Commons:Village pump

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


  Welcome to Wikimedia 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 | українська | +/−

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


 


A village pump in Burkina Faso [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss • Edit • Watch

Contents




Oldies[edit]

Christmas crossword[edit]

EFF Crossword Puzzle 2014: The Year in Copyright News

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has published this (copyright related) crossword which you can play online at http://thedod.github.io/eff-crossword-2014/. It makes a nice break from feeding yourself with Christmas treats. Happy holidays everyone. Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg (talk)   16:57, 25 December 2014‎ (UTC)

Personal business[edit]

Again a issue with sysop power... how much a personal issue, as User:Russavia is always against my position can affect the community? >>> This is totally ridiculous, I already send tons of this type of personal images to deletion, all deleted, and then, a sysop the always attacking my positions keep a personal photo, or the rules changed? Can I post my girlfriends (to not be blocked again just for that) personal photos that should be only on my FB here? Or something odd is happening here? -- RTA 13:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

PS:The deletion request cause copyvio, away more serious, created practically at the same time Commons:Deletion requests/(Copyvio) Uploads by Caio21, did not receive any Russavia attention... ;)
Rodrigo.Argenton I have now deleted the copyvios. If you keep this behaviour up against Beria, you will find that you will receive more attention from myself, or another admin. And you will not want that. Step back and perhaps concentrate on other areas on Commons. russavia (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Russavia I was trying to find photos of S.Paulo, and the this personal photos appears
'"If you keep this behaviour up against Beria, you will find that you will receive more attention from myself", q.e.d. , you can not use your tools in cases that involves me, because you not use correctly, you can not solve personal issues using sysop rights.
A reasonable person could see that I just deleting nothing more than out of the scope images, as this series here:Commons:Deletion requests/selfies at WLE that are same type of photos, or the copyvios, and other things appearing when I was scavenging photos of SPaulo...
Is not a "behaviour", I'm just removing the trash, no matter what was there... (or even that I could not do?)
[1], [2] [3] any of these have a educational purpose??? 2 of them were take in a very important moments, and the another one is the same scenario of the images in question, and none, none of them could be here.
If this photos was take in a Wikimedia event, and used to illustrate that, and was named correctly, and in a Wikimedia volunteers category not problem at all... in this scenario, this is not even close to a educational purpose, and you are lying [4] and abusing of your tool to affect a volunteer...
Why this could happen? Why could you abuses your rights, and none cares? Why others sysops could do the same, and a non-sysop is blocked instead just because was questioning this pattern?
-- RTA 04:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Censorship, [5], nice another level achieved... hooray!!! Wait, this happened in the pass by another way... but ok, hooray!!! Another way of the same...
Peeeace! -- RTA 06:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
RTA, there is nothing wrong in using somebody we know or in relations as models for photographs. What we care is the scope, that is, how much it is educationally useful. Jee 07:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Rodrigo.Argenton -- I really wonder why Russavia still has admin privileges at this point, but I'm not sure that the deletion nomination close is greatly out of line. AnonMoos (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

List of images that should be deleted at the discretion of Rodrigo.

see more

It is very interesting that there is a lot of images that could be erased based on your argument, however, more interesting is that you focus on Beria photos, the only person reason of your previous block. On the other hand, I'd appreciate not reveal personal information, your message is a clear violation of privacy.--Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
If you are embarrassing that you have a relationship with her, this not my problem... I did not said anything that was not publish under a free license (i.e.) ;)
For me, yes, most of this photos should not be here... but was not in this category when I found out our "private photos"; I was here: Category:People of São Paulo city, and I really think that File:Persona Fumando en la Avenida Paulista.jpg, and File:Persona Rasta en la Avenida Paulista.jpg, both our photos, are in the context, and have some value, in the other hand, in our personal photos you added a strange subject in the context, and gives away more focus in the strange subject than the important things... this and this makes sense, I can see the structure, this people was already in context... and even this:File:Beria.jpg makes sense, because you are not lying to us saying that this is a photo of a "normal woman in a x context", you are saying here "the subject is this user" and that's it... I'm imagining every single monument in S.Paulo with the Béria's face... ¬¬
More important, the fountain that Beria is in front don't have any photo here, and instead you took a good and valuable photo for the community, you took one s photo of the fountain, focusing in Béria... so how much you care about the educational purpose?
I think you should stop being paranoid, and distort reality to get what you want with the support of not correct people...
.
Jee, could read three passages with me from our link?
  1. Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on. There are plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose, such as Flickr. Such private image collections do not become educational even if displayed as a gallery on a user page on Commons or elsewhere.
  2. Advertising or self-promotion.
  3. Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality.
For me, this two photos enters in all threes passages, 1. it's a private collection, 2. if you take one photo and put in the middle of important people of one city as equals, 3. already has be covered the "subject" with the File:Beria.jpg and Category:Béria Lima.
So if "What we care is the scope, that is, how much it is educationally useful.", this should be deleted not kept... -- RTA 21:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
From my POV a QI is by definition "in scope", and I volunteer to put that in the policy if folks here agree. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Not at all! To be a QI, you just need one person evaluating a picture, could be, a friend, your partner that you hid from every one...
To be a QI needs to be in the scope, in the other hand, be a QI not grantee the is in the scope...
But, none of the two are QI, so why you said that????????? -- RTA 00:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
#4 and #12 (top + bottom right) in the gallery shown above are QI. These projects (QI, VI, etc.) are in good standing and create their own INUSE cases as they see fit. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm; it is a borderline case. They are personal photos (criteria #1 and #2); but have good technical quality (not #3). I'm not impressed by the categories used. (Abstain from further comments as I may not be considered fairly neutral.) Jee 02:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
This whole discussion sounds to me as an outsider like a personal vendetta between several people. So please quit it and return to constructive work. To me any high quality photo of a person is in scope as there are always uses as illustrations for certain ethnicities, certain hair and clothing styles, or just useful when you need a photo of a person. The "private image collection" clause just means that you cannot upload your personal photos that are of no use to anyone but you. This is mostly a guard clause against countless selfies and similar photos. --Sebari (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
RTA, You are an excellent photographer and contributor. I invite you to engage in more productive matters. It would be unfortunate, that you be blocked by these attitudes of disrespect, harassment and retaliation. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Sebari, as an outsider looking in, this conversation comes off as extraordinarily petty. Bawolff (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much, yes. Funny to see Wilfredor on the recieving end of this dimwitted deletionist tactic of calling “personal photo” every image depicting a human… -- Tuválkin 20:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, Tuvalkin, dim-witted photos of our partner is away different from File:Potter working, Bangalore India.jpg, File:India - Actors - 0258.jpg. And this is a petty from does that don't care about the community stands... in 2020 what we will see on POTY? Selfies around the globe? Sysops dictating what's correct or not? Eliminating pages, and hunting volunteers with a carte blanche? -- RTA 02:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe someone’s partner is an Indian potter or actor…? Anyway — intent of the original photographer is immaterial to determine whether a photo is in scope or not: Even uploads intended for hoaxes and vandalism may some times be useful, let alone selfies and “personal images”. That’s what matters to me, not POTY and other vanity parades. As for the rest — word salad, I’m not going to even make an effort to mentally retranslate it back into what might have been your point. Please ignore me, User:Rodrigo.Argenton, for I’ll be doing the same. -- Tuválkin 04:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
One community based in open communication and you start to ignore people, makes sense... -- RTA 05:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure having a danger sign on your user page and a stop hand sign on your talk page makes even more sense when your goal is to encourage "open communication"... INeverCry 06:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
For INeverCry you cry a lot... ;)
But, I'm here, I'm open, just be careful, cause normally I tend to say truths that you can not properly handle, that's why the signs... -- RTA 06:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Signs like those could be seen as an attempt to intimidate other users or avoid or discourage open discussion. INeverCry 21:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"Uploaded with UploadWizard"[edit]

Is it really needed Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard? I mean, when was on test it seems ok, even reasonable, nut now contents more than 5 million almost 6 million files!!! Being this the uploaded by default, fulfill this category any function? Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The time probably has come to have Category:Not-uploaded with UploadWizard instead. Ruslik (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I would rather to have some better default upload tool than UploadWizard. Even Special:Upload is better than UploadWizard. --ŠJů (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
But... Do we need a category per each kind of upload tool? What's the difference to upload by one or another? Does it matter? --Ganímedes (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
C.f. Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/12/Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard -- Rillke(q?) 17:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I see... Thanks, Rillke. However, that was closed in 2013, and I'm sure it didn't content 6 million files then. Perhaps it's time to reopen the discussion, since a category of that size seems to be impractical and impossible to handle. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I also think it is totally unnecessary. --Jarekt (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I totally agree, it is unnecessary. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 02:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
On 13th january "Uploaded_with_UploadWizard" have had 5,991,000 files. Today is 6,091,000. If no open a DR, maybe it's time to talk about delink this category to the tool to prevent it continuos growing. I think this is not a minor issue. So, what's next? --Ganímedes (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

January 15[edit]

Making a map from KML routes drawn on Google maps[edit]

I am busy drawing the whole FEVE metergauge network in north Spain. I still have a lot of work to do (go the whole to Bilbao and then back to Leon) but I want to check if I can convert the lines to a SVG map. The KML file can be exported from FEVE lines. If not give me feedback.

