Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES Commons Help desk Village pump (general discussion) Copyright Proposals Technical Graphics and photography discussion Photography critiques Image improvement Illustration workshop Map workshop Photography workshop Video and sound workshop Categories for discussion Undeletion requests Deletion requests Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests Oversight requests Telegram IRC webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator Welcome to the Village pump This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/11. Please note: 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 probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias. Have you read our FAQ? For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming. 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). 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: Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead. For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump. To ask for image improvement, see: Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for photographs. Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps. Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for other illustrations. To ask for video or audio improvement, see Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop. For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation. For media requests, please post at Commons:File requests. Search archives:     Start a new discussion

Legend
In the last hour
In the last day
In the last week
In the last month
More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur, please check the setting first.

Broadwick St, Soho, London: a water pump with its handle removed commemorates Dr. John Snow's tracing of an 1854 cholera epidemic to the pump. [add]

Centralized discussion See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive Costumed character files (14 October 2024) Third-party images published by the National Weather Service (26 August 2024) Commons:Requests for comment/Hosting of free fonts in Commons (18 July 2024) How do we organize categories by date (14 May 2024) Should PD-CQ Roll Call be used for recent images? (5 January 2024) Technical needs survey (17 December 2023) When does PDART apply to textile works? (15 November 2023) Does this image contain "love hearts"? (17 August 2023) Definition of country (19 June 2023) Overhaul of categories by period (5 December 2022) Version of Saudi flag to use (11 July 2022) Concern regarding revocability of KOGL licenses (22 December 2021) Should deleting content from your own talk page be forbidden? (11 November 2021) Revise the COM:FOP Sweden section (1 February 2021) Change technical name of LRs to license-reviewer from image-reviewer(2 November 2023) Was the closure of the deletion discussion concerning the current lede image for Philippe Pétain proper under Commons policy? (22 September 2024) Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch

August 13

Special:WantedTemplates

Commons is dominated by the use of templates. Searching for wrong template use or links is essential maintenance work. The page Special:WantedTemplates is however useless because of all this MOTD/POTD templates. Is it possible to

• Restructure the Motd/Potd pages to not longer create all this red links? E.g. the relatively uninformativ/useless page Template:Potd/2007-03 generates 100rds of uneccesarry red template links.
• Bypass the problem with excluding Motd/Potd templates from Special:WantedTemplates?

Thanks, --Martin H. (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's possible to do the query at the toolserver with these templates filtered out. Multichill (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this yesterday. I could really use a good list to find things for my bot to work on. Multichill, would you be willing to run the query? You can drop it in my userspace (or wherever). For the long term, however, I would like to change the POTD system. Do we really need to be making a subpage for every translation of every description? A single {{LangSwitch}} for each day seems like it would be much better. I'll have to look into the current process more, but it just doesn't seem like well designed at all. Rocket000 (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree we should change our POTD system. --Jarekt (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Martin H. and I talked about the same topic some time ago (User talk:Slomox#Special:WantedTemplates). We didn't find a technical soluton, but I suggested that it's rather un-meaningful to have pages like Commons:Potd/2006-12 (fr) that are meant to be in French with dozens of image descriptions in foreign languages. Make the language-specific versions language-specific and we'll remove many many of the irrelevant entries on Special:WantedTemplates. --Slomox (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep - I however still dont know a sollution so I think its ok to ask here again. Thanks for your input. --Martin H. (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The MOTD/POTD system could be changed to only have one of each for every language. That is, one page for every day. Not even a seperate page to view it nicely and another page to edit the descriptons. But 1 page per day and in that page, something like {{ifeq:{{{view|}}}|show| show the layout with the image and description and navigation. Else just show the description (for inclusion). A LangSwitch would do the job, and something like {{Interface-lang}} to switch language. Removes a lot of clutter aswell. –Krinkle^talk 02:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Photochrom licensing poll

Should all European and Mediterranean photochroms be tagged with {{PD-Switzerland-old-unknown}} or a variant tag? The consequences:

• If yes, the copyright claims of so far unidentified original photographers might be ignored. Given that most of the photographs were taken before 1900, the number of those cases is assumed to be small.
• If no, most photochroms (a few thousand?) with European and Mediterranean views need to be moved to en.wiki.

A lengthy discussion of the copyright situation can be found above, a summary is at Category:Photochrom pictures from the Library of Congress. Please don't anyone comment that "they are from the Detroit Publishing Co.", "they are PD-US", or "but the LOC says...". Thank you. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

{{PD-Switzerland-old-unknown}} seems fine --Jarekt (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

{{PD-Switzerland-old-unknown}} with possibly an additional template mentioning the slight uncertainty. - Jmabel ! talk 23:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A specialized license tag would make sense in any case. Just to be clear, by applying {{PD-Switzerland-old-unknown}} we're essentially creating a rule that says if the images is from before 1900 and we don't know the photographer, we assume PD internationally. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with that, because they should be PD in the US anyway, as they're older than 1923. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

{{PD-1923}} is quite explicit that it's insufficient for Commons, and {{PD-US}} doesn't apply because it doesn't originate in the U.S. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A file disappeared

I uploaded a file 8 days ago, File:Itämetro-Östmetron.svg. It was uploaded quite strange, just a file without any information (even the page for the file was not created) so I created the page with the information about it. The file was visible for some time but now it has disappeared. I would like to know whether it's possible to restore the file since I've already deleted it from my computer. Stadscykel (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be anything in the deletion log, nor in your deleted contribs. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

So is there any possibility to restore the file? Stadscykel (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

A blogger took the screenshots of this file on Monday: A screenshot of the Finnish Wikipedia with this image shown, the image itself. Stadscykel (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

We have been having some problems with uploads (see "Impossible to upload files?" above), so perhaps the missing file is related to that. I don't think there's any way of restoring the file. Where did you obtain it from? Or did you create it yourself? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Almost the entire file was my own work, except the coastline (including islands) and municipal borders which were obtained from OpenStreetMap. I have already created the new version and uploaded it under the different filename because it wasn't possible to upload it with the old name. Stadscykel (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, great. In future, you should be able to upload it under the old name by checking the "Ignore all warnings" box before clicking the "Upload" button. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for advice, I didn't note this checkbox. Stadscykel (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems bad. Nobody deleted it intentionally according the logs which I can see, so it would seem to be a software bug or some other technical issue. That is worrying; maybe there are more? Are any backups made of media that sysadmins would have access to? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

In my impression -- a lot of files disappears from Commons to nowhere -- just a few recent threads: [1], Commons:Village pump/Archive/2010Jul#Problem with old picture version, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 22#File was there on Monday, but shows 'failed upload' today, and I've seen multiple cases by myself. It's very troubling. Trycatch (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That is interesting. The original, disappeared file here is still available at the URL http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Itämetro-Östmetron.svg but it's not visible on the image page (the same situation as one of the situations you link to above). Sure seems like a bug. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just discovered that the same thing has happened to a file I uploaded a week or so ago: "File:YOGArtisticGymnastics-BishanSportsHall-Singapore-20100816-02.jpg". The thumbnail caption simply states: "File missing". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep same thing. It is still available at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/YOGArtisticGymnastics-BishanSportsHall-Singapore-20100816-02.jpg . Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the techies are looking into the problem? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. I'm not in contact with them -- not even sure how. Doesn't sound they looked into the original problem much but now there are three instances. Do we file a bug, or is there a better way? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I referenced this thread as Bugzilla:24978.  Docu  at 15:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The old File:Itämetro-Östmetron.svg is at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/It%C3%A4metro-%C3%96stmetron.svg Seems that the image table entries disappear for some reason. Platonides (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The file description page has been deleted as the user has uploaded another version of the file under a new name. Can this "zombie file" that no longer has an associated file description page be deleted? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been told by the good people at Bugzilla that an administrator can link http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/YOGArtisticGymnastics-BishanSportsHall-Singapore-20100816-02.jpg and File:YOGArtisticGymnastics-BishanSportsHall-Singapore-20100816-02.jpg back together again. Could someone oblige? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A commons admin can't . It has to be a server admin. I have opened Bugzilla:25065 for that. Platonides (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

wikiviewer

I made a DEMO WIKIVIEWER with all images of the demo-category full-screen; as it is done manually, i had to save the content, but it should be made a temporary display, to be generated by a toolbox-item, which makes it also return to normal when leaving the category page. I like to have this, not for maintainance purposes, but especially as a visitors-friendly gadget, which permits to not have to click for each individual image to show full-screen. Is the community interested and if yes, who is willing to programm such a toolbox-gadget? --Havang(nl) (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't really see myself using such a tool, but you could try asking DieBuche as he seems to be quite good with programming. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2

