Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Village pump)
Jump to: navigation, search


  Welcome to Commons   Community Portal   Help Desk
Upload help
  Village Pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' Noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
 
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
This project page in other languages:

বাংলা | Alemannisch | العربية | asturianu | авар | Boarisch | bosanski | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 |  | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | मराठी | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | suomi | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | Zazaki | +/−

Welcome to the Village pump

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. For old discussions, see the Archive. Recent sections with no replies for 3 days may be archived.

Please note


  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing please do not comment here. It is a waste of your time. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is just a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read the FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page


Search archives


 


Centralized discussion

See also Commons:Village pump/Proposals

Please help by translating these messages into other languages.

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Archive  • Discussion • Edit • Page history • Watch
A village pump in Cork, Ireland [add]





Oldies[edit]

Charinsert[edit]

The Charinsert extension is installed but I can't find its management in the Gadgets. In Wikipedia and Wikisource, I added a row of "User" characters and strings but here it doesn't seem to work. User:Ineuw/common.js -- 01:28, 21 June 2014 User:Ineuw

Fotopedia[edit]

moved to Category talk:Photos from Fotopedia#(Moved from Village pump)

superprotect right[edit]

FYI: The WMF has added a 'superprotect' right – granted to the 'Staff' global user group – which can be used to prevent sysops from modifying site-wide infrastructure pages (such as default javascript/css pages). There are suggestions that this new right would allow introduction of better version control to these very important files to prevent undesirable effects. The first use of 'superprotect' was to prevent German Wikipedia sysops from using Common.js to deactivate the mw:MediaViewer. There is currently a RFC on meta: meta:Requests for comment/Superprotect rights --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Awwww, WMF pet developpers are sad that their shiny toy is underappreciated by the team responsible for the Foundations’s highest editorial quality project?… Now I need to go stand barefoot on a bucket of Legos to take this grin off my face… Hmm, capital idea: What about a super-super-protect right to keep idiots from ruining Wikimedia with more unwanted, unneeded, harmful crap? -- Tuválkin 06:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Rather than put Media Viewer back into Beta, so that users can optionally enable it if they find it beneficial, WMF has enforced its deployment of this software to all readers, with threats of desysop-ing on English Wikipedia, and now preventing this interface message from being altered by sysops on German Wikipedia... The WMF has also ignored community consensus on Commons (@MW RFC). --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Visual representation of the WMF's response to these questions (and of Commons:Upload Wizard feedback)
From Erik Möller's e-mail: "we've clarified in a number of venues that use of the MediaWiki: namespace to disable site features is unacceptable. If such a conflict arises, we're prepared to revoke permissions if required." I'd like a few actual clarifications (rather than just proclamations) in relation to this statement. Let's start with the easy ones and work our way down.
  • Where was this "clarified"?
  • What really needs to be clarified is why this is supposedly unacceptable, so: why?
  • What exactly is considered a "site feature" in relation to this unwritten policy?
  • Which permissions are you prepared to revoke? Administrative privileges of administrators carrying out the consensus of the projects that they serve? Editing privileges of project participants advocating changes which the WMF disapproves of?
  • Why do you consider community consensus to disable functionality which is malfunctioning or unwanted a "conflict"?
  • If a community feels that certain functionality hinders them from working effectively, do you think that overriding their consensus and threatening to revoke permissions aligns well with the foundation's mission to empower and engage people to effectively collect, develop and disseminate content?
  • Who is your position intended to benefit? If it's the individual projects: Why are you a better judge of what's good for the projects than the communities of those projects?
  • If the WMF is going to exert more power with respect to controlling site functionality, which steps (if any) is it going to take to assume greater responsibility to ensure that, for example, the Upload Wizard isn't utterly broken for all users of certain browsers and that the Media Viewer and Stock Photo gadgets don't fail to comply with licensing requirements for large groups of files? (These are not hypothetical examples.) I don't recall ever seeing anyone responsible for the Upload Wizard following up on Commons:Upload Wizard feedback – are you going to become more active there?
  • Can you show any evidence of a mandate given to you to override a project's consensus and hinder or punish administrators who carry it out?
Looking forward to the WMF's response, LX (talk, contribs) 09:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
@LX: I suggest to use meta for this discussion. There are already so many discussion fragments on this from en.wp, de.wp, meta, mailing lists etc, adding one more location is probably too confusing to people. TheDJ (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
User:LX another ping attempt. Annoying crosswiki differences... :) TheDJ (talk) 09:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't figure out the structure of the RFC on meta or where this would fit, and my questions are less about the new "master race bit" and more about that e-mail in relation to Commons-specific issues. But all comments here are freely licensed, so feel free to copy and extend my list of questions. LX (talk, contribs) 10:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: I'm a bit confused as to your role in making announcements for the Wikimedia Foundation. Is the Wikimedia Foundation going to engage the community on Commons in an appropriate way, such as raising an official notice with explanation on this Village Pump, or do we have to discover these by watching out for code changes? The latter scenario just seems, well, rude. -- (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't work for the WMF, and i don't make announcments for the WMF. This was only a FYI for the community because the WMF don't have posted a notice here. Sorry if the FYI is confusing. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, you are always on the ball Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg. Could someone nudge one of the WMF paid Community Advocates (or whatever title they use right now) that it would be seen as a good thing for one of them to write up an explanation here and explain where we are supposed to give feedback, rather than in haphazard channels? Unfortunately off the top of my head, I don't know the right person to ask. -- (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The community liaisons are usually attached to specific development projects (They try and gather and organize feedback about said project, as well as informing the community about changes related to that project). They are not general internal PR people for the foundation (Or at least that is my understanding). Thus I don't really think its their responsibility to inform the community that the foundation has decided to make a new protection level (I have no idea whose responsibility it would be. Probably should be somebodies). For reference, User:Keegan (WMF) is the community liason for media viewer. However, at this point the super-protect controversy has little to do with the MediaViewer "project" itself. There are discussions about it everywhere. One of the more prominent ones is at meta:Requests_for_comment/Superprotect_rights Bawolff (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I totally misread Fae's comment to say community liaison instead of community advocate. If you want to talk to a community advocate, I'd recommend leaving User:Philippe_(WMF) a message. Bawolff (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I propose the creation of a "collateral damage" list or sub-page listing those users who have retired or cut-down their activity due to the WMF's recent behaviour. --Túrelio (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI: meta:Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

PD image of David Slater[edit]

