Can anyone explain why we have categories like Category:Photographs of men with books (as distinct from Category:Men with books? Aren't photographs pretty much the default here? It seems to me like with distinct categories like this we are in danger of duplicating virtually our whole hierarchy with "photographs of" categories one level down. - Jmabel ! talk 23:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Shakko: I believe you created the category in question, perhaps you can explain. - Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• It would distinguish photographs from other types of media (videos, paintings, etc.). However, as you say, photographs are a de facto default. BTW, there is a possibly related discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/11/Category:Photographs. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• Category:Men with books contains Category:Photographs of men with books, Category:Drawings of men with books‎, Paintings of men with books‎, etc. All is clear. --Shakko (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • But usually it is done with subcategory "XXX in Art", where we place all of this "Paintings of XXX", "Drawings of XXX", etc, because photos are default. Or, this way we shoud create a huge amount of such categories like "Photographs of buildings in Moscow" and so on.--Stolbovsky (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    • With some categories, you need "Category:Photographs of XXX" in order to keep track of what is coming in new. Let's say that you delete the "Photographs of men with books" category, and place the files into the parent category "Men with books". That parent category will then contain 100+ images, making it difficult for editors who clean up categories to keep track of new files coming in that have been incorrectly placed into the category. - Takeaway (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
      • How will this help you find what's coming in new? Will Category:Photographs of men with books be dramatically smaller than Category:Men with books? Or is the intent that Category:Photographs of men with books is so obscure that most people will use Category:Men with books (the normal place I'd expect to put something, certainly) and then you personally will be able to spot those as new? If that's the case, that honestly seems to me to be a bit bizarre. Or are you saying something else? (In other words, if uploaders do what you consider correct -- use Category:Photographs of men with books -- it seems to me that they will defeat your purpose, so you are relying on a category scheme that only serves your purpose if most people don't understand it.) - Jmabel ! talk 17:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree with Jmabel that tracking new entries is not a proper use of this kind of category. However, there is a way you can track what is added to or removed from a category.

• Add the category to your watchlist.
• Go to your preferences and click on the "Watchlist" tab. In the advanced options section, uncheck "Hide categorization of pages" and save your change.

If you do that, then Special:RecentChanges will show you when things are added to or removed from the category. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I wish I could do just that but I have recategorised media in, and keep an eye on quiet a number of categories, some of which seem particularly attractive to mass-uploaders. This would continuously swamp my watchlist. - Takeaway (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't have to swamp your watchlist. There's a watchlist preferences option called "Group changes by page in recent changes and watchlist" that will display only one line for each page (including categories). You click on an arrow to drop down all the individual changes. It may not be ideal, but I think that that much possible inconvenience for one person is preferable to changing the way categories are managed for the convenience of one person. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

What is actually going to happen to the parent category Category:Photographs of men? - Takeaway (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I do think there is a need for some aggregation. Like Category:Photographs of men, but some of this sub categorization like Men with books or Men holding cats is a bit too much. Reguyla (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Why not be consistent? If only photographs of men with books is dissolved, they could/should then be moved into Category:Photographs of men, and into Category:Men with books. There are numerous subcategories of Category:Photographs of people which could then also be dissolved, with even more files flooding into photographs of men/women/children etc. - Takeaway (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Categories should be specific as they could. This is one of our main differences. People that are looking for men with books, could, for example enter in photos, draws, paintings, and find with no trouble, however, image a person looking for photographed men with a book, without this category, by our idea, this person would must use the not that good bottom (or external css) to cross this categories.

Have two questions "men reading books" should have draws and paintings of men reading, Photography is not art? For me:

• Men with books
  • Photographs of men with books‎
    • Photographs of nude or partially nude men with books (obs: this photos...)
  • Paintings of men with books‎
  • Draws of men with books‎
  • Men reading books
    • Photographs of men reading books
    • Paintings of men reading books
    • Draws of men reading books

Now, what's the benefit of that for us to remove this category? I can't see. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 13:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

July 18

x-sistemo → eks-sistemo

La hodiauxaj sxangxoj en Phabricator kaj Gerrit devos signifi, ke post du jaroj, kun helpego de Brion, James, Amir, kaj WhatamIdoing, la deviga uzado de la x‑sistemo dum redaktado, devas baldaux fori. Grandan dankon al ili! Dankon egale al LLarson, kiu verkis tiun mesaĝon. --Psychoslave (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Bonega novaĵo. Sola demando estas kial entute iu iam pensis ke deviga uzado de la x‑sistemo dum redaktado estas iel ajn bona afero. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:SVG rendered incorrectly (Bug_T111815) seems empty, despiste two files are reffering to it

This category is reffered by the following files (using {{HugeSVG}}:

• File:Stroke-dasharray_chromium_bug_full.svg
• File:Stroke-dasharray_chromium_bug_full.svg

So, the category seems empty. Therefore, I missed something? Is there a problem with hidden categories and media files without thumbnail? --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be working now, not sure what the cause was. I was in the process of trying to figure out what was going on which caused the stale cache to go away, so now it shows up in the category.Offnfopt^(talk) 04:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

July 22

Advertising

Hi, has anyone any idea if Hamd Islam is advertising here or if he is looking for a job? Lotje (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hamd Islam. INeverCry 05:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

"Smartphone haze" cleanup/maintenance tag

Most of us will be familiar with the "haze" that frequently ruins photos taken with smartphones. This is due to the lens glass being more exposed and prone to getting finger grease on it than was generally the case with traditional cameras.