Tagging for problematic sources

Do we have a problem tag for files that do have sources but the sources are either not working or problematic? Several of Corpx's uploads cite the forum Shaggybevo and Flickr as a source, however it seems the forum can't be searched unless one is registered, making it difficult to verify the images and copyright status (linked topics also don't display), and the Flickr sources don't point to the images in question. E.g.,

• File:Longhorn snuggie shaggybevo.jpg
• File:Reesing warmups shaggybevo.jpg
• File:150x-34585-3.2.7 Hall tn.jpg - seems to be an invalid source

BrokenSphere (Talk) 16:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a common problem. Major websites disappearing or moving to new locations, people pulling images from webpages with temporary links ( I have seen links which seem to be defined by as record number ...), images from discussion forums, etc. There is not much we can do about it. We can tag it, by a template, but I am not sure if there is any action we should perform to correct it. --Jarekt (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Sadly, the first two cases are "no permission", mails should be sent to OTRS, photos on flickr are CC-BY-ND licensed. Third thing... I think DR would be appropriate. If some photo was found on a government website, it doesn't mean much. The very same Marines.com hosts the famous photograph "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima" without any credit of Joe Rosenthal, for example. Trycatch (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the permission is stated as "granted to upload here under CC 2.0 license through correspondence through site PM," hardly a credible means of verifying the author's license. These 2 have been tagged. The 3rd I tagged as a speedy since it looks like an NFL photo. BrokenSphere (Talk) 18:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If you see images from an external source, {{LicenseReview}} is your friend. This way we know someone trusted reviewed it (just like {{Flickrreview}}). Multichill (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

How would I flag images that could use this review to the right attention? BrokenSphere (Talk) 22:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If it is not from Flickr etc. you can just add {{Flickrreview}} and then someone should have a look at it. --MGA73 (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Make that {{LicenseReview}}. :) Rocket000 (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through and tagged several more images that were sourced from the forum and state that the permissions were granted by the authors via PMs and chat messages. However it looks like this issue affects many more of the uploads. Does this require admin review of all this user's uploads? BrokenSphere (Talk) 23:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Admins or license reviewers. If an image has a source but the source doesn't indicate that it's freely licensed or has contradicting terms, you can mark it as missing permission. There's a gadget you can turn on in your preferences called "Quick Delete" which will make this really easy to do. If you come across a user that has many questionable uploads (like 10 or more), you can make a mass deletion request instead. Rocket000 (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

MDR here. BrokenSphere (Talk) 04:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

September 4

Potd overview pages

I made a comment above at #Special:WantedTemplates but I guess that thread's life cycle of attention is expired. So I start a new one.

We have several overview pages for our pictures of the day and media of the day (like Commons:Potd/2004-11 (de)). These pages contain a big number of links to non-existing descriptions and they thus mess up Special:WantedTemplates.

I suggest that we either unify the different language versions like Commons:Potd/2004-11 (de), Commons:Potd/2004-11 (fr), Commons:Potd/2004-11 (en) etc. into a single page Commons:Potd/2004-11 and use our common template localisation techniques to make them multilingual, or that we make the language-specific subversions monolingual (that means that Commons:Potd/2004-11 (fr) will only show the French translations but not the English, German, Afrikaans etc. pp. ones).

Opinions, objections, other proposals? --Slomox (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Instead of having a separate description template for every language and every day (e.g. Template:Potd/2010-02-21 (en), Template:Potd/2009-11-02 (it)) why not just have one for each day with a langswitch or something? Then we could easily have multilingual month pages like Commons:Potd/2004-11. The whole thing can be drastically simplified. I'm ready to do some work on this. Rocket000 (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

To get an overview of available translations for one month, one page that displays them all at once is quite useful, e.g. (the current version of) Template:Potd/2010-08.

If there are additional pages for various languages, e.g. Template:Potd/2010-08 (zh-hans), maybe they needn't include translations. BTW, there is currently no Template:Potd/2010-08 (en)

There is some advantage of having a summary of MOTD/POTD for one month (even if I don't use it), but I'm not sure this needs to be combined with the page for translators.

The way languages are displayed on the file description pages, e.g. at File:Saint-Maimbœuf_church.jpg#Assessment, is - IMHO - quite useful.  Docu  at 06:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC), revised 07:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In that case, we can use something like {{Mld}}, so we can display all languages if we want. For translators, I agree it's useful to see them all at once, but we don't need separate month pages for each language. For the things that are different, like the calendar at the top and captions on the images, we can use {{LangSwitch}}. Actually, I don't think the captions are even necessary since all the descriptions are right next to it. Maybe we should just create a header template that changes based on the interface language, and the rest would be the same in any language. Rocket000 (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to add some clarification. Pages like Commons:Potd/2004-11 (de) add to the problem, but the main troublemaker is Commons:Picture of the day for the overview over current POTDs/MOTDs (and its corresponding pages like Commons:Bild des Tages).

I was thinking about the most unobtrusive solution to the problem but I cannot come up with a good solution. The easiest solution I can think of is to change Template:Potd and Motd/Languages and change it so if the parameter "lang" is fixed it will display only this one language instead of all of them. That should immediately change almost all of the pages. But I'm not sure to what degree people want to have the full lists. The full lists could easily be replaced by e.g. a Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Potd/2010-09-07 link. --Slomox (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I changed it now. We'll see how long my edit lasts. If I have luck nobody ever cared about the full lists and the next update of Special:WantedTemplates could be useful again. If I have no luck, I have to look for another solution. --Slomox (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool, let's hope it stays that way. Rocket000 (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Special:WantedTemplates works again! Have a look and fix! --Slomox (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Good work. Still a couple of POTD and MOTD, but, for once, quite a few others!  Docu  at 11:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Greenways

Hello. Category:Voie Verte has been created, maybe too quickly. I tried to clean it, by moving photos in the more specific subcategory Category:Rail trails in France whenever possible (former railway lines). The correct name of "Voie Verte" should be "Greenways in France", I think, but the Category:Greenways doesn't exist yet, strangely. This also supposes that all bikeways (on former railway lines) are greenways (I may be wrong)... Jack ma (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess that most (touristic) trails for bikes, horses, walking are some sort of greenways or "Voie Verte". Difficult to split up overlapping meanings. --Foroa (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, "Greenway" (or "Voie Verte") is a fashionable expression. I mean, in France, you have some pure recent bikeways (former railway lines) that are difficult to share with pedestrians. But they are abusively called "Voie verte". Real greenways are only in cities (sharable space between bikes and perdestrians). But aa you say, maybe difficult to split up. What about renaming "Voie Verte" to "Greenways" ? (Commons category naming conventions). Jack ma (talk) 06:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Why "Police autmobiles in"?

My question is simple: Why do the subcategories of Category:Police automobiles by country use the "Police automobiles in country X" naming format? Pretty much all subcategories of categories like this use the "Thing Y of country X". Examples of this include among many others categories like Category:Fire engines by country and even Category:Police vehicles by country.

