Commons:Village pump/Archive/2019/10

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Ращупкин Владимир

Я изобретатель и у меня есть изобретение "пневмоэлектрический вертолет", но нет средств для его создания. В средине августа 2019 года в интернете прочитал, что на вооружении РФ появится бесшумный вертолет, но это мой вертолет, на получение патента на изобретение которого мной подана заявка в Роспатент, а информация о появлении на вооружении РФ бесшумного вертолета свидетельствует о том, что Роспатент продал мое изобретение как ноу-хау и чтобы в перспективе не возникло конфликта с моим участием, мне просто откажут в выдаче патента на изобретение. В Роспатенте понимают, что кроме меня никто не может получить патента на данное изобретение. Вариант своих действий я уже продумал, планы есть, но хочется создать это устройство. Ведь время и дальность полетов устройства ничем не ограничены, он сам вырабатывает электрическую энергию и на этой энергии совершает полет... . В настоящее время проводится экспертиза заявки по существу. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 109.203.197.190 (talk) 05:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Roy17 (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Should I move this file to the Commons from English Wikipedia - File:FRA logo 2017.jpeg

So, I've been going through trying to track down logos for the various agencies under the United States Department of Transportation, and managed to recreate the logo for the Federal Railroad Administration, to replace this file: File:FRA logo 2017.jpeg, uploaded in 2017, and used as the logo. It's currently being hosted on the English Wikipedia, and would be eligible to move to the Commons, but, should I actually move it, give its poor quality? My other reason for wondering is, it's not exactly their logo. It's the avatar image they use for the official Federal Railroad Administration social media pages. (Note: I can move it to the Commons myself, my question is if I should actually move "File:FRA logo 2017.jpeg" to the Commons.)--The Navigators (talk) 05:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

There is currently no source specified for this logo but this is mandatory at Commons per COM:L#License information. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@AFBorchert: , I'm pretty sure I tracked down the source (the avatar image for the Official FRA Facebook page (the image when enlarged to 400 by 400, looks like the file with the compression artifacts).--The Navigators (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok, the source links look good (I would add both links as you did here). And as this Facebook page is linked to by railroads.dot.gov (at the bottom of the page is the facebook symbol) which belongs to the United States Department of Transportation, this appears indeed to be the work of a DOT employee as part of that person's official duties for which {{PD-USGov-DOT}} applies. We would keep it at Commons despite its poor quality as a reference to the original copy. SVGs which are derived from this can then link to this file, its sources and its proper license tag. We keep such inferior files if they are part of such a chain. Templates like {{Derived from}} and {{Derivative versions}} can be used to document the chain. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, the file's been moved and had sources added.--The Navigators (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --The Navigators (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

How do I request a Campaign UploadWizard?

I've seen multiple upload contents go around and remember using a very specific version of the MediaWiki Upload Wizard for Wiki Loves Love. At the WikiProject Numismatics we want to create a (cross-wiki) contest for people to upload images of United States banknotes to Wikimedia Commons, but I want to ask where we can request a specific upload wizard?

All this should be able to do is categorise the images into a special category so the judges can check it out. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Upload Wizard campaign editors - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, do they have a noticeboard? Or just a general way to be contacted? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Nothing I'm aware of. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The best way would be to request the right for yourself and then create the campaign. --GPSLeo (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there a review process to the Licensing of a file? The file below has a "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license"- but the source appears to be a Public Domain photo from U.S. Library of Congress (LOC)

No, there is not. P.S. don't forget to sign your comments. --Fæ (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Repasz Band March

Repasz Band March

I've uploaded this file. Even though the source didn't specify it, it sounds identical (to me) to Repasz Band - March. Conway's Band. Zonophone 78rpm and also has the exact same duration.

So am I right to assume this version is performed by Conway's Band? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

It's fine to add research. In this case if you are making probably valid deductions, best to say "thought to be" or similar, so that reusers are not misled if this later turns out to be incorrect. To say for certain that these are identical, there ought to be a more 'forensic' comparison of the audio, like comparing waveforms that show imperfections in the same place, or peculiarities of the performance linking the two, like coughing or clapping in the same places. --Fæ (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I add a "notes" header and add in commentary and corrections to the original captions for some files. RAN (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Artists' original work

Can someone point me to examples of artworks uploaded to Commons by contemporary artists as examples of their work (I'm talking about commercial artists, or those who exhibit, rather than folk who just draw illustrations for Wikipedia). Do we have a page of guidance or encouragement specifically for such artists (as opposed to generic "how to contact OTRS" material)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Browsing Category:21st-century painters and its subcategories will likely turn up several artists who self-publish. Category:Hans-Joachim Sternhardt and Category:Gwendolyn Lanier-Gardner are a couple, and I know I've seen others. Some artists are more notable than others, in that they have a Wikipedia article in at least one language, whereas others seem to exist only in Wikimedia space. It's important to note note that self-publishing ones own artwork, especially if abstract or the artist is not otherwise notable, may violate COM:EDUSE, as examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose include: "Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills". While some original artwork, even by non-notable individuals, may have educational value (e.g. scientific diagrams or reconstructions of extinct animals), the wholesale uploading of personal work is and should be discouraged in many cases. Just as Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, Commons is not DeviantArt. --Animalparty (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Fæ/Userlist is back

This was discussed a few weeks ago. I'm pleased to say that I invested a couple of hours today understanding the recent WMF database changes and thanks to a nudge on IRC, got the script working again.

There are a couple of other bot related things, if anyone has noticed and misses them, please comment on my talk page. If I never get any feedback, then other stuff is always going to feel more urgent, even if that's experimenting with a bread recipe rather than fiddling with Commons maintenance and upload projects. --Fæ (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Where can I get funding to cover costs for obtaining copies of films in PD?

I have the skills, knowledge, and the contacts to obtain hi-res copies of old films in public domain held at Library of Congress. The costs are preventative on my budget. Is there any funding available for costs like these that I could apply for? Some of the films available are listed at National Film Registry – §Film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk • contribs) 05:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: The WMF does issue grants. Have you explored those? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
See meta:Grants:Start. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Koavf and Ricky81682: , I have applied for a grant at Grants:Project/National Film Registry. I would appreciate your support. –Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 08:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: Happy to help: what did you have in mind? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Koavf: I think clicking endorse on the infobox on the Grant proposal and suggesting some pre-1924 films from the list at National Film Registry – §Film would be helpful. I hope this test project goes well on the first 10 films and I will try to expand the project. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: I think the best feedback I can give is that you should clarify more about what exactly you would do in your application: e.g. if you had in mind the highest-value films you could convert for this project. I am also struggling to justify $1,500 per film but maybe I'm just ignorant. It doesn't seem obvious to me why going to D. C. and upload 10 films would cost $15,000, so I would encourage you to be more specific about your budget and really justify each line item. On further reflection, I see that you explicitly called out the LOCs fees but I think there is still more math to be done here. I've applied to successful grants before (and many unsuccessful ones), so I'm happy to give that feedback and endorse if you can make the application itself stronger. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Koavf: I have updated the budget to be more accurate. The films are in their original format and need to be digitized. The entire budget is being used for fees that LOC charges for cost of transferring the films to digital format. Some examples of films in the collection are The Kid and The Mark of Zorro. We have low resolution copies but these would be 2048x1556 pixels resolution copies. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: To be clear, I think that accuracy is important but also precision: in my experience, it's important to not only have numbers that are correct but detailed to really justify why someone should give you money. I think this is a pretty good idea and I would like to see how you can maximize the value of this work by collaborating with others in the District, etc. I'm glad you proposed this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I should have said, I live in the DC area. I often visit the LOC. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
2K is the highest resolution, that is offered by LOC. Films were probably made with 35mm film, that effecivly may translate to digital 4K or 8K resolution. Maybe it would make sense to wait for LOC to offer better resolution? --C.Suthorn (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
That is fair point but at the rate LOC works that may not happen for another few years. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hippolyte & Paul Lazerges

Paul Jean Baptiste Lazerges - Rêverie.jpg and Paul Jean Baptiste Lazerges - A la fenêtre.jpg were uploaded, on 4 February 2016, by Rvalette who attributed them to Paul Lazerges. There is good reason to believe they were created, instead, by his father Hippolyte Lazerges, as evidenced here or here. Renaming those files to show their actual creator's name would go a long way towards helping reduce the confusion. Thanks in advance. Nieves 05:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

They bear a signature of Hippolyte. And they are attributed to him by the museum [1] [2]. Probably a mistake of the uploader. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
A probable mistake by the uploader that got carried over to Wikipedia, though. 181.119.160.58 19:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

android + exif + template + taken on template = redlink

An image uploaded with

{Uploaded from Mobile|platform=Android|version=2.11.0~93b948d20}

gets an automatic date with the template

{According to EXIF data|20/09/2019}

that adds the inexistent category:photographs taken on 20/09/2019

It deems to me, that either

  • Android
  • Mobile for Android
  • template according to Exif data

or

  • category photographs taken on

needs to be changed, to avoid a redlinked category as the first category of the file.

--C.Suthorn (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The template expects the date to be given in ISO format. Looking at the Commons mobile app code, it is supposed to format the date as an ISO date. I'm not sure why it didn't, that's a question for the app developers and maintainers​. As far as adjusting the templates go, there's not a whole lot that could or should be done. One potential solution would be to have {{According to Exif data}} check to see if the category exists before setting it. I don't know how the categories are created, but it could lead to inconsistent categorization. Another solution would be to change Module:ISOdate to output an error instead of the original date if a parameter is set. This would allow {{According to Exif data}} to detect the error and prevent categorization. This would take development work too​. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Module:ISOdate is uded by most of infoboxes including {{Information}}. Current approach is that dates in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD) will be internationalized and all the others displayed as provided. Changing that logic would cause errors on a lot of pages. --Jarekt (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey AntiCompositeNumber, yes, that was an error in the most recent version of the app (v2.11.0). We've just got a fix in for it, and I should be able to release v2.11.1 with the hotfix within the next day or so, after I'm done with testing it. Sorry for the inconvenience! Misaochan (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Update: I discovered a problem with the fix in my pre-release testing. Might take a while more, sorry. :/ Misaochan (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker seems broken.

User:CommonsDelinker has only made one edit after 30 September and hasn't performed any delinking tasks. Anywhere.

What's going on here? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I suggest you report it by creating an issue at https://bitbucket.org/magnusmanske/commons-delinquent/issues to keep Magnus Manske happy.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Magnus never replies to me. Maybe he doesn't like me. Also, I can't remember my bitbucket account. (do I even have one?) Can you or someone else do it? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I thought it was just me. Please see issue 46.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Request deletion rights

Hi,

sorry in advance for the question... but I'd like to request deletion rights (or anything that would let me delete files). I haven't found there's a specific "delete" right. Some users uploaded a bunch of pictures of mine from Flickr, and a few are duplicates of what I had already uploaded myself here in the past. Any idea please?