(Typical example from a user who has too high a proportion of uploads exhibiting this problem. Actually, this example is worse, but was fixed in later revisions by myself.)

The {{Blurry}} tag for me isn't really accurate. The cause is different, and the end result is different.

Does anyone else think it's a good idea to have a separate maintenance tag saying- in effect- "this photo was let down due to the photographer not bothering to clean off the camera lens"? Possibly phrased in a more diplomatic and neutral manner though... ;-)

One thing in favour is that this might help identify images whose fault can be fixed using a wide-radius unsharp mask (unlike a blurry image), which effectively increases local contrast- i.e. the exact counterpart to lens haze. OTOH, this logic might be taken by some end users to imply that as a "fixable" issue, we're endorsing it as being okay for people to upload lousy grease-smudged pictures, when it isn't really. (#)

(#) Why? First, because it takes someone else's time to fix something that could have been fixed in a couple of seconds by the photographer him/herself cleaning the lens beforehand. Secondly because the image is rubbish up till that point, and might not be worth the hassle of fixing (c.f. quality of this example again!). Thirdly because the processing (unavoidably) increases noise- or rather, makes it more prominent. And lastly, because such images are more likely to fall victim to overzealous in-camera NR reduction since the blurring makes the camera think there's less detail there than there is.

Ubcule (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point of the TO - and this is my reaction to it concerning one of the given examples: Commons:Deletion requests/File:'73 Chevrolet Caprice Convertible (Street Festival '16).jpg. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; I'd actually started replying at the deletion request before I noticed you (the nominator) had already commented here! Ubcule (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Spam or vandalism: Quickbooks

Hi,

There is a problem around Quickbooks A lot of new users uploading random pictures or pictures linked to Quickbooks with always a big description with phone numbers and repeated words.

• File:Qui*c*k*b*ooks phone nu*m*b*e*r.jpg
• File:Q-u-i-c-k-b-o-o-k-s tech support phone n-u-m-b-e-r q-u-i-c-k-b-oooks customer care phone n-u-m-b-e-r.jpg
• File:Quickbooks Payroll technical support contact number.png
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=Quickbooks

By searching on Google a extract of the description, it seems that many wikis and user contents websites have been polluted by this flood.

Regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Reposted @ Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#Spam or vandalism: Quickbooks --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks to be the work of bots all done at the same time, you should be able to report the bots (listed below) and get the uploads removed. Offnfopt^(talk) 23:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Anibhaisingh (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Computersdf (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Enterd789 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Harmidgame (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Jensikaur1 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Jhonsmithjonson (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Kmausam06 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Morrise13 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Rajkumar00123 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Ranichaudhary (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Spyannupatel (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Spyindiaaa (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Susu1234 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

I've blocked all these and nuked the uploads, but there's more:

• Fguydguygdu (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Andrusmith001 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Tellyhock121 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Netgearpowers (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Bbkattyperry (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Hungrysad (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Adreacool (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Fdhtrjstfgj (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Jackkallish (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Johnmaclan11 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Rohitkhurana12 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Hitedpoqpamelat (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Pamelaerson (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Maahirao (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Niketamar (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Ramrouter1 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

One proxy range I've found and rangeblocked: 104.200.128.0/19. This spammer is still creating accounts after that rangeblock, so more proxy ranges are involved. INeverCry 23:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Still going:

• Virat667 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Hjgjhghj (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Nagar85 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Satyamsingh168 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• James262 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)
• Meeragupta95 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

INeverCry 00:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Sgjymsd (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) Delphi234 (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

problem on image server (internal mediawiki error)

See for example : File:Flag of Germany.svg (file history is OK: we can see the images from the history up to end of 2015, but any image from 2016 onwards won't show, even if there was nothing changed since 2007 in the image itself, except the description page in May, but there was no issue since May for this image; so this looks like a problem in the description page incorrectly linked to the image thumbnail)

[V5JYMApAMFIAALoducMAAAAA] 2016-07-22 17:30:24: Erreur fatale de type « MWException »

Thumnail generator failure? Detected on another wiki where country flags are showing red links (going to upload a new image on the other local wiki) instead of the existing image from Commons. I suspect a storage issue (internal network filesystem). -- verdy_p (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