I propose that the subcategories of Category:Police automobiles by country all have their names changed to "Police automobiles of country X" format.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are plenty of categories that use "XYZ in country A" rather than "XYZ of country A". I don't think we've agreed on any standard yet. In makes more sense in some contexts (such as police automobiles, perhaps), but of (or from) seems more appropriate in others (people, for instance). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The way I understand it "Police automobiles of country X" means all police automobiles manufactured by that country (or at least vehicles upon which they are based) as well as police automobiles used by the police force of said country while "Police automobiles in country X" means all police automobiles photographed within the borders of that country regardless where they were manufactured or what police force operates them. Because of this I think that "Police automobiles of country X" is a much better naming format considering for what these categories are used for. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking the opposite -- that most people would be looking to see what police vehicles look like while in use in (say) France, rather than what police vehicles made in France (and possibly shipped elsewhere) look like. Powers (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to complicate things several areas have multiple police forces. It would be more sensible for the vehicles to be broken down by force/department. Dor instance in Liverpool you can find British Transport Police Port of Liverpool Police w:Mersey Tunnel Police and occsional w:MOD Police.--JIrate (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that regardless of the in/of discussion, it should be harmonised in its family, so "Police automobiles of xxx". Anyway, most (if not all) police vehicles are customised/painted in the local country, so in and of are both correct. We cannot differentiate where the vehicles are customised, assembled, designed, commercialised, receives its main parts from (chassis, engine), ... Many police vehicles point to a specific basic car model, which on its turn points to the manufacturer and some (vague) country of origin. --Foroa (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Foroa that as far as possible there should be consistency within a particular parent category. In addition, given the vagueness of terms like from, in and of, editors should try and be clear as possible when they name categories, and add usage notes where necessary. For example, SuperTank17's example "Police automobiles of country X" would not have naturally suggested to me that the category was for automobiles manufactured in country X. It would be better to name the category "Police automobiles manufactured in country X", which is completely unambiguous. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Scrolling Panorama

Is there a template or a way to create a scrolling panorama out of a wide jpg? LoreMariano (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lore, the English Wikipedia uses Wide image for this, is that what you have in mind?--Eloquence (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Great! Yes, this is what I was looking for. Thanks much. 68.46.20.249 00:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

September 5

Common problems with CommonsHelper moves

I've noticed that a common problem with files moved from the English Wikipedia to Commons is, the Information template gets filled out with useless information from the transfer. For an example, compare this original Wikipedia file File:Earheart 1928 to this newly-created Commons file.

Many times, when I try to fix one of these, I find the original Wikipedia file has already been deleted, leaving a very-unhelpful file description at Commons.

It seems that the transfer bot needs rethinking. At the very least, it should be modified so as not to fill the Info template with nonsense. And a stronger warning NOT TO DELETE the original file, without carefully checking the Commons daughter-file, might also help. TIA, PDTillman (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the file description page here is at least missing a "1=". You might want to ask Magnus to add that.

I'm not entirely happy with the entire process either, but we haven't really come up with a better solution yet. -  Docu  at 05:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

adding "}}" helps. As it stands, CommonsHelper can only be used to "assist" a transfer. The editor needs to review content. It remains useful. Finavon (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If you find deletions on en.wp that are not appropriate, do try to point them out to the deleting administrator. If you don't point out errors that people make, they cannot learn. And there are usually a few enwp admins online on IRC chat if you need something from a page. TheDJ (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, explain to the editor who carried out the transfer that he or she needs to ensure that the transferred image needs to be properly described and categorized. I've come across cases where editors appear to have transferred masses of files but have not bothered to tidy up the descriptions or categories. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Why the bot can't just transfer full verbatim description from wiki? (and hide it in collapsible block) This information generally is very important. It's not normal that you need to search an admin from source wiki for such trivial actions. Trycatch (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, CommonsHelper usually does. It could be that now and then a character that it doesn't expect gives it indigestion. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I added the "1=".  Docu  at 19:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, for example, here essential information from the original wasn't transferred. Trycatch (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Зображення might be confusing the bot.  Docu  at 20:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

#1 issue with CommonsHelper: |Author = Original uploader was...

Sorry, those aren't the same thing, bot. For licenses that require attribution, nming the uploader doesn't fulfill this (even if they are the same person, you still aren't given them the required credit if you only refer to them as the uploader). Rocket000 (talk)

Actually, Docu, is the "1=" in {{En}} really necessary? I have not been using it and it doesn't cause any problems. In wikitext generally, parameters like "1=" can be omitted as it just means the first value in the template (i.e., "{{en|1=XYZ|2=ABC}}" is identical to "{{en|XYZ|ABC}}").

Rocket000, when transferring files from the English Wikipedia to the Commons, I usually check who the author of the image is, and if it is the same as the uploader I remove the words Original uploader was. I guess this just re-emphasizes the point that the editor effecting the transfer must make sure that the Commons {{Information}} template is properly filled in. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Give it a try.  Docu  at 16:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The "1=" format is only equivalent if the template parameter doesn't contain an equals sign. {{en|1=2+2=4}} and {{en|2+2=4}} don't do the same thing. --Carnildo (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to prevent unnecessary aggravation

Some copyright radicals are tagging loads and loads of files with "problem tags", see the giant category:Unknown. I am browsing those categories, and removing tags where I cannot see any problem. For example in File:RT-2 possible launch facility configuration.PNG there was no problem at all. But then I get warned with the aggravating {{Dont remove nsd or nld}} template. That template should be deleted. There are far too many of such tags being applied, it is harassing newbies, and if they remove the tag, it should be up to the tagger to make a regular deletion request. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support. In short, second person gets the work. Template should be deleted.ZooFari 16:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

 Comment We already had a deletion discussion on this tag, stop forum shopping, Pieter. Additionally if you want to remove a problem tag you should either resolve the problem or care about it - delreq, information to tagger, different tag, offer help to the uploader, ask for help yourself, etc - dont just brush it under the carpet with removing tags. --Martin H. (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support it would be nice to notify the tagger, but if there's no reason you can see for the tag--not merely disagree with it, but inexplicable--you can't forced to leave it or take to a meaningless DR. If someone tags File:08L 2010 5day.gif with no source, despite it being clearly linked on the page, the resolution of the problem is to remove the tag.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Dont remove nsd or nld. 2 people voted delete with good reasons, one person voted keep it because translated messages are better than hand-written ones, and one voted keep because it's "helpful" but didn't provide reasons why it's helpful (maybe because it's not silly and it makes it easy to do this?). I would say no consensus. COM:DR isn't usually the best place to discuss the use of templates, so coming here to discuss is okay, I think. Anyway, I agree with Kuiper. The only good reason for using this is if the information really isn't there at all (unarguable), but it doesn't seem like it's used that way. Rocket000 (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Then this is not a proposal to remove the template but a proposal to use it more wisely. E.g. a {{Nld}} should not be simply removed if still no license tag is added. A {{Nsd}} should not be removed without an replacement if the source is not given or does not allow to verify the copyright status. The removal of this notification templates will not change this common sence perception but it will only make it more difficult for non-english speakers to inform the person who removed the tag unexplained or as an act of problem evasion. If Pieter has a problem that the tag is used to inform him he might either ignore it, argue why he properly removed something - or he might reconsider why always after he block he run riot in an act of 'ignore all rules and asume that anything from the internet is free unless someone has proven that it is not'. Thats my impression what he is doing sometimes. But he should not carry the problems someone has with him to a problem that he has with the user notification tag placed on his talkpage. Thats simply stupid, the tag is valid in some context and the removal of the tag will not be an improvement. --Martin H. (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Martin H. is just never satisfied with {{PD-anon-70}}. Not even for File:Guynemer dans son avion.jpg where uploader indicates that the source is glass negatives in his own possession. So what is the best course of action when someone removes the tag, because he finds that the source information is suuficient justification for the copyright tag? Martin H. just puts the tag back again and again, and refuses to take this to a DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I hear this comment "Martin H. is just never satisfied" quite often from you. To correct you: It’s not my personal interest or my personal satisfaction or so, you may change your standard comment to "Martin H. will not lose his objectivity, he is judging only by the provided facts and not by fantasy". I’m also not the owner of copyright of the Picasso in my living room although its an original Picasso, not. The lucky man who bought the Ansel Adam glass plates is not the copyright holder. Physical possession is meaningless to determine the copyright status, just saying "I own the original plates" does not say anything about the intellectual property rights. --Martin H. (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If the owner of the negatives of File:Guynemer dans son avion.jpg does not know who the photographer, I am satisfied that nobody does. (They would be worth more money if the provenance were known.) But you will never be satisfied by {{PD-anon-70}}. Your own standards go beyond the law, and beyond what is accepted on commons. You should recalibrate your standards to the consensus here, and bring such contested cases to a regular deletion discussion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You are a victim of your own fantasy, where did the uploader say that he not know the photographer or that noone knows him? Pieter, this project is not about guessing or playing with information. --Martin H. (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit there needs to be some line drawn. I can't really prove that I took any of the photos I've uploaded. I have negatives from European trips in the 1990s - I really can't prove I own those. It seems a little paranoid to go so far. Wknight94 ^talk 18:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support Teofilo (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when is this a forum for deletion requests? Powers (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It is about what taggers should do when their tags are contested. Seeking wider input by opening a regular DR is more constructive than stubbornly starting revert wars. I really do not understand the resistance against it. Edits like this one are trying to change the rules on the sly. It seems that the Village Pump is an appropriate place to discuss this openly. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've always considered the proper etiquette with using tags like these is: user A adds the template, user B disagrees and removes the template with a justification in the edit summary (or agrees and deletes the image, if s/he is an administrator), user A either accepts the justification or creates a deletion nomination for further discussion. You never revert the removal of the tag. Simple as that. —Quibik (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is my view as well. ZooFari 22:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Same here. There is really no other recourse for someone who disagrees with a no-source/no-license/no-permission tag. Wknight94 ^talk 22:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

 Comment The real problem seems to be that some of us are really a bit overcautious concerning copyrights. Even if it is obviously very difficult to prove who took the photograph as Wknight94 pointed out and even when the pictures are without much doubt old enough they tag them and make them someway unusable. A little bit more of "assume good faith" could be helpful. --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Lag time in file availability?