When I Google for (conversion KML to SVG) I find the website kml2svg.free. However this tool does not seem to functioning as I see (WEBSITE IN MAINTENANCE) and the message (The searched document is not found) when I try this tool. Does anyone know a working solution? Or can do this conversion for me?

My purpose is to make two maps:

  • One for the Asturias region (lots of lines)
  • The whole FEVE network

Stations, tunnels, etc will be added later on.Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

    • It might be best to use a GIS program like qGIS. --Rschen7754 03:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You probably know this, JFTR, Google will ditch KML (like everything else working as it should for more than a year) in a few weeks wrt their maps. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I took the precaution of backing up all my Google Maps links in KML files. I have made quite a lot of Google map links in Dutch Wikepedia. I suspect Google wil keep the existing Google maps active but maybe not allow exports. Can you make SVG maps with qGIS?Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
If that you was about me, no, but there is a maps lab somewhere on commons, and a w:de:Wikipedia:Kartenwerkstatt project exists, maybe w:nl: also has something in this direction. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is possible to export maps to SVG in qgis. It's pretty much straight forward if you have some experience with Geographic information systems, but if you don't it might be best to ask someone else to do that for you. Unless you really only want your network lines to show on the map, you'll need some additional (vector!) geodata to create a base map – Natural Earth is a good source for for free (Public Domain) geodata. I've got some experience with stuff like that, so feel free to come back to me … --El Grafo (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer of help. I wil try first myself and if I get stuck I wil ask for assistence. I am worried that Google will shortly be no longer be working with KML files. I hope I still wil be able to export KML files from Google Maps in the future. My first priority is to get the routes for Asturias complete. Then I wil try to make a FEVE map for the Asturia and Galicia region. I prefer to have a background map with as little clutter as posible. Certainly the coastline, an indication of mountains, rivers and built up areas, but no roads.Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
[6] may be helpful, though of course it's for making road maps. --Rschen7754 06:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist: If you have saved the KML files to your computer, you can still use en:Google Earth instead of Google Maps to edit them . See e.g. this tutorial on Youtube --El Grafo (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Please make the KML files available, too. Google maps may not support them, but the WikiMiniAtlas still does. --Dschwen (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I have saved a lot of KML files wich I use in Wikimedia articles (via Google map links) but I cant upload them to Commons as the KML format is not accepted. And Wikipedia discussions (and most forums) dont accept attachments. Where can I upload the files?Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
We do use w:en:Template:Attached KML on enwiki, though obviously they can't be used on other wikis. We have asked Wikidata to take them but adding support is unfortunately low on their priority list. --Rschen7754 04:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I installed Grass GIS on my laptop. However the software demands a location. I try to make a location (a new directory is no problem) but then I have to chose a projection type (there are other choices) without any explanation as to the types of projection. Basically I want to define the location as seen in this OS map. File:North Spain backgroundmap for FEVE an EuskoTren railnetworks.png. The selection coordinates in OSM are upp: 43.799, left:-8.361, rigth:-1.741, down:42.480. I checked out WikiMiniAtlas but this is only a JavaScript plugin, not a database/location to store multiple KML routes information. (The KML file is already 156 kB) Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist: GRASS is not easy to learn even for people who are familiar with GIS software in general. Also (afair) it's primarily aimed at raster data while you'll probably mainly be working with vector data. I'd highly suggest to try qgis instead. --El Grafo (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I went to the upload website https://www.qgis.org/en/site/forusers/download.html and downloaded the qgis 64bit version for windows. The downloaded file QGIS-OSGeo4W-2.6.1-1-Setup-x86_64.exe (274.707 bytes) installed Grass GIS instead of Qgis. What is going on?Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist: Most likely it installed GRASS in addition to qgis (GRASS can be called/used from within qgis for more advanced raster calculations). qgis should be installed somewhere on your machine as well … --El Grafo (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I checked the installed maps and programs. There is qgis map wich contains some ddl files but no program executable and a grass subdirectory. It looks like only the minimum of qgis file was installed for the GRASS installation. I didnt see any option to install only Qgis during the installation. At the time I supposed that GRASS was a new version of Qgis. I managed to install a location (EPSG::2062/Madrid) in the GRASS application but it is heavy going with no real documentation.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Something wrong with the UploadWizard?[edit]

Here's how the problem is showing up: any file names are not accepted, no alternative given

At Commons:Upload help today, three users, among them myself, have reported being unable to upload any files with the wizard. The error messages are "file name is not allowed", "this type of file is banned", and "badupload_file" (that's what I got). Uploading with the "old" upload form worked fine, at least for me. One of the other two users sent me (per e-mail) one of the files that failed for him with "file name is not allowed"; for me, it failed with "badupload_file". It uploaded fine without the wizard (I have since deleted it). Anybody else have problems with the wizard? --Rosenzweig τ 19:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

+ another report from today at Commons:Upload Wizard feedback. --Rosenzweig τ 19:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they do event tracking; if an adblocker blocks that, the UploadWizard crashes. See the linked bug report. Lupo 20:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's a list of some known bugs. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This is not about the wizard crashing. It displays an error, but you can then remove the file from the upload queue and continue. Disabling Adblock changed nothing. --Rosenzweig τ 22:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I cannot upload any more. I can with the old upload (without the wizard), but this is cumbersome.. I do not have an adblocker installed, but maybe noscript might be the reason. It is a shame, that nobody seems to care to fix the problem. Not even saying thanks for reporting the problem. How many guys & gals out there will be rejected by failed uploads? regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, if this is related to extensions blocking certain scripts, then there is a patch waiting in phab:T86680... Please test with noscript disabled if the problem still appears. Thanks! --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Clearing the cache did not help, same behavior
  • some statistics (I've counted the uploads through UW per day / 24 hours), median is 5005
date (00:00 - 24:00 UTC) catscan call #new files (catscan result) % of max.
15.1. [7] 3986
68.3%
14.1. [8] 5334
91.4%
13.1. [9] 5343
91.5%
12.1. [10] 5005
85.7%
11.1. [11] 5837
100%
10.1. [12] 4812
82.4%
9.1. [13] 4422
75.8%
8.1. [14] 4708
80.7%
7.1. [15] 5114
87.6%

so I suspect that yesterday (15.1.) about 1000 uploads with the UW failed. Try no nocscript next. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I tried again with noscript disabled, FF restarted, same effect (UW fails) --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Same issue here without any adblocks. This is definitely not the adblock issue. Schmelzle (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I tried it again today, with a different computer located in another town and with another Internet provider. But now, the very same files I couldn't upload two days ago were accepted by the upload wizard without a problem. Firefox 34.0.5 (Linux), Adblock is not disabled, Noscript is not running, same on both computers. I'll be at the other computer again in a few days and will try there again if it is still helpful. Could it have something to do with the different Internet providers, or doesn't that make any difference at all? --Rosenzweig τ 14:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And why am I suddenly denied access to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T87062? --Rosenzweig τ 14:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Good question forwarded to mw:Project:Support_desk#Phabricator_down.3F_52984. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Don't know. Possibly because someone posted the full contents of a POST request trying to upload an image. That POST-request contained tokens, cookie settings, and possibly even more sensitive data. BTW, the crucial thing to note in that POST request was that the request already was sent with an empty filename. (I saw it before it was protected.) Lupo 15:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Apparently something like that was the reason, yes. But the result is that apparently no one (except perhaps the creator of the task) can access it anymore. So essentially it is useless. --Rosenzweig τ 18:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Access to the task will be restored as soon as one of the Phabricator admins is back to work. Unlikely that a fix would pass before this happens anyway. -- Rillke(q?) 18:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Generally, the best place for questions about Phabricator itself is mw:Phabricator/Help. In this specific case, someone (rightfully) restricted access to the task because private information was posted. For those interested, mw:Phabricator/Security covers the security policies and behavior of Phabricator. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm back at my original computer again (see above), and again, the wizard gives me the "badupload_file" error message when trying to upload a file. As reported, the exact same file is accepted without any problems by the upload wizard when using my other computer with a different Internet provider. I can try to use the original computer in the other location with the other Internet provider to see what happens, but it will be several days before I'm there again. --Rosenzweig τ 22:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I only have a single Internet provider, but as it is a big one, others should have similar troubles if it were for the provider. For me all files seem to fail (tried about 30 different). Acc. to Special:Version UW is of Jan. 7th (on the 12th everything was working well with the UW), but MW version changed (as I remember on the 14th and again on the 16th (current version 1.25wmf14 (d8660bb))). So if it is in the SW (and not my local config only), MW core could be the reason in combination with my local settings? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
some days gone. My assumption was that the WMF wants to be responsible for the software and configuration and … and the community should be focused more on content. Beside new fancy super features this will include the proper maintenance of the software / configuration and quick fixes in cases like this. UW is not a minor feature used by only some specialists. I did publish all information I could think of to be helpful (and even more). But nobody seems to care, the bug is not even assigned to someone of the SW team. Nor did anybody of the WMF staff try to propose a workaround (using Safari is not a general workaround!). Thanks for support from all the colleagues here and for providing additional diagnostic data. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Atomium Copyvio[edit]

The Atomium has a problem. This pictures are related work and copyvio.