See the bug now reported in Phabricator. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T141132 -- verdy_p (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that this Flag image is used on lot of pages and many wikis (including outside Wikimedia projects). And notably on various homepages (see for example https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/ where it is used in the news panel). But the problem is effectively visible in Commons itself. verdy_p (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

For now I've restored the last 2015 version of the description page. Then I saw that I could see the content of the previous 2016 versions in diffs, but none of them render correctly (it is probably an issue in one module used by Template:Infobox flag, causing the MediaWiki page renderer to stop; I suspect some code bug with an infinite loop in Lua; in the last 2015 version it was using Template:Flag instead). verdy_p (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

July 23

Migration of the Serbs

Hello! I'm translating w:Migration of the Serbs to w:es:Migración de los serbios. However, the pictures of the painting are local in en.wiki, and w:File:Serbmigration.jpg (and others) will not be in the public domain in its home country until January 1, 2028 since its author died in 1957. Nonetheless, the images are a photograph or a work of applied art published before January 1, 1973, and according to {{PD-Serbia}} I could transfer the files to Commons. Am I right or the files should stay in its home wiki? Thanks, ·×ald·^es 15:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess a painting isn't "a photograph or a work of applied art". --ghouston (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

i guess commons is not a place to be trusted to keep a work of art under country rules, when it is not 70 years yet. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Do we still delete files based on URAA copyright rules?

Do we still delete files based on URAA copyright rules? I am asking specifically for File:Anders Donner portrait by Eero Järnefelt.jpg which has a bit of a convoluted history: The current file is a low resolution version of a file which I originally uploaded but which was then deleted based on URAA rules. I then uploaded it locally to fi-wiki (fi:Tiedosto:Anders Donner portrait by Eero Järnefelt.JPG), and now a low res version has been uploaded to Commons by User:The Copper Miner. Do we delete the current one, keep the current one or restore the original? MKFI (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we delete based on the URAA rules. So, even a low resolution file should be deleted from Commons. But I think it may be kept on fiwiki as fair use (if they allow fair use). Ruslik (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

July 24

Cat-a-lot not working properly

Cat-a-lot is not working properly today - see screenshot for details. I don't want to have to visit every file to edit the category with HotCat as that would take an eternity. Anyone know how to sort it out, please? Thanks! MPF (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• 

Addenum - I was able to use 'Copy' to add the files to the desired subcategories, but 'Remove from this category' doesn't work, so now the relevant files are overcat'ed ... MPF (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Cat is Category:Dicrurus macrocercus (museum specimens). Behavior confirmed, but I'm at a loss, too. --Achim (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

MPF, please have a try now. --Achim (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep, working now, thanks! What was changed, please? - MPF (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Achim55: . . . . except just had the same problem at Category:Dicrurus paradiseus (museum specimens); oddly this time, not uniformly, Cat-a-lot did move some (46 moved, so far) but not others (80 not moved, so far) - MPF (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

MPF, the problem are invisible control chars (LTR marks I think) at the end of the cat links on some file pages which I removed now. Just noticed that the problem is mentioned here. --Achim (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Achim55: Thanks! So how do I deal with this if I run into it again? - MPF (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Achim55: Also running into it at Category:Dicrurus hottentottus (museum specimens) - MPF (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Wrong SVG rendering on File:DuckDuckGo logo and wordmark.svg

This section was archived on a request by: Rezonansowy (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki seems always to load the previous version of the file after the newest upload, so it can't be updated (see upload history). --Rezonansowy (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Rezonansowy, there are currently some cache problems reported on MediaWiki. So please wait (and dont revert). ↔ User: Perhelion 00:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done, @Perhelion: OK, seems to be resolved now. Thanks! --Rezonansowy (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

How do you search for images that are in both categories?

Hi all

I'm trying to find a way to search for Wiki Loves Earth 2016 entries that are from specific parks and reserves (and it's pub categories), is there a way I can search for images that appear in both categories and https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=&fulltext=Search&profile=advanced&withJS=MediaWiki:gadget-advanced-search.jsot see images that only appear in one of them? I won't be able to do it by file name because of the multiple languages.