Thank you. - Benh (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Only administrators can delete pages. If something is a duplicate please mark it with the {{Duplicate}} template. --Majora (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Auto trka "Grand Prix" na Kalemegdanu, u Beogradu 1939, 10.jpg

Can you confirm your image "Grand_Prix"_na_Kalemegdanu,_u_Beogradu_1939,_10.jpg is it modified correctly? Thanks. --Adriel 00 (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Lucernal microscope-MHS 234-P5200309-black.jpg

This file is in Category:Lucernal microscope-MHS 234 which is fine. This category is a subcategory of Category:Historical light microscopes. So the file should not be categorized directly in the latter category. And it does not contain a respective line in the file page itself. But it still shows up directly in the Category:Historical light microscopes. Why and how can it be changed?. This is just one of several examples with the same problem. Thanks for hints. Dietzel65 (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Strange, and it's not restricted to Category:Historical light microscopes. Take File:Microscope of Charles Bonnet-MHS 149-IMG 3894-gradient.jpg for example: this one appears in bunch of Categories it shouldn't be in. I suspect that the usage of {{Artwork}} at Category:Lucernal microscope-MHS 234 (or for my example: Category:Microscope of Charles Bonnet-MHS 149) somehow attaches the Parent categories of microscope categories to all of the files they contain … --El Grafo (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Kind of: I removed Category:Microscope of Charles Bonnet-MHS 149 from Category:Horace Bénédict de Saussure and all the microscope images disappeared from that category. Reverted my edit and they're back.
In the parsed pagetext it appears just after the Accession Number property. I don't have any more time to look at the moment, but it seems like that is being used to look up and insert some additional data from somewhere?

<td>\n<div class=\ "identifier\">\nMHS 234 <small>([[w:en:Mus\u00e9e d'histoire des sciences de la Ville de Gen\u00e8ve|Mus\u00e9e d'histoire des sciences de la Ville de Gen\u00e8ve]])</small></div</td>\n</tr>\n\n\n</table>\n\n</div>\n\n\n[[Category:Collections of the Mus\u00e9e d\u2019histoire des sciences, Gen\u00e8ve]]\n[[Category:Historical light microscopes|MHS]] – BMacZero (🗩) 16:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

hm, I removed {{Artwork}} from Category:Lucernal microscope-MHS 234, but the files of the category still show up in Category:Historical_light_microscopes. So the extra data apparently come from a different source. Dietzel65 (talk) 09:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I am having the impression that things may not be reproducible here, but if I now completely empty the Category:Lucernal microscope-MHS 234, then the files still appear in historical light microscopes. (I thought this was different before, but I may have made a mistake). If in the file page I remove the Category:Lucernal microscope-MHS 234, then it is gone from the historical light micoscope. This is very strange, I am at a loss. I am afraid I can't follow the parsing thing above (lack of knowledge about parsing). Dietzel65 (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
One more thing, I moved Category:Microscope of Charles Bonnet-MHS 149 now from Historical light microscopes to 18th century microscopes. So far the individual images still are listed in Category:Historical light microscopes. Maybe it takes some time for some database to update. But if this stays this way, the extra-information is not coming from the Category:Microscope of Charles Bonnet-MHS 149 page. Dietzel65 (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
ok, now some hours later they appear in the 18th century microscopes category. So there may be a substantial delay between a change in the wikitext and the reaction to it. This is a nightmare for testing, I guess I am substatially out of my depth with this one. Dietzel65 (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@Dietzel65, El Grafo, and BMacZero: the file used {{Object photo}}, which contains a line {{Category:{{{object|{{{Object|{{{artwork|{{{Artwork|}}} }}} }}} }}} }}, therefore the file transcluded [[Category:Lucernal microscope-MHS 234]] (object = Lucernal microscope-MHS 234).
imo the template should not transclude any cats. who knows what the raw text of the cat is and it may include redundant/irrelevant stuff.
besides, it should be at least semi protected since it's transcluded 50k times.--Roy17 (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Roy17. I agree that this should be changed, but I don't feel I should try this myself (considering the 50k). I guess the best would be to contact the makers of this template on the template discussion page, what do you think? Dietzel65 (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, it is my strong opinion that regular categorization should never be achieved through templates (nothing against templates adding maintenance/copyright categories). It is highly obscure, inflexible, and breaks the regular categorization workflow (including HotCat and Cat-a-lot). --El Grafo (talk) 07:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. This whole template seems to be a mess and probably shouldn't be used any more. A solution for the problem at hands was kindly explained at Template_talk:Object_photo#This_template_creates_additional_categories_for_files. Dietzel65 (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

US National Park Service photographs

I think the dating is quite off about a series of US National Park Service photographs all said to be from March 1900. There's roughly 1000 photographs that can be found in Category:Photographs taken on 1900-03-21, Category:Photographs taken on 1900-03-22, and Category:Photographs taken on 1900-03-24. These were all part of a batch at Commons:Batch uploading/NPGallery. According to the discussion there, these all should have been pre-1924 photographs but a number of these are pristine color photographs which seems odd. It seems to be an error from the website itself. For example, this image (although titled 1953) is listed here with a "Create date" of March 21, 1900. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and File:Aztec_Ruins_National_Monument_Superintendent_Clarence_Gorman_(Navajo_Indian)._Image_Number_76-105-68._(b821fcf5be4145f08d603a26093fceb9).jpg can be dated 1974-1986 from [3]. Maybe the dates should be replaced with "unknown date". --ghouston (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
It is the source that has the incorrect creation date (03/21/1900). I wonder how many of the 14,000 images in Category:Images from NPGallery to check have similar errors. One of the takeaways from the discussion at Commons:Batch uploading/NPGallery is that the NPS doesn't seem to do a great job of justifying why (or even if) something is in the Public Domain, and their data curation may have similar inconsistencies and errors. --Animalparty (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
A significant portion seem to in my opinion. You have 14k in the "to be checked" out of 16k total. @BMacZero: , your bot uploaded these but it seems like it was based on bad data anyways. Was there another parameter that needed to be checked? It may just require manually checking and listening for deletion based on unknown copyright claims. I'm starting with this discussion on one and let's see if more people have ideas. Otherwise, yeah, it may require a manual check of all the images to fix this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ricky81682: I shared a bit more info about how I determined whether NPGallery files were public domain in the DR you linked. While I didn't trust any copyright or license statements on NPGallery, I did trust their author and date information, so if it was wrong we could have issues. Maybe what I can do in this case is throw all of these into Category:Images from NPGallery with wrong date and write a bot task to go through there and see if correct dates can be fished out, or (it seems very few of the affected files have dates listed anywhere) mark them as {{unknown|date}} and recheck the license? I guess I'll also have to add more checks on future uploads - perhaps not trusting any 1900 date? – BMacZero (🗩) 03:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@BMacZero: I think it's fine where it is. We don't need separate subcategories. There is both a dating problem and a copyright issue so it needs to be reviewed. If you look at my deletion discussion there are two pages with the copyright clearly defined in two ways. As such, the clear, clear Parks Service files can have the "to check" cleared but the image dates are another matter. Just a mess all around. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Have the 300,000 images from Auckland Museum been uploaded to Commons?

Hi all

I just read this article about Auckland Museum releasing 300,000 images under an open license (CC BY), I wondered if anyone had uploaded them to Commons? I tried searching for a category but category search is not easy...

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Images added during refresh run
  • Wittrockiella, a green goo in need of a common name.
    Wittrockiella, a green goo in need of a common name.
  • Bread and butter?
    Bread and butter?
  • Lekythos, Greece, unknown date
    Lekythos, Greece, unknown date
  • Shawl, China, c.1900
    Shawl, China, c.1900
  • Chinese seal, New Zealand Chinese Association, c. 1935
    Chinese seal, New Zealand Chinese Association, c. 1935
  • Teacosy, celluloid doll
    Teacosy, celluloid doll
Started a re-run of the 2017 script, Commons:Batch uploading/AucklandMuseumCCBY. If this refresh runs in to problems there will probably be a pause for several days before analysing, as it would take some effort to recall the API design at the server end, plus it's running on a different machine with a different OS. There are Internal server error messages, normally the result of moving things, plus a lot of not online blanks, though the latter were there previously. If anyone thinks the batch upload is skipping valid files, specific examples would be useful to note on my user talk page.
Based on this search, Commons has over 120,000 images from this archive at the moment, of which a handful were not uploaded as part of the batch upload project, which might be down to crops. --Fæ (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 Comment No additional categories? Who is going to do this? Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Categories are added and are created at the time of upload, where the metadata can be interpreted to do so, for example Category:1970s in Auckland Museum and Category:Migration and settlement in Auckland Museum which were applied to some of the above images at upload. Creating special categories rather than using the general Commons categories like "Migration" or "1970s" is a compromise, but it's probably the best we can do when automating categorization for hundreds of thousands of photographs. There were more than half a million photographs uploaded as part of the Portable Antiquities Scheme using the same method, and surprisingly I cannot recall any negative criticism for this approach. For PAS there were more example searches on the project page to aid anyone who wanted to mass categorize certain types of artefact, for example the huge number of coin images.
Open to ideas, as we can always pause the upload and consider pragmatic alternatives, however as with many other archives the metadata returned by the API may not always provide consistent detail or format to support a more specific categorization schema. See the Commons:Batch_uploading/AucklandMuseumCCBY#Categories. --Fæ (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks, didn't know about that. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

We are seeing some 'internal server errors' that can mess up the cross-linking galleries, for example File:Halicarcinus whitei Miers, 1876 (AM MA78776-1).jpg cross references images listed by the API, but turned out to be un-uploadable due to this error. If someone fancies doing a deep dive on the causes, feedback might be useful on the project page. "Dead" thumbnail images like this, can be removed as a mass post-upload task (which would look for missing image links), but there's no point in thinking about that until the refresh run is complete.

Ah, and this example is also a duplicate of an overwritten image, which is a drag to discover as that's a slightly tricky failure mode to tidy up later, at least en-mass. --Fæ (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Banksy

"Banksy & me, yesterday"

Before I start a DR for a large number of images, that depict works by Banksy, with the rationale "no FoP for 2d artwork in the UK" or other rationales (like: painting in MOCO in Amsterdam probably without permission), I'd like to ask, if there is any reason, i.e.permission to keep some or all of this files.

Banksy is quoted today in german newspapers (on the occasion of a painting by her having been auctioned), that she thinks her works should be free to all mankind, which makes me assume, that Banksy could be likely to give a general permission for her works to OTRS, if only asked for one?