Sorry, in Dutch. Elke vorm van afgeleid werk is verboden. Dus ook deze uitvoeringen, ik weet niet welke fantast het in zijn hoofd heeft gehaald dit hier neer te zetten en onder een licentie vrij te geven die commercieel gebruik toestaat. Het is namelijk een verzinsel dat deze afbeeldingen niet beschermd zouden zijn. Wel zijn amateurfoto's op een niet commerciële site toegestaan, Commercieel gebruik is echter uitdrukkelijk verboden, ook hiervan. Sir Statler (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC) (PS is er hier een verwijderlijst of zo? Ik kan hem niet vinden, anders gaarne naar de goede plaats verhuizen)

There is a Commons:Deletion policy with some translations, but no Dutch, yet. On the page for Template:Delete you'll find "Nederlands": Dit of deze template is genomineerd voor verwijdering. Hopefully that won't work, but you are free to try it anyway.:tongue:Be..anyone (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
But there is not a list to give a motivation? Best regards, Sir Statler (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I will nominate the second and the third for deletion now. With the first one I see no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the third one os PDF-trivial; the second one has been nominated for deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: The second one is in Austria, where there is FoP. Could you please read the description where there is {{FoP-Austria}} before nominating a file for deletion? Regards, Yann (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I obviously saw it, but the original is in Belgium and not free. Thus, it is a derivative of a non-free original.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I mean my reasoning may be wrong, but this is what deletion requests are for.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, this is what an expert told me. @Yann, I don't know. They original is in Belgium, the Austria one is related work. It is real, real difficult. My English is to poor to give an tecnical explanation. This is work for a specialist. Sir Statler (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for this interesting conversation. I agree, the copy is in Austia. Something in between, not quite clear. But interesting. Thanks. Sir Statler (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
JFTR, the speedy keep is logged on Deletion requests/File:Minimundus117 (edit).jpg. Indeed, interesting.Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svgBe..anyone (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

But I think this picture has a problem. [16] Here. The not-for-profit organisation, Atomium does what it can to make sure that the image of the Atomium, protected when it was built by its engineer, the late André Waterkeyn, and a symbolic icon, is not misrepresented, misused or used ill-advisedly (for racist, anti-democratic messages etc.). I think this is not an normal picture, it is a "point" picture and not allowed What do you think? Best regards, Sir Statler (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Blacked out details are pretty normal here for the pyramid at the Louvre, and the remaining black shape on the "censored" picture is a {{PD-shape}} for me. And it's INUSE, and so by definition "educational", or "in scope" (lots of peculiar magic words here, but Wikipedia is worse.) –Be..anyone (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
This file is 34 times used for "Wiki politics" about Freedom of panorama. So, this is not normal use, this is misrepresenting. In Dutch: De vzw Atomium ziet erop toe dat dit beeld niet wordt vervalst, vervormd of misbruikt in een negatieve context (racistische, antidemocratische slagzinnen, enz.). So, they don't allowed this use (misvormen, exact the correct word, the Atomium is "misvormd" , misbruiken, yes, this is "misbruik") and will take (legal?) action against this kind of use. Sir Statler (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The image of the Atomium is not used, the image solely contains the environment of the site and a black blubby shape. The vzw Atomium has no copyrights on the environment and has no copyright on a simply black shape. Romaine (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
How the picture is used is another question. Lots of pictures here could be "abused" in any sense from "really" to "only me". Folks are free to be unhappy with no FoP, and express this opinion as they wish. Better ask a lawyer, otherwise your guess is as bad as my guess. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Our their lawyer knows the answer. Also possible. Beste regards, Sir Statler (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC).

January 17[edit]

[edit]

I wonder if this logo is public domain. The uploader thinks it's simple and therefore PD. I disagree, because the vast majority of logos are copyrighted. What do y'all think? Kind regards,
 Klaas|Z4␟V:  08:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it'd be really hard to copyright a triangle, an isosceles trapezoid and three letters. I'm also curious where you get your "vast majority" statistic from. LX (talk, contribs) 09:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about the Netherlands, but you could not copyright that in the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 01:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right. In this case the logo belongs to a tv-program and designed by the authors. I think you need permission — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patio (talk • contribs) 18:00, 20 January 2015‎ (UTC)
What kind of permission, why and from whom? This logo does not have any authors, because it does not contain any authorship. Combining two simple geometric shapes and three letters does not constitute authorship. LX (talk, contribs) 20:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree to disagree. I'm not a lawyer, so I assume you're right.  Klaas|Z4␟V:  10:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Bad behaviour just to troll or lack of reading?[edit]

Recently User:Hubertl did a atrocious composition and I modify, cropping in a new file, and now every single piece of editions that I made to improving photos he came with a speech that "the author did not authorized the modification". And not he is denning QIC and FPC as a form of blackmail the proposers to revert modifications

Cropping or changing pictures of other without asking them is like adopting a child without information to the real parents. Make your own pictures and nominate it (the same for Rodrigo.Argento) or get in close contact before you nominate any pictures of others! Don´t play the copycat, its serious a question of respect!
[17]
Have you asked NorbertNagel?
[18]
obviously without explicit permission of Llez. ”
[19]

Free licenses necessary allows modification (for those who never read: Commons:Licensing and deeper [20]), so I'm thinking here, some volunteers needs a better reading, better tutorials, more clear values? Where did we made a mistake? Where we need to improve to fix this issues? Or some people is just this? In this case, how to handle if this issue?

Observation, for those who have the same view of this great volunteer, take a article of the WP, like ball and said to me how is the owner. 66.57.42.xxx? We need to ask him to improve the article? The File:Edvard Munch - The Scream - Google Art Project.jpg we need to ask the creator to make modifications? -- RTA 16:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The general Commons policy is at COM:OVERWRITE. There are certain cases when overwriting other people's uploaded images can be uncontroversial, but if a specific overwriting becomes a point of controversy, it's usually better to upload the new edited version as a separate file under a new name. AnonMoos (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
RTA, it would be clearer if you mention which file you talk about. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Best would be not to overload any image of someone else with an improved version, but to upload as a new file with a different file name (see Overwriting existing files). Especially in case the original author reverted your improvement, refrain from doing another revert. It is good practice in case of QIC etc. to inform the author of an image of the problems you identified with her image; which can be done by QIC comment, image annotation and on the user discussion page. I would not recommend to use private email for that purpose, as it is not traceable for third parties (Have you asked NorbertNagel?). But, I do not remember having been asked for this change by Hubertl either. And it would be fair to invite a person you mention for discussion, what I'm doing herewith: @Hubertl. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing more to say, that Llez fully agrees with me. It is not acceptable, that someone, who blocks his own discussion page changes a picture after promotion to QI (sic!) but though within the nomination process with an even significant worse one, RTA has obviously a lack of technical skills to make some sharpenings without increasing the noise level significantly. So I declined my promotion and informed the nominator. Llez than reverted the changes. Thats it. Right now, RTA again reverted the picture against the will of Llez, who is wellknown as a very advanced photographer with 99 FP, 1000 QI and 1048 Valueable Pictures. With skills, where RTA are far, far away. Right now, I had to decline the nomination again, because I promoted Llez´s picture not the other, the worse one. @Llez: --Hubertl (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I've history cleaned the file to the original upload and full-upload protected it due to the revert warring by Rodrigo.Argenton. I've also warned him about it. I would suggest bringing any further issues with RTA to COM:AN/U. INeverCry 21:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Is an X-ray of an old painting in the PD?[edit]