Thanks very much

--John Cummings (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

If you need to include subcats, use FastCCI. If you dont want subcats, you can use incategory:cat_name in the search box. Bawolff (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Bawolff, one question, when I use incategory:cat_name how do I add multiple categories? Do I use a space between them or a + or something? Thanks --John Cummings (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

you separate by a space and repeat the incategory (e.g. incategory:cat1 incategory:cat2 you can also seperate with a pipe if you want to do or queries. See mw:help:CirrusSearch for full details. There is also a gadget called advance search that adds a gui for this https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=&fulltext=Search&profile=advanced&withJS=MediaWiki:gadget-advanced-search.js Bawolff (talk)

Thanks very much Bawolff, I think that Fast CCI is working best for me, my only issue I have is that I want to add all the images that come up in the search results for being in the two categories to a third category Images from Wiki Loves Earth Biosphere Reserves 2016‎, but HotCat doesn't work with it, any ideas? I have about 200 searches to do, I've done around 30 so far and had well over 500 images to manually add to categories. Thanks again, --John Cummings (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You can also use the list compare function of AWB to compare the contents of 2 categories as well. Reguyla (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Cat a lot maybe. /me doesn't know. Bawolff (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Reguyla, so if I had two categories and wanted to add a third category to all the images that appeared in both, this would be possible with AWB? I don't just want to find them, I want to add a third category. Thanks again, --John Cummings (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-30

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• Interactive maps have been enabled for Meta wiki and the Catalan, Hebrew, and Macedonian Wikipedias. Learn how to add interactive maps to wiki pages.
• Last week's rollback is now documented. [34]

Problems

• Sometimes, the visual editor required saving twice. That problem is now fixed. [35]

Changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 July. It will be on all wikis from 28 July (calendar).
• It is now possible to mark all Notifications as read on Special:Notifications, by clicking on the cog icon. [36]
• Wikipedia search will now detect the language of your search if 2 or fewer results are found. It will then show results from the matching language Wikipedia, if any relevant article exists. It will start to roll out in 5 languages. [37]

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 26 July at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can join the next meeting with the Architecture committee. The topic this week is "an extension that implements an authenticated key-value store". The meeting will be on 27 July at 21:00 (UTC). See how to join. [38]

Future changes

• The current icon for Notifications "Notices" (in English "Notices") will be changed from a bubble-speech icon to a tray icon for consistency. [39]
• Special:Notifications page code will be changed to be more Mobile friendly. [40]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

July 26

Edit-war

Threatens an edit war in the Dominican Republic. If I reorganizing files a user makes changes in his uploaded files and categories undone.

What can I do? --Jos1950 (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Who threatens an edit war? BD2412 T 18:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment This user (as can be seen in my talkpage and Jos1950 editions) he is desorganizing other people work by removing categories of images related to Category:Operation Power Pack, speccially categories of locations (Category:Santo Domingo de Guzman), and type of photos (Category:Black and white photographs of the Dominican Republic, (and before Category:1965 in the Dominican Republic), but now the Category:Operation Power Pack is a subcategory of Category:1965 in the Dominican Republic. This is disruptive as contrary to what Jos1950 claims is editions make this images less discoverable. Tm (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment User:Jos1950 also seems to be adding categories that are contrary to what is outlined in COM:OVERCAT. See for instance these edits. - Takeaway (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Als je de bedoeling niet kent en niet wilt afwachten wat het resultaat is moet je je mont houden. Dit soort opmerkingen snijd geen hout. --Jos1950 (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Als je de reden ervoor niet kent, kan je beter ook ophouden. Trouwens, zou je je niet een beetje netter gedragen? - Takeaway (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

If you do not know the purpose and do not want to wait and see what the result is you have to keep your mont. This kind remarks cut no ice.

I'm guessing that if you had been a more polite person, you might have written something like "I am busy recategorising media and I am in the middle of a process". Still failing to see where overcat might feature in the example I gave? And ermmm... "mont"? Is that very modern spelling? - Takeaway (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I had a brief look at User:Jos1950s edits and the user seems to be recategorising large amounts of media pertaining to the Dominican Republic. Most edits seem okay, some have problems with COM:OVERCAT and some newly created categories are not correctly categorised. Perhaps best to just let Commons run its course where other users correct what needs to be corrected when they come across any problems/mistakes. - Takeaway (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Dat ik zo reageer is het resultaat van de reactie op mijn vraag aan tm en de onwililigheid om daarover van gedachten te wisselen. Verder in "Beach in de DR" staan/stonden al enkele staden met een vermelding, waardoor ik dat in de hele DR wilde doorvoeren en ook met bruggen en religie enz. Overal de zelfde indeling, wat is daar fout aan? --Jos1950 (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

According to User:Tm, you, Jos1950, have removed crucial categories from media which, for instance, indicate locations and dates. As neither of you actually give any examples, it is very difficult to see who is right and who is wrong. As for your reply that you are allowed to do what you want with the media because it has been released on Wikimedia, this is not a good reply at all because it doesn't give you the right to incorrectly categorise media as User:Tm states that you are doing. I must say that during my brief look at your edits, I noticed a certain sloppiness. Even in the few edits that I had looked at, I saw that you have forgotten to correctly categorise newly created categories such as you did here, and you have added COM:OVERCAT to other files as I have already touched upon here above. If User:Tm is correct in that you have removed information from media (and removing crucial categories is removing information), then you are indeed not doing your job well. Perhaps you could slow down a bit? - Takeaway (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not have a chance to finish it because tm turned back everything. Also, I can not imagine that I have deleted data, because I did not change the files. As far as I know the history remembers everything. And I was just trying to give cat's a more clear indication time as you can see in e.g. Category:Operation Power Pack (review the history).