(I'm not sure were this question properly belongs; I placed it here thinking this was the best place to start the discussion.)
By the same logic that the famous macaque selfie is a public domain image, could we also upload the monkey's image of David Slater, the photographer, as seen here (or here, as printed in The Guardian)? Or should we wait until the whole copyright issue is settled legally? — Loadmaster (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that your logic is correct, but the words "add fuel to a fire" come immediately to mind, remember also that in addition to legal copyrights, individuals have Personality rights ( see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people), and given the present bad blood between Mr Slater and the Wikimedia Foundation, it would be very unwise to make such a provocative gesture.--KTo288 (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
What KTo288 is saying. I also think it would be a bit pointy. Much the same as the selfie fest at wikimania in my opinion was pointy. However that was also sort of a consequence of the media picking this from the transparency report and running with it like we landed on the moon... For attendees it was as much about the copyrights as the media's and social media's superficial obsession with things like this (that's how I interpreted it at least). Morally, I'm of the opinion that it is not necessary to drive this much further by uploading an image of David himself. TheDJ (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been written somewhere but otrs is getting quite a few mails of unhappy people (eg. I have donated to wikipedia but will never again... , I love you guys but what you did here is really shitty… and so on). Publicity wise the monkey was not good for wikimedia and it was definitely not worth the few images the monkey took. Peoples opinion is, that even if it is lawfully correct, it is morally wrong. Should the copyright issue be settled in favor for wikimedia we will get that victory with an other wave of bad press and unhappy otrs mails. So maybe not upload more pictures taken by monkeys. Amada44  talk to me 19:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. As I said about that previous infamous incident, we must respect the interests and freewill of the authors than merely looking on the legal sides. Otherwise, we will loss a lot of gentle people. I know Flickr and many other similar sites give much importance for photographers. But Commons is difference. Here we care the interests of authors, reusers and the unpaid efforts of the maintenance volunteers at the same time. It is good, and I respect that point of view. But we should maintain an equilibrium so that the voice of each group is taken care and one group is not neglected by the aggressiveness of others. Unfortunately it is happening frequently because the maintenance community is most active and dominating here. Jee 02:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
You're not wrong about the bad publicity, I had been negotiating with an organisation to release photographs under a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license but it has fallen though due WMF's controversial position of the "Monkey Selfie" and they want nothing to do with any WMF projects. Looking at ORTS, most of the emails I've seen are from very unhappy people. Bidgee (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
We've got our hands stuck in the cookie jar, forgetting that the way to get more cookies is to let go of some of the ones we're holding.:(--KTo288 (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It is really unfortunate if generous people made generous donations to WMF projects only to regret it later when they learned they didn't fully appreciate the meaning of free licenses. If that is what is happening with the potential donors who were alienated by our stand on the Monkey pics I think the underlying lesson is that we need to make sure those generous donors understand our core goals and principles -- not that we should amend our core goals and principles in order to chase donors.
Some people may think there are no underlying principles worth defending over the copyright of the Monkey pics. I disagree.
Mr Slater is not the only professional photographer who has shown he doesn't really understand the fundamental principles of intellectual property. It is sad phenomenon. It is unfortunate. And, IMO, these are principles worth taking a stand over.
Let me share a couple of anecdotes:
Infamously, there was a hapless innocent Afghan taxi driver named Dilawar who American GIs tortured to death in December 2002. An American freelance photographer sought out his family and published a family photo of the young man, from before his capture and torture. This freelance photographer claimed he owned the worldwide IP rights to the family photo.
Wire services, like AP and Reuters routinely add public domain images to their libraries. We routinely treat all images that have been published with an "AP file photo" credit as if that was equivalent to AP claiming they owned all the IP rights to the image.
I'd uploaded a considerable number of CC images from flickr. In November 2009 I decided I would always take an extra 20 seconds, and leave a comment on every flickr image I uploaded (1) thanking the flickr contributor for using a CC license; (2) telling them the URL of the commons page.
Lots of flickr contributors really appreciate being told their images are being re-used. But I have had three or four people who were upset, because they didn't understand what the CC license meant, or that it was unrevocable. In three of those cases I started a DR discussion over their images. One guy seemed to have a nervous breakdown. He was a very good photographer, and prolific. His position was undermined because he had created a Commons ID for himself, and had personally uploaded three or four dozen images here. About three hundred of his flickr images had been uploaded here by Commons contributors. But none of those earlier uploaders had ever told him they had uploaded one of his pictures.
My thank you seemed to precipitate a crisis for him. I think it made him look, and count, how many times an image of his had been uploaded here, and he was shocked to see how many there had been. He changed his default license on all his thousands of flickr images, from CC to "all rights reserved". And he tried to speedy delete all the hundreds of images that had been uploaded here.
As part of his meltdown, he repeatedly denounced us, calling us thieves, saying we had ruined his hobby of 40 years. Since flickr let him change his mind over licensing he thought we should too.
When the DR closed as keep, he swore he would dedicate himself to warning the world about us. He erased all his thousands of images from flickr.
The underlying lesson I took from this incident is that we need to do a better job educating our donors as to our fundamental core principles.
  • I think some of comments here imply a view I think is a big mistake. Should we be grateful to financial donors? Sure, just as we should be grateful to those who donate images, or donate their time in helping organize our files. IMO it is a mistake to treat financial donors as if they were the only donors who count. When facebook issued its IPO we saw how a major internet site could be worth ten figures. If the WMF projects were closely held, for profit enterprises, that were about to issue an IPO, their worth would be comparable to that of facebook or twitter.
Only tiny fraction of the value of the WMF projects is due to the financial donations -- so let's stop acting like they are the only donors whose views count. Geo Swan (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Can someone link to evidence of an active legal case? If there is no legal case on-going, then there is nothing more to say. However if there is a real case, then disregarding the interesting debate of theoretical copyright or non-copyrightability, if part of the case is on-going damages due to Commons hosting and promoting this image under a free licence which is disputed, then we (us volunteers, not the WMF) should re-open the DR and discuss the reasonableness of taking down the image whilst the case is open in order to show due care to limit potential damage and our good practice of simple courtesy. The image is not so educationally valuable as to justify ignoring the courtesy aspect and a legal case of this type, cannot really be considered an attempt to censor or suppress material of unique educational value. -- (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is safe to upload that picture, the US Copyright Office released a document some days ago stating animal-produced works are not eligible for copyright. --Diego Grez return fire 05:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

August 13[edit]

Central notice javascript error[edit]

Old upload form javascript is malfunctioning. Browser console (Firefox 31) shows the following:

"Exception thrown by ext.centralNotice.bannerController" load.php:161
"URIError: malformed URI sequence" URIError: malformed URI sequence
Stack trace:
decoded@https://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=ownwork&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki&only=scripts&skin=monobook&version=20140812T191220Z line 4 > eval:51:2004
$.cookie@https://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=ownwork&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki&only=scripts&skin=monobook&version=20140812T191220Z line 4 > eval:52:764
@https://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=ownwork&modules=ext.centralNotice.bannerController&skin=monobook&version=20140812T191220Z&*:1:513
@https://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=ownwork&modules=ext.centralNotice.bannerController&skin=monobook&version=20140812T191220Z&*:8:1
runScript@https://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=ownwork&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki&only=scripts&skin=monobook&version=20140812T191220Z:171:166
execute@https://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=ownwork&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki&only=scripts&skin=monobook&version=20140812T191220Z:172:353
mw.loader</<.implement@https://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=ownwork&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki&only=scripts&skin=monobook&version=20140812T191220Z:178:172
@https://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=ownwork&modules=ext.centralNotice.bannerController&skin=monobook&version=20140812T191220Z&*:8:1
 load.php:161
 