I created a picture file named: File:Ellen Reiss I also created a second file, because the first one was not linking to my article, called: File:EllenReiss (thinking the space had something to do with it not working). Neither file shows in a search, but if you try to create a file with that name, it will prompt you with a duplicate warning.

I created another file, last night, using the same licensing, called: File:Congressional Auditorium which works fine.

I would appreciate any help someone can give me as to why the File:EllenReiss isn't working. Is there sometimes a lag in indexing?

Thanks. LoreMariano (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide links to the images you tried to upload? You can type them like this: "[[:File:Ellen Reiss.jpg]]". Without the actual filenames, it is very hard to try and figure out what went wrong. Your contribution history doesn't show that you uploaded any files called "Congressional Auditorium", "EllenReiss" or "Ellen Reiss". Did you upload them here (at the Commons), or some other Wikipedia project? Also, what is the name of the article you were working on, and which Wikipedia project is it at? Again, I cannot find any English Wikipedia article called "Ellen Reiss". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I am making quite a few corrections on an article, and have it posted on a test page: [[2]] You'll see the Congressional Auditorium picture at the very bottom of the article; and you'll see the placeholder for the picture of Ellen Reiss. I used this link to create the picture files: [[3]] and named the uploaded files: EllenReiss.jpg and Ellen Reiss.jpg. LoreMariano (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Just realized the Congressional Auditorium picture has the date on it.

[[4]] LoreMariano (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the file is not found:

File:CongressionalAuditorium_10-21-2009.jpg LoreMariano (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well you uploaded them locally on the English Wikipedia, so of course they're nowhere to be found on Commons. The correct links would be en:File:EllenReiss.JPG, en:File:Ellen Reiss.JPG (notice the capital letters for the extension) and en:File:CongressionalAuditorium 10-21-2009.jpg. If you use the correct filename in your article (i.e. [[File:EllenReiss.JPG|thumb|left]], with capital letters), then it should work just fine. –Tryphon^☂ 07:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

LoreMariano, it looks like you were not the person who actually took the photographs of Ellen Reis and the performance in the Congressional Auditorium. Are you able to contact those persons by e-mail and get them to confirm by e-mail that they are the copyright holders of the photographs and are willing to license the images to the Commons under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence? If so, the e-mails can be submitted to OTRS for confirmation, and we can transfer the images to the Commons. (Also, since "File:EllenReiss.JPG" and "File:Ellen Reiss.JPG" are duplicates, I have nominated EllenReiss.JPG for deletion.) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, if the extension is typed in lower case, the File macro looks to Commons and if it's typed in uppercase, Wikipedia? Can you tell me why it's better to upload to Commons over Wikipedia? (Obviously, I didn't know I was doing that. Retracing my steps, I now see that that the "simple form" link I clicked on was to the Wikipedia form.)

Thank you for tagging the duplicate for deletion. You are correct in describing the fact that I uploaded the 2 pictures taken by different authors. Thank you for the OTRS information. Is it okay to license under CC-BY (use with attribution)? I just sent the authors emails with that information (instead of using CC-BY-SA). I hope that's okay.

Thank you both so much. LoreMariano (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not the way the extension is typed that makes the difference whether the file is loaded from the English Wikipedia or the Commons. The software is designed to look for a file first at the local Wikipedia project (say the English Wikipedia) where the article is located. If it finds a local file, it will display that file. If it does not find a file by that name at the English Wikipedia, then it will look for a file at the Commons and display it if it finds one. Filenames are case sensitive, including the file extensions. If you have uploaded "File:Ellen Reiss.jpg" at the English Wikipedia and another file "File:Ellen Reiss.JPG" at the Commons, and refer to "File:Ellen Reiss.JPG" in your English Wikipedia article, the Commons image will be displayed, because ".JPG" is not the same as ".jpg".

If an image is uploaded to the Commons, then any Wikipedia project can make use of it. If it is uploaded only to, say, the English Wikipedia project, then someone from the Portuguese Wikipedia cannot refer to that image. She would have to download a copy to her hard disk and upload it to the Portuguese Wikipedia. That's why we encourage freely licensed images to be transferred to the Commons. Yes, CC-BY-3.0 is fine. If you need help obtaining OTRS confirmation or transferring the images to the Commons once authorization from the copyright holders comes through, just post another message here. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The thing about the upper/lower case has nothing to do with where you uploaded the file. It's just that the system is case-sensitive, so if at upload time you used capital letters, you need to use the same capitalization when you use the file (unlike on a Windows system, where filenames are case-insensitive and filename.jpg refers to the same file as filename.JPG). –Tryphon^☂ 12:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, now I understand it. Thank you for the explanations. I hadn't thought about sharing with other projects, but you never know! The two people--Amy Dienes and Donita Ellison--sent their permissions to OTRS. Once the new files are made, will you swap out the old Wikipedia pictures with the new Commons pictures? LoreMariano (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you forward the e-mails to permissions-enwikimedia.org or permissions-commonswikimedia.org? If you didn't send them to the latter e-mail, I suggest that you do so. I've transferred the images for you to the Commons and tagged them with {{OTRS pending}}, so please mention in your e-mail that the images are in the Commons as "File:Ellen Reiss - 20050815.jpg" and "File:The People of Clarendon County at The Congressional Auditorium, US Capitol Visitor Center - 20091021.jpg". In future, you can transfer the files from the English Wikipedia to the Commons yourself using CommonsHelper. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Great. The permissions were sent to Commons and the addendum note from each person (stating the filename) will be sent shortly. Again, many thanks. (PS Thx for CommonsHelper too.) LoreMariano (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am amazed that the filenames take commas and spaces. Good to know. Thank you again for all your work in helping me get it into shape. LoreMariano (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Spaces are always equivalent to underscores in file names. AnonMoos (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone help me out with editing the description of the file: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_People_of_Clarendon_County_at_The_Congressional_Auditorium,_US_Capitol_Visitor_Center_-_20091021.jpg

The description should read: "The People of Clarendon County"—A Play by Ossie Davis, & the Answer to Racism, presented at the Congressional Auditorium, US Capitol Visitor Center on October 21, 2009 with Lee Central HS Chorus and the Thelma Slater Singers of Bishopville, South Carolina.

This is an important correction as the current description sounds like the photo is of the play only. I tried to use commonshelper but did not know what TUSC login/password was. Apologize for asking. If someone tells me how to edit, I can do it myself. Thanks. LoreMariano (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see now that it's editable in much the same way any wiki page is editable, by section. I was looking for a link to replace the version, which is unnecessary. Thanks everyone for your help. LoreMariano (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

File uploaded with unintended format

I choose the wrong file and uploaded a file .TIF instead of a normal .JPG. (File:Harkeberga kyrka M03.tif). I see that .TIF also is accepted, but I would like to have all in .JPG. Shall I do something about it? (i.e. beg for deletion and upload a new jpg-version?) --Xauxa (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, just tag your TIFF file with {{Speedydelete|1=Accidentally uploaded TIF file instead of correct JPG file.}}, then upload the correct JPG. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, I will do that. --Xauxa (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

My deletion request was not accepted. Well, it does not matter too much;-) --Xauxa (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