--C.Suthorn (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You could try asking at http://www.banksy.co.uk/faq.asp but I suspect any email would reveal too much detail. I think for OTRS purposes we would need more than a vague statement release which is not a considered release. Meanwhile, we do treat graffiti generally as criminal and so not acquiring copyright. It's moot whether that is a correct interpretation of US law, as it would have to be. Any other opinions? Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Unrelated: User:C.Suthorn, why do you think Banksy is a woman? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The identity of Banksy is unknown, even so the artist has done a large number of public painitings (for example the giant EU flag in Dover). UK is the home of tabloids like Sun and Mirror, who would surely publish the identity, if they have ever found out. If many people search for a man, without ever finding a trace, this man may simpply not exist at all. Occam's razor: Bsnksy is a woman. --C.Suthorn (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
🤣😜😍👌🔥🤳😁👍🤷‍♂️🙌✨ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn: How do we know Banksy isn't people? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Most artists had studios. Rembrandt or Gentileschi could be considered "people". The same is the case in other areas: Thunberg has a supporting team, Daimler and Benz had help from Diesel, Porsche, Maibach. Melitta coffee filters were delivered by her husband, and so on. Stil: Nearly always there is a single person, who is in charge. (Banksy's agent is a woman, she may be her own agent, at least she knows very well about Banksy's intentions). --C.Suthorn (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Here's a statement of the copyright status of graffitti in the UK - and graffitti does attract copyright in the UK where most of Banksy's work is done. We could take the statement that "copyright is for losers" attributed to the artist as a good enough form of waiver. I'm not a lawyer but I can imagine that if Banksy brought proceedings for copyright infringement after saying that then the defendant would be able to make a good case for equitable estoppel The Land (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Just a note that Commons has a long standing consensus that true graffiti can be uploaded here due to the illegal nature of the work. See COM:CSM#Graffiti and {{Non-free graffiti}}. We recognize that the work may be non-free but the illegal nature of that makes it hard for a court to uphold the validity of an illegal act in order to give damages to the author. That article you linked to says much of the same thing. True graffiti, that is to say not murals, are a legal gray area that Commons has long allowed to exist here. --Majora (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: That "longstanding consensus" was reached ages ago. A year or two ago, I checked the current situation. I didn't have the time to really dig into it, but my preliminary conclusion was, as far as I remember: 1) Meanwhile there have been a few more court rulings. 2) Some expert articles have been published on that matter. 3) At least some of them were rather clear about copyright status being a separate thing from the question of whether or not a graffiti was sprayed with the permission of the land owner.
When this was last discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Non-free graffiti in 2013, Fastily closed the DR with Naturally, should anyone find any new contradictory evidence, a new, special discussion should be initiated at COM:RFC to re-evaluate Commons' policies on illegal grafitti. Maybe now would be a good time for such a re-evaluation. --El Grafo (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC) PS: some notes → here.
That's what I would have thought. If you are a bank robber and your fellow bank robber punches you in the face during a robbery, you absolutely could go to the police for assault and battery. You'd be an idiot because it involves admitting you robbed a bank, but legally you could. Just because you are doing something illegal (spraying graffiti on someone else's property or robbing a bank) doesn't cancel out other laws and rights. (like assault and battery or copyright) It just makes it far less likely people will want to try enforcing those. Imagine the conversation..
Robber: My colleague punched me in the face during the robbery on fifth avenue.
Police: That was YOU?
Robber: Please stay on the subject, okay? I got punched in the face!
Police: YOU ROBBED THE BANK?
Robber: With my colleague, yes, but that's not what I'm here for.
Police: THE ROBBERY THAT WAS ALL OVER THE NEWS AND THREE PEOPLE WERE KILLED?
Robber: Yes, but please, pay attention, that's not important right now. I'm here to report a case of battery and assault.
Police: Alright then, let me get some forms for that. You want coffee?
This went wrong somewhere. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, the statute of limitations for vandalism is usually much lower than the copyright term. And we should not underestimate the greed and entitlement of estates. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
This is about the work of Banksy. The owner of a property, that has been painted on by Banksy, is much more likely to install bullet proof glas in front of the wall, to protect the work, or to sell the wall complete with the painting to an arts collector, than to call the police because of vandalism. It is world news, if someone accidently or non-accidently destroys a work of Banksy. Never was there a news article "Banksy wanted by police for vandalism". Banksy has a website, Social Media account, created Dismaland and redecorated Palestina. Authorities either know Banksys identity or are able to find out, if only there was a need. --C.Suthorn (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn: None of that makes it legal though. Fighting crime doesn't make Batman any less of a murderer. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Drawing geocoordinates from Wikidata

Can anyone explain to me why the geocoordinates in the Wikidata Infobox for Category:Colonial Hotel Building, Seattle place it at Second and Pine in Seattle, when Colonial Hotel (Q28125029) on Wikidata shows it accurately at First & Seneca? - Jmabel ! talk 16:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jmabel: It looks like was because the precision on the coordinate location (P625) at Wikidata was set to about 0.01 degrees (about a kilometer). This useful chart says that 0.0001 degrees is more appropriate for a "land parcel", so I changed it to that. – BMacZero (🗩) 23:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. I didn't even consider that was a variable. - Jmabel ! talk 04:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Photo challenge August results

Doors and Doorways: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 2
image [[File:|x240px]]
Title fairy door in an hornbeam tree The 3 downstream doors of Châteauneuf du Rhône sluice Doors in Gyumri, Armenia
Author YvoBentele Celeda Armenak Margarian
Score 19 13 13
Lone Tree: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Submerged Samanea saman in the Mekong at sunset.jpg Lime tree in the morning fog at Esslingen, Germany Salix babylonica im Winter
Author Basile Morin CatalpaSpirit 5snake5
Score 32 24 16

Congratulations to YvoBentele, Celeda, Armenak Margarian, Basile Morin, CatalpaSpirit and 5snake5. -- Jarekt (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Usage of images in public domain

Hi, I am keen to use some images for an upcoming documentary (not for profit). I have selected images from the Public Domain - may I confirm if I can use these images freely in the documentary, and is it necessary to credit, and to whom? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.19.195.150 (talk • contribs)

  • Images that are actually public domain may be freely reused without attribution. Please note that many images on Wikimedia Commons are not public domain, they are under licenses requiring attribution to the photographer/author (eg cc-by licenses). The license status for individual images is listed on the page for each image. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For images in the public domain, attribution becomes a matter of intellectual honesty, rather than law. For example, you aren't breaking any law if you fail to attribute the Mona Lisa to Leonardo, but it would be dishonest. - Jmabel ! talk 04:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Images donated by BBC correspondent Mark Lowen

Category:Photographs by BBC correspondent Mark Lowen contains 250 images donated by BBC News correspondent Mark Lowen, mostly taken in Turkey. Wikimedia UK have a blog post about this donation.

Please help to add categories and structured data to the images, and make use of them on our sister projects. Hopefully, this case will encourage other journalists to donate images. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way Commons users could express their gratitude to the donors? If the donor were the uploader I could send a wikilove star, but he was not. Maybe Creator_talk:Mark_Lowen?--Roy17 (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Photographs by BBC correspondent Mark Lowen :-( Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)n

Why isn't this category working?

I cut-n-pasted the category from another article, yet its redlinking to this page. Can someone fix this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: It looks like a category, because it has a title and some content, but it hasn't been created. It has now. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz, by "cut-n-pasted", you mean you made this edit? Merely adding a category to an image page does not automatically create it, nor would we ever want that to happen (else we'd have a dizzying array of badly named or inappropriate categories). Further, the actual category already existed under another name: Category:Royal Canadian Navy ships (ping Rodhullandemu). I'll handle the cleanup. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I've done the redirect. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not explain the issue properly.

There was an existing page on a Flower-class corvette that had a category at the bottom entitled "Ships of the Royal Canadian Navy". When I clicked on that category link in that article, I was taken to a category page that already existed and was filled with articles.

As this was obviously the correct category for my upload, I cut-n-pasted the category link into my own upload. To my surprise, this was a redlink. I thought perhaps I had left off a ] or something, but such was not the case.

I am asking how it is that an existing, working, category in one article was broken in another? Was there some sort of invisible redirect that acted there? A sub-category of some sort? How did this happen? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Possibly a redirect? Please try to remember the page you found this link on. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I am sure it was a category here. If it was a redirect, that would have been part of the link I cut-n-pasted, right? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
That's curious because en:Category:Ships of the Royal Canadian Navy is a category that exists on English Wikipedia, and unlike most categories on Wikimedia Commons, it's full of articles. --bjh21 (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
It is, however, not filled with images, whereas the page I was visiting was. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Computer-aided tagging design consultation

I've published a design consultation for the computer-aided tagging tool. Please look over the page and participate on the talk page. If you haven't read over the project page, it might be helpful to do so first. The tool will hopefully be ready by the end of this month (October 2019), so timely feedback is important. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

6000 extra admins

Clickbaity title. We always argue about a lack of admins.

I just thought of this, so I haven't pondered the details at this point. What if we create a new user group, "file hiders" (or something) and add that group to all the autopatrollers, patrollers and license reviewers. I say new group because I suspect there could be a few users who might not be able to handle this responsibility while we do want them to be autopatrolled.

Hiding a file will only be possible for files that were uploaded less than a month ago that aren't edit/overwrite protected. (this limits the potential for disruption) Any file hider can hide and unhide a file while it has been uploaded less than a month ago. If the file is still hidden a month after uploading, it will remain hidden and require an admin to be unhidden.

When a file is hidden, all hotlinking will be disabled. Search engines will be instructed not to index the file page. The file won't appear in any non-maintenance category. When searching, the file page for the file won't be suggested. You need to know the link/filename, browse a maintenance category or uploader history. If you are not logged in, all you get is the file page and if the file is visual you can download a small thumbnail (like 220 pixels or so, the default Mediawiki thumbnail size) that can't be hotlinked. A document with multiple pages gets only one thumbnail. If you are logged in, you can also download the original file. (optional: only allow downloading the original while the file is less than one month old?)

If you are a file hider, you can also enable searching the hidden files.