I also found it excessive that all black/white images were placed in more than one category and just wanted a reference to the original cat in "cat black and white images". It is not OVERCAT but OVER-INFORMATION. It is not alone a cat for tm. Of the US there are already 2 from tm with different data and there are more categories of black and white images of the DR (look at my latest additions). Should there be than a "cat black and white pictures 2" come up with another all images and 3 and 4?

I read COM:OVERCAT and know I do not put everything right straight away, but there is much work to do to find everything and to clear the DR. Every time a little and in between I improve the and my mistakes. --Jos1950 (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, once you know what images you are interested in "the history remembers everything", but once you have removed relevant categories it's hard to find which images might be of concern. About the only way to find them is to go through all of the files that have been hit by the editor in question.

May I suggest that if you are having major disagreements here that you confine yourselves to some well-defined, relatively small group of photos (e.g. maybe some one city where there are 100 or so photos of that city and see if you can come to some consensus about handling those, rather than ranging over the materials from an entire country? That would probably surface the issues and allow discussion & ultimately consensus without too much disruption along the way. And/or you might do well to create a temporary category marked with {{To check category header}} and __HIDDENCAT__ and add it to all of the images you are working on to make it easy to identify and review them. - Jmabel ! talk 15:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

A good suggestion. In User: Jos1950 I've a part for control and in the DR is a "cat Unidentified locations in the DR". I will expand it with a relevant category for newly found and to (re)post images or categories, so I not disturb directly. --Jos1950 (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

July 25

Featured pictures (manipolations)

Caused by Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Liège-Guillemins Station, Calatrava.jpg/2 I mean we have to consider how to solve such problems. I propose that we allow certain manipolations such as a single mirroring in Featured pictures , if it is mentioned in the description of the file. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Well to be fair, all photos are manipulated in one fashion or another. Cameras have built-in digital processing to improve the quality of images. Camera lenses also change the look of a photo, which can include focusing on a close subject while blurring the background. Filters can also be attached to camera lenses to further modify the results of a photo. Panoramic images are usually stitched together which is another form of photo manipulation. Adjusting brightness/contrast, color levels is photo manipulation. It is also common for photos to be taken in raw format and further processed by a image editor before getting the final result. So the question isn't if photo manipulation is allowed, it is. (pulling this number from my arse) but 90% of the photos wouldn't be allowed if we were only allowed to upload images that were the exact view of our eyes sight. I myself don't have a problem with it as long as in more dramatic cases like this it is in the description, so as not to trying to pass something off as something it is not. Offnfopt^(talk) 21:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

In addition, it's (perhaps disturbingly) routine for nominees as FPC to have all manner of things cloned out, so that we sometimes get a view that couldn't actually be seen (for example, one without electric wires). I think that as long as the manipulation is accurately described, it should be left to the aesthetics of the judges to decide whether to feature the photos or not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright

Does anyone know if the site http://www.laromanabayahibenews.com is public domain? I can not find it. It involves image Santuario-Mamiferos-Marinos-Banco-de-la-Plata-Navidad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jos1950 (talk • contribs)

• Under the Berne Convention, pretty much everything is copyrighted be default at time of creation, so I cannot think of any reason to imagine this would be in the public domain. Why do you think it would be? - Jmabel ! talk 22:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I could not find anything there, so I asked here. Did find an email address, go ask it there. Thanks. --Jos1950 (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

July 27

Why are those files in Category:Files with no machine-readable license

Files File:Fichtenrüsselkäfer (Hylobius abietis).jpg and File:Maria Vassilakou.jpg are in Category:Files with no machine-readable license, but do have valid license. How should we remove them? --Jarekt (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

They use non-standard permission templates. Ruslik (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not see it. I rewrote File:Fichtenrüsselkäfer (Hylobius abietis).jpg a bit so it transcludes Template:Attribution directly. Many other files use that standard license template and are not in Category:Files with no machine-readable license. File:Maria Vassilakou.jpg transcludes Template:GFDL, which is a recognized standard license template. I wonder if this file's issues are related to <div style="clear:both" /> tag Template:Pressefotos Die Gruenen and the file were using. --Jarekt (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