September 6

Files without templates

If anyone's looking for some work, here's a list of file pages that don't have a single template. No license tag or anything. All the ones I checked had info removed or sections blanked after upload. Rocket000 (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Or google translation was used resulting in (( this )) or { { this } }. --Martin H. (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I wondered why that was happening. It's kinda weird that Google translates even the stuff in textboxes and changes brackets into parentheses. I'll try an do a bot run to fix what I can. If it's just changing (()) back to {{}} it shouldn't be problem. Thanks for helping. Rocket000 (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Regretably also the {{Information is now (( Información and the |source= is now |fuente= and so on, in various languages. Dont know if this is so easy to fix with a bot. --Martin H. (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, I can't do much by bot. However, there wasn't that many. I searched for "((" and fixed the ones I found. Rocket000 (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Very nice, thank you! --Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 09:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that list is very useful. I randomly chose File:Orna002-Bandmotive.png and noticed it belongs to a set of many scans from the same book in Category:Meyer's Ornament. Those pages used to have the {{PD-Ornament1898}} template but over the years actions of well-meaning bots and editors have resulted in quite a few without the template. Could someone change that template so that it becomes useful again? -84user (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Files 151 to 239 are scanned from the Meyers Blitz-Lexikon, and used to have {{LA2-Blitz}} which has since been removed. These images appear to be in some kind of copyright limbo. Should we re-add {{LA2-Blitz}}? -84user (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Why was the copyright tag removed? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There was no edit summary to explain the removal, maybe the editor was confused by the auto-categorising behaviour of the template? I have been slowly re-adding them inside {{Information}} templates. -84user (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

84user, if the license template has been deprecated as invalid in the U.S., perhaps the associated files need to be deleted rather than the template simply readded? — Huntster (t @ c) 16:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

moving featured pictures templates below license

I'm sorry if the subject has already been discussed before, but would there be any objection against a bot moving "featured pictures" and "picture of the day" templates below license templates. It is a bit irritating to click on an image in Wikipedia and to see first thing "we think this image is great". To people not too familiar with Commons, it looks a bit self-satisfied, and if they don't scroll down, they won't even notice that there are real infos below that. To me, featured picture templates should be placed below license (with an appropriate header) rather than just below the infobox. Otherwise the license template can be quite far down in the page, especially for images featured in several wikipedias. That's not very convenient, especially when we have "permission: see below" and what is just below is "this is a featured picture".--Zolo (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Not because of the self-congratulatory impression but because of importance. The licensing is important and should not be outshined by assessments. For assesment templates I sometime see files with the order ==Summary=={{Information}}, ==Licensing=={{copyright tag}}, ==Assessments=={{Featured picture}}. I personally prefer this. --Martin H. (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree to. Geagea (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems the best order to me too. Does anyhing like a {{int:assessment}} exist, or can it be created ?--Zolo (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

People tend to place assessment tags above all other descriptions. This tends to obscure the description and there isn't really any "see below" link for that.

As assessed images shouldn't have any licensing problems, I think we can easily place the licensing tags last. In general they are clearly referenced with "see below". --  Docu  at 05:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much that they could have licensing problems. But featured pictures would also tend to be reused more, and re-users already have enough trouble complying with the license terms as it is. So burying the license is certainly not a good idea. –Tryphon^☂ 07:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I like Martin H.'s proposal. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Added this note on template page (diff). Teofilo (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want to add that the tag should be in a separate "Assessment" section, as suggested by Martin H. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it could be considered that licensing is nitty-gritty technical "maintenance" information, while valued/featured/quality whatever status is more about the meaningful content of the image... AnonMoos (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. Maintenance information is something that is only useful for Commons' organisation, but is not relevant at all to re-users. The valued/featured/quality status is more about having galleries or categories to help people find the best images more easily, but once you're on the image page, you shouldn't really need a template to tell you that it's a good picture; you should be able to plainly see it! The license however, it's information that should follow the image everywhere (not just on Commons, so not "maintenance" at all), and you cannot get it by just looking at the picture. –Tryphon^☂ 09:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact, perhaps we should adopt the practice used at the English Wikipedia, which is to put all article assessment material on the talk page, and only have a small icon indicating the assessment status of the file at the top right hand corner of the file description page. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Heck, sometimes I think it'd be nice to have the license at the top, above the summary and maybe even above the image itself. =) Powers (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is a nice little parameter in the information template called "permission". That's where the license should go. If that would be done consequently we would need no ugly "==information==" and "==License==" headings and we could easily verify whether a file has license information (parameter "permission" set, yes/no). --Slomox (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Putting the license inside the description box should solve this problem, especially since there are other templates used on image pages that could also push it down. The description box is almost always on top. The license would capture more attention, and it won't get buried in the clutter at the bottom of the page. -- Orionist ★ talk 20:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see the advantage of that. Where do the assessment tags go, then? Below {{Information}} in an "Assessment" section? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's probably more convenient to have the license inside the permission field, but I must say that I find having big license tags inside infoboxes even more ugly than the "==information==" and "==License==" headers. IMHO if license tags should are to be put inside the main infobox, they should also look much simpler (that is: just a plain text of a few lines). It would make them a bit less visible, but putting them in the infobox should be enough to make them impossible to ignore (at the very least they would still be more conspicuously displayed than in any other website I know of)--Zolo (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Bug 13802 - Add magic word to specify thumbnail width in category

From Bugzilla:13802: "There should be a __PANORAMA__ (or __LANDSCAPE__, whatever) magic word specifying that a category contains very wide images. This would then allow MediaWiki to optimize display. Instead of say 6 images per line with thumbnail dimensions "120 x 35", it would have one thumbnail per line, perhaps "800 x 235"."

Just wondering what you think of it? It would allow specific different thumbnail sizes for categories such as Category:Panoramics. --  Docu  at 17:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Having more control over the display of thumbnails in category pages would of course be helpful. Powers (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the amount of feedback here, it doesn't seem to interest most users. I guess we should forget about it then.  Docu  at 08:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

September 8

Clubs and societies

I'm not sure how Category:Clubs and societies, Category:Clubs and Category:Societies should relate - I'd be inclined either to get rid of the first or to keep it and make the latter two into subcategories - but right now there is a circular mess. Does anyone else want to weigh in on how best to sort this out before I make changes? - Jmabel ! talk 04:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I share your concerns. To me, a club is a more narrow form of a society, which is used more in the context of a (people) association, not a real society which can be anything from a small company to a population of a continent. Maybe associations is a better word. Don't know but "Clubs and societies " sounds wrong to me.--Foroa (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

where is Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/09?

Pls see Special:Contributions/DRBot. regards. --JuTa (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears these monthly pages are not automatically created. At least the one for August wasn't. I've now manually created the remaining ones for this year. Lupo 14:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

360° panoramic viewer does not work

I came across File:Finally 360.jpg and added the template {{Pano360}}. Trying the result, I did not get any image; the screen remained blanc. Trying on an other image of which I knew it had worked, the same result. What can be the reason? I work with Firefox 3.6.8. Wouter (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm using 3.6.8 as well and it works fine. Neither low res nor high res pano works at all for you? You don't even see the loading screen? — Huntster (t @ c) 17:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I see the loading screen with the words "full resolution - This image on commons, Other panoramics", but further loading of the pano360 image does not happen. Changing from full to reduced resolution does not help. Wouter (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Try re-installing Java. That is what runs the 360 tool. The page also mentions that you might need to increase the Java heap space, but I have no idea how to do that in Firefox. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried with Safari and there it worked for the reduced version (not the full version). It appeared that in Firefox Java Embedding Plugin 0.9.7.2 MRJ Plugin version 1.0-JEP-0.9.7.2 was not made active. Changing that gave the same result as with Safari. Wouter (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That matches with what I see. I couldn't get the full resolution to work since I'm not sure how to increase the Java heap space. If that is increased, the full res should work as well. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Logo (programming language)

I'm not sure why this category accretes so many logos that have nothing to do with the programming language. I've kind of manually semi-cleaned-out the category once or twice before, but I don't feel like doing so again now... AnonMoos (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the reason most likely is, that if you use the category selector on the upload form and type in "logo" the first entry ("Logo") is highlighted in blue and nothing happens if you click it. If nothing happens people assume that the highlighted entry is not part of the selection menu and they try the next entry in the list which is "Logo (programming language)". --Slomox (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

September 9

Attree

My husband and I went to Lynmouth for a holiday this year and we walked through the gorge and embedded in the wall was a pipe with the name ATTREE which is our name. We are most interested to find out what this pipe does and why has the name attree been initialled in the pipework. Can anyone help. I am also doing our family history.