Most copyvio and out of scope files could be dealt with sufficiently this way. Hidden files are not useful for anyone looking to abuse Commons as a webhost or personal photo album. As I said, I haven't pondered all the details and potential ramifications of this yet. I'm just throwing it out there. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Still mulling it over. For legal reasons, we would probably need to give everyone the same access, but that access could be made more cumbersome for some. So anyone can view thumbnails. Instead of 220px, let's go with 120px. (default for <gallery>) Still no hotlinking. Thumbnails can be viewed on the file page, in maintenance categories and uploader history by anyone. They can be searched and seen in search results by file hiders. Original files can be downloaded by anyone while the upload is less than one month old. But anyone who isn't a file hider has to enter a CAPTCHA for each download. No inline viewing. (worst personal photo album site ever) After a month, only admins would have access to the originals. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Is there a need for hiding files in the first place? From there, then what is the special need for a new user level? Is there a particular task that these hidden files need reviewed? I'm missing something. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ricky81682: Admins are overworked, there are backlogs for many things, we are missing obvious copyvios, hiring the amount of admins we need is difficult. (we'd need like twice as many - unrealistic) When files are hidden (which would require no admin intervention), they could be left as they are. For most copyvios and out of scope files, this is sufficient. Uploads of entire songs/ebooks/etc would still require deletion and admin intervention, but a logo the exceeds COM:TOO or some random stock photo could just be hidden and thus dealt with without admin intervention. Such a stock photo could not be hotlinked from external sites, could not be used in articles, will not appear in any non-maintenance category, downloading of the original gets disabled after a month and few rightsholders will be bothered to file a DMCA for 120px thumbnails on file pages that no search engine even indexes. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: So the issue is a backup at Commons:Deletion requests that you want solved? I'm just saying you're kind of skipping over the whole "let's have files hidden" part as if that's a sure thing. If files that people uploaded were immediately hidden away (or hidden away because of a notification no one can see that easily), then we're discouraging new users. If your point is that we should blank images up for deletion like English does with its copyright violation notice (replacing the page with the deletion notice rather than adding it at the top), then that's an interesting idea and leaves us less worried about copyright issues (you can't index a blank warning page) while the file is still hosted on the site for direct linking. If there's a way to hide the image, you don't need any special new user category, it's something any decently-experienced user knows and it solves most of your other concerns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ricky81682: Deletion also discourages new users, even more so than hiding because hiding can be undone more easily. Files that are obviously copyvio would be hidden, and very quickly, because 6000 admins. Files that are edge cases would still get a DR to discuss. Hiding would be a completely new status. Files could be online, hidden or deleted. Hidden lingers somewhere between the two.
Yes, we could add such "hide" functionality to the autopatrollers group. Perhaps that'll actually be fine. But I suspect some users may have difficulty with that responsibility. The question becomes: can anyone who is autopatrolled be trusted with this? And I think strictly, the answer is no. I think 90%+ can be trusted with it, but not 100%. So that group, if that suspicion is correct, would need to be autopatrolled but without file hiding ability. (which requires a new group) Alternatively, file hiding could be restricted to, say, patrollers. Removing someone from the autopatrol group causes issues for others, removing someone from the patrollers group doesn't. But I believe the majority of autopatrollers can handle this. They can also correct each other, so they don't have to be flawless. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, “hiding” is simply deleting in our terms and indeed the majority of admin actions consists of deletions. But this is actually the main area where we need the trusted judgment of admins. Whoever is capable of this should run for adminship and not for something less. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it's different. The "people should run for admin" story is getting a bit old imho, the reality is many won't. When a file has been deleted, that's (semi-)permanent. Undoing it is hard. In addition, admins have a block button which not everybody is trusted with.
Hiding is different. It can be undone rather easily in case of a mistake within the first month. And after that, undoing it is still infinitely easier than it is today. Anyone can see what it was. For example:
  • Imagine the files in Roy17's mass UDR had been hidden instead of deleted. Imagine how much drama that would have saved us!
  • Imagine a re-user has used a photo from Commons that was deleted for any reason that's not relevant for the re-user. They may rely on a link to the file page for attribution. Deletion breaks that attribution. Hiding wouldn't.
  • This also makes life harder for abusive greedy authors like Marco Verch.
  • Increased transparency. Was a file rightfully deleted? I generally couldn't tell you, because those files were deleted. Was a file rightfully hidden? That would be easy as pie.
  • Anyone can also see it when a user is repeatedly uploading the same copyvio, so those users can be reported sooner.
  • Uploading content that will enter the public domain very soon, just in case the source would go down before the copyright actually expires. You could hide your own uploads.
And what are the downsides? I can't think of many, surely nothing that outweighs these examples. Deletion will still be preferable in some cases, but actually not that many. It will require a fair bit of dev effort, but that seems like a good use of time. I can think of various users who would likely engage in this. BevinKacon, Fæ, GreenMeansGo, GRuban, Patrick Rogel, Prosfilaes, Yuraily Lic, pretty much all license reviewers. And that's just a few of them. Those are not all going to run for adminship. And they shouldn't have to. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Hmm? I can see something like this being useful in a couple of circumstances, with probably a number of kinks worked out. Surely we've all seen someone upload an obvious copyvio and then add it to a gazillion projects. It would be useful, when nominating for copyvio, to click a box, run de-linker, and disable links until the file can be properly deleted. I'm also remined of a DR backlog that goes back to biblical times. So while non-sysops cannot close a request as delete, they could judge that there is sufficiently serious doubt that the file should be de-linked until (sometimes months laters) the DR is properly closed. Obviously not every DR should be hidden, but some probably should out of an abundance of PCP, when it looks likely to be deleted eventually anyway. GMGtalk 12:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: indeed, details are up for debate, but I believe the essence of the idea is solid. I wonder, and maybe you have some clue: why would or should we even bother deleting hidden files? When hosting it invites obvious abuse (like hosting entire ebooks or files with malicious code), the original shouldn't be available for a whole month. When the file contents are abusive (imagine what you will, personal attacks, racism, etc), sure, get rid of it. When the file page contains unfree or abusive content, yeah, get rid of that too. But the majority of problematic files doesn't fit in any of these categories. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Legal will not allow us to do away with a delete function. Same reason they would never allow unbundling of view deleted access. The legality of the site requires that deleted content is only viewable by a small number of users who have passed "some RfA like process" (their wording as I recall it). GMGtalk 13:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: there's actually no issue with that. Deleted (really deleted) content has to be available to only a very small number of users. (admins) You can imagine why: if we had thousands of admins and anyone could easily become one, Commons could become a private file sharing site. Hiding files doesn't give us any of that legal trouble. Everyone has the same access, though anyone who isn't a file hider has to enter a CAPTCHA to download originals, which is only possible for a month anyway. (many DRs take longer to be closed) From a legal perspective, we don't need admins to delete anything at all! We could leave all copyvios up, desysop all admins and let WMF handle it through DMCA claims. (there would be a lot of DMCA claims if we went that route, while currently it's just a handful) This is obviously a bad idea because it would destroy Commons as a free media repository and reduce it to another imgur or ImageShack. But legally, it would be fine. If we only hide files instead of deleting them, technically rightsholders could file DMCA claims to have that 120px thumbnail taken down. I predict they won't bother. In fact, such 120px thumbnails just might be covered by fair use. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Umm...Well, we still have some moral obligation to our off-wiki reusers. You know...we're not making any money off of it, and we happen to have a fairly robust legal team to fend off frivolous lawsuit threats. Those who reuse our content, probably not, and part of our purpose is to try to level the playing field with regard to free knowledge, so that the lady trying to publish her first book, or the guy trying to put together an upstart website aren't massively disadvantaged to predatory [expletive deleted] who try to charge them a fortune to use (often public domain) media. Hiding content behind a captcha doesn't necessarily do them much good. But maybe we're getting far afield of the original proposal.
The unfortunate thing here is that I think this would need substantial additions to current guidance. I'm not sure we can approve it without those additions, and I fear that if we make proposed guidance, then we will get lost in arguing over the specifics and be unable to enact that original package to begin with. It may be more productive if we parse this down the minimal required functionality of a new tool, and use that to build upon incrementally. GMGtalk 00:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Just thought I would mention that the "biblical" DR backlog is not a matter of adding more admins but a matter of convincing the ones that we have to work from the back. I work from and pay attention to the oldest month's DR list so I'm pretty confident when I say that there are less than 10 admins that regularly close requests from the back. "Hiding" files is not going to change that in any way and adding the necessity of unhiding files that are fine to the list of things admins have to do makes me uncomfortable. I would really need to see the details of this outlined to make a decision on whether or not I like the idea. --Majora (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • So... the idea is to let autopatrollers/patrollers hide a file, if I'm not mistaken. This indeed does have good aspects, I can think of many. But I'm not sure about it. First, we will need to ensure that file hiders (probably patrollers) will be able to deal with hide/unhide request. We don't want to discourage a new user by hiding their upload(s) and not being responsible for it. To ensure this, I think we'll have to grant the right more strictly (and revoke it more easily), so we may discourage our potential users as well.
Another point to note is that the idea of hiding files is somehow like deleting them. I think that major differences can be that hiding 1) helps admins with backlogs because non-admins handle it, and 2) can be easily undone. However, I'm worried about the long-term effect it will have on how we deal with copyvios. Imagine a patroller hiding a copyvio while a thumbnail of it is still there, and you can still download the full-sized version. In some cases, it can be fair-use; but what about files that don't fall into that category? Also, I believe we can always check user's upload log to see if they are repeatedly uploading inappropriate files.
In general, I think this can be a good idea, but we first need to consider all advantages and disadvantages of it, and decide accordingly (and of course, we still need more admins!). Ahmadtalk 15:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I like the idea to have a king of reviewed main file storage and a normally hidden but accessible to everyone storage where we store all content we can store without legal issues. Yes I would keep all out of scope files there but deleting them does not safe us any storage as they stay on the servers for ever. But I do not think the proposed idea would work well. --GPSLeo (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

CropTool

Seems to be down. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Liwan

Liwan should be an architectural part of an Arabic house. This category shows some blocks of flats/skyscrapers. Could you please tell me why? Is that "Liwan" a place in some Arabic country? Can someone help me categorize them?--Carnby (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks like Liwan is a neighbourhood of Dubai. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1625626655. From the English Wikipedia article, I think the English plural of "liwan" is "liwans", so this category should be split into Category:Liwans for the architectural feature, and Category:Liwan for the neighbourhood. Give me a moment and I'll sort that out. --bjh21 (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@Carnby: ✓ Done --bjh21 (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you!--Carnby (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

why there is noborder: no color ; background:pink on this page (near the Village pump's image) ?

Is there any problem with the CSS code?Eatcha (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It probably has to do with this: [4] -- Asclepias (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Eatcha (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Varvara Kutuzova

Hello! I received a letter in the mail that the photo file was deleted from the page of my daughter Varvara Kutuzov since it is not mine. I refute this information and send you confirmation that this photo belongs to me personally. The photo removed from the Varvara Kutuzova Wikipedia page is my own, and I ask to restore it. I personally ordered a photo session with this frame for her, so I do not understand the reasons for deleting the file. I also asked the specialist to add new information to the page, as the old information is not relevant. The expert did everything according to the rules and added facts, relying only on the rules of the WIKI and on authoritative sources. Am asking you return photo on place and not block or challenge this article, grew she the entire consists of truthful facts. I subscribe to all the words I have set forth, as I am the mother of Varvara Andreyevna Kutuzova.Sincerely, Natalia Kutuzova ru:Кутузова, Варвара Андреевна — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.26.131 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 10 October 2019‎ (UTC)

Apparently refers to File:Варвара_кутузова.jpg. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Newbie question about licensing

I have an online textbook that I recently applied a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license to. I'd like to modify and use a graphic I found on wikipedia that has a CC BY-SA 4.0 license. Am I able to do so without violating the owner of the graphic license? I have provided the attribution, indicated the original was modified and provided a link to the original. Am I safe if my web page has a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license but the graphic has a CC BY-SA 4.0 license?

  • (IANAL but...) Assuming that "I have an online textbook" means you are the author, the only thing missing here is that you need to indicate that particular illustration has a different, more generous license. - Jmabel ! talk 00:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am the author and have indicated the type of license for the graphic in its caption.
Well, you have to fullfit the license of the original graphic. Name author and license, which also means that you have to publish that part of your textbook (only this graphic) under CC BY-SA 4.0 and not CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. regards. --JuTa 06:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Should I use Creator or Institution for a govt?

I uploaded Hong Kong govt gazette like File:The Hongkong Government Gazette 19220228 Emergency Regulations Ordinance.pdf. I wanted to create an author template, but I am not sure which one to use.--Roy17 (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

You should use neither. 'Creator' namespace is only for individuals and 'Institution' namespace is for places of permanent location of works of art. Ruslik (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Captions, uploadzauberer

Sometimes the uploadwizard "forgets" to add captions for one or two files without an error message. Some time ago I opened a phab task, but it was closed, because I didn't add a way to reproduce the error. Well it is only sporadic. --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Old upload form (solved)

Since this morning, the old upload form https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload was replaced with a mask where lines have to be filled. I need the old form in order to C&P data which takes some seconds. Now it takes a time effort of c. 10 times more (!) to fill each line which is extremely bad. Who do I address that problem to? --Mateus2019 (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Mateus2019, under preferences/gadgets, make sure that "ImprovedUploadForm" is not checked. I think this is the behaviour your are experiencing. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, now it works just how I need it!!! Best greetings, --Mateus2019 (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Templates for the European Number of Identification (ENI)

The European Number of Identification (ENI) has the same meaning for inshore vessels in Europe as the IMO-Number for seagoing ships worldwide. For the categorization it would be very useful, to have a Template:ENI analogous to Template:IMO and a Template:ENIcat analogous to Template:IMOcat including translation. --Ein Dahmer (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

CropTool with .tiff images

Can someone see anything in this image? Personnaly I can't.