your custom Template:Attribution despite the verbiage does not include a license. you might want to fix that before someone nominates for deletion, like copyheart. your Template:Pressefotos Die Gruenen incorporates Template:GFDL which does include a machine readable license, but it is not carrying over. maybe you should put the original template:cc-by-sa-4.0 which is not equivalent, depending on your otrs. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 17:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not know Slowking4. Template:Attribution is a standard license template it has <span class="licensetpl_short" style="display:none;">Attribution</span> marking which AFAIK is enough to be recognized by mediawiki software as a license. 162k files use only that license, like File:Lachduif.jpg, and they do not end up in Category:Files with no machine-readable license. OTRS for File:Maria Vassilakou.jpg only says GFDL, and that template is also used on 4M files, some of them as the only license, and those other files do not end up in Category:Files with no machine-readable license. So what is different for those 2 files, and those are the only unexplained 2 files in that category. --Jarekt (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I "fixed" File:Maria Vassilakou.jpg by doing some cosmetic changes to Template:Pressefotos Die Gruenen. It still makes no sense. --Jarekt (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Fichtenrüsselkäfer (Hylobius abietis).jpg is also fixed after rewriting some non-license templates used by the file. --Jarekt (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Tower or gate

Is the bus passing a gate under one of Bern´s towers or is it a passage not undeer a tower. A have several pictures of trams passing this gate. I am surprised that there are no pictures of trams passing gates in Bern.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It is the tower Käfigturm (Category:Käfigturm) at the street Marktgasse. The street sign can be seen at the left in the picture. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Could someone check out the date of File:Bern01.jpg? The original upload website is not available. I suggest renaming the file to something more meaningfull.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, it was originally 25062012 and somehow got interpreted as 2506-12-20 instead of 25-06-2012. --ghouston (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Danisch building

There is a big new building in the harbour of Aarhus. What is the official name? Borgerservice Aarhus or Dokk1 as mentioned in some places and in the picture. So there is the correct subcategory in Category:Buildings in Århus.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The building is named Dokk1 (sometimes spelled DOKK1): "Dokk1 houses the Aarhus Main Library, the municipal public services department, theater scenes, businesses and a large automated underground parking facility." Borgerservice is the Danish word for municipal public services department. And yes, there is indeed a railway running through the building. It will be converted into a tramway next year with a stop at Dokk1. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Designating copyright info on logo that I created and gave to a non-profit organization

I created a logo for a non-profit about a year ago, and gave it to them. Now I want to upload it for a new wiki page on the non-profit. I presume and wish for licensing to be "fair use" but am not sure how to answer the wizard question to label everything correctly. --and feel no need to designate myself as creator. Comments? Illuminer2 (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair Use probably isn't the word you're looking for - it refers to material that is copyrighted but being used for some "fair" purpose like education. It sounds like you're trying to release your image as public domain. If that's true and you don't care about keeping any of your rights as the creator of the image, use the {{CC-Zero}} license. You should still identify yourself as the creator so we know you have the right to declare that the file is under that license. BMacZero (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I do mean "fair use," as, for example, is the case with the logo for Doctors without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières). Is that logo not designed correctly? I gave the copyright to the organization, and now feel like I am reporting on their material, as is included in "fair use" described in /www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html. I got held up by wanting to keep the ownership with the organization, not me; and when I got to the "are you the creator" question, anticipated that the answer could lead to confusion with the next set of questions I would be asked. BTW: this is my first image upload on Wikipedia, ever. Illuminer2 (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. In that case you'll have to upload the image to English Wikipedia directly (as the Doctors Without Borders logo has been). Wikimedia Commons does not allow fair use images. I don't know how their upload wizard works but hopefully it will make sense. BMacZero (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I'll go to it. Illuminer2 (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Illuminer2: FYI: en:Wikipedia:Non-free content should contain all the information you need for that. --El Grafo (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

NVIDIA logos

We have bunch of NVIDIA logos: [41][42][43] [44][45] (last two with faked license). Seems like it;s not "simple geometry forms" so it's copyright violation. 109.172.98.69 16:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• I was actually writing the deletion request at the time of your post :) --INS Pirat (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Stèle du monument funéraire.JPG

Why have removed this photo I made it myself ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maneck (talk • contribs) 02:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC) Pourquoi avoir supprimé cette photo que j'ai faite moi même ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maneck (talk • contribs) 02:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Convenience link: File:Stèle du monument funéraire.JPG. - Jmabel ! talk 04:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
• Because someone raised doubts about your "own work" claim 9 days ago, notified you, and you didn't respond. At this point, if you want to address the issue it will have to be via Commons:Undeletion requests. - Jmabel ! talk 04:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
• I would say that their suspicion of your uploads is reasonable, given that you claimed File:Les garçons de la bande.jpg as your own work without further explanation, and did not reply when they notified you of an issue. - Jmabel ! talk 04:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio ?

Bonjour, je voudrais utiliser le fichier File:Milovan Rajevac en Algerie.jpg sur Wikipédia, mais je ne suis pas sûr qu'il est libre de droit. Pouvez-vous vous assurez ?