Brenda Attree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.99.158 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Brenda. This is not the right place for your inquiry. I suggest you leave a message at "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletions templates / use as a social networking site

I can't find any sort of tags for a user appears to be using Commons as a social networking site. I listed the image at a delition request but is there any reason File:PIC 0152.JPG, User talk:Leicamvb and User:Leicamvb can't be speedied? Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It can't be speedied, because process demands we don't speedy things that are merely out of scope. We tolerate free personal pictures, provided they're in use on user or talk pages, and I don't see the information on the User page as unreasonable. If someone is really concerned about the talk page or the information on the image page, it can be edited without deletion of the whole thing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I just want to be clear - unlike Wikipedia, which is very clear in its "not a social network" and use of personal information, Wikimedia allows use as a social network and for distribution of personal (unverified) information? I admit my real scope is images, but when I see an image that has a summary of emails and phone numbers and a user page that has more of the same it appears more like a dating site than an image distributors website. Soundvisions1 (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I just cleared out the spam from those pages. They're basically never here anyway. Wknight94 ^talk 14:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If it seems like a dating site, then why are you saying it's a social network, which dating sites generally aren't? I don't see why it's unreasonable for a user page to identify the person up to including a phone number, if that's what they think is important. And I think that doing something because "they're basically never here anyway" is a way to be hostile to casual users.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And I think your tone is an overreaction. The user uploaded a single picture - of himself - and wrote his name and address in a few places. Leicamvb's characterization of the user as a spammer/social networker is definitely closer to reality than your label as a "casual user". Wknight94 ^talk 17:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) What I said was Wikipedia has a Policy that, in part, essentially states Wikipedia is not a social network like MySpace or Facebook. I wanted to be clear if Wikimedia Commons had the same policy or not. If you aren't familiar with Myspace or Facebook, briefly: it is not uncommon for users to post their emails and phone numbers and other information. Facebook and Myspace are considered "Social Networking" sites, but are also common "dating" sites. (And many dating sites are also social networking sites. Match.com and OkCupid for example) There used be common jokes/expressions such as "From Myspace to your place" and "From Myspace to your face" because it was used to pick up people - or a dating site of sorts. Even now with interaction with twitter you get status updates like "Need to get laid" or "Hit up my cell" from many users. While it is not unreasonable for a user to have a little information about themselves it is a bit out of place to have a user uploaded two image of themselves with the summary and description stating the subjects full name, email and cell number (That alone seems suspect to me), create a user page and user talk page with phone numbers, home address and email. Now combine that one uploaded photo having several search "tags" consisting of emails, phone numbers and the like it appeared like more of a social networking and/or dating attempt. Beyond that there was no way of knowing if the emails and phone numbers were the uploaders, so it is/was a privacy issue as well. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me ?

Hello, I have a new versions of this file but I can't upload it. Can you help me please ? Gruinc (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Click on the "Upload a new version of this file" link that appears towards the bottom of the image description page. (I've copied the link into in the preceding sentence, so you can also click on it there.) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply Gruinc (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Vintage calculators

I recently had to clean upp the clutter and I discovered File:Prinztronic 300IM.jpg. I placed it under the category calculators. However there seems to be no category "Vintage calculators" and there are lot of missing subcategorys. But before we create such a subcategory: what is vintage? (Trademarks no longer used or a cuttof date?)

I dont find any category Dixons and by the category displays I couldnt find a correct one. The "Vacuum fluorescent displays" is the closed one, but there also modern displays in that one.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And do we have categorys such as "Made in Taiwan"? If this is usefull?Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As you pointed out, I think categories with names like "Old" and "Vintage" are slightly problematic in that if the terms are not defined in a usage note, it becomes uncertain what sort of images should be categorized in them. Compare "Category:Old maps", where a decision was made to consider maps as "old" if they are more than 70 years old. Of course, for electronic equipment like calculators a shorter period would be appropriate. As for categorizing images of objects based on their place of origin, you could use a suitable subcategory of "Category:Objects by country". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You could start a category:Calculators with LED displays. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the categorys, but I find a lot of unclear definitions: Wat is the difference between calculators and computers? For me calculators are handheld devices that are only active with human interaction.(input) But I am no expert. Another unclear category is:Sinclair Research. What is the link with research? Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

From the English Wikipedia: "A calculator is a small (often pocket-sized), usually inexpensive electronic device used to perform the basic operations of arithmetic." On the other hand, computers perform many more functions than just arithmetic. Sinclair Research is the name of a British company that produced some of the early personal computers in the 1980s. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Image donation by Erling Mandelmann

Mr. Erling Mandelmann, a prolific professional photographer living in Switzerland, has very kindly released to Wikipedia all of his photographs published on his website http://www.erlingmandelmann.ch under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. Confirmation of this release is recorded at OTRS Ticket:2010090210007829.

These images include a great number of portraits of notable people, which can be found at http://www.erlingmandelmann.ch/portraits_all/liste.php. These photos are of low resolution, but are generally sufficient for purposes of illustration. Mr. Mandelmann has asked to be attributed as in the case of File:Jan Tschichold (1963) by Erling Mandelmann.jpg, that is, by indicating "photo©ErlingMandelmann.ch" as the source.

All are free to help upload and use these images, which should be tagged with Category:Photographs by Erling Mandelmann. Sandstein (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Great! Does this permission cover this photograph of Erling Mandelmann himself? Trycatch (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, I didn't even know that we had an article about Mr. Mandelmann himself. Yes, Mr. Mandelmann has agreed to "the use of all [his] images published at <http://www.erlingmandelmann.ch> under the terms of Wikipedia's license, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license", so that image is also covered. Sandstein (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• That's good news. BTW for the attribution to be done as requested, shouldn't we use the following (for the initial sample)?

{{Cc-by-sa-3.0|1=[http://www.erlingmandelmann.ch/portraits_all/viewer.php?sujet=Tschichold_Jan&nopage=12 photo©ErlingMandelmann.ch]}}

This in addition to the indication as source. You might want to make a request at Commons:Batch uploading.  Docu  at 11:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC), edited 12:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And it would be good to add also {{Credit line}} template. Trycatch (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've made the batch request, Commons:Batch uploading/Erling Mandelmann. Sandstein (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Maybe I am missing something but Sandstein said the the photographer has agreed to "the use of all [his] images published at http://www.erlingmandelmann.ch under the terms of Wikipedia's license, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license via an OTRS email, which is fine, but the copyright information at the website states that the images use is allowed only with written permission from the author.. In other words we need to 100% sure the photographer not only "very kindly released to Wikipedia" the images, but also to the world via the same free license. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. That's why wrote back twice to Mr. Mandelmann to make sure that he understands that by releasing his images under this license he releases them to the whole world to use commercially. That e-mail exchange is also in the OTRS record. Sandstein (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were the OTRS team member doing this, so yeah - my concerns have already been addressed. But we should still wait until the reply I feel. If someone uploads the entire website and on the off chance the reply is "no, I didn't mean that" we don't have to go through the deletion process on them all. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Mandelmann did write back to me indicating that he understands and agrees with the CC license and its extent. It might be useful, though, if another OTRS team member were to review the e-mail exchange to make sure that my understanding that we have the permission we need is correct. Sandstein (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you check if the attribution J-F and I just edited at File:Jan Tschichold (1963) by Erling Mandelmann.jpg matches the OTRS tag?  Docu  at 13:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I reviewed the OTRS ticket and confirm what Sandstein says : M. Mandelmann explicitly « agree[s] with the "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license" »

As Docu said, we updated File:Jan Tschichold (1963) by Erling Mandelmann.jpg to make use of {{Credit line}} and the attribution parameter of the CC template, as he and Trycatch suggested above.

I believe this is great news for Commons and that we can all congratulate Sandstein for how he dealt with this :-) Jean-Fred (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I drafted Commons:Erling Mandelmann. Feel free to improve. Jean-Fred (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that looks good! Thanks also for the improvements to the file descrition pages. Sandstein (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a question - My understanding is there was a ticket number for the first image but the rest came into the discussion later. Two permission email = two ticket numbers? Or are/will they (be) all under one? Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's just one ticket, Ticket:2010090210007829. --DieBuche (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

First 140 images uploaded, awaiting feedback at Commons:Batch uploading/Erling Mandelmann.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

How to re-upload images on wikipedia

The question say's it all really. When an image is on wikipedia, there is a change log or something like that. How do "I" re-upload images with better versions.

Thanks for all the help, John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Aplessed (talk • contribs) 23:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should ask – someone else just asked the same question. See "Can you help me ?" above. (By the way, don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes, like this "~~~~".) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wax museum sculptures in the US subject to US FOP guidelines?