Hi, I tried to crop this image: File:France, 1897-1904 (NYPL b14896507-1631969).tiff with CropTool. The preview with CropTool was perfectly ok but I can't see the new image: File:France, 1897-1904 (NYPL b14896507-1631969) (cropped).tiff. I tried with several web browsers, logged in and logged out, with two different web providers but my screens didn't display it. Can someone help me or just confirm that the cropped image is bugged? Thanks, --Le Petit Chat (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Feedback wanted on Desktop Improvements project

Please help translate to your language

Hello. The Readers Web team at the WMF will work on some improvements to the desktop interface over the next couple of years. The goal is to increase usability without removing any functionality. We have been inspired by changes made by volunteers, but that currently only exist as local gadgets and user scripts, prototypes, and volunteer-led skins. We would like to begin the process of bringing some of these changes into the default experience on all Wikimedia projects.

We are currently in the research stage of this project and are looking for ideas for improvements, as well as feedback on our current ideas and mockups. So far, we have performed interviews with community members at Wikimania. We have gathered lists of previous volunteer and WMF work in this area. We are examining possible technical approaches for such changes.

We would like individual feedback on the following:

  • Identifying focus areas for the project we have not yet discovered
  • Expanding the list of existing gadgets and user scripts that are related to providing a better desktop experience. If you can think of some of these from your wiki, please let us know
  • Feedback on the ideas and mockups we have collected so far

We would also like to gather a list of wikis that would be interested in being test wikis for this project - these wikis would be the first to receive the updates once we’re ready to start building.

When giving feedback, please consider the following goals of the project:

  • Make it easier for readers to focus on the content
  • Provide easier access to everyday actions (e.g. search, language switching, editing)
  • Put things in logical and useful places
  • Increase consistency in the interface with other platforms - mobile web and the apps
  • Eliminate clutter
  • Plan for future growth

As well as the following constraints:

  • Not touching the content - no work will be done in terms of styling templates or to the structure of page contents themselves
  • Not removing any functionality - things might move around, but all navigational items and other functionality currently available by default will remain
  • No drastic changes to the layout - we're taking an evolutionary approach to the changes and want the site to continue feeling familiar to readers and editors

Please give all feedback (in any language) at mw:Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements

After this round of feedback, we plan on building a prototype of suggested changes based on the feedback we receive. You’ll hear from us again asking for feedback on this prototype.

Thank you! Quiddity (WMF) (talk)

06:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

"chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is in the public domain"

Are the licenses on these files really valid? Does that mean I can also upload this video? Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

No, these files are not from videos of the floor proceedings in the chambers of the House or Senate, which is the only thing covered by the template PD-CSPAN. The uploader of the second file placed a PD-USGov template on it but, although it was positively reviewed by a former reviewer, there is no evidence for it. There doesn't seem to be anything about it at the source and I doubt there ever was. My feeling is that the claim and the review are wrong. See also [5]. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
"C-SPAN does NOT permit unlicensed commercial use of any of its video programming (including coverage of federal government events) whether or not C-SPAN is attributed as the source of the video." See https://www.c-span.org/about/copyrightsAndLicensing/ --Fæ (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. That was my suspicion as well. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Massive category rename: automobiles to cars

Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/07/Category:Automobiles

You'll need to bring this to the village pump and/or tag a lot of the subcategories (linking to this discussion) before I'm personally going to move this whole category tree.

— Themightyquill

You heard the admin. Vote yes on proposition CAR! - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Serious question though, why? "Middle English carre, borrowed from Anglo-Norman carre, from Old Northern French (compare Old French char), from Latin carra, neuter plural of carrus (“four-wheeled baggage wagon”), or Gaulish origin. Doublet of horse, hurry, rush, courier, and course." (from the Wiktionary), "car" is a lot more ambiguous than "automobile". I do not see the advantage of this rename, maybe more redirects need to be made, but the term "car" is just far more ambiguous. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: because I was looking for "dogs in cars" and couldn't find them. Also nobody who is looking for police cars is searching for "police automobiles". Automobiles is North American English, not international. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: , I'd say that we need "Commons:Commonname" (or "COM:COMMONNAME") and redirect the rest. I too have often fallen by typing in "cars" where it's "automobiles", but while I have heard of "police cars" and not "police automobiles", so too are binocular visual aids "spectacles" and not "glasses", but those that work against sunlight are still "sunglasses". It should not be about being consistent but about what would realistically be most used and the least ambiguous. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC).
Never mind, "Category:Spectacles" is about smartglasses. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: Indeed, while Category:Cats redirects to Category:Felis silvestris catus, we don't have categories like Category:Lolfelis silvestris catus, Category:Felis silvestris catus in boxes or Felis silvestris catus in cars. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Lolfelis silvestris catus was the best! ROTFL --Túrelio (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I only hope pedantry doesn't preclude utility. It's no use being "correct" if it makes categories harder to find/add. I think a lot of the species categories are needlessly pedantic. --Animalparty (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

What are these files ?

And also see the file usage of these two files -- Eatcha (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Note : These are uploaded by User:GerWsUpload, a bot -- Eatcha (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks like they were blank pages replaced with single pixels by a bot operated by User:Siebrand. I'm not totally sure I understand why that is preferable to deletion? GMGtalk 13:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I think deletion would not be a good idea. If those numbered pages were missing from the otherwise complete series, it would be puzzling to the reader, who would wonder why those numbered pages are missing and what was on those files. Keeping the blanks answers at least this aspect of the question. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if the blank files were actually blank pages in the document or if the uploaded files were blank because of a scan or upload error. Looking at other files in the categories, we can see that there are also some obvious scan or upload errors with parts of pages missing. Anyway, the original uploads had many such 2000x2581 px blank files and the bot replaced them with 1x1 px blank files. I suppose there was a reason for the replacement. The links are not really usage, but links to duplicates, similar blanks. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Somebody made a complete bs. These are scans of a book, and schould not be replaced by anything else, even if they appear as empty pages. The sequence of pages must be consistent with the scans. There may be samll marks, which get lost by this curious method. And many thanks for ping. As I see now, the bs ist done at least 615 times. This text is not understandable "{{Information |Description=Replace empty page scan with generic 1 pixel image to reduce duplicate pairs |Source= |Date= |Author= |Permission=Own work, all rights released (Public domain) |other_ve" ths number of duplicates stays the same and there is more space used by a 1 pixel picture coded a jpg. I would assume a global revert of this action would be the correct solution. look here: Category:De Wikisource book the information is stable since "Version vom 2008-07-19, 23:15:30 Uhr" --Jörgens.Mi Talk 16:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Unrelated: The description page of the images in question is populated by a template: {Codex diplomaticus brandenburgensis|1|18|1859|332|334} Would it be possible and make sense, if a template like this also populates captions and depict statements? I think it would be a way to create a large amount of meaningful structurated data. --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, it isn't possible to use pagetext (i.e. templates) to set captions or depicts. – BMacZero (🗩) 23:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Participation at FVC

Just a note to try to get some additional participants at COM:FVC, where we have several unanimously supported candidates at risk of being closed without quorum. It's a relatively new process that seems valuable to keep going long-term, but it really needs more people. That is all. :) — Rhododendrites talk |  23:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Bunch upload tool

Hey,

we are preparing a new desktop upload tool for bunch uploaders, which have to fasten description/metadata creation and deployment. Read a short description and leave your feedback on the discussion page, please. Juandev (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Juandev: why start from scratch if you can improve on an existing (quite popular) tool like Pattypan? Multichill (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deleted files in template AutVec

Hi, I would like to know what is a good policy. I had been thinking that the history of a file should be maintained, that its origin should be mentioned; that may also be a copyright matter, when a vector version is made from a raster image.
The template AutVec provides a file description with three links: to the raster image, to its author and to the author of the vector version. It supersedes wrong constructions with Derivative work, Retouched or similar. But each maintenance of the file history is in vain when the referenced origin file is deleted. This problem happens to all links where another file is superseded, replaced or converted.
When it is the deletion policy that files were deleted in spite of being linked from other items, it is quite useless to care for a complete description, including a link to the the origin. -- sarang♥사랑 16:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

You're probably correct on the principle. But it should be checked if the files were deleted or if it's a mistake with the template. I looked at a sample of four files in the category. Out of the four, only one filename has a deletion log. The other three files have no deletion logs under the linked filename. Apparently, their links generated by the AutVec template were always wrong from the beginning. The original may or may not exist under a different name. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
You are right, Asclepias, there were some erroneous ones. After I corrected them, there are currently 10 items where the origin had been deleted. -- sarang♥사랑 10:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest

US Banknote Contest
November-December 2019

There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of , yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, , the , the , multiple , communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons.

In the months of November and December, will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.

--Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Contributions by User:Shiv's fotografia

Wasn't sure where to place this notice because pages dealing with copyright issues focus on files themselves only, so please move if there's a better page for

I came across a file by this user which had a large amount of text copy-pasted in description from external sources, specifically File:Intersting fact on fairy Dragonfly.jpg with text lifted from the Avon Wildliffe Trust and Smithsonian (now removed). Looking through his other uploads, this seems to be his usual practice, so a clean-up effort is needed to avoid copyright violations. I notified the user, but he is not very active anymore, and it is not sure whether he will respond, so I'm raising this issue with the broader community. Hopefully, someone will have the time to fix this if he doesn't respond (I don't, sorry).

Additionally, the dragonfly in the abovementioned picture was grossly misidentified, so his uploads may merit some attention in this regard, too. — Yerpo Eh? 17:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  • If text is an obvious copyvio, feel free to remove it. If it is inaccurate, feel free to correct it, preferably with some sort of citation if the matter isn't obvious. - Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
It is an obvious copyvio, but like I said, I don't have time or energy to deal with it. — Yerpo Eh? 19:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Why Nickname Deleted

I'm updating a professional golfer's page. Why would you delete this golfer's nickname when virtually all other professional golfer wiki pages show their nickname? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradleyPro (talk • contribs) 10:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@BradleyPro: this isn't a Commons issue, please start a discussion at w:talk:Haley Moore on the English Wikipedia. Nthep (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

publish a scanned copy of paper page?

is it lawful and under what license? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eitan f (talk • contribs) 15:53, 18 October 2019‎ (UTC)

Hey Eitan f. That very much depends on what the page is, and where it came from. I'm afraid you will have to give more details about what it is you would like to upload exactly. GMGtalk 16:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
thank you User:GreenMeansGo. it is a leaflet of internal paper of a school, an agricuture school. it about what happening in the school.
The copyright status of an accurate scan would be exactly the same as the copyright of the document itself.
If it is recent, it is almost certainly copyrighted. Basically, under the Berne Convention, documents are copyrighted by default. - Jmabel ! talk 16:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • What year is it from, that determines if it is in the public domain or under active copyright. If it was distributed/published after March 1, 1989 it is still under copyright. If the document is contemporary you can have the school release it under a creative commons license. You can load it to Familypedia under a fair use license and then post the link here so we can examine it. RAN (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion policies