Merci — Sincerely Issimo 15 22:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Can't be 100% sure, but best I can tell it is copyvio. The exact image can be found here and the image itself just appears to be a screen cap of a network media broadcast that was cropped which would account for the low quality. Offnfopt^(talk) 22:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. — Sincerely Issimo 15 08:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

July 28

Wikidata (structured data) on Commons

FYI: Commons talk:Structured_data#It.27s_alive.21 --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

July 29

Category:Cleopatra (1963 trailer screenshots)

How ut happened, that plenty of screen-shots appeared on Commons? Is it film in public domain? --Алый Король (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Read the information in the permissions section for this file, it explains the situation and links to pages that go into further detail. Offnfopt^(talk) 06:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Coats of arms or Heraldry.

What is correct: Category: Heraldry in Category: Coats of arms or Category: Coats of arms in Category: Heraldry. --Jos1950 (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jos, you must know what Heraldry is. It is right as it is, because CoA are a part/subject of Heraldry, not vice versa. Heraldry is much more. For example comparable with Botany is the science of plants and Botany is not a plant. ↔ User: Perhelion 04:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. So I can put everything in Heraldry.

Category:RKDimages versus Category:RKD - Netherlands Institute for Art History: A double ?

The RKD - Netherlands Institute for Art History is the owner of (amongst others) the online database called RKDimages. It seems here on Commons the two categories where created independently of each other. The category RKD - Netherlands Institute for Art History was created after several earlier (obsolete) names where redirected to it. I'm proposing to make Category:RKDimages a subsidiary of Category:RKD - Netherlands Institute for Art History. After that I'd like to create an institution template for RKD - Netherlands Institute for Art History. My posting this here is to find out if there are any objections. Something that I may have overlooked. --OSeveno (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

There also is a Category:Netherlands Institute for Art History and Institution:Netherlands Institute for Art History, which is not the correct name of the institute. It seems that someone thinks that the inclusion of RKD in the name is only for 'locals' of the Netherlands. On the English version of the website of RKD - Netherlands Institute for Art History they use the full name in English, including (the abbreviation) RKD. So, what to do here ? --OSeveno (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

If all the images in Commons come from their RKDimages database, then one category seems sufficient. If they come from more than one source within the organisation, then they could be organised as subcategories within a top-level category. --ghouston (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It should be a source category named like "Images from Netherlands Institute for Art History" (that's the name used in the English Wikipedia.) A parent category like "Netherlands Institute for Art History" would be useful if there was something else to go in there, like a photo of their building. --ghouston (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes I have tried to puzzle these out before. I think there is a difference between "images in their dataset" and "images which are uploaded from their dataset". I myself am a heavy user of their dataset and will tack on a {{RKD|9999}} template to the file description. This template in my opinion incorrectly tacks on a category as if the image came from there, but I am just trying to offer the reader the documentation access. Jane023 (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

So you are adding the RKD template to images that have been obtained from elsewhere, but are for works listed in the RKDimages database? In that case, the category added by {{RKD}} could be something like "Art works recorded in RKDimages". --ghouston (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes exactly. See this one which I just uploaded: File:Willem van Haecht - Alexander the Great visits the studio of Apelles N08610-169-lr-1.jpg Jane023 (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, so what should it be, Category:Netherlands Institute for Art History, Category:RKD - Netherlands Institute for Art History or maybe Category:RKD-Netherlands Institute for Art History? They do like to call themselves RKD-Nederlands Instituut voor Kunstgeschiedenis, I'm not sure if that's their legal name or not. RKD is the abbreviation of their previous Dutch name, and it doesn't add much to the English translation. --ghouston (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• I think Category:Netherlands Institute for Art History, since RKD is meaningless in English, and since it matches the English Wikipedia page as well as Institution:Netherlands Institute for Art History. If RKD was prefixed, those would ideally be renamed. --ghouston (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

July 21

Pages that link to "Category:Monuments historiques in Côte-d'Or (town halls)"

Hi, I stumbled upon WhatLinksHere/Category:Monuments historiques in Côte-d'Or (town halls). About 60 pages link to this non-existing category with the weird name. Any suggestions for a better name? Or is it better to simply remove the links from these pages? — bertux 21:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The category seems to adher to a naming convention, so I decided to create it. Comments are welcomed. — bertux 23:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Unknown transfer station

The first part of the journey from Goteborg (Sweden) to Oslo (Norway) in 2010 was by bus. In this station the passenger where transferred to the train. I cant remenber if this was already Norway or stil Sweden. This is imposible to research using Google as you get swamped by non relevant travel websites. One clue must be the two station buildings.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It is Halden Station, the first station on the Norwegian side of the boarder. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Doubt about a personel fan art drawing

Hi everybody. I've drawn that based on that. I think this can't be accepted on Commons, but I'm not entirely sure. What do you think ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Derivative work. We'd need permission from the copyright-holder of the original underlying work (as well as from you, of course). - Jmabel ! talk 20:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

  That's what I thought. Thanks. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Delayed processes

Today I noticed several problems with delayed processes related to uploading files:

• past uploading the file, rhe result page diplays the file but not the description page. It appears as not existing. The page needs to be refreshed to display it.
• past uploading the file, the file is not visible in the categories linked at the file description page. Sometimes, the delay is several seconds or minutes, however, tonight i noticed a set of photos which have a delay more than 1.5 hours.