Rembrandt painting X-Rayed
I would very much like to hear the opinion of some Commons copyright experts. Is an X-ray of an old painting, such as the one shown here (a painting of Rembrandt dated 1662) within the public domain? The X-ray of course is relatively recent (1955). It is very interesting to see the changes Rembrandt has made in this painting. Elly (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Theres plenty other optical/semi-optical research methods for paintings, inluding UV-photos and infrared reflectographic photos. All of these, including X-ray, need a special setup to be taken, and all of these do not aim to reproduce the painting. instead these methods aim to visualize details invisible on normal reproductions. so its definitely no reproduction photography, where PD would apply. Please delete. Schmelzle (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The merit (special setup) for creating a photo should not taken into account according to the copyright law, same for the purpose (so it doesn't matter that it is not aimed for reproduction): "[...] be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account."
If it is an purely technical image, it could be pd-ineligible or pd-scan. --Hannolans (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
You name the point: it's technical. To be precise: technically modified. By applying technical alternations in opposite to plain photo reproductions, the author of the x-ray (UV-, IR-) photo puts own effort and own point of view in the photo, so copyright applies. Schmelzle (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what technical alterations that X-ray photographers do that "plain" photographers don't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
They use stuff "plain" photographers don't have and can't operate. If you think that anyone can take an x-ray photo of a painting, then go out and take one. If you bring one, then you're right. Schmelzle (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
So do any professional photographers of paintings. You don't buy a camera from Walmart and get a color-controlled high-resolution photo of a painting. In any case, that has nothing to do with the definition of PD-Art; Bridgeman v. Corel was clear that technical challenge was irrelevant, just because professional photographing of paintings is not trivial (and was less trivial then.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
It's a simple photograph. The choice to display the photograph in visible wavelengths instead of the wavelengths the photograph was taken in is technically unsurprising and uncopyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW: German wikipedia decided in may 2011, that x-ray photographs of paintings have a threshold of originality, so copyright applies. Schmelzle (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

German Wikipedia is hardly an authority on this subject or over Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Their concerns about threshold of originality are nevertheless a respectable argument (that i fully agree with). Schmelzle (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I see you are not agreeing on this. I personally think taking an X-ray of a painting is not an original work. As you can see in this example, the technician(s) made this image by putting photographic sensitive material directly behind the painting, enlightened with an X-ray tube, and mounted the plates or photographic sheets together. The photographic sheets will even have the same size of the original painting. Of course, you have to take the picture from the wall (with permission of the owner) and have to use an X-ray tube in stead of an ordinary lamp, but in my opinion it is not an original creative work. The only thing you need is an X-ray tube, you can buy them (but be careful, X-rays are dangerous if you use them from close by Face-smile.svg ). Elly (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I have seen several of these x-ray related discussion in the past, try searching the archives. As our conventions of 'faithful reproduction' of public domain art is itself public domain, applies to a two dimensional surface, any techniques beyond that, are going to be debatable unless there are legal judgements or acts that one can refer to. In this way, I believe surface photographs, such as ultra-violet spectral scans, are still faithful reproductions of the 2D object. However as soon as techniques such as x-rays or ultra-sound are used, then by definition the object is 3D rather than 2D, as the image shows what it not visible on the surface at any wavelength, but beneath the surface.
This argument seems dubious, since the photograph is still taken the same way: from a single, obvious perspective lined up the same way as any other 2D photo. A true 3D photo could be taken from any number of perspectives as chosen by the photographer. Even if some sort of optical sectioning or focusing technology were used to choose a slice out of the painting, that would still be a slice that existed at some time as a surface and which is now PD. Though you can set the exposure one way or the other, the same is true of a normal 2D photo. Wnt (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I do not feel comfortable with giving a firm opinion, apart from stating that we really could do with a guideline. A community RFC might help were there enough interest in compiling a case book of examples. -- (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is much less creative possibilities in a X-ray picture than in a "normal" picture, specially in term of lighting. So if a normal 2D reproduction is OK, a X-ray reproduction is certainly also OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Bottom line. While you could logic this endlessly, there is no logic -- to start with, few paintings are really 2D since the brush work stands out; I don't even see the distinction from a coin where you've ruled the other way. This is all arbitrary legal mumbo-jumbo like all copyright stuff. Everything is allowed, everything is forbidden, depending on which side the lawyer is arguing, and nobody could predict a court decision in advance - whether you're an Aereo, a Google, a Napster, a YouTube, who can tell? It's just a question of what the WMF guesses it can succeed with. We'll have to ask them if they're willing to defend it. Wnt (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This is clearly {{PD-Scan}}. Obviously this scanner is a little more complex, but it has no originality at all. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

January 19[edit]

Copyright status of allegedly ancient document that may be fake[edit]

I've asked this somewhere before, possibly on Wikipedia, but no-one weighed in with opinions. The Grolier Codex is an allegedly 13th-century pre-Columbian document of dubious authenticity, with many scholars believing it to be a 20th-century fake. Testing has been unable to definitively say either way, but has produced some results suggestive of it being a fake. Faithful images of the codex pages are available here. Any ideas to the copyright status of these images? Does {{PD-old}} apply? Simon Burchell (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, the good thing is that we can be sure as hell that this is an anonymous work, which tends to make things much easier. If we believe the story in en:Grolier_Codex#Discovery to be true, it's also at least 50 years old ("found" in 1965) which would make it PD per the Berne onvention{{Anonymous work}}. However, things become more problematic if you read the fine print of that template. For all we know, the country of origin is Mexico, which has extended copyrights for anonymous works. And since we also require works to be PD in the US, we have the same problem there as well. --El Grafo (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply - the country of origin almost certainly is Mexico. Thanks for the link - it lead me to this: Current treatment of anonymous works is not clear; the 1996 Act does not mention them. In 1982 the term for anonymous works was extended to 50 years after publication, with anonymous works entering the public domain after 50 years where the authorship is not disclosed within those 50 years. which would suggest that it just became PD in Mexico. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Whoops, I must have read the wrong line in the table, thought it was 70 years. Note however, that for Mexico it seems to be 50 years after publication, not creation. So the question would be if those events happening on a Mexican airstrip in 1965 count as a publication – afaik there are different opinions about this around … --El Grafo (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Publication requires the consent of the author. If the author didn't consent to publication, then it doesn't count as publication. If the author is anonymous and the work was "found" in 1965, then it could either still be unpublished (if the author didn't give consent) or published in 1965 (if the author did give consent). Also, doesn't the current law say 100 years from publication, instead of 50? The 1982 law is not the current law. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, as far as I can tell, the first reproduction was 1973, and in the US. I suppose it depends whether the creation of a supposedly ancient book counts as publication... Simon Burchell (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd say the display at the Grolier Club in 1971 would probably count as publication as well. --El Grafo (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Possible deliberate fakes of ancient/very old works are not that hard in terms of intellectual property. To publish this work, one need only make reasonable efforts to determine if there is a claim of copyright outstanding on the work. Unless the creator or their estate comes forward and states they created the work as a deliberate fake (highly unlikely in this case), then one should proceed on the basis of what the copyright is based on the presumption that the work is of the apparent original artist. As an example that I have worked with, the British Museum paid two million pounds for the Warren cup, which has been challenged several times as a possible fake made at the beginning of the 20th century. We have both videos and good quality photographs of it, on the presumption that it is an ancient artwork, even though suspicions have been published about it.
Should someone try to take a reuser to court after it were proven to be a modern fake, then no court would award damages, so long as any reuser can claim that they had made reasonable endeavor to determine existing claims of copyright at the time that they published. Similarly on Commons we are open to anyone coming forward and informing us that a claim exists, and our volunteers make all reasonable efforts (and sometimes go way beyond reasonable effort) to determine any potential claim on an uploaded work. -- (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
That is very helpful - in that case, time allowing and assuming no-one objects, I will upload the images onto Commons and use them in the article. Many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
"Posthumously published works have a term of 100 years after publication, if published within 100 years of the author's death" (Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico). But the "discoverer" claims it was created 600 years ago. In any case, if copyright for some reason was created by this publication for the first time, copyright would be owned by descendants of an anonymous person who died 600 years ago. No court on the planet would uphold any claim to ownership of such rights today. The only way copyright could exist today is if somebody claimed that it was created in the last 150 years. Which isn't happening here. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - I have uploaded one of the images, and somebody else had already uploaded a few that I hadn't used , because I was unsure of the copyright status. They are all in Category:Grolier Codex; I have used the PD-old license. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Archiving Old Discussion[edit]

Hi,

How can I archive my talk page. I want to do it but when I insert the syntax to archive it turns up but it does not show the archive box. I want to keep the archived documents so my mates don't think I am a bad influence on Wikimedia Commons.