URIError: malformed URI sequence

MKFI (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not see anything in Chrome. Ruslik (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I get this error ocassionally too, e. g. on the upload page or right now editing the village pump. This is very annoying as it seems to break all scripts running after this code (upload form customization, some gadgets, search auto-completion). (Environment: Firefox 31, OS: current Ubuntu and Windows 8.) ireas (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I haven't yet managed to reproduce this. If anybody can reproduce this "more often", appending "?debug=true" (if there's no question mark yet in the URL address) or "&debug=true" (otherwise) to the URL address is welcome, to get non-minified output in the browser's error console. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I managed to get the following (the problem is intermittent). Firefox 31, Windows 7, monobook skin:
Use of getUserData() or setUserData() is deprecated.  Use WeakMap or element.dataset instead. requestNotifier.js:63
"JQMIGRATE: Logging is active" load.php:10332
URIError: malformed URI sequence jquery.cookie.js:17
URIError: malformed URI sequence jquery.cookie.js:17
"Use of "insertTags" is deprecated. Use mw.toolbar.insertTags instead." load.php:11403
console.trace(): load.php:11405
mw.log</log.warn() load.php:11405
mw.log</log.deprecate</<.set() load.php:11434
<anonymous> index.php:17
<anonymous> index.php:187
MKFI (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Additionally this upload error occasionally occurs again:
An unknown error occurred in storage backend "local-swift-eqiad". 
. MKFI (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
That's unrelated. The local-swift-eqiad error happens when the servers where we store files become overloaded (Called swift, after the software it uses, eqiad is the name of the cluster where all the servers are). Bawolff (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
For the unrelated local-swift-eqiad problem, see bugzilla:69760. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

MMS request[edit]

Hello, Photos and Videos are upload in my mobile phone. I send the photos in commons in my mobile phone please provide in the MMS number. Thanks you Naresh Raja Kumar (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I can't make any sense of what you wrote there. Can you reword, or can someone who can make sense of this paraphrase? - Jmabel ! talk 15:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I think he wants to upload photos by sending them in a multimedia text message to commons (MMS = Multimedia_Messaging_Service). Which we do not support. Bawolff (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
And we have no plans of supporting: MMS is on its way out, and securely authenticating over it is... problematic. Also, it seems to me that the price of a MMS is higher than the price of mobile traffic required to upload a phone-grade image in most markets. MaxSem (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

August 20[edit]

License tag help requested[edit]

I've been reading the articles about possible tags for images, but can't find which one best suits the image I uploaded:

  • It's a photo of a painting made in the 17th century.
  • The artist is unknown / anonymous.
  • In my country it's considered public domain (70 years after death of artist or first published over 70 years ago)
  • It is in the public domain in the United States.

When I use template PD-Art|PD-anon-1923 the text it produces doesn't mention the part about the author being anonymous. Which template should I use with which parameters ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OSeveno (talk • contribs)


I don't understand the problem. "PD-Art|PD-anon-1923", as you used in this example, shows the text of the embedded template, including in this case the mention of anonymous. Is it a problem when you view the text in a language other than English? -- Asclepias (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Correct; this is the case: in Dutch is doesn't mention anything about 'anonymous'. To try help clarify this issue, below is the original Dutch text plus the translation into English, the latter being my literal translation of the Dutch text, not the official English version:

Dutch text as presented by template PD-Art PD-Art]|PD-anon-1923:

  • Het tweedimensionale kunstwerk afgebeeld op deze afbeelding valt in het publiek domein omdat het auteursrecht op dit materiaal is verlopen (de auteur is meer dan 70 jaar geleden overleden of de datum van publicatie is van voldoende ouderdom). Reproducties van het werk kunnen ook worden beschouwd als publiek domein omdat het geen oorspronkelijk karakter heeft. Dit is geldig voor reproducties gemaakt in de Verenigde Staten (zie Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.), Duitsland en veel andere landen.

Literal translation of the Dutch text into English:

  • The twodimensional artwork depicted on this image is part of the public domain because the authors-rights on this material expired (the author deceased more then 70 years ago or the date of publication is sufficiently old). Reproductions of the work can also be can also be seen as public domain because it has no original character. This is valid for reproductions made in the United States (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.), Germany and many other countries.

I'd like to add that I noticed that there are other Commons license tags of which I noticed they do not present a correct translation into Dutch. In some cases when the license tag speaks of 100 years, the Dutch translation of the presented text speaks of 70 years. And since I didn't check all available tags, only about 10 percent, statistically speaking there may very well be many more. I have being the bringer of bad news, but here it is. Consequence of these errors could in the worst case be that a) uploaded material may be tagged as wrong license and therefor deleted; b) Commons may be sewed for violation of authors license. --OSeveno (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, it seems that the problem is with the PD-Art template when viewed in NL. Then it does not embed and display the status template that is inserted as a parameter, as it should and as it does when it is viewed in other languages. So, in NL, the reader sees only the text of the template PD-Art/nl, but the text of the status template in the parameter, PD-anon-1923 or another, is not displayed. The code of the template PD-Art/nl currenly does not seem to provide a parameter. I guess you could fix the code of the PD-Art/nl template by making it more similar to the PD-Art equivalents in other languages. Compare for example with the code of PD-Art/fr, PD-Art/de, etc. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC) N.B.: I went ahead and updated the template PD-Art/nl with the provision for the parameter, to make it similar to the other language versions. But please update the Dutch text of the template PD-Art/nl to reflect a meaning similar to the other language versions and to include the links to Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag and Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs, etc. Also, note that the template PD-anon-1923 does not have a NL version PD-anon-1923/nl. You can create one if you want that template to display in NL. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this and for adjusting the template. I'll try to find time to write a proper translation for the Dutch version. Regards, --OSeveno (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories duplicated for South Korea[edit]