Not being very active on Commons, I would like to know whether there is some criterion of relevancy analogous to Wikipedia's, a rule which files should be uploaded here and which shouldn't - and, on the other hand, whether there are valid reasons for deleting certain files when there is no copyright or legal issue.--Oudeís·talk 13:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Oudeís. I suggest reading COM:PS, COM:D and COM:L. We also have COM:CSD for speedy deletion. Ahmadtalk 13:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey Oudeís. Aside from copyright issues, which is probably the reason that the vast majority of files on Commons are deleted, the guidance for what types of files should be uploaded here is covered at Commons:Project scope. In a nutshell, Commons hosts content that is realistically useful for an educational purpose. Opinions vary somewhat on what types of files are educationally useful and what types are not. For example, some users may feel that many generic stock photos are out-of-scope, things like, a woman in business attire holding a coffee cup, or a child throwing a stick to a dog, while others feel that these are still useful for someone who may be compiling a book or designing a website. Other times, content is deleted because, while it could be potentially educationally useful on its own, we simply have an inordinate amount of these types of photos already. This is, for example, an often cited rationale for deleting low-quality images of genitalia, of which we have copious amounts already. On the whole, most content that is deleted for being out-of-scope is probably deleted for being low-qualify personal photos, selfies and photos of family and friends, that probably more rightly belong on social media. GMGtalk 14:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
+ COM:FOP (where COM:DM may be applied under certain circumstance), COM:TOO. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
(and what 大诺史 mentions here are just special cases of copyright issues.) - Jmabel ! talk 15:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
What I am concretely asking about is a piece of German right-wing populist propaganda showing the German media-network of today and comparing it to the Nazi censuring policy. While some people might indeed think this useful for education, the guidelines of all the Wikimedia projects that I know seem to disagree and I personally see no reasons for that file to be here. However, it doesn't seem to be illegal anywhere. --- I think I will ask the author what was his intention in posting it here and will propose it for deletion if there is no valid one. --Oudeís·talk 15:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Obligatory plural -- PC speaker[s]

Is there a rule that category names must be in plural? In such a case some sysop probably must move back this one. Taylor 49 (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@M5: You moved this. Any reason it would be an exception to the rule about pluralization? (I would think a better name would be "Personal computer speakers", assuming I've understood the scope of the category correctly.) - Jmabel ! talk 15:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes move it back to PC speakers plz.--Roy17 (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
was this user trying to differentiate between these internal PC speakers and External ones? Oxyman (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Antwerp South station categories

A move categorie has created a mess. There is the old demolished station and the new station at two different locations. I hope I corrected most of it, but the infobox is a mess. A picture of the old station and on the map the location of the new station.Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Ram

The Commons pages spend a lot of ram on Chrome, 150,000k the categories when opening them and 3,000,000k after a few hours, the files also 150,000. I don't know if the same thing happens to you and how to avoid it, I find it quite difficult to recategorize.MONUMENTA Talk 23:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Colonel Terry L. Anderson

Colonel Terry L. Anderson


Please give him some categories and wikidata https://nwc.ndu.edu/About/Faculty/ArticleView/Article/916146/anderson-col-terry-usa/
Caution: There's a different Terry L. Anderson on English wikipedia. Thank you Mutter Erde (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done New category, new WD entry. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Good work. Thank you Mutter Erde (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

GNOME shell extension: Wikimedia Commons wallpaper changer

Yesterday evening I published a GNOME shell extension called Wikimedia Commons wallpaper changer, which – you guessed it – changes your desktop wallpaper (and lock screen image) to a random image from selected list of pictures from Wikimedia Commons. This was inspired by a message from SandraF on Telegram. The extension shows the description of the photo, the author, and the license (also linking to the license texts), and you can choose how often it should update the wallpaper.

So if you use Ubuntu or any other GNOME-based operating system, I would be very glad if you give it a try, and leave any feedback – either here or on GitHub (or my user talk, or on Telegram, or on email, or …). Also, if you have any ideas about where on Commons this could be featured somehow, I'd be very happy to hear them. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Upload Wizard does not work

Hello.I have a lot of pictures that I want to upload, but Upload Wizard does not work.I have been trying to upload them for a while but it fail to upload them from any Wi-Fi network or Internet package.Please fix.Thanks ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

What happens? Does the computer crash or the browser, or the browser tab? Does the left time rise instead of fall? How many images do you upload? Does it happen, if you upload only a single image? How far did you get? Upload? License page? Description page? Publishing page? What OS do you use? What Browser? Can you upload an example image to an external service, to take a look at? --C.Suthorn (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn:
  1. The device and browser are operating normally and are not affected
  2. Yes, the left time rise instead of fall
  3. In each trip I try to upload more than 40 pictures in each uploading process (Maximum is 50)
  4. If I upload only a single image, It is uploaded normally
  5. Uploading is not done
  6. I use Chrome in Android
  7. I want to complete photos of my last trip (the phone)

Do all of this will enable you to help me?Thanks ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

You will probably have to create a ticket at phab: and include the above points as "way to recreate the error". I experienced the same some month ago, but not now. Maximum number of uploads in a single run was updated to 150 (500) some time ago. For me it crashes with 150 files. A workaround maybe to only upload 10 files with each run. --C.Suthorn (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

License review backlog

The main license review needed category has over 10,000 files in it and the category specific for videos has over 13,000 files in it. At the rate things are going, many of these files will be long gone from the internet by the time someone tries to review them. Any help would be appreciated! Kaldari (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Allowing anyone to just slap a "review needed" template onto pages has backfired spectacularly. Something like File:TSA Precheck logo.svg does not need LR and there are hundreds and hundreds of others just like that in that category. It's no real surprise that people don't want to help with the massive slog that is that category. --Majora (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Kaldari: clicked a bunch of random files and most seem to be from Youtube. Instead of spend hours of manual work, we're probably better of to deploy an automatic review bot just like we user:FlickreviewR 2. @Zhuyifei1999: I see you run the Flickr bot, feel like doing the same for YouTube? Or do we already have such a bot and is it broken? Multichill (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
The difficulty is verifying the videos are the same. With images I could just do a checksum... with videos, they are probably transcoded. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, even an license check would be useful. Youtube has the traditional youtube license (which is not ok for commons) and then the CC-BY license. For those with an link to an video with an traditional license, I don't think checking whether it is the same file is reasonable.--Snaevar (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
There are many things on youtube not CC but PD or otherwise acceptable on Commons, such as VOA and White House videos. I tag them for LR so that someone confirms they come from their youtube channels instead of elsewhere.
A bot that checks a youtube url and confirms the url licence is CC would be useful, but it should not be tasked with failing files. Human work is needed anyway. This would save those files that appeared as CC but CC removed later, but not files that disappear (humans cant check whether commons file is indeed taken from the url.)--Roy17 (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I know. CC-BY and PD videos from youtube would still have the licence review tag for human review.--Snaevar (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I currently have no time to code another bot until December, unfortunately. Also, I think toolforge might have got blacklisted by YouTube --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
That said, the API might still be usable. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@Eatcha: how about YouTubeReviewBot? — Racconish 💬 18:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Racconish, it(The bot) use YouTube API to review the license, no way I can verify that the claimed URL is correct. I, don't have any knowledge about Special:Tags but IMO it's the best way to verify these while the videos are being uploaded via V2C. Maybe Use tags such as (Tag:License review passed) to confirm the license, and not adding the {{subst:nld|<!--replace this template with the license-->}} (It's not resource-heavy ). If it(the tagging suggestion) doesn't work, I will try to match 5-10 frames with vision API, but not before the next summer. Matching frames would give the most accurate results, but it's resource-heavy AFAIK and vision-API is not free(although we can have it for free, by keeping the reviewed videos below the 1000 rate limit ) it means we can empty the Category:License review needed (video) in not less than 70 months(14000files*5frames/1000ratelimit) if we start today(that's 6 years, or I can leave the backlog for our super-hardworking reviewers and review only the latest files ), not very fast but most accurate we can be without paying Google.
NOTE: They(Google) train machines using our files, yes we are the best site to train an Image-recognization machine, but we don't have anything like Vision AFAIK. Best, Eatcha (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

OTRS for a collection vs. individual images

Can I release a whole collection of photos under a single OTRS mailing without naming each file? Or do I have to list each image in an email to OTRS? This determines how fast I have to scan a collection of images and where the OTRS ticket notice appears. The OTRS message can appear in the category for the collection, and/or in each image. RAN (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

If all files belong in the same category and no other files belong to that category, it is easy. The OTRS agent will use a mass edit tool to add the otrs template to all files. --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
To my knowledge, you can do so. For example, we have {{BollywoodHungama}} that releases the whole content of the website under one single OTRS ticket, apparently. Besides, the main point is to release it under a free, suitable license. The important thing is the content of the OTRS ticket, it can be about one single image, a collection etc. Ahmadtalk 17:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Similarly, OTRS can be used to designate a Commons account that you trust to operate on your behalf (but then, of course, you have to live with it if that person goes rogue on you). - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Gadget error in GallerySlideshow

Please check MediaWiki talk:GallerySlideshow.js#Breaks keyboard input if you know a bit of JavaScript. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Can't upload

Hi there. I'll start by stating I'm new to Commons and still learning, nonetheless I've decided to exploit a good mobile phone I've recently received to take some fine pictures of buildings around Rome and upload them here. Being new, I had uploaded a picturewithout previously improving it, as I've learned to do that only at a later time; afterwards, I uploaded a new version of the file, but the changes weren't showing as intended in my mobile app of Wikipedia. Therefore I labeled the picture for speedy deletion as I meant to directly upload the improved version. The file was deleted, as requested... but now I've found out I'm unable to upload the improved picture: the uploader just won't load, only for that picture specifically! Why is this happening? --Gustavo La Pizza (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gustavo La Pizza: ..because UploadWizard knows it was previously deleted. Special:Upload would probably work, or better yet, just request undeletion at COM:REFUND. As for the image not showing the new version, you probably just had to refresh the page and/or empty your browser cache. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Oh, I'd like to thank you for your swift and courteous response. However, I've found a workaround and managed to upload the desired, improved version anyway. I do understand it might not be the standard procedure, but nonetheless tomorrow I'll flag another file for speedy deletion and then just re-upload the improved version. Surely in the future I'll be extra-careful and just upload the ultimate, intended version of my work. Thanks again! --Gustavo La Pizza (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Gustavo La Pizza: Also remember that you can upload a retouched photo on top of a previous version, without the need to deleting the first version. Thuresson (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
+1. This is exactly what "upload new version" is for. I routinely upload first what comes straight from my camera, then anything I choose to retouch as a "new version". I think my most recent such was File:Seattle - Mt. Baker Park 01.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 23:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Help us identify a female European politician

Who is this lady with the striking green eyes? For more context, see here.

Thank you, Edelseider (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Edelseider: Is it Aurore Lalucq? GMGtalk 19:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Not sure - I checked Lalucq's photos and her Twitter feed, and she appears to have bigger cheeks, wether she is smiling or not. But there is a likeness, and the approximate age (about 40) would be correct, too. --Edelseider (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@Edelseider: Do we have any other information about the nature of the event? Was this only for some particular subset of politicians? The anniversary seems to be a Greek thing, but there doesn't seem to be any Hellenic or EU MPs from this party that seem to fit very well. GMGtalk 13:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: @Jcornelius: She has been identified now! See here. She's a parliamentary assistant from Cyprus called Marina Nikolaoy (Μαρίνα Νικολάου): https://dialogos.com.cy/marina-nikolaoy-i-orgi-na-metafrastei-se-drasi/. All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Ah. Cyprus. I was looking at the EU parlament and politicians from Greece proper, rather than Greek people. GMGtalk 14:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

How to Contact Creator?

Helo,

I see this on the website next to an image:

Reusing our images If you want to use an image from Wikimedia Commons elsewhere, you can. Just make sure you follow the license conditions indicated on the file's information page. Please do not email us with requests for permission; the content is (in most cases) owned by the creators of the individual works, who should be contacted directly if the terms of the indicated license are not suitable for your intended use.