Could you give me a hand please - Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Talk page guidelines#Automated archiving. LX (talk, contribs) 14:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

January 20[edit]

Errors in names of HABS/HAER images[edit]

What are we supposed to do when we encounter errors in names (or for that matter other imported content) of HABS/HAER images? For example, the following images all have a wrong address embedded in the title:

The church in question is actually at 346 West Twentieth Street, not 436 West Twentieth Street; 436 West Twentieth is a 19th-century townhouse. - Jmabel ! talk 04:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  • The filenames themselves are not 'canonical', they were 'quoted' from the image titles at the LoC. I'd say fix the filename, per 'misleading/inaccurate'. FWIW, quite a few used to have 'forty' misspelled, and it's at least 'arguable' IMO that there should be some mass renaming of HABS images anyhow, for the sake of making the 'sorting' in those categories somewhat rational. (For an example of what I mean, see this) There are many where the 'introductory' part of the name is so long that the actual 'place' is chopped out, see File:"CONSTRUCTION PHASING, STATION '0' AREA." Specifications No. OC1-57-75, Drawing No. AF-45-02-19, sheet 3 of 5, D.O. Series No. AF 1439-25, Rev. B. Stamped- RECORD HAER CAL,19-LANC.V,1-28.tif as a random example (try guessing what it is before you look at the file page). Revent (talk) 07:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Just to make it clear, if the 'special pages' link didn't, there appear from a quick search to be well over 4000 HABS images with filenames that start 'detail view of'. Not that this is a fault of Fae's work, he had to create filenames 'somehow' from the given data. Revent (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for raising this issue. When uploading 290,000 images, there has to be automation of file name choice and there is a balance of "smartness" versus available programmer time. Unfortunately we have found some errors in the source catalogue data, such as misleading addresses, typos or poor geolocation data. I have been cautious about leaving plenty of information on the image page, for example the full LoC catalogue title is both in the information template and hidden as JSON style text left by the GLAMtoolset, this can be reused by bots or editors to correct filenames. Files can be renamed fairly easily individually (if you have more than 1,000 sensible edits you can get the filemover right and do these yourself), however if there is something that is a good automation candidate (like fourty → forty) and will affect hundreds of files, then I can run a small script that I can let Faebot run and check a category of files at a time, if necessary all 290k of them; just leave a request on my talk page and I'll get to think about it (eventually). -- (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Same category[edit]

Hi there. There's a category called "Metro (supermarket)", and another called "Metro (grocery stores)". I'm pretty sure they're the same thing, but I'm not sure how to merge them. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Template mod needed[edit]

I left a comment at Template_talk:Cat_see_also#Layout a while back. Can anyone who is into coding take a look at it? Regards. Alan Liefting (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

New template required[edit]

Given the mix of Commons and User essays in Category:Commons essays there is a need for a {{user essay}} based on the {{essay}} template. My eyes glaze over when looking at code so can I get someone with the skills to do it? Cheers. Alan Liefting (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Stuff in the user namespace showing up elsewhere is rather suspicious, what is it supposed to be, an unfinished draft, an evasion of OWN, an error, a temporary test, something pointy, or what else? IOW, as far as I'm concerned you can remove user essays from the commons essays. But check the history, "userfied" could be an acceptable excuse. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Derivative of deleted image[edit]

Hola amigos. There was a picture that was deleted. However, I had made a derivative work of the original (/ here). Since the original is deleted, how do I properly source the derivative now? Put the original author's name? thanks Emphatik (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Placing name of the file and the author should be sufficient. --Jarekt (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
thank you Emphatik (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Technical SVG question[edit]

Is Commons:Graphics village pump still being watched? I have a outstanding question about a possibly corrupt file. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Answered there. User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  00:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

January 21[edit]

No subject[edit]

Has anyone heard of V.D.Vegt a Dutch painter born in early 1900 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.70.137.234 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 21 January 2015‎ (UTC)

I presume V.D. stands for van der. Van der Vegt is a fairly common Dutch surname, so you will probably need to provide more information, but unless your question concerns something related to Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository, your question is probably something for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities rather than the Commons village pump. LX (talk, contribs) 20:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Naming standard for categories for individual airliners ?[edit]

I am reviving the discussion archived at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2014/12#Naming_standard_for_categories_for_individual_airliners_.3F because IMHO no decision was reached and we need a decision. In summary, the current system of placing identified civilian aircraft in a category ABCD (aircraft), where ABCD is the civilian registration, is unsustainable, because aircraft often have multiple registrations during their lifetimes, and the same registrationb may be reused for different aircraft. We hence get the idiotic outcome such as Category:B-2219 (aircraft) which is a dumping ground for images of two different aircraft. see http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/B-2219.html. We also get multiople categories for the same aircraft if it has mkultiple registrations during its lifetime. Hence IMHO the existing "system" is worthless, akin to identifying people by their phone numbers.

Is there an aviation task force for dealing with such issues ? My preferred solution is to incorporate the manufacturer's serial number into a unique key e.g. Boeing 747 12345. Others pointed out we don't necessarily have the serial number available, but I have found details for every aircraft I have looked up, at websites such as http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/B-2219.html. An alternative is ABCD (Boeing 747 1999) indicating it was registered as such in 1999. This has a similar problem. Third alternative is ABCD (Boeing 737). This has the problem that airlines may reuse the same registrations when they replace old aircraft of similar model : this has actually happened with 737s. Another alternative is to end this practice of categorizing individual aircraft because (a) we can't do it properly (b) Commons is not a planespotting fansite and (c) folks can find images of a particular aircraft by searching on its registration number, but they must still check visually that it is the particular aircraft registered undered that id that they want. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The "aviation task force" is Commons:WikiProject Aviation and its talk page, I guess. --ghouston (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thanks, I'll take the discussion there : Commons_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Naming_standard_for_categories_for_individual_civilian_aircraft_.3F. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I've long recommended we do it via manufacturer name, model and serial number, which eliminates some of the problems following aircraft around when they change registration and paint. This also affects new build aircraft when given a temporary registration and being flown around unpainted (mainly an Airbus thing). I should imagine some of the workload will lighten in the coming weeks and months now our most prolific uploader of aircraft imagery has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation though. Nick (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Year/2014[edit]

Hello community!

It's 2015 and the Features Picture process for 2014 is therefore over. As the result, we have 981 new featured pictures. Traditionally at Wikimedia Commons, we are going to invite the whole Wikimedia Community to look at these wonderful works. (We actually organize a ballot for that but the positive side effect is that these Featured Pictures get a lot of views during the time they are voted on.)

Now we ask for your help: We have sorted the candidates into categories to achieve some kind of split up of this huge volume of works. However, we are just humans and we might have failed to sort some of them into the correct categories or a work might fit better into another category; we are also having a discussion about creating some new categories this year to adapt to this year's works. We'd appreciate if you'd find a minute of spare time to join our discussion and to test whether voting works (your eligible votes, if provided for an eligible candidate according to the rules will be counted but you can revoke and re-vote at any time until vote closes).

Comments not covering categorization can be left on Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2014. Hope to see you.

On behalf of the Picture of the Year's election committee -- Rillke(q?) 09:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Foundation blog features 100,000 Wellcome Images upload to Commons[edit]

Meet the uploader Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/01/20/wellcome-library-donation/

Good news everyone! The target of uploading 100,000 high resolution historical images from the Wellcome Library to Wikimedia Commons was hit last month, and there is a Foundation blog post telling the story out today. See the above link.

Top 6 "most edited" files, see project page for more reports

It is a great collection to illustrate not just medical history, but ancient history, British cartoons, Chinese history, religions and many others. In terms of quality and range, it is one of the most prestigious collections of high quality scanned drawings, paintings and photographs on Wikimedia Commons. The upload of 300 GB of images ran from my home laptop from a USB hard disk that the Wellcome Library kindly posted to me. Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg

Actions:

  1. I have pinned a suggested tweet at http://twitter.com/Faewik, and there are share buttons at the bottom of the blog post too if you wish to help promote the free collection on twitter or Facebook.
  2. You can find today's recommended images for improvement, i.e. better categorization or reuse in more Wikipedia articles, at Wellcome Images/improvement.
  3. You can browse and help categorize the entire collection at Files from Wellcome Images: 100,044R.

-- (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Congratulations Fæ on completing such a commendable project. It is a shame to have such quality images mixed in with selfies, self made penis photos, personal photos of no interest to anyone, and all the rest of the digital detritus. Alan Liefting (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Fæ for all the uploads. Your work is highly appreciated! --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Wanted: Flickr / Yahoo account holder[edit]

Could someone upload this video? Looks like you need some special account to download it... and I'd rather not create an account just for this one file... and our tools don't seem to work to upload flickr videos. (BTW, yes, it's not a great video, but better than what we have so far.)

BTW, if you would, you could add this to the upload:

  • Description:

{{de|Eskimorolle: Erster Versuch geht schief (zu viel Schwung -> der Kanut rollt durch und kippt auf der Gegenseite wieder ins Wasser), der zwei Versuch klappt}} {{en|Kayak roll: First attempt failed (two much momentum -> rolled over on the opposite side), second attempt succeeded}}

  • Category:

[[Category:Kayak roll]] Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ibn Battuta: Done at File:Giro esquimal-4322519231.ogv -FASTILY 03:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! --Ibn Battuta (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

January 22[edit]

Public Domain Project[edit]

See here For lots of free media. Does anyone want to sift through it? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Vague impression, hardcore spam site, requires AdBlock or similar to see the spam otherwise hidden by HTML5-popup boxes. I expect only bad things from this site. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Their 64,639 PD photos most likely are all already here at the Commons. They just grabbed and redistribute photos from USGov sites, like for instance the NASA. And their 12,373,867 stock photos definitely are not free. Lupo 16:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Requesting assistance with three JAXA images from the ESO image archive (CC-BY-4.0)[edit]

Hi

According to a confirmation I got by mail, these three Category:(25143) Itokawa pictures by JAXA that can be found in the ESO image archive are free to use.