How do we treat US wax museum sculptures? Are they considered sculptures that are subject to FOP? A DR was recently raised that poses this question, so I'm curious. BTW, this wasn't intended to draw attention to the DR, but is a general question. Thanks. BrokenSphere (Talk) 16:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no FOP that sculptures are subject to in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is. I've nominated numerous contemporary American statues for deletion on those grounds. BrokenSphere (Talk) 17:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're both saying the same thing - in different ways. Prosfilaes is saying there is no freedom of panorama for statues in the U.S., he's not saying there is no Commons policy about freedom of panorama for statues in the U.S. Wknight94 ^talk 17:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And just so folks know about it, there's another DR on the same issue at Commons:Deletion requests/Wax figures in the United States. And yes, I'm still waiting on hearing back from the Madame Tussards folks about getting clearances... Tabercil (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible JavaScript problems

In revision #72349, the scripts like wikibits.js and the like have been moved to the bottom. Since I know how much Commons relies on JavaScript, I was wondering if we could live like that or if that might break stuff, so we'd have to somehow rewrite it. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Uhm what? I'm not sure I fully understand teh implications. Among many other things wikibits.js defines addOnLoadHook, which is used by probably almost every script. The change is going to break them all? --Dschwen (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the concern that, since the .js files have been moved to the bottom, that stuff higher up might take precedence from them? I didn't think that js files had the same problems that css files did. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, all javascript will be run from the bottom of the page. So the load order will be the same as always. Only if you have an extension that is adding JS in an unconventional way before wikibits, there will be a problem I think. So for most people there shouldn't be a noticeable difference. TheDJ (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Resource Loader is still under development. My understanding is that most of the Javascript will be moved to the bottom (so that it doesn't slow down page loading). However, I believe there are a few components (such as global Javascript variables) that are likely to get moved back up to the head before the Resource Loader is deployed. As it stands in the current trunk code, a good many scripts on Commons would probably be broken, but there is work ongoing to make it more backwards compatible. Kaldari (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. --Dschwen (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

More info at [5]. Kaldari (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Marefa

Hi,

I am new in Commons, I mustly work in Wikipedia Arabic and I am not fluent with commons. There is a wiki Arabic online encyclopedia called Marefa. It uses the GNU licence even when we use material from it, the information is written in Arabic in there website [6] under the paragraph Uses of Marefa Material. My question is, can I upload in Commons media (pictures, videos) from that encyclopedia?

I give you 2 examples, here is a picture originally from Commons [7] but taken in Marefa and then modified (translation of brain parts names in Arabic) [8]. The other case is a picture probably from Marefa itself (So under GNU Free Documentation License). [9] --Helmoony (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If they use GNU license (I can not verify it) than the files are OK to transfer. --Jarekt (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thks, and what should I add in the upload page specially Licensing blank? --Helmoony (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If the image is a derivative of an image originally on Commons, the licensing of the original image would typically apply, so {{Cc-by-2.5}} for the brain example. Otherwise, they would be under {{GFDL}}. By the way, I don't see any licensing info or credit to the original artist (Patrick J. Lynch) for the brain image on Marefa. I don't read Arabic, however, so maybe I'm just overlooking it. Kaldari (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thks, its much more clear now! As it is written in the english article of Marefa (Knowledge in Arabic) in wikipedia (Marefa), they do not explicitly state that the content they use is under GPL (=GFDL ? is it the same thing). If we take the example of the brain. Normally they should cite Patrick J. Lynch for credits but they don't, for licensing info you can see below the page a little sentence underlined at the right it says in Arabic that « As stub, Marefa has used articles from allowed sites like Wikipedia and Kuwaiti Al-Arabi magazine content that are available under GNU Free Documentation License. See Marefa: about  » [10]. All the website uses the same method for media files. Can I make an upload and then tell me if it s done with the wright way? It will be much more simple to know how to manage the file.. --Helmoony (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it the wright way for that kind of uploaded files ? Plz take a look on the image [11], because I'll use the same method for other files. --Helmoony (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good except that the editor parameter in {{RetouchedPicture}} should just be a name, not a URL. Kaldari (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, now I think I can upload and respect commons licences. Thank you. --Helmoony (talk) 03:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

September 10

Upload a new version of this file

The link "Upload a new version of this file" which is displayed on every file page does work in misleading way which causes frequent improper overwriting of files. The upload form misses an accentuated warning that new file has to be uploaded under a new name and that an overwriting of a file by another one is inadmissible, excepting minor technical corrections of the original file. The form contains quite misleading entry (related to the upload of new files and not to the upload of a new version) and a misleading field "licensing" which is ignored when uploading. Could somebody urgently fix this lapse? --ŠJů (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually this is also an issue for users who think it is the link to make licensing and source changes. When a file is tagged with {{Nsd}} or {{Nld}}, many uploaders attempt to add them using the "Upload a new version of this file". I see it often when cleaning the backlogs. ZooFari 01:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"my computer"

If somebody searches for work: Apparently some users have used "my computer" as a source for their uploads (Special:Search/"source=my computer"; Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:my computer). This can either mean "own work" or "I created this screenshot/graphic with my computer" or "it was on my hard drive, I saved it from some random website" aka copyright violation. It needs some consideration which of the three is correct in each single case. So if somebody is bored, here's the job for you... --Slomox (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Time to change policy to allow more not quite free media files?

This DR Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face 2 makes me raise the topic here. If this has been raised recently: I’m sorry! Please leave a link. :-)

The goal of Commons is to host free media files for the world to use for educational purpose etc. Therefore:

"Wikimedia Commons accepts only free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. The use may be restricted by issues not related to copyright, though, see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, and the license may demand some special measures. There is also certain material the copyrights of which have expired in one country while still applying in another."

The DR mentioned discuss if images of coins are free enough to host/use on Commons. We do have permission to host/use the images but there are some limitations to the usage of the photos.

So the question is should we nuke the images of money (if there are limitations that make them fail our normal standard) or should we make an exception and keep them so that Wikipedia projects can show the money in the articles?

Personally I support that we delete files that are not truly free. So nuke all "nc" or "nd". I would even be willing to consider to delete GDFL-only if we have good replacements. So it is not than I think that we should allow all files on Commons. But I think that money is an important topic so I suggest that we make an exception from our policy and allow images of money even if they do not live up to our normal standards. --MGA73 (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Commons should be only free files. Too many reuses happen and I've seen lot's of incorrect reuses of our files to know that opening up to more exceptions than we currently allow would lead to more confusion in attributions, permitted usage, etc. If an individual project wants to makr more exceptions they can, but we should be totally free. If it means nuking a bunch of files, so be it. fr33kman -s- 17:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Authorised is reproduction in a format without relief (drawings, paintings, films) provided they are not detrimental to the image of the euro." appears to be a non-copyright restriction to me, not need to change one of our core values. Multichill (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite apart from that, which is the governmental body or international organization that owns the copyright to the design of the notes and coins? If the law applicable to that body does not say that the body's works are in the public domain, and the body has not freely licensed the designs to the Commons, then we can't have images of the currency here, quite apart from non-copyright restrictions on how such images should be used in other contexts (e.g., in advertisements). The same problem arises with Singapore currency – there are non-copyright restrictions on how images of currency may be used (see {{Singapore currency}}), but the main problem is that works of the Singapore government are not in the public domain (see the usage note at "Category:Coins of Singapore"). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It can be hard to tell in the case of a government owner, but a copyright restriction is simply one predicated on the power of copyright, and that one could well be so predicated. Not only that, that can be a nastily limited one, and could impact our usages. If, say, the trust in the Euro falls, they could demand that we remove images of the Euro from Wikinews articles depicting that fact. That's part of the reason for Free licenses, so you don't have to worry about clauses that censor the articles that the images can be part of.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

search plugin

I'm not sure if this has been done before, but I've just made a Commons search plugin for Firefox. Hopefully this is of use to someone. Cheers. sonia 22:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool, but there were some long before. ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

September 11

2 Persons with the same name

I have written some questions on talk:Categories but since the response there is slow I am trying here also. The question is about when there are two persons with the same name. Should those two corresponding categories for those persons be contained in a supercategory explaining that there are several persons with that name. I'm thinking of something similar to haw Wikipedia articles are made when there are several topics with the same name. With the example I'm thinking of there would be one category named "Joakim Berg" containing links to two categories "Joakim Berg (Kent)" and "Joakim Berg (Hardcore Superstar".