It is not possible to synchronize these processes? --ŠJů (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

We're also getting help desk questions about the category delays (over three hours and counting in this case). —LX (talk, contribs) 22:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

August 01

Click-sensitive area around images in categories

Up until a couple of days ago, if I was on a category, to go to an image in that category, I clicked directly on the thumbnail, or directly on the image's name. In the last couple of days, this has changed; now clicking in a wide click-sensitive area anywhere near the thumbnail or its name results in being taken to the image.

This causes two serious problems:

1. It is nearly impossible to highlight and copy the name of the image (to paste into a page elsewhere, etc.); trying to highlight the name results in the mouse pointer 'pushing' the name away without highlighting it, or else taking you to the image page, a time-waster waiting for the image to load.
2. Using Cat-a-lot has become almost impossible, as there is virtually no place anywhere around the thumbnail which one can click to add the thumbnail to the Cat-a-lot set for recategorising, without sending you away from Cat-a-lot to the file. Sometimes there is a tiny strip below the bottom of the filename (where the file size is given) that can be used; sometimes not. If I have just successfully highlighted a large number of files for Cat-a-lot, and then just miss by a fraction of a millimetre, I get sent to the file and lose the entire set already highlighted, a total pain in the a***.

This happens now with two different computers I use, so it's a new fault in Commons, not in my computer. What's happened, and how can this problem be reversed, please?

Thanks! MPF (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• I’ve noticed the same exact issue, and front the same problems. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@MPF and Tuvalkin: Workaround:

1. Press the ALT key while selecting with the mouse (I do not know, how it is with touch sensitive devices). The download dialogue comes nonetheless, though.
2. For Cat-a-lot click on the file size display, this works fine here.

— Speravir_Talk – 21:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• It still is a pain in the ass for people who use cat-a-lot. There is now just so little real-estate to click on without accidentally leaving the category. - Takeaway (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

As someone who uses cat-a-lot a lot (pun intended), I think this should be fixed in the gadget. This was always a bit of a problem with it, since I tended to click on a link by accident and often "destroyed" the selection. I think the right way to go forward is that cat-a-lot either completely overrides the click action, or adds a large "checkmark" while it is open. --Sebari (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree; disabling left-click when Cat-a-lot is open would certainly be hugely helpful. I'd not want right-click disabled though, as it is sometimes useful to be able to 'open link in new tab' to take a detailed look at a single pic to check if it should be added to the group for recategorisation. - MPF (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like this was an unforeseen consequence of gerrit:298020 (phab:T139766). This feature has been disabled here on Commons since the dawn of time with a gadget, so I tweaked it now to more precisely restore the previous behavior: [46]. That said, I agree with Sebari, this is really a problem with Cat-a-lot – it should prevent you from closing the page accidentally (like the editor does), and it should probably just take over the entire thumb+caption for selecting it (you could still view the image page by middle-clicking etc.). Matma Rex (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

"(you could still view the image page by middle-clicking etc.)" — I fear I don't know what you mean there! - MPF (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@MPF: If you click on any link on any website with the middle mouse button rather than the left one, the new page will be opened in a new browser tab (or window). (On some browsers, you can also left-click while keeping the Ctrl or Shift key pressed to achieve this.) This often works even if left-clicking does something else (e.g. in a search suggestions dropdown). Cat-a-lot could also be written to allow this behavior when you middle-click the image or the caption, while taking over left-click for its selection behavior. Matma Rex (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Matma Rex: Thanks! Never knew that - just tried it, and it works. Very useful :-) MPF (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The easiest, most straight-forward way to fix this in MediaWiki:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js is to move line 1010 ("e.preventDefault();") up right below line 994 ("$box.bind( 'click.catALot' ..."). This way you can click anywhere on the file name box and it will select the box. For some reason, clicking on the image will still open the image page. I am investigating this right now. --Sebari (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Rillke: as someone who has edited cat-a-lot a lot in the past. --Sebari (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@MPF, Tuvalkin, Speravir, Takeaway, and Matma Rex:  Done Steinsplitter has now integrated the change. As long as the cat-a-lot box is open, you can click anywhere below the image to select/deselect, including the image name. Clicking on the thumbnail will still open the image. I think there are more possible usability improvements with this tool, but I think this will help a lot. --Sebari (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Much appreciated, thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
• Thanks! - Takeaway (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
• It is great, now, better than ever before — many thanks!! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Thanks for fix and information. — Speravir_Talk – 17:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Speravir (Talk) 17:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)