I looked and cannot find a way to contact the creator. Any pointers appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlongmedia2 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  • @Dlongmedia2: You'll have to be more specific about what image. Clearly, for example, on a public-domain image from the U.S. Navy, we won't know any more than you. What was the image where you were having trouble with in this respect? - Jmabel ! talk 01:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


UPDATE: Sorry. Here is the specific image. I see the 'Reusing Our Images' on a lot of posted images, and didn't think the specific image mattered. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Heart_MRI.gif — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.4.158.140 (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

It is on the page: "Source: Own work", "Author: Alith3204". Sources says that the uploader is the Author (=Creator), Author says, the author is "Alith3204". Just click on the link and talk to the creator. --C.Suthorn (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, C.Suthorn. I click on the link and get a dialog where the header says "Wikimedia Commons does not currently have a user page called Alith3204. . . . To start the page, begin typing in the box below. When you're done, press the "Save page" button. Your changes should be visible immediately. If this page used to exist, it may have been deleted. Check for Alith3204 in the logs and/or in deletion requests. . . "

If I create a page, does that mean I would be the first person to talk with the image creator, and there's still hope to reach the image creator? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlongmedia2 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  • So the uploader didn't have a personal page and, no, you should not have created one for them. There are two possible ways to reach them (which will follow). (also: PLEASE sign your posts by using ~~~~, which will be turned into a link to your account, a timestamp, etc.)
  • You can ask a user a question on their talk page. I've taken the liberty of moving your question and adding a link to your account.
  • Normally, assuming you have an account with an email address, in the left nav you'd also have the choice of "email this user". Unfortunately, though, Alith3204 hasn't provided an email address. They seem to be active, though, so you will probably hear back on their talk page. - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Help desk bot?

Is there some way it would be easy to re-purpose an existing bot to automatically move new threads from the top of Commons:Help desk to the bottom? I note there are about a half-dozen completely unanswered threads there currently at the top of the page, and I suspect this is because they were positioned wrongly, and someone like me, who normally tries to at least give some answer to unanswered questions, simply missed them. So we may be BITING newcomers through good-faith omission. Unfortunately, many of these are weeks old a this point, and we've probably missed our opportunity to help these new users. GMGtalk 13:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I doubt there is enough of this to merit a bot, and they are at least mostly pretty old, so I think they are just sitting at the top because no one answered; easy enough for someone to bring a question back to life... - Jmabel ! talk 17:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

video2commons

I wanted to upload https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcZVcf-3sBE (just the video) to commons via video2commons but I see "Error: An exception occurred: DownloadError: ERROR: WcZVcf-3sBE: YouTube said: Unable to extract video data". It seems that something's wrong with the tool. Hanooz 18:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Zhuyifei1999 IIRC - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
WARNING: unable to download video info webpage: HTTP Error 429: Too Many Requests --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl/search?p=2&q=HTTP+Error+429%3A+Too+Many+Requests&type=Issues this is obnoxious... --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. So, I must use another tool for uploading youtube videos? Hanooz 02:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
You might have to for the time being. I don't see how to workaround this. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Forcing IPv4 didn't help? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
We are on IPv4. Cloud has no IPv6 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to find a way to not use youtube-dl but rather a similar technology used to get images off of Google Art Project and see if that is a possibility. However, expect the download time to be at least the video duration. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

If the problem is too many requests via the IP address, then the solution is not simply changing tools but YouTube making a bot account exception of some sort? --Fæ (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm contacting a few people and see if whitelist is a possibility --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
FYI everyone https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T236446 Victorgrigas (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Question on Share Alike Condition for Commercial Design Work

Please help me understand the 'Share Alike' condition of a license. An image might be categorized under "Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license" which states an image may be used commercially, but under certain conditions of attribution, etc., and also with a 'share alike' condition. If I reuse an uploader's work for free and alter it, transform it, and build upon it for a commercial design, and charge for my work, would that be allowed under 'share alike'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlongmedia2 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  • @Dlongmedia2: It's allowed, but only if the result is also similarly licensed. That is, someone can pay you to make a derivative work, but your derivative work must be licensed under the Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
  • If you want exclusive rights to your derivative work, you should contact the copyright holder and offer to make a separate licensing arrangements. In my experience, you should typically expect to pay for those. - Jmabel ! talk 17:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Est-il possible d’utiliser un logiciel non gratuit pour faire une image personnelle ensuite importée dans Commons ?

Bonjour. J’ai utilisé un logiciel de photo et dessin Adobe Documents 12 non gratuit pour réaliser une œuvre personnelle importée dans Commons et pour laquelle j’ai ensuite demandé une permission OTRS ([Ticket#2019091310003868]). User:Ganimedes m’a ensuite demandé des précisions sur cette File:Les voyages de Turms l’Étrusque.jpg (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Les_voyages_de_Turms_l%E2%80%99%C3%89trusque.jpg) et il m’a conseillé le 27 octobre à 21:50, de poser cette question dans Village Pump. Voir Section Re: dans ma page de discussion de Cpmmons ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pierre_Raymond_Esteve ). Merci de votre réponse. --Pierre Raymond Esteve (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Pierre Raymond Esteve: Aux États-Unis, le logiciel utilisé n'importe pas pour les questions du droit d'auteur. C'est parce que un ordinateur ne peut pas être un auteur, seulment des gens. Je ne connais pas bien les lois d'autres pays, mais me pense qu'ils sont similaire pour cette issue. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: Merci beaucoup de votre réponse très pertinente. Si je vous comprend bien il n'y a pas de problème, et c'est aussi ce que je pensais intuitivement. Clin Cordialement. --Pierre Raymond Esteve (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

List of improperly attributed Wikimedia Commons images

Do we still maintain a list of improperly attributed Wikimedia Commons images used by online media somewhere? I finally reached my 10th improper use by lacking proper attribution, but I do not see us still having a list of links. RAN (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

We have Category:Commons as a media source with sub-cats such as Category:Files reused by external parties out of compliance with licensing terms and Category:Files reused by external parties with minor violation of licensing terms. However, AFAIK there is no systematic search for re-uses. A few people do that every now and then. So, one cannot draw any general conclusions out of the numbers of files in those cats. --Túrelio (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that will do! RAN (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
& consider using the {{Published}} template on the talk page with an indidication of "legal=no". - Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Wow, all of this is really handy to know, I've seen my images been used on dozens of websites and generally only screenshot it for personal use, this is a much better way to document something. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I added an archiving(Archive.org) link to videos uploaded from YouTube/Vimeo (adjacent to source)

You may check this out by opening any video uploaded from YouTube or Vimeo. Example : File:USS Jackson Completes Full Ship Shock Trials.webm and File:Time Lapse Wirikuta.webm.

Best,

Eatcha (talk) 06:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, please update "Commons:Archive external links" to reflect this. This is good news and future license reviewers will be extremely grateful for your amazing work. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Attempting to fix vandalism results in error message

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T236320

As you can see at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Symbol_venus.svg&curid=668576&action=history , an anonymous IP moved the text of a Vietnamese caption into a declared Russian caption (but it's still in the Vietnamese language). When I attempt to change this, I get an angry red box with errormessages such as [Xbf0@ApAICgAAHql0k0AAAAU] 2019-10-29 08:14:48: Fatal exception of type "InvalidArgumentException"). I'm not using any script tool, just basic editing... AnonMoos (talk) 08:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: Please try safemode, see if the problem is still there or no. Ahmadtalk 10:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Just tried to undo it, I got the very same message. This can be an incompatibility with undo system. I changed it manually. Ahmadtalk 10:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I reported the issue a few days ago. See phab:T236320. The interesting thing is that revert/rollback works as expected. Anyway, please make some noise on Pahbricator – perhaps it "helps" to solve the problem quicker. --jdx Re: 11:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Notový zápis - Visací zámek, Traktor.jpg

Dears, I would like to invite you for the quite harder law issue in linked discussion. Please, help us determine if the Czech copyright law article means analogy of the PD or the analogy of the fair use and if there is a possibility to use this article for publishing on the Commons. Lets talk in the linked discussion. Thank you very much, best regards, --Palu (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Navbox too wide

I just noticed that all Navboxes are 8 pixel too wide because the CSS class definition for navbox sets "width: 100%;" but misses the "box-sizing: border-box;" - at least in Vector, I didn't check the other skins. Example: Category:Nature of Austria. Maybe somebody with write access to the relevant CSS file(s) can fix this? Thanks --Reinhard Müller (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Why rollback is a right ? I mean anyone can have it using JS

Is there any other advantage of having rollback rights, I know it is mainly used to rollback successive edits(it can be done with JS too). Is there any advantage in exploiting the APIs with rollback rights or anything other than rollback-ing successive edits? -- Eatcha (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It is more reliable and much faster as it does depend on JavaScript. Ruslik (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Rollback has a nice side effect – reverted changes are automatically marked as patrolled so they can be easily filtered out in RTRC and patrollers don't have to deal with them. This isn't the case in case of regular "undo" or popups. --jdx Re: 10:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
In some projects like English Wikipedia, rollback is more than just an advanced-undo right. Something like Huggle only works if you're a rollbacker. Also, as jdx mentioned above, rollback automatically marks rollbacked revisions as patrolled. On Commons (and many other projects), I think auto-patrolling rollbacked revisions and speed are the key features, as we don't use Huggle and/or similar applications. Ahmadtalk 10:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Identifying Conan, the hero dog...

This is an official picture of the dog who chased al-Baghdadi.

News reports say the dog's name is "Conan", and she is a Belgian Malinois, a breed often chosen for military working dogs.

Well, I did a google search, across site:mil, for dogs named Conan. I've found some, and would like to ask dog fans if they think the other dogs are Belgian Malinois, or are the same dog.

Several press reports have told their readers that a Belgian Malinois, like Conan, are "like a German Shepherd, but smaller". Hmmm. Aren't they larger, and more aggressive? Geo Swan (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Obviously not the same dog. Fur patterns on the face don't match (stripes below the eyes & spots over the eyes are missing in the reference picture). Legs are much more yellow and shoulders much more black than the rather uniform brown of the reference. --El Grafo (talk) 09:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
By the way: On Dutch TV the trainer of the dog recognized his pupil and was proud of him/her. The Netherlands trains and exports a lot of police and militairy dogs. The dog received the basic training (1000 hours) in the Netherlands. www.ad.nl websiteSmiley.toerist (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

.tif(f) or .jpg/.jpeg image files?

Dear experts,

While uploading large .tif image files of Africa to Category:A. A. van Achterberg Collection, i received a complaint (User_talk:Hansmuller#Tiff_picture_file_88MB) about the usefulness of .tif(f). Naively, i have always thought .tif(f) files were superior to the lossy .jpg image files, so i should upload them instead of .jpg etcetera files where i can. Furthermore, is there a chance that in the future .jpg will still be supported while .tif(f) not?