So, we have both

(And this is the tip of an iceberg that I barely fathomed.) I’m sure that regardless of the finer details of this matter, there should be only one of each such categories. -- Tuválkin 21:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Its not used this way but surely Category:August 2011 in South Korea should be a subcategory of Category:August 2011 in Korea, with Category:August 2011 in Korea being a parent for categories from both the north and the south. Not that we have that many orlikely to get many files from the North--KTo288 (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with KTo288: they categories are not duplicates. The one for Korea would include both South and North Korea. I'm not sure how useful the nonspecific Korea categories are, but they seem to be wanted here. To me, they make sense only for things that are either 1) related to Korea as it was before the split or 2) things that are cultural and not specific to North or South (which I suppose are things from before the split anyway). --Auntof6 (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, if you guys want to pretend that in the example above, about 2011 — and indeed in any category concerning dates after 1956 — "Korea" means "both Koreas", and not as a misleading synonym for "South Korea" (based on the naive and oblivious notion that "Republic of Korea" can/should be named "Korea", just like "French Republic" can/should be named "France"), then we can play that game too:
So we have both Category:Tigers in South Korea and Category:Tigers in North Korea, then we should have an intermediate Category:Tigers in Korea, under the (grand)parent Category:Tigers in Asia (to be created) or the current Category:Tigers by country… Let this be done for tigers, august 2011 events, black and white portraits of smiling men facing left looking at the viewer at bust length in the 1970s, — and indeed anything and everything there is currently under either Category:South Korea, or Category:North Korea, or both. Even if this is a good idea, all these "Korea" categories should be treated as metacats, with any file content mandatorily diffused into either north or south, with maybe the exception of having all these "Korea" categories also being used as an equivalent of "...in unknown location in Korea" (i.e. unknow whether North or South).
Frankly I see no advantage in this: Looks like a true can of worms that should be better avoided — but the original point still stands: The current contents of Category:August 2011 in Korea should be moved to Category:August 2011 in South Korea, cause that’s what they pertain to. The remaining empty Category:August 2011 in Korea should be, if not deleted, then interspersed within its right place in the tree. (Ditto for an unfathomed number of such cases.)
-- Tuválkin 01:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, I take your point that something in 2011 is either North Korea or South Korea. If everything in the Korea category is for South Korea (and I mean absolutely everything), then move it to the South Korea category. Then if you want, you could nominate the Korea category for deletion as an empty category.
As far as other Korea categories, I wouldn't create new ones without the north or south qualifiers if the only thing in them would be the corresponding categories for north and south. I'd also be in favor if deleting existing categories if their only content is one or both of the north/south categories. The Korea-only (no north or south) categories should be only for things where either 1) we don't know which place it belongs to, 2) it pertains to the country before the split, or 3) it's about things that can't be differentiated for some reason. We won't get rid of the Korea-only categories completely, though, because we do keep categories for former countries (such as Korea, the Soviet Union, etc.). Those go under "by country" categories along with present-day countries unless there's a separate category for former countries. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

August 21[edit]

Difficulties doing sophisticated image searches[edit]

Having read the instructions on using the Wikipedia search tool, I remain confused and frustrated. I'll give the example I've been working on. I'd greatly appreciate advice on how to be a smarter user of the Commons, and be able to successfully do searches like this:

Today, I was looking for images of Black Bears that are in the public domain. I began by doing a search of the Commons for the combination of the two phrases "black bear" and "public domain". You can see the results here. At this moment, that search returns 33 hits.

If you do a broader search for just "black bear", you come up with many more hits, one of which is an image entitled 52bear.jpg. Now, this image shows a black bear, and contains the phrase "black bear" in the image description. This image is also in the public domain. Oddly, it doesn't show up in results from the more specific search. You can check this fact by doing that two-phrase search, asking for all results on one page, and then asking your browser to find the number "52".

My best guess is that the search tool is looking for search terms only in the description and URL fields. The 52bear image doesn't have "public domain" in either of those fields, and is therefore excluded from the search results. Is there some way I can search for black bear images in the public domain, and be assured of getting all images that fit those criteria?

Again - any help would be greatly appreciated. TimBur (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC) (edited to add signature)

For public domain images, there's no guarantee that the words "public-domain" will be included in the actual text of the image description page which is accessible to an internal search engine (and in fact, most of the time it won't be). Instead, text such as {{PD-self}} or {{PD-1923}} (invoking a template) will be there. For an internal search engine to work in the way you want it to work, it would have to resolve template transclusions, or be made specially license-aware. You may have better luck with external search engines, which work with the HTML as delivered to a browser, rather than with the raw image-description page text... AnonMoos (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@AnonMoos - Thanks for the advice. I've tried a few searches with both of those strings ({{PD-self}} and {{PD-1923}}). Neither seems to be real helpful in finding public domain images using the internal search engine. I'll explore some external search engine options. Is there any scuttlebut about changes to the internal search engine? Addition of advanced options to allow searching or filtering by a wider variety of fields? TimBur (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You may also want to restrict your search for files in Category:Ursus americanus and its subcategories down to a certain depth. -- Tuválkin 06:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
One quick option would be to go to Category:Ursus americanus, click on the little arrow next to the "good pictures" at the top right, then on "in this category and in" and enter Public domain for images that are also in Category:Public domain. The "Quick intersection" tool gives you some more control, but apparently no thumbnails (example query). For more advanced category intersections there is also Catscan. Finally, if you have the new Cirrus Search activated under the beta features something like incategory:"Ursus americanus" incategory:"Public domain" should work as well (documentation). However, I get zero results for this query – guess the Cirrus Search doesn't search in sub-categories? --El Grafo (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. The subject categories (e.g. "Ursus americanus") do appear pretty accurate. So it does seem like that would be a better way to search. Unfortunately, the "public domain" category appears more complicated. It looks as if there are several flavors of that category (e.g. {{PD-1923}}), and that those flavors aren't organized as subcategories of a broader "public domain" category. TimBur (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Try https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Public_domain?fastcci={%22c1%22%3A34%2C%22c2%22%3A%22948105%22%2C%22d1%22%3A15%2C%22d2%22%3A15%2C%22s%22%3A200%2C%22a%22%3A%22and%22} - The search feature doesn't do subcategories, but the drop down from the "Good pictures" link in the upper right corner of a category does. Bawolff (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Are photos from public university websites considered to be public domain?[edit]