Another user has earlier uploaded one of the pictures as non-free, for use on the w:en:25143 Itokawa article, thinking it was exempt from the CC-BY statement as a JAXA picture (although there's nothing that states any separate status). Can someone help with removing the fair-use upload on the different Wikipedias where it has been done, and replace it with one from the list?

Also, since the free status can be a bit vague if you only look at the webpage (it does not specify whether it's images taken by ESO or provided through ESO), would it perhaps be necessary to have an admin confirm it by mailing (information@eso.org) a question about the status again?

- Anonimski (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Once you uploaded it here with a license supposed to survive review simply put {{now commons}} on the enwiki-dupe. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
No, an admin need not re-contact them. Since you are already in contact with them, just tell them to send their confirmation to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Lupo 16:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Everything I upload got deleted[edit]

I don't understand why all the pictures I've uploaded got deleted. This includes pictures of myself and artwork that I created. The pictures are of good quality and are of reasonable size. I have uploaded these to create a specific Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamera1313 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 22 January 2015‎ (UTC)

It helps if you sign your message, so we don't have to go dig through the history of this page to figure it out. Then we can look at your contributions, and from there, your upload log. There, the deleted files are listed, and if you click on the file names, the reasons for deletion are stated. Copyright infringement seems to have been the reason. This is further discussed in the (now closed) deletion discussion that is linked to from your user talk page. LX (talk, contribs) 19:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't sign the message. This is the first time I'm going this so please forgive me. What kind of proof do I need to show that I am the owner of the artwork, photos and photo of myself? We do have a registered trademark with the USPTO for the band name and own rights for all album covers and photos of the band. I just don't know how to get these posted here without deletion. Please help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamera1313 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 22 January 2015‎ (UTC)

Are you sure your uploads are in line with Commons:Scope? See especially COM:EDUSE. Assuming they are in scope, see COM:OTRS for submiiting proof of license permission. Again, please sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end of each post. -Animalparty (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, you may wish to read Commons:Guidance for paid editors. It looks like you may have an undisclosed conflict of interest that could potentially cause you some problems considering your edits over at English Wikipedia. LX (talk, contribs) 22:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Request: Activate eastern Punjabi (PA) for Template:Translation table[edit]

When I used Template:Translation table at Category:Punjabi language I noticed Eastern Punjabi (pa) didn't show up. I'm not an admin so I can't edit the table. I looked through the source code and I can't find "pa" in it. Would somebody mind activating it in the translation table? Thanks! WhisperToMe (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

January 23[edit]

File:Nibiru-5.jpg[edit]

Hey. I wanted to use File:Nibiru-5.jpg in the wiki on the mythical planet, Nibiru. Right now, the wiki claims a star that is 20,000 light years away to have been purported to be Nibiru. But,a cursory search over google will show that much of this conspiracy theory is based on unorthodox lens artifact captured near the sun. I wanted to keep this image to archive that, as well better represent the wiki on Nibiru. P.S. I also edited several of these artifacts into File:Alberto's Nibiru compilation.jpg.

I was told by the admin that nominated to go to COM:UNDEL. But there, I was told the pictures haven't been deleted yet (discussion @ COM:UNDEL). How can i get ppl to comment on this? Or do I have to wait for the picture to be deleted first? (that doesnt make sense, though). thanks Emphatik (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
As stated in the big box on the file description, the discussion is at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nibiru-5.jpg. LX (talk, contribs) 10:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Emphatik: You should go to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nibiru-5.jpg right now and explain your reasons to keep the image before it gets deleted. It's a lot easier to challenge a deletion request than to get an image undeleted.
Since the reason for deletion is the allegation of the image being out of Commons scope, you only need to show that the image has a reasonable potential educative use.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you think the reason I detailed above is sufficient. Personally, I think it betters the existing wiki on this subject. But I have a feeling it will be taken off. cheers.Emphatik (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Uncategorized pictures increasingly growing[edit]

Categorization stats from 2015/01/23

Is this critical? Our backlog goes back to September 2012.--Kopiersperre (talk)

Yes, it is. No category is not much better than no license. Or JPGs of male body parts below 1MB. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Not yet a million? That means it's far from a majority. I am pleasantly surprised. But of course an uncategorized pictures is usually worth nothing. Well, the majority of categorized ones are also useless, but use is very rare for uncatted ones. Perhaps the Upload Wizard should be adjusted to make this matter easier and more urgent. As for easier, a tiny improvement would be to make categories insensitive to case. Bigger improvement would be a tree-walking cat picker. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I personally would enjoy a tree-walking cat picker much more than a media-viewer. Non-english speaking people sometimes categorize their uploads quite well, but sadly in their mother language. There should be something like the Template:Category redirect, for example a Template:Internationalized category.--Kopiersperre (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
There are so many things that could be improved with categories:
  • Category translations (built into MediaWiki, not with templates etc.)
  • Custom link titles in parent categories. (I.e. if I put the following in a theoretical category German great stuff: [[Category:Stuff in Germany|Great stuff|Great stuff]] the link to it will be displayed as "Great stuff" instead of "German great stuff" in that category. The "German" is irrelevant in that case and just makes it harder to recognize stuff.)
  • Category tree views and recursive views, including powerful filter mechanisms.
  • A decent category/files in category search.
But hey, we have a great Media Viewer now. --Sebari (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree uncategorized images are a problem. I disagree that uncategorized images are usually worth nothing- high volume automatic uploads (e.g. from Public Domain repositories, Flickr, etc.) often have valuable images that are only in hidden cats like "uploads by user". I previously brought up the issue of organizing a concerted effort to reduce the backlog, ideally with humans assisted by bots rather than the other way around, and with priority given to high quality sources or subcategories. see Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2014/11#Group_effort_to_clear_out_uncategorized_media.3F -Animalparty (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The raw numbers do not appear statistically meaningful as they are not in relation to the sample space. Could someone rework these so that they show a proportion of total images on Commons on the dates they are measured? If the ratio "Uncategorized images / total number of images" is decreasing, then we would seem to be on top of things. I.e. if Commons had 90 images uncategorized, but only had 100 images in total (90%), that is a far worse problem than having 900 images uncategorized out of a total of 10,000 (9%). -- (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@: Please give me the total number of images on Commons over time as CSV, then I can do.--Kopiersperre (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A couple months ago I've started to add categories to files in Category:Media needing category review by date. I realized than a large number of pictures of the 446,891 files in Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project needing category review (I can't say "all" because I couldn't check) already had categories added with bot; however, "{{Check categories}}" remains. I told (because his bot add these cats) and he told me he has family problems and will check later, thing I respect and why I didn't continue pushing again about this point. Maybe run a bot to fix this problem could help. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it's correct to leave Check categories on bot-catgorized work, since the bot generally just adds a rough location category. However a lot of these geograph images are nondescript fields or hills and realistically will never be used for anything, so it's not really a big loss if they are uncategorised. I have categorised quite a few myself, since categorisation seems to be mildly addictive to me. --ghouston (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
It is not surprising as the number of uploads continue to grow, but the number of people doing maintenance does not seem to. That's just a feeling, and a real statistics would be useful. We need to expand the number of "permanent" people, not just people who upload and then go back to their home project. What about a recruitment campaign across Wikimedia with some precise and detailed objectives: 1. We need more people doing categorization, 2. We need more people doing license review, 3. We need more admins. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kopiersperre:, okay here it is. Please have a go at factoring it in. Converting to CSV is easy in most text editors, just replace the pipe marks. January is incomplete of course. Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg -- (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@: This is uploads/month and not the absolute amount. The uncategorized files are however a cumulative amount. I think this can't be stitched together.--Kopiersperre (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Rather than the absolute data of uploads per month, it is looking at when existing images hosted by Commons were uploaded. As there cannot be an uncategorised image once it has been overwritten or deleted, this seems a good approximation as there seems little point in cumulatively counting stuff which no longer exists. If anything, if the uncategorized image data is counting images which are now deleted, this is probably more misleading, as it counts now deleted copyvios and out of scope material. I am not sure you will get much better data than this. -- (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I've just failed. It's quite difficult to plot two timedata plots with different timeschemes (%Y%m%d%H%M / %Y%m) into one plot with gnuplot.--Kopiersperre (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I have experience with combining data of different time scales. I use a spreadsheet to use a linear interpolation between values (other interpolations can also be used) to obtain values at the time needed (first convert the date to some sort of digital date format - either the date value used by your computer or some other convention - 1/31/2008 could either be 39478 or 2008.083333 for example). But in the data sets that you have, no interpolation is needed. You can just plot the monthly ratio, without worrying about any of the daily data that you have for one of the data sets, or the fact that the data is a few minutes apart from each other. Delphi234 (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Want to share some thoughts on the problem (not on proper statistics).