What is your expert opnion? Thank you, cheers Hansmuller (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC) (Wikipedian in Residence at the Afrika-Studiecentrum Leiden)

  • As far as I've understood, .tiff has always been fine for the purpose of storing the highest resolution possible image here on Commons, which we should definitely be doing if we can. Having said that, an 88mb image is not necessarily useful for the vast majority of users, and may be entirely useless for many readers with poor internet access. So it's perfectly reasonable to make a mid-sized jpg for use in articles, while we retain the highest possible qualify version here for posterity. GMGtalk 13:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't bother. TIFF is superior to JPEG in terms of losslessness and bit depth. Everyone is free to convert from high quality source in TIFF format to an other format. Metadata and descriptive file names are also desirable. --jdx Re: 14:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hansmuller -- first off, TIFF isn't so much an image file format itself as a file wrapper which can contain an almost indefinitely diverse variety of internal image subformats. Archivists employed at institutions love it partly for that reason, but this means that it's very difficult for an image program to be able to deal with every theoretically-valid TIFF. If a lossless TIFF subformat is used, then a TIFF can be good for storing archival copies (though in most cases with little real advantage over PNG), but JPEG is more suitable for a photographic-type image which is to be displayed in a Wikipedia article (partly because of the automatic sharpening applied to resized JPEGs, though some people consider this more important than it actually is)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I would say that TIFF is a container, just like e.g. AVI or MP4. --jdx Re: 14:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Europa at Herenhäuser Gärten: Uploaded as tiff, displayed as jpg

If you upload a tiff to MediaWiki it will only ever be downloaded as tiff, if you chosse to download the original file size, in all other caes mediawiki will generate a jpeg and display the jpeg. There is no reason not to upload a tiff, if a tiff exists.--C.Suthorn (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)«»

I've heard somewhat bad things about the TIFF thumbnailer. But, in any case, upload the TIFF if you have it, but you may want to upload a JPEG as well Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
"look inferior to JPEGs as thumbnails" this is because TIFFs are often of very large dimensions. And with it being actually a lot of different possible formats inside of the TIFF it can be very hard to 'step that down' to a very small thumbnail in a way that works for all possible different formats and sizes. In that regard, a JPEG/PNG is simpler and thus has a little bit more predictable and consistent thumbnailing results. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Is it not true that large Tiff files take longer to load, and look inferior to JPEGs as thumbnails? This seems to be my experience, and my modest computer and internet connectivity is far better than many people's in the world. When there are JPEG and TIFF versions of the same file, I opt for the JPEG on Wikimedia sites, as to me aesthetics and functionality matter more than technicalities of file fidelity. Commons is for humans and (re)usable content, not just robots or archivists. --Animalparty (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Certainly whenever there is a TIFF and a JPEG, the JPEG is preferred for thumbnail display. - Jmabel ! talk 04:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep in mind that (re)using content may mean to download and edit it, and for that you typically want the best quality possible. You can always create a JPEG version optimized for display from a full-sized TIFF, but you can never go the other direction. --El Grafo (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The one thing I would say is that this particular TIFF is completely uncompressed, which is wasteful. If you upload TIFFs, you should always convert them to make use of lossless LWZ datacompression BEFORE uploading (halves the filesize, just by storing it more efficient and with 0 loss). If everyone were to use TIFF completely uncompressed to upload images, we'd run out of disk space real quick. Secondly, while TIFF supports some very high resolution material, what I often see is making pictures with a camera and then incorrectly thinking that TIFF gives them the best results.. In terms of actual quality, you cannot 'create' more quality than the original has of course. And unless you make RAW images and process them correctly, you won't have the 'data quality' throughout your pipeline, that is good enough that it makes sense to put them in TIFF file or PNG-48 or whatever. This TIFF too I think doesn't have anything that PNG cannot handle just as well (but i didn't do a complete check). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to mention btw, that our PNG thumbnailing is a little more optimized for diagram usage and our jpeg and tiff thumbnailing more for photography. That too is a consideration to make. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Uploading the original TIFF has quite a bit of value, both in (verifiably) matching the original source and in actually being lossless. Converting the compression format on a TIFF without changing any of the metadata is challenging. When shooting JPEGs, uploading original camera JPEGs is the best, but when making changes on a file, it's easy to lose way more quality then you expect if you convert them to JPEGs every step on the way. There's a lot of different use cases, and I don't think uploading original TIFFs when they are the originals will hurt Wikimedia's disk space in any serious way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times over many years. A useful discussion with examples of the thumbnail problem is at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2013/10#Handling_TIFFs_in_NARA_mass_upload and an explanation of cross-linking using galleries is given in the Library of Congress prints upload User:Fæ/LOC#Technology_and_basic_options.

The fundamental TIFF thumbnail bug has been identified and discussed on Phabricator in several tasks, the main parent appears to have originally been created in 2013, TIF less focused than JPG equivalent (due to conditional sharpening applied to JPEGs and not TIFFS). Given the timeline, it seems unlikely that the bug will be resolved in time for us to be the ones acting on it. --Fæ (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  • TheDJ - "I forgot to mention btw, that our PNG thumbnailing is a little more optimized for diagram usage and our jpeg and tiff thumbnailing more for photography."

    This is of course well known as an issue, and extremely sub-optimal. Solutions have been proposed and discussed at phab:T192744, but discussion has, again, ground to a halt. In that ticket I said

    "Yet many png images on Commons ARE photographs, and WOULD benefit from sharpening of thumbnails. They have historically been uploaded as png because it's lossless, or for transparency - or simply because the original being uploaded was itself png. ... To work around the current situation many png files now have jpg duplicates just for thumbnailing, which need to be/should be synchronised with png masters - this is an unworkable mess, and can't help at all if transparency is required, as in many logos or hundreds/thousands of oval, historical portraits etc... Wouldn't it make more sense to have a per-file, user configurable flag to enable/disable png thumbnail sharpening? I understand that the default for such a flag, how it is set for existing images, and how it gets set at upload time, and maintained, are all aspects that would need discussion, but it does provide a simple solution to implement per-file where none currently exists. There are, for example, many cases where it could be applied across existing image categories which should ease implementation."

    and "What is certain is that we have no way to display transparent png thumbnails optimally for cases such as I mentioned above - irregularly shaped logos or hundreds/thousands of oval, historical portraits etc... What is also certain is that the current situation has resulted in many unwieldy, confusing, time-consuming 'workarounds' like keeping a lossless png 'master' synced with a jpeg copy purely for thumbnailing, or kludges where 'infobox' grey is used around oval/non-rectangular images to eliminate the white borders on copies of jpegs. This is desperation, though, and fails if someone has a custom theme or reuses the image outside an infobox. Resorting to 'tricks' like these should not be necessary and is pretty amateur."

    I understand that the "png photograph flag" solution is not perfect, but currently, particularly where transparency/cut-outs are required there is no option at all available to do this optimally, as jpeg doesn't support transparency. In reality, we are where we are because of a somewhat arbitrary decision in the distant past to treat jpg and png differently based on file extension rather than actual content, so... -- Begoon 08:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It's open source, you are welcome to write code, we could use a couple of 500 more developers. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
that is a really useless comment. yes MW is open source, the proposed addition of a switch is easy to code and such a piece of code is not unlikely to be used by hundreds of mw installations in the internet. But to be picked up by WMF wikis an extensive (security, ...) code review is needed, tests, ... This feature if coded by a newbie among WMF devolopers has the chance of a snowball in a tegelkachel (nl) or kachelofen (de) to be actually used by WMF. --C.Suthorn (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
C.Suthorn tone it down a bit.
With structured data this becomes actually a lot easier. You could setup thumbnail rendering rules based on what structured data is present. So apply different rules for diagrams, black and white photographs, etc. If the Commons community sets up a clear overview of the types of images and how these should be rendered, that could be a good starting point. Multichill (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
OK, that wasn't very nice of me, but honestly you don't have to repeat 3 paragraphs of requirements to me, when i'm on that ticket where it has been discussed. I know exactly what the technical problem is, but i'm also highly aware of the organizational restrictions that need to be worked with. Repeating your requirements here when there is no WMF employee involved is clearly pointless on something as complex as this, yet puts implicit pressure on me as a volunteer to 'care more'. I care, I just can't fix it for you. And if people think this is/should be 'easy' then they definitely should give it a go themselves and learn what contributing code to a website as big as Wikimedia encompasses. And then you will learn exactly what C.Suthorn highlighted. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Upload wizard includes 'description' twice

On the upload wizard form, it includes both "Description Provide all information that will help others understand what this file represents. (optional)" and "Image description in English" which is not optional. Both add their contents to a {{en|1=description}} to the summary template. Is this a bug? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 06:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: , Could you provide a screenshot of this issue? I don't experience it. What browser, operating system, or device type (desktop or mobile) are you using? How long have you been experiencing it? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: Link to screenshot (google chrome on windows 10 desktop). I've just noticed it only shows up on the "...&campaign=wsc" upload links. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 05:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
@Evolution and evolvability, Reosarevok, and Samwilson: I removed the double descripton for this campaign. I see {{WSC-campaign-label-engdesc}} in use on quite a few other campaigns. These probably need to be fixed too. Multichill (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, will take a look! --Reosarevok (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
@Evolution and evolvability and Multichill: : Oh, I now remembered the point. The rules for the campaign say that aside from a description in the user's own language, a description in English should be provided, so this was added to make that easier if people were not using Commons in English. I see that the description section is fairly understandable now though, so it might not be needed also for those campaigns where English is not the most common language anyway. I'll remove it and see what happens.--Reosarevok (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
@Reosarevok: Thanks - that makes sense. As an aside, what extension is used to control the fields presented in that upload form? Over at WikiJounals, we often have non-wikimedian peer reviewers submit peer reviews as pdfs, and the upload process might be improved by implementing something similar over there. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@Evolution and evolvability: That's a Campaign page - something like that might make sense for your use case indeed :) --Reosarevok (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@Reosarevok: One last thing, is there a way to add an optional "Affiliation/institution" field that'd also just paste its text after a semicolon at the end of the |author= parameter of the {{information}} template? Or after the {{information}} if placing it inside is too difficult. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

User created derivatives which may be deliberately offensive or used for harassment

At the copyright VP a derivative of a correctly released photograph was raised as potentially problematic. The following DR has been created not for copyright reasons but because the derivative only exists to demonstrate an offensive stereotype.

Though the file is currently in use, if this stereotype needs illustration, then it should be possible to find actual uses of the stereotype to provide in a Wikipedia article about this topic. The use of user created images which may be potentially racist or hateful for other reasons has been a long running issue for Commons. User created derivatives such as this are quite likely to be reused to harass others, in this case specifically other Wikipedians, and this should remain a consideration when assessing whether there is a sufficient argument for "realistic value" per scope which may outweigh potential misuse to create a hostile environment here or off-wiki.

If our project's policies are not clear enough on when the website terms of use and our consensus that this remains a non-hostile environment make user created content inappropriate to host on this project, then maybe we are overdue to amend that gap. --Fæ (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I think COM:INUSE is a very useful guideline, because it means that we don't need to get involved into these discussions, especially considering that sister project can have varying standards. I am against any change to COM:INUSE. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Certainly it's useful, however I disagree that the Wikimedia Commons community has no say in whether content is sufficiently of realistic educational value to host here rather than locally, especially when the media is explicitly targeted both at Wikipedians and creates a hostile environment. Again, any specific language Wikipedia can and do choose to host whatever local content they feel is necessary to their goals, if their scope and media policies are different to Wikimedia Commons. --Fæ (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Fæ, I agree with you about hostile content, but on that image you completely missed the point. Self-irony is a healthy thing, let them have it. --El Grafo (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
The unflattering stereotype of Janusz seem to be used in many mimes and in books like this one. I think it is equivalent to en:You Might Be a Redneck If… which self mock segment of US population. I am not fan of either stereotype but I do not find the Janusz stereotype any more offensive than Redneck one and I agree with others here and at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nosacz janusz.png that we can let plWiki people to police themselves. --Jarekt (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The question is not if Janusz is an unflattering stereotype, the question is if the photographer finds it abuse of its photograph which is not intended for adopting to an unflattering stereotype. I should say : delete for raeson of abuse.--Havang(nl) (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/10&oldid=377945996"