I have a public domain related question. Are photographs of US Federal, State, or local governmental facilities, officials, etc. posted on official governmental websites considered to fall under public domain? Would such coverage, if applicable, also extend to public educational institutions? I am just curious because I came across these two photos (File:Robert S. Nelsen.jpg and File:Havidan Rodriguez.jpg) uploaded to Commons and currently being used on Wikipedia articles. If there's no problem with the licensing, then fine. If there is, however, a problem, their use on Wikipedia would be affected. If this kind of thing has already been asked and answered before or if it should be asked somewhere else, then my apologies in advance. Thank you - Marchjuly (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Photographs taken by U.S. federal government employees in the course of their duties, or taken as part of "work-for-hire" on behalf of the U.S. federal government, are certainly normally in the public domain. The same applies to a minority of state governments (by no means all). The only "federal universities" in the conventional sense are the service academies (West Point etc.), as far as I'm aware... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply AnonMoos. Would "work-for-hire" also include photographs taken by professionals not employed by the federal government? For example, a private photographer hired by a government to photos of certain government officials, etc. Would the photographer in such cases still typically hold, unless they have agreed otherwise, the copyright over said photos?
Regarding the two photos I referred to above. One of them (File:Robert S. Nelsen.jpg) was deleted about an hour ago for violation of copyright. The other photo File:Havidan Rodriguez.jpg was essentially uploaded using the same rationale, but was not deleted. Not sure what the difference is between the two. File:Havidan Rodriguez.jpg was taken from this webpage. At the bottom of the page is says "Copyright 2014 The University of Texas-Pan American™". I am assuming that copyright includes not only the text, but also the images on the page. Would such an image qualify as "public domain"? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
It is copyrighted, it isn't in the public domain and isn't licensed as CC-BY-SA-3.0 by the university. Photo deleted. Bidgee (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Well, the second one also should be deleted. (I see it just has been deleted.) Photos on university websites, whether public or private, are in general not in the public domain. And while AnonMoos' statement above is technically correct, "The same applies to a minority of state governments (by no means all)" may be misleading. In general state materials are not in the public domain. There are a few license templates in Category:PD-USGov license tags (non-federal), mostly about traffic signs, and then about public records from a select few states.
Even on websites of the federal government you need to watch out for contractor's works and works that the government doesn't own but uses under a "fair use" clause. Contractors' works and commissioned works, even if commissioned by an agency of the federal government, are copyrighted. The contractor retains copyright unless the contract stipulates otherwise. In particular works from U.S. national laboratories may be copyrighted, see the cautionary note in {{PD-USGov-DOE}}. (The U.S. government in such cases typically has the right to use the works, but that doesn't place the works in the public domain.)
Back to public universities: the same rule as for other websites applies: unless there's a clear mention of a free license or of public domain copyright status works are copyrighted and must not be uploaded here at the Commons. Lupo 05:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who replied. Just for the record, my goal was not to get these two particular photos deleted. I assumed they were uploaded and used in good faith. The rationale behind their licensing just seemed a bit of a reach to me. I am always looking for photos to add to certain Wikipedia articles, so if photos such as these could be used without any problems, then that would make it much easier to upload other similar ones to Commons. Anyway, thanks again for all the information. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • With regard to "service academies" -- there are two service academies that might be overlooked, and I believe there are other educational institutions that are both solely education DoD personnel, whose staff are all DoD personnel.
  • The US Army, Navy and Air Force each run a separate University for future officers. Graduates of the Navy College can opt to be officers in the Marine Corps. The Coast Guard also has a service academy, and among the several colleges that train students to be officers of merchant vessels, there is one that is run by the US Federal government, that I believe is also considered a service academy.
  • The USN runs the Navy Postgraduate School and several other degree granting institutions, that I think are not usually considered "service academies". I think their staff and student are, nevertheless, Federal employees. I started an article on a USN officer who was part of the stable of high-class call girls operated by an infamous Washington DC madam. It has since been deleted, at afd. But I remember that she was an instructor at a DoD institution that was not a degree granting institution, like the service academies, that granted certificates. But its staff and students were also all federal employees.
  • So it is my impression that there are at a dozen, propbably several dozens, of institutions with students and staff who are all federal employees. Geo Swan (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Files larger than 100mb...[edit]

I was creating a pt version of Commons:Maximum file size, but this page have a lack of orientations, so could you pleas help me here?

If I have 20 hours of a raw video material and 4 hours of edited material, and I want to put both here, what is the procedure to that?

Or a gigantic image that have more than 20 gb and that I could not split

I have to chunk, I have to use VicuñaUploader, I need a special authorization of sysop... what's the procedure to upload things like that step-by-step? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Rodrigo.Argenton: You can provide the files to the system administrators. They can do a server-side upload. See Help:Server-side upload for more information. AFAIK, there is no other way to upload files as large as these. ireas (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
yes thats correct. Limits are: 100mb for normal uploads (e.g. special:upload). 1 gb for chunked uploads (uploadwizard, certain other tools), and beyond that need to file a bug and follow the instructions at Help:Server-side upload. Bawolff (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
ireas, Bawolff, thank you for the attention, so for files from 101mb to 1 gb:
  • Able chunk upload mode
  • Upload the file via UploadWizard
Files > 1 gb
  • Upload in a outside server, as Google Drive with a description file;
  • Create a ticket on Bugzilla
  • And pray for they see and attend before you get old.
Just it?
And I'm thinking, they have a plan to fix this limitation? Because films in high quality (1080p, 4k or more) will be more present here in a nearly future. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any current plans to increase the upload limit beyond 1 GB (Although I haven't heard anyone say anything against doing that. I imagine limit will probably get increased once there is more demand). There are some reports of some stability problems with chunked uploads for very large files that really need to be addressed. Bugzilla tickets are usually handled fairly quickly, sometimes even within a couple hours. It may speed things up to add hoo@online.de and legoktm.wikipedia@gmail.com to the CC field of the bug when filing the bug (They are two people who often handle that sort of thing, so adding them to the cc list makes sure they know about the bug right away). When uploading files in the 100mb - 1gb range, I often use the User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js user script instead of upload wizard (Either works, but the user script allows you to bypass the license information hand-holding). Bawolff (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Allcaps template[edit]

I have imported {{Allcaps}} from the English Wikipedia. This will be particularly useful when transcribing text from memorials, foundation stones and other such objects. Andy Mabbett (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Open letter to Wikimedia Foundation (Media Viewer/Superprotect)[edit]

An open letter to Wikimedia Foundation concerning the recent conflict over the implementation of Media Viewer and SuperProtect has been started here. I believe this is a serious issue which deserves a close attention and participation of us all. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Letter petitioning WMF to reverse recent decisions[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation recently created a new feature, "superprotect" status. The purpose is to prevent pages from being edited by elected administrators -- but permitting WMF staff to edit them. It has been put to use in only one case: to protect the deployment of the Media Viewer software on German Wikipedia, in defiance of a clear decision of that community to disable the feature by default, unless users decide to enable it.

If you oppose these actions, please add your name to this letter. If you know non-Wikimedians who support our vision for the free sharing of knowledge, and would like to add their names to the list, please ask them to sign an identical version of the letter on change.org.

-- JurgenNL (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Process ideas for software development[edit]


Hello,

I am notifying you that a brainstorming session has been started on Meta to help the Wikimedia Foundation increase and better affect community participation in software development across all wiki projects. Basically, how can you be more involved in helping to create features on Wikimedia projects? We are inviting all interested users to voice their ideas on how communities can be more involved and informed in the product development process at the Wikimedia Foundation.

I and the rest of my team welcome you to participate. We hope to see you on Meta.