The other option would be to just have the two categories "Joakim Berg (Kent)" and "Joakim Berg (Hardcore Superstar" and no supercategory.

And I also need help renaming the current category "Joakim Berg" to "Joakim Berg (Kent)".

Regards Averater (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I responded there.  Docu  at 08:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Layout option "Place categories above content, but below image on file description pages."

At Special:Preferences, in the "Gadgets" tab, there is one to "Place categories above content, but below image on file description pages.". It's in the section "Tools for categories" of that page.

If you activate it, it will change the layout of Commons pages, by moving the category block just below the image of a file description pages (above the information template). For all other pages, the categories will appear at the beginning of pages.

Personally, it took me a week to get used to it, but I find it most useful.

What experience have you with that change? Did you try it? Do you use it regularly? --  Docu  at 08:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I settled for « Place categories above all other content » quite some time ago, and I could not live without it anymore. I find it most useful as well.

The only drawback is that the block is moved when the loading of the page is finished ; so it is often that I get impatient and go to the bottom... only to find out that the block was moved as I scrolled down. :-p

Jean-Fred (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning the option. Very useful in maintenance work because there is now no need to scroll down. Wouter (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Same expirience, Jean-Frédéric. Big categories and/or slow servers combined with impatience is a bad combination for that gadget. But it is so helpful to quickly categorize without scrolling the whole page. --Martin H. (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

September 12

clever bots and duplicate images

I'd like to call for others opinions on the danger of clever bots.

In the last year or so clever bots have uploaded thousands, or tens of thousands, of public domain images from US military sites. This is a good thing. There is one drawback. Those clever bots aren't effectively checking to see whether the images they are uploading are duplicates of existing images.

I notice these when images I uploaded get nominated for deletion, because they are duplicates. Below find an example. I suggest the older image has a better selection of categories. I suggest the longer an image is online the more refining will be applied to its categories.

The bot applied a {{ID-USMil}}.

The human-uploaded image is about 4 times larger. I don't know whether this implies it is a higher quality image, or whether it is merely less expertly compressed.

I suggest that when there are two images, one uploaded by a bot, all other things being equal, we should keep the older image. We should continue to encourage human volunteers to upload images, without their having to worry that their time will be wasted because an image uploaded by a stupid bot will supercede the image they uploaded.

If the images aren't equal -- as these are not -- I suggest we should cannibalize the positive elements missing from the image we plan to keep, present in the image we plan to delete, and add them to the image we plan to keep.

I wonder -- why can't the bot that uploads detect that it is about to upload a duplicate? Why can't the bot, in those cases, instead update the existing files description with MilID template, update the alternate version field with the other URL, and possibly add some categories?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

image	File:US Navy helicopter-borne firefighting bucket.jpg	File:US Navy 071023-N-3069F-021 Chief Aviation Electronics Technician Rexford Sackett, assigned to Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 85, kicks open a 420-gallon capacity bucket.jpg
uploader	me	User:BotMultichillT
date	2008-02-03	2009-10-23
dimensions	1,500 × 2,100 (2.44 MB)	1,500 × 2,100 pixels, (665 KB)
categories	Category:Helicopter buckets Category:Aerial firefighting in San Diego County, California Category:Helicopters fighting California wildfires of October 2007	Category:Helicopter buckets Category:Aviation Electronics Technician Category:Naval Base San Diego

•  Comment about this particular picture -- IMO image uploaded by bot is better (after careful comparison -- picture uploaded by you was additionally postprocessed and lacked details in dark areas), and has much better description. Trycatch (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • the image you uploaded is larger in size and has more detail. the bot versions seems to be auto-postprocessed. in this particular case keeping both - original and edit seems reasonable. given two images that differ in resolution but are exactly the same, the higher resolution version should be kept. this should be applied only for different resolutions, not for different edits. harvesting and transferring information such as cats, general information, etc. from the one version to another seems rational. --Peter Weis (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

We had similar issues with the Nasa images. I'll list my own criteria for what i did with these duplicates

1. Obviously, quality and originals over bad versions and derivates
2. When both are really duplicate, preserve the image that is most in use (usually the older upload), in order to avoid unnecessary disruption of other wikis. (Unless the old name was truly rubbish already)
3. Prefer bot upload

I always made sure not to loose old translations and combine the best of both image description pages (often tagging and description from one page, but categories from the older one). This last is a cumbersome work, but I think it's the most important part of deleting duplicates. That way, I've never seen a complaint.

For the NASA uploads, we ran a search for the ids and grouped all the new uploads for which we had a "potential" hit after search query into a separate category of "potential duplicates", allowing for easier weeding. TheDJ (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your first two points. I am glad to see agreement that the information about the image should not be lost.

But why do you prefer the bot upload? It is discouraging to us volunteers to see our efforts superceded by a stupid bot. Uploading this image probably took up ten minutes of my time. I've uploaded about 2,000 DoD images, and they probably each took ten minutes or more. Potentially a bot could come along and upload duplicates of most of these images. Do we want volunteers to become disenchanted because we prefer bot uploaded images to human uploaded images?

I asked this above, and will repeat this again because I think it is an important point. Why can't these upload bots detect when an image is a duplicate? Instead of uploading a duplicate why can't the bots instead update the existing images' descriptions with a {{ID-USMil}} template, and possibly other missing information. Human uploaders get a heads-up when we try to upload duplicates. When I get to that point in the upload I check the existing images' categories, and add any missing categories I think are in order. If the URL is different I add the additional URL. Should humans be second-class citizens here, with higher expectations than what we require of bots? Geo Swan (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Method to generate SVG customized by templates ?

Hello everybody ! I'm a regular contributor to the Graphic Lab and I've recently created a template for the Scouting project : Wikipedia:Template:Scout_kit. This template is inspired by the Wikipedia:Template:Football_kit.

How does my template work ? The idea is that the user can specify the colors of the different parts of the outfit by specifying them in a template, Scout kit. This one basically draws each part of the outfit, plus a colored background. The transparent areas of each part of the body is then filled with the color of the background, that is the one of the template. You can see the sandbox of the template to have an illustration. This method has unfortunately two drawbacks :

1. you need to split the model of your body into parts, that is to split your svg, because you can only indicate one color for each background color
2. each part of the body has to fit into a rectangle, and this rectangle cannot overlap.

My desire would be to be able to do the following procedure :

1. I upload one svg, containing some "variables", that is some predefined color names, say TROUSERS_COLOR.
2. The user specifies TROUSERS_COLOR in the template with a given color, say #00FF00 (green).
3. MediaWiki would then replace each reference of TROUSERS_COLOR with #00FF00.
4. Then it would regenerate the PNG version of the SVG, with the corresponding color.
5. The PNG version now contains the specified colors by the user.

Is there a way to do so ? I've given a look at the SVG translation tool, but it seems it makes a copy of the SVG and replace the text fields... I would prefer a dynamic method, that doesn't perform any copy of the SVG.

PS: sorry if my explanation wasn't that clear :)

Thanks a lot ! Arnaud Ramey (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Cézanne's original?

Could anyone knowledgeable enough on the subject please take a look at this discussion? That image has been there for so long that I find it hard to believe it's not an original, but I can't understand the differences to the other reproductions available on the internet. Capmo (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Art Netherlands and no FOP inside museums in the Netherlands

One of my deletion requests at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ghent Minne Fountain of Youth.jpg has been marked as "kept". Anyway, even if deleted it should have been undeleted on January 1st 2012, so this is not a big problem to keep it one more year.

What about other files like File:WLANL - 23dingenvoormusea - beekweggetje.jpg (painter died in 1957) ?

Supposing the statement on the template is true (validated by the respective museums and other copyright holders for licensing under Creative Commons BY and BY-SA licenses), don't we need the name of the copyright holder ?

The Creative Commons legal code requires to "keep intact all copyright notices" : doesn't that imply that we must write down the copyright holder's name ?

Don't we need an OTRS ticket with an "I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK" (COM:OTRS) statement ?

In the case of that painter who died in 1957, who is the copyright holder ? Is it his son ? his daughter ?

Do we accept "validations" made in a merely oral form, without keeping a written track of that "validation" in the OTRS ?

What is the best way to adress that problem ?

By the way, shouldn't each WLANL files bear a creator template ? (Creator templates are a great help to quickly access painters and sculptors' death years.)

Teofilo (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)