  • In general there is an attitude on images nowadays and everywhere, where storage is free and internet access is flat, to upload anything you have and do no proper selection before. Let the viewer choose. This also includes images with wrong orientation and low quality. This is true especially for platforms like Flickr. But I also get a bunch of some thousands of images of my daughter's summer camp in that style, or from some outside school projects, etc. Commons seems to follow the same attitude when uploading images or importing them from some external source (like flickr), at least in some cases. This might be a tribute to the sheer number expected during competitions like WLM, a tribute to the own ego, or a tribute to time constraints that make it easier to upload a million images than to select the 100 usable. In the end I consider this to be one of the root causes for the huge number of uncategorized or badly categorized files or files with bad description. Many of them causing effort without generating much usefulness.
    • As an example consider images of political parties found on flickr, e.g. Category:Photos from European People's Party (I worked a lot with those). Once uploaded from Flickr, these images are not uncategorized, but still missing information about the individuals depicted on the images (semantically speaking, those are uncategorized although not marked as such). I doubt, that we need that many images of e.g. Angela Merkel (~1500 at the moment) and that we can use more than a few in articles at all. These images are already categorized per year and someone started to subcategorize per month. In the end after a lot of work this will hide all the images deep down in some category tree. Commons is not about storing every cramp. Make the selection before and upload only a selection. Can we make an appeal to all the power uploaders / bots to select first and upload later? We do not have to have everything here in copy.
  • There are a lot of photo-projects supported by various chapters. The precondition for getting money for photo tours is to upload the images with the proper Supported by Wikimedia … template. Proper categorization isn't a precondition. If someone refuses to categorize, categorization will not happen and will lead to uncategorized. Can we have a statistic of uncategorized per uploader? And start to handle the problem from the prominent end. I would change the rules for such photo projects with respect to categorization. At the moment there are 4100 images supported, but not categorized. These are - on the average - higher value images than normal uploads.
  • Some files are already categorized, but the {{Uncategorized}} wasn't removed. Cat-a-lot has an option to do so automatically, but this is not the default. Can we change the default to removing the template? Bots could remove the uncategorized.
  • I always found it difficult to look through thousands of uncategorized images to find the few I was able to categorize. The new search makes it possible to find images with keywords in name / description, allow a narrower scope and thus a higher percentage of images that can be categorized by an individual. E.g. this search will find most of the uncategorized images from Austria in 2014. If someone is working on Austria, this pre-selection is rather useful. Would it be an idea to offer searches like this to people / portals working on corresponding topics in the WPs?
  • Some images are categorized with a non-existing category. Since some weeks this will also be recognized as uncategorized. But it is a different case, creation of missing categories will solve more than one file.
  • Categorization is difficult. Not every category will fulfil the requirement. I found images in Categories Men looking right and Statues of sitting men, but without even the smallest hint where on earth this image was taken. Such categories are not especially useful to fulfil the requirement of categorization, better to leave the image uncategorized.
  • instead of putting effort to categorization, it should be easier to put low quality images to speedy deletion. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I would suggest adding some additional queries to the upload process such as "is this a picture of a person/people", "is this a picture of a building", etc., with a mandatory yes/no input. Pictures with a "yes" could then at least be subcategorized into an "Uncategorized images of people" or "Uncategorized images of buildings" category, so there would be some beginning of an identification process. This would also instantly flag uploads raising common intellectual property issues beyond those inherent in who took the picture. BD2412 T 11:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
      • This last strikes me as a terrible suggestion. I probably upload as many photos as any but a handful of contributors here. If I started having to answer a bunch of mandatory questions to do so, you would probably see me stop entirely. - Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
        • It is a suggestion directed to the problem at hand. Do you add categories to your images during the uploading process? BD2412 T 17:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
          • I think asking questions to try to guess a category would not help, but I have noticed that some wikis are more insistent than others about filling in the edit summary. Perhaps just going to a screen notifying the uploader that the category is blank and providing information about how to find an appropriate category - but in a manner that does not make you start over. I agree that just putting everything into an "image" or "photograph" category is not useful. Delphi234 (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Question to the charts above: What happened in the end of 2012 to add just another 200000 images to uncategorized? This could not have been caused by uploads only. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess in the end of 2012 British geophotios were donated, which were uploaded but not categorized.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Also some files with hidden cats are showing as "needing categories". Probably most of them should continue hidden, but some as this perfectly could be the main cat, since no other valid cat was added. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Working a lot with images in the categories “Media needing categories as of ......” I suggest that it would help when in the upload form is mentioned near the description something like “please mention where the photo was taken (country/city ...). This would help in categorizing. Descriptions as “Wow” or “Here we had dinner” or only “castle” are not very helpful. Wouter (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    This is a very good suggestion which corresponds to my own experience.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

January 24[edit]

Bizarre file![edit]

This all started from a report in the en vandalism queue at OTRS 2015012310020468. I can't work this one out... If I play File:Jana Gana Mana instrumental.ogg then up pops a text window and starts "my mom is graet...". I therefore went back to the original version en:File:Jana Gana Mana instrumental.ogg and undeleted it. This one plays with no text window. So I saved the en version to my PC and re-uploaded to commons - and I still get the text with the silly text! Any suggestions? I've left the en version active for now. Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I worked out it's a subtitle track - but where is it stored? It's not part of the file. Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorted it out - when in doubt look at the page source - TimedText:Jana Gana Mana instrumental.ogg.en.srt - well and truly vandalised. Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Pngs and jpgs of the same images[edit]

png
jpg

Do we really need to retain both a low resolution jpg as well as a high quality png file? PNGs display just fine in article space so I see no reason to keep both. Do other know or feel differently? In this category I happened to noticed many such duplicates. While server space may no longer be at a premium there seems little point in just using the space because it is available. Ww2censor (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Also discussed at COM:Форум#Удаление файла, where I referred to Help:PNG. So, does that policy still hold true? YLSS (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleting files does not save server space, as deleted files as kept hidden. However I agree that keeping lo quality JPGs when there is a PNG version is useless. It clutters the search at least. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
So should one bother to put such jpgs up for deletion as duplicates or not? Ww2censor (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, go ahead. Please check that the files are not used anywhere before creating a DR. Actually replacing small quality files by better ones is what takes the most time, the rest of the maintenance work is fast. BTW all PNG files had a double extension in this category. I renamed them. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you shouldn't be that hasty. First of all, this concerns not only those Soviet stamps, but also 36,426 files in Category:PNGs with JPEG versions. So if there's any change of policies, such pages as Help:PNG and COM:MFC#PNG photos that require a JPEG version should be updated first. But then, are you sure that those policies do not hold any more? Compare the two pics to the right. At full size (1,902 × 2,157) they are the same; as thumbnail, jpg is better to my eyes. YLSS (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
It depends very much what is the content, and how the images were made. For scans of non-photographic documents (maps, drawings, books, engravings, etc.), PNG is usually better than JPEG, if the PNG is made from the same original source. But there may be exceptions. Obviously if the PNG was made from the JPEG, it can't be better. For pictures, JPEG is usually better. TIFF is another issue. It should be used as a archive format only, even if MediaWiki is able to show a thumbnail version. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

We have many thousands of pictures like File:New York City Boys organize tin club. These patriotic young men not only collected but also processed more than half... - NARA - 196374.tif in both TIFF and JPG format and links between the two. They clutter many topical categories but we have started decatting the TIFF version and leaving just the version link and a huge TIFF subcategory. Some word searches will still be cluttered unless we use a "-tif" to mask them. Good plan? Jim.henderson (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, JPEG is also better for me on thumbnail, same issue of TIFF, TIFF can hold more information, making easier to edit, but for the web, it sucks... for me keep both, xoxo -- RTA 18:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't really see the issue here. Why are the two choices only a low resolution JPG and a high resolution PNG? Surely we can have a high resolution JPG rather than the low resolution JPG. PNGs might be slightly superior for archival use, but they are not at all practical for use on Wiki projects, because the thumbnail rendering is inferior and the file size is unnecessarily large for downloading. Personally, if I was faced with a choice of just one file, I would much prefer a JPG with very low compression than a PNG. The quality difference is very minimal (when low compression is used), but the file size difference is large. Diliff (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I think JPEG is better also. I think that JPEG of 600 dpi is the standard for images of stamps. Let users decide, what format they will take for the needs, maybe every time different. And search strongly complicates not existence one more format, and existence of other images. Let's delete all other images, it will be easy to look for... --Matsievsky (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Why should we delete all images? As Yann already said, this will not saves us space... and we will have a time consumption and a lot warnings, and troubles, furthermore, analysing some cases will be necessary, i.e., I remember to upload a image with a white background in JPEG and a similar one with a transparent background in PNG, for different reasons. JPEG stills losing quality in editions, and modify a image is one attribute required in a free license... -- RTA 19:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Having uploaded hundreds of thousands of TIFFs and discussed whether to have jpegs or other formats instead, there are several learning points which are worth summarizing/repeating:

  1. As mentioned above, jpeg is not lossless. So if a lossless format such as TIFF, PNG or GIF is converted to jpeg, the quality of the image is going to be reduced.
  2. Jpeg is super handy for most reusers, especially for very large images such as archive/research quality scans of maps or high resolution panoramas from NASA, where the original file size is unrealistically big to either view in a browser or easily download to use. 95% of reusers are unlikely to make use of the full high resolution image, however the remaining 5% are researchers and volunteers that want to examine fine detail and these archive quality formats are precisely what they are looking for.
  3. TIFF is a rather special format, being a container where you can put images in various formats. Consequently chosing to 'unpack' the container or reformat the image has to be done with the detailed format in mind if conversions are to be lossless.
  4. Different formats will affect how well thumbnail generation works. For this reason having an image at the same resolution on Commons in TIFF and jpeg, means that it makes sense for Wikipedias to use the jpeg format as it is likely to render down to various thumbnail sizes rather better.
  5. Having an original version of an image on Commons that digitally matches a version held by organizational archives which are our sources, means that it is much easier to check that we have the image on our database already. If we only hold a compressed version, there is no currently agreed systematic way of checking that they are visually the same image.

Thanks -- (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Don't confuse theoretical differences with real world differences though. In most cases, a low-compression JPG is functionally indistinguishable from a PNG or TIF. But as for your other points, I agree. Diliff (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of bad pictures[edit]

IMHO low quality pictures or pictures without a sufficient description are a bigger problem than non-categorized ones. What about deleting all unused pictures in Category:Blurred images?--Kopiersperre (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes they are unique and irreplaceable, and until we do not have a better one, we could not delete. When we have a better one, that replaces, the blurred is speedy deleted. -- RTA 19:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
When a picture is unused and you don't even know who or what is shown, you can't replace it. Maybe we should tag these pictures with {{orphaned}}--Kopiersperre (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I would agree you, but (as you can see on my user page "no admin", as only one reason) don`t wast your time with quality here on Commons. The most admins don`t see this. In the last time I tagged duplicates (different file types) a PNG copy of an SVG (my semi own created) and the admin User:INeverCry (this is only one, but personally I see him often keep crap. Sorry I don't have anything other trouble with him, in contrast to other). The very annoying boring primitive answer is always "In use".
Commons rule: If crap is in use don`t make a deletion request. User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  09:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to reality. A neighborhood may be an ugly pile of crap, but that doesn't mean you can just bulldoze it without permission from the inhabitants. Windows and Unix have huge issues because programs that worked 20 years ago can't just be broken, so they have to keep functions and systems around that have been long obsolete. So long as you're providing a system that other people work with, you can't just deleting things that they're using.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
As I've seen on the EnWP, unused images get deleted there after 7 days.[21][22] (On the other side I see this only because I`ve tagged this images for deletion (NowCommons) which got removed (by User:Magog_the_Ogre as not same file type, otherwise a nice admin)
This seems all most incomprehensible for German user, because there images get very fast and easy deleted. User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  09:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Perhelion: please read w:WP:CSD#F8: The Commons version [must be] in the same file format and [must be] of the same or higher quality/resolution. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
They delete images that are in use on the English Wikipedia on the German Wikipedia? How?--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
How about an experiment with "unused" and JPEG and "smaller than 100 KB" and "blurry"? Looking at the first page of Blurred images, maybe it's possible to rescue pictures with the proverbial (for QI) two megapixels. Very vague procedural idea:
  1. A bot collects candidates in a temporary "really bad" tracking category.
  2. Users verify and tag cruft with {{speedy|really bad}}
  3. An admin bot deletes really bad images in the "really bad" category.
  4. The first bot removes category "really bad" from all survivors.
  5. A human admin deletes the tracking category, because somebody created it.
  6. You write a "lessons learned" article for the Village Pump. ;-)
Be..anyone (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete JPEG smaller than 100 kB is not even close to be acceptable, a lot of this < 100 kB are images like this File:K.c.kesavapillai.jpg, probably we will not find anything to replace that, and this works to illustrate.
And in five minutes a pass throw all 'blurred" photos, nothing to worry actually, 629 pictures is nothing, I do not see a use of ~100 of this, most dick photos, as we already have tons of this for educational purpose... (Obs: Is that hard to take a dick photo without blurring or miss the focus?)
So, why are you worrying about? -- RTA 18:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
unused doesn't match File:K.c.kesavapillai.jpg. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

PD-Art file release CC-BY-NC-SA in UK[edit]

I have added a UK copyright notice to File:Fiennes de Clinton.jpg, which is PD-Art by our rules, but in fact Royal Museums Greenwich has released this CC-BY-NC-SA [23] which should apply in the UK. Is there a way I should indicate this on the file? - PKM (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

One possible way is to use the {{Licensed-PD-Art}} template along with the existing {{PD-Art-copyright-notice}} template:
{{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-100|rawphotolicense={{PD-Art-copyright-notice | [[:en:National Maritime Museum|Royal Museums Greenwich/National Maritime Museum]] | {{United Kingdom}} | http://collections.rmg.co.uk/page/7d7ded6fb50d6031e2884961a200be58.html| File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg }} }}
At the current time, there does not appear to be a usable template for indicating that the CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 license applies to a work, likely because the CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 license by itself is not accepted on Commons.
--Gazebo (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. That's a better solution. - PKM (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

January 25[edit]

سلام من میخواستم یه عکس در ویکی انبار بارگذاری کنم و از شخص عکاس اجازه نامه دارم اما نمیدونم چه طوری و در کجا باید این اجازه نامه رو وارد کنم؟ لطفا به من کمک کنید و بگید که اجازه نامه باید به صورت تایپ شده باشه یا نه باید اسکن اجازه نامه را بگذارم؟

--زاجت (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

(Google translate) Hi I wanted to upload a picture on Wikimedia Commons, and I am a photographer permit but do not know how and where should I enter this license? Please help me and tell me that authorization must be typed or not to scan my license? Delphi234 (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

See File:متوسلیان.jpg. Does anyone know Persian to help them out? Maybe someone at Commons:قهوه‌خانه? They marked the file with a nonexistent template that seems to say "Photographer This photo has my permission to use this image." (Google translate). Delphi234 (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Categorization through templates[edit]

Hi all, I've set the content of {{PD-La Moncloa}} to this text:

{{autotranslate|base=PD-La Moncloa}}{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|File|{{{category|[[Category:Copyrighted free use files from La Moncloa|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}}<noinclude>
{{In category|Copyrighted free use files from La Moncloa}}
{{documentation}}
</noinclude>

The idea is to categorize all images with such a template in Category:Copyrighted free use files from La Moncloa. However, although all the files are correctly categorized (see this, for instance), when accessing the category, it's empty. Should each of the files be edited in order to get categorized? Best regards --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 16:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Doesn't look empty to me. I seen 19 files there. Maybe a caching problem on your end? - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
These 19 were edited by me, so I think the files took the right category. Nowadays, there is one hundred. Maybe it's just a question of time (it takes some time to actually put the files into the right category). Best regards --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 22:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a replacement for derivativeFX?[edit]

In the past, derivativeFX (see Commons:derivativeFX) by Luxo (who is inactive) was a very useful tool for uploading derivative works (e.g. cropped, retouched) of images already on Commons. It grabbed the original license, added a "derivative work" notice and the upload log of the original file. It was a Toolserver tool that didn't migrate to Labs when the Toolserver was shut down, see the author's note. So, I wonder: Has someone created something similar in the meantime, or what's your usual approach for derivative works now? Gestumblindi (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on my funding proposal to work with UNESCO[edit]

Hi all

I’m looking for feedback and endorsement for my Wikimedia Foundation PEG grant to be Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO. I’d very much appreciate if you would have a look, the most relevant objective to Wikimedia Commons is:

2. Make content from the archives of UNESCO and its partners available on Wikimedia projects: This project will facilitate the upload of 30,000 images, audio files, videos, data and other content to Wikimedia projects from UNESCO archives (24,000 images), UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) and other sources including 10 organisations changing their content license to be Wikimedia compatible.

I ran a pilot project that resulted in the images found in the category Images from the archive of UNESCO, here are a few examples:

If you think this is a worthwhile project please click this link and then click the endorse button.

Many thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Dupe. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

January 26[edit]