Kind regards, -- Rdicerb (WMF) talk 22:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

This is a joke, right? -- Tuválkin 01:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I make it 15 screen-fulls of text to read as a long and complex essay, mostly of bullet points and with heavy jargon use that look like the brain dump of several internal development workshops (rather than a workshop with volunteers as well as developers). There are 7 screen-fulls of talk page discussion so far, and the essay itself is not supposed to be edited by us volunteers, a red flag that unpaid volunteers are interlopers for process improvement rather than key to it. I'm afraid this falls into my TLDR pile.
WMF management - if you insist on controlling the agenda and create a process where volunteers have to 'argue the case' to change any word in your mostly done-deal creations, then expect hardly anyone to turn up to experience being repeatedly rebuffed in preference to the status quo. Most of us have experienced this game many times before, and found it very unsatisfying as an investment of our unpaid volunteer time. -- (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Picture requests looks neglected[edit]

Seriously, it looks like nobody has touched the page since 2010 (and there are subpages that aren't linked to the main page). Either someone needs to go through the list and fulfill all of the requests one at a time, or this picture request system needs a real overhaul so it will be more usable. Qzekrom (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it could be quietly archived? COM:VP seems to have taken over the proposed role of this page long ago. As it is, it just entraps now and then someone who assumes it is being monitored, leaving the odd request unanswered and needlessly doing a disservice to the requester. -- Tuválkin 01:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I suspected. I'll copy and paste my image request here.
"A version of Ukraine location map.svg in which individual regions of Ukraine (white), as well as neighboring countries (gray), are closed paths (like File:BlankMap-World6.svg), instead of individual borders being open paths. Transnistria should be a separate object, too. This will make the map a lot easier to color in. (I just need it for an art project involving a Ukraine partition plan.)"
--Qzekrom (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

August 22[edit]

Bot for automatically maintaining Category:Videos by technical criteria?[edit]

Could we have a bot for automatically maintaining Category:Videos by technical criteria? Video resolution and format should be easy to find, and the Category:Silent videos can be added if the video contains no audio track. MKFI (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Will the upcoming Wikidata/Wikibase/Structured Data/Whatever it is called stuff, which I don't fully understand, obsolete the need for categories like this? (And for all of the "taken with such-and-such camera" categories?) I sort of got the impression that one of the things it would enable is searching on metadata directly? --Ppelleti (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
My plan is to make that possible with structured data support, yes. However it'll take a while to get there. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
We talked with user:Manybubbles about indexing this kind of metadata in the search. That would be possible, but no really user friendly way of retrieving the data (unless you consider querying the api with javascript user friendly).
Indexing could probably implemented now already, but without an easy way to retrieve it, it would be a bit of waste of effort. Multichill (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer Update[edit]

Media Viewer's new 'minimal design'.

Hi folks, we wanted to give you a quick update about Media Viewer project and what we are working on for this project.

1. Disabling Media Viewer for logged-in users on Commons
Earlier this week, we disabled Media Viewer by default for logged-in users on Commons, as discussed in our response to the Media Viewer RfC. While we are not planning to disable the tool for logged-in users on other wikis, we made an exception for Commons, to address the unique requirements of editors who curate media files on this repository. The plan is to continue to provide readers with a tool that improves their viewing experience on Commons, and we are finalizing configuration settings to support that goal.

Please note that users who had previously enabled Media Viewer as a beta feature will need to re-enable it as a user preference. To re-enable Media Viewer as a logged-in user, go to your "Preferences", select the "Appearance" section, and check this option under "Files": '[ ] Enable Media Viewer’. Once you click "Save", images will open in Media Viewer again for your account on that site. For more information, check this help page.

2. Media Viewer Improvements
We are now working to improve Media Viewer in coming weeks, to address editor concerns while making it even more useful for readers — our main target users for this product. Here are some of the improvements we are planning to test and develop for the next version:

  • a much more visible link to the File: page;
  • an even easier way to disable the tool;
  • a caption or description right below the image
  • remove additional metadata below the image, directing users to the File: page instead.

To learn more, visit the Media Viewer talk page, where we just posted a more detailed update. We look forward to discussing the new version of Media Viewer with you very soon. Be well. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC) - for the Multimedia Team.

Thanks for the update. Kaldari (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Join the discussion about Structured Data[edit]

First slides for the "Structured Data" proposal

Greetings! As you may have heard, we are starting a discussion about Structured Data on Commons, in collaboration with the Wikidata team and community volunteers from Wikimedia Commons, such as Multichill, and other sister projects. We invite you all to join that discussion, to help define goals and first steps for this community-driven process.

The Structured Data initiative proposes to store and retrieve information for media files in machine-readable data on Wikimedia Commons, using Wikidata tools and practices. It aims to make it easier for users to read and write file information, and to enable developers to build better tools to view, search, edit, curate and use media files.

This process is likely to be a massive collaboration between the Commons and Wikidata communities, to define what they would like from structured data. Once we get a clearer idea of what our communities need the most, the WMF Multimedia and WMDE Wikidata teams plan work together to provide the engineering support architecture to empower our volunteers.

To that end, we propose to investigate this opportunity together through community discussions and small experiments. If these initial tests are successful, we would develop new tools and practices for structured data, then work with our communities to gradually migrate unstructured data into a machine-readable format over time.

Earlier this month, we had some great roundtable discussions about Structured Data at Wikimania, where we started to brainstorm ideas around these first project slides and community suggestions -- such as this draft of one possible roadmap for this project.

We would now like to extend this discussion to include more participation from other community members interested in this initiative. Please take a moment to read the project overview on Commons, then let us know what you think on this talk page.

We also invite you to join a Structured Data Q&A on Wednesday, September 3 at 18:00 UTC, so we can discuss some of the details live, in this first office hours chat on #wikimedia-office on Freenode IRC. Please RSVP if you plan to attend.

Wednesday, September 3 at 18:00 UTC − You're invited to join our first office hours chat on #wikimedia-office on Freenode IRC. Please sign below if you plan to attend, to know how many folks to expect. (please note updated time and location)

Lastly, we propose to form small workgroups to investigate specific challenges, such as identifying workflows, data structure, research, platform, features, migration and other open issues. If you are interested in contributing to one of these workgroups, we invite you to sign up directly on this hub page.

We look forward to productive conversations with many of you in coming weeks. In previous roundtables, many of you told us this is one of the most important contributions that our teams can make to support multimedia in coming years. We heard you loud and clear and are happy to devote more resources to to improve our infrastructure and provide a better experience for all our users, in collaboration with you.

Onward! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC) -- for the Structured Data project

I'm not seeing much uptake here, i'm MediaWiki_talk:WatchlistNotice#New_watchlist_message_8 proposing a watch list messageTheDJ (Not WMF) (talkcontribs) 11:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Support for Opus codec[edit]

As I read the page about audio codec Opus it seems to be superior for all codecs we are now using in Commons. But the prefered codec is still Vorbis in Ogg container. When we could use Opus audio in its native container? I know, there is filed bug on Bugzilla (now rated as "Low enhancement with 3 votes"), but there was no contribution for year. --KuboF (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

As soon as we upgrade libav to a version that supports opus so that people can play the file. From what I understand, that's going to happen as part of the app server upgrade when moving to HHVM (aka people have been saying soon for a really long time now. Last status update at [1]) (Point of note, the native container for opus is ogg. The only difference between an ogg file containing opus audio and a file ending in .opus, is somebody renamed the file. Opus can also be used for the audio part of a video file [Both in .ogv and in .webm]. There are currently about 343 files containing opus data on commons). Bawolff (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
p.s. To actually be really clear, if people want to be able to upload files ending in .opus and are ok with them not yet being playable, all that's required is a vote to show consensus. Bawolff (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Bawolff! So, I will wait some weeks and if not change, I will ask about uploading .opus files (if successful, should be thousands of files ;). --KuboF (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
You want the .opus file extension, right? Otherwise, you could just batch-rename the files you have to have an .oga or .ogg extension, from what I get from bawolff's reply. -- Rillke(q?) 14:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

August 23[edit]

Managing the deletion of files depicting modern buildings in South Korea.[edit]

The FOP in South Korea is limited only to non-commercial uses and is not compatible with COM:L, we have a whole slew of Category:South Korean FOP cases of where we have had to delete files of modern architecture in South Korea. Our reading of the South Korean FoP rules has set the precedent that files of modern South Korean buildings is incompatible with Commons. I have therefore begun a discussion to manage the deletion of such files. Thanks. --KTo288 (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

August 24[edit]

Croatian MoD photos - question[edit]

Hi. I was wondering if it's possible to use photos published on the site of the Croatian Ministry of Defence. I'm not an expert on photo copyrights so I was wondering if this explanation at the bottom of this page means I could somewhow upload them on Commons?

"Copyright © 2008-2014 Ministarstvo obrane Republike Hrvatske. Sva prava pridržana. Sadržaji s ovih stranica mogu se prenositi bez posebne dozvole uz navođenje izvora. -
Copyright © 2008-2014 Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Croatia. All rights reserved. Content from these pages can be transferred without a special permit with the acknowledgment of the source."

--Saxum (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The given statement implies that content from the site can be reproduced when attribution is given, but it is not clear that producing derivative works is permitted. It might be useful to contact the Croatian MoD to request adjustment of the permission statement for clarity (this may not be very likely) or have them provide confirmation via OTRS. --Gazebo (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, we require a statement that explicitely allows commercial use. --El Grafo (talk) 08:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

August 25[edit]

Votes and comments on Commons by WMF employees on WMF programmes of work[edit]

For a very long time, I have found it confusing when WMF employees take part in !votes or discussion about WMF programme initiatives, without making it clear they are commenting while being an employee; often it being a shock to find out that someone I had been interacting with was an employee and I was automatically talking to them assuming they were a completely unpaid volunteer. Sometimes the only comments against a WMF statement has been employees using non-employee accounts saying how they support it, this latter situation is particularly of concern due to the potentially misleading impression of support from unpaid volunteers it gives when actually no unpaid volunteers have made any comment. This has always looked like an undeclared conflict of interest, especially as it is quite hard for volunteers to trawl through various user pages in addition to following long discussions (often, if employment is mentioned, it turns out to only be mentioned on non-Commons user pages).

Reading the recent statement by the WMF here, I would expect WMF employees are now consistently to use their employee accounts in all situations that relate to prioritizing, supporting, promoting or communicating WMF projects of work, even when only tangential to their personal employment. In the past, volunteers like myself, probably felt it was somehow rude to ask questions about whether !votes or comments had an undeclared conflict of interest, I suggest that we move away from that culture of embarrassment, where being an employee, or other potential undeclared interests, was something to keep quiet about, to a more straight forward and consistent style where it remains perfectly clear who are employees and who are unpaid volunteers by using well named employee accounts.

See the related archived Commons RFC on this issue [2].

Thanks -- (talk) 08:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait, you mean that you want WMF employees to always use their WMF accounts in votes ? That's just insulting.... TheDJ (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Please take a moment to read the words I have written rather than what you think I have written. I have not said that WMF employees have to use their WMF accounts in all votes. Thanks -- (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
This seems contradicting to our new Commons:Paid contribution disclosure policy, which states we don't care whether or not any contributions (including votes and comments) being paid by any (including WMF). Jee 16:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
No contradiction, the policy you refer to is focused on declaring commercial interests when creating Commons content, the WMF statement is concerned with transparency of its employees' activities in relation to the projects they are being paid to support, which in practice has almost nothing to do with particular content. -- (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Reading User:Philippe (WMF)'s statement, it sounds like what's going to happen is that work related edits must go through (WMF) accounts, and non-work related edits will need to be done on non (WMF) accounts. Since comments on !votes are mostly people commenting from their personal perspective (To my knowledge, WMF hasn't paid people to vote a certain way on things, pretty much ever), the new WMF policy actually would require people to do the opposite of what you're suggesting and use their personal accounts to denote it as a personal non-work action (based on my, possibly incorrect, reading of it). That said, I actually somewhat agree with you that in those cases there are undisclosed conflict of interests which aren't being handled in the best way possible, I just don't think Philippe's statement is agreeing with your statement. Bawolff (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Over the last couple of years, every time this subject has arisen one of the key reasons put forward for avoiding any improvement to transparency has been that employees are acting as volunteers. When a discussion or vote is about the programmes of the WMF, policies of the WMF (such as this one), or as elsewhere on this page, senior managers are making announcements, I find it bizarre to pretend that when employees are making comments as if they were just ordinary volunteers, that us "unpaid volunteers" are supposed to look the other way and pretend that employees do not have a legal contract in place that means they risk their job if they say something that were to damage the direct interests of the WMF or otherwise be against their contract terms or HR policies. For this reason I have never accepted this as a valid line of argument, and I remain completely unconvinced that it could be a reason to avoid the simplest measure of transparency, being that it is ethically right that employees declare their vested interest in the outcome of discussions, policy changes or ensuring that WMF management announcements have a positive reception by the community. In most volunteer communities, it would be extremely clear who "paid volunteers" are, even while they are free to influence the "unpaid volunteers".
Wikimedia is now in the shameful position that when a brave volunteer such as myself, dares to ask employees to declare that they are in fact employees, they are shouted down with claims, such as has been made here, that even posing the question is "insulting". There is something fundamentally wrong with this picture, you should not be ashamed to be an employee and it is not an act of "outing" to call you one. -- (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I made no claim about the morality of using non (WMF) accounts. All I'm saying is that you claimed that Philippe's statement supported your position, and when I read it, it sounded like it was saying the opposite of what you were saying. Maybe what you're proposing is a good thing, maybe its a bad thing. All I intended to do was raise a technical objection to your argument. Bawolff (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The WMF statement includes "work-related edits will be made from specifically designated (WMF) accounts, and there will be no more comingled accounts". My understanding of "work-related edits" on Commons will be any edits you make that are related to your work in the WMF in any way. To avoid issues, it should be fairly obvious that this ought to be interpreted conservatively by all employees. Consequently doing things like discussing WMF related employee policies (this discussion) would require you to use your designated WMF account, responding to communications from managers in the WMF where the community is being encouraged to support roll-out plans, consultation on plans, strategic changes, associated staff project rights, staff issues, WMF politics such as election of trustees etc. etc. are all work-related edits.
I fail to see how such a clear statement from the WMF is the opposite of anything I have written here.
Let me repeat my earlier clarification, to avoid any possible further tangent or misunderstanding, WMF employees are most welcome to use their personal accounts on Commons to do whatever they want, so long as they are not making work-related edits. Examples might include uploading a photograph of your cat, using cat-a-lot to recategorize 1,000 images of cats or taking part in Commons policy discussions or !votes that are not "work-related", for example discussions about the taxonomy of Felis catus that have nothing specifically to do with the WMF (your employer); when they do, it is prudent and common-sense to use your designated WMF account. -- (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
For people who accept technical solutions for social problems we already have a "mark admins" gadget, which could easily be extended to mark foundation (or chapter) employees. Just throwing this out here. Personally I have not experienced a problem here, let alone the sensation of being shocked or the like. --Dschwen (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, though perhaps more useful if anyone is to check back through history for a report. In practice, the simple move by the WMF to adding "(WMF)" to work account names removes most potential for confusion ([3]), such as when someone unfamiliar with specific WMF employee account names is reading through a long on-wiki discussion about a WMF roll-out problem. -- (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

New search: second attempt[edit]

Hi all. After trying to switch the default search engine over to Cirrus just before Wikimania, we had to roll back due to performance considerations. We've done a couple of things that should help in this regard so we'd like to try cutting Commons over next week. Nik and I planning to do this at 16:00UTC on Monday the 1st of September if all goes according to plan. The deployments calendar will be updated shortly. As always please let us know if you encounter any issues or have suggestions on ways to improve it. ^demon (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Mea culpa! I forgot Monday is a holiday in the United States. We'll be doing it Tuesday instead, same time of 16:00UTC. Thanks! ^demon (talk)

Kingdom of the Netherlands[edit]

I notice that Category:Aruba, Category:Curaçao and Category:Sint Maarten, Dutch Caribbean‎ aren't part of any country in Commons, since Category:Kingdom of the Netherlands isn't recognised as a country. However by "country", Commons seems to mean sovereign state, since Category:Puerto Rico, Category:Norfolk Island, Category:Hong Kong, Category:England etc., are considered part of other countries. Doesn't this mean that the Kingdom of the Netherlands should be considered a country in Commons, and Category:Netherlands should be considered a subnational entity? --ghouston (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Strictly following the legal situation (as I understand it) this might seem correct. But following common understanding I doubt that it would lead to desirable results if Category:Netherlands was moved to Category:Subnational regions in Europe and lots of subcategories were rearranged along that line. I´d fear a complete loss of usability for the sake of a little more of legal correctness. Before anyone starts on such a project, I´d like to be sure that all implications are understood and that it will be maintainable also in the long run without needing comprehensive expertise for netherlandish state law to handle it. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there'd be any problem finding the Netherlands, since Kingdom of the Netherlands would be listed under N in Category:Countries of Europe and Category:Countries of the Caribbean. However it would be like the UK, where you have a lot of categories "X in the UK" which only contain X in England, X in Wales, etc. The Kingdom of the Netherlands has a mililtary, foreign relations, and citizenship while the component countries don't. On the other hand, only the European part of the Netherlands is a full member of the EU. --ghouston (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, there are other alternatives. We could merge Category:Kingdom of the Netherlands and Category:Netherlands, call it Netherlands and say it's an abbreviation for Kingdom of the Netherlands. It would be less accurate, but would be mostly good enough for the purposes of a media repository. Alternatively, we could ask the Kingdom of the Netherlands to change its structure to something more convenient. --ghouston (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Merging the categories to Netherlands seems the best choice, other monarcies of Europe have similarly just Category:Spain or Category:Sweden. MKFI (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

August 26[edit]

404 errors[edit]

In the process of renaming files to improve titles, four of them somehow became unviewable, in which the image doesn't display and when clicking the image a 404 error message appears stating "The resource could not be found". Seeking advice on how to fix these files. The files are:

Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
No idea about the technical error (other than the idea that the guys who are paid to keep the engines running smoothly for us are instead busy creating crap nobody wants and then comploting to get us silenced). Concerning the filename changes you did, however, please note that COM:Renaming clearly says that file renaming should not be used to achieve filenames which are «a bit better», which is the case of things like
  • Hamburgers and fries at a restaurant in Brandon, Florida.jpg ← BrandonChicagoMaxwellsBurgersFries.jpg
  • Pizza (7).jpg ← Pizza 7.jpg
While camel case is one of the examples given in our file renaming policy about what not to change, just adding brackets to a meaningless numer qualifying an over generic word remind me of Mr. Simon Jerk who went to great bureaucratic troubles to have his name officially changed to Mr. Peter Jerk… The 404 is unfortunate, but these filenames would have been probably better left alone. -- Tuválkin 06:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Reported: bug:70079 --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that's bugzilla:70079, since "bug" is the Buginese Wikipedia. --Ppelleti (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Moved a bit back and forth now the main image is connected to the proper page (done for first two) but the thumbnailer has not catched up. The failed/improper moves have to be investigated though. --10:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

August 27[edit]

Encyclopedic useless huge files of poor quality?[edit]

Just found this Category:Encyclopedic useless huge files of poor quality. It was created in April and includes a dozen-and-half photos in PNG format (all taken in Marburg, Germany, under which this category is, solely, categorized). While photos in PNG is enough to bring my fangs out, too, maybe 5 months is enough and this content should be taken care of (re-uploaded as JPGs, maybe) and/or the category should be renamed to a tamer, yet more helpful, epithet — such as Category:PNG photos of Marburg (to be made a hidden category, while needed). -- Tuválkin 05:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, renaming the category seems like a good idea. They don't seem to be of "poor quality" to me (i. e. they're not out of focus, or anything like that). They seem to be in scope, therefore not "useless". And they're not really huge, either; we have plenty of JPEGs that are just as large. --Ppelleti (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The images should be categorized meanfully. PNG is not a very good idea if used with photos, but they are not useless. -- Smial (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done -- (talk) 10:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I put them in other (roughly matching) sub-categories of Category:Marburg, Germany as well, so they are not only in hidden categories. --Sebari (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Help needed with South Korean city montages[edit]

Hi all we need to fix our montages of South Korean cities, because there is no FoP in South Korea for modern buildings, most of the montages include at least one component wish is non free, a request was made at Commons:Graphic_Lab/Photography_workshop#New_photo_montages_of_Seoul_needed, if they cannot be fixed the only thing to do is to delete them, even if this means disruption of all the projects they are used on. Commons:Deletion requests/South Korean motages with non free content. Thanks, I'd try to fix this myself, but I'm useless with this kind of thing.--KTo288 (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)