Commons:Village pump: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 420: Line 420:
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/AutoresAr IEG proposal for AutoresAr]. --[[User:Scanno|Scanno]] ([[User talk:Scanno|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/AutoresAr IEG proposal for AutoresAr]. --[[User:Scanno|Scanno]] ([[User talk:Scanno|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

== Wikidata support: arbitrary access is coming on the 26th f April ==

Hey everyone :)

A while ago I asked for testing of the arbitrary access feature [[Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/03#Wikidata_support:_getting_arbitrary_access_done|here]]. This will enable Commons to make use of all the data that is on Wikidata. Given that no major issues were found during testing we are going to enable arbitrary access for you on the 26th of April. I hope this will make many great things possible for you. --[[User:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)|Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)]] ([[User talk:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:39, 12 April 2016

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
🌐 Village pumps for other languages
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
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/2024/05.

Please note:

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

   
 

Start a new discussion

# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 I didn't find a map with the purpose I wanted 4 3 Broichmore 2024-05-21 19:58
2 Editor trying to rename hundreds of images to include the location 16 5 Asclepias 2024-05-23 20:01
3 Mandatory captions 12 6 Jmabel 2024-05-26 21:09
4 Changes in UploadWizard: lost autonumbering 3 3 Marsupium 2024-05-23 09:48
5 Is there a page or list of wikipedia entries that are considered examples to follow? 2 2 Jeff G. 2024-05-20 10:57
6 Verify the existence of paintings 6 4 Alexpl 2024-05-20 15:43
7 Новый интерфейс загрузки 3 3 Jmabel 2024-05-20 17:04
8 Identity theft 2 2 Jmabel 2024-05-21 01:36
9 Bugs in Upload Wizard 4 3 ITookSomePhotos 2024-05-21 21:42
10 Photo challenge March results 1 1 Jarekt 2024-05-21 03:32
11 Rename a file 8 6 Bjh21 2024-05-23 12:50
12 Feedback invited on Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle 1 1 RamzyM (WMF) 2024-05-22 02:24
13 British English = Tsonga? 4 3 Jeff G. 2024-05-22 19:08
14 Emilio Segrè Visual Archives 5 2 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2024-05-23 17:56
15 Problem with Upload 2 2 Jmabel 2024-05-23 17:32
16 dates in structured data 2 2 ReneeWrites 2024-05-23 07:19
17 How is this possible ? 5 4 Alexpl 2024-05-24 15:32
18 Photographers 2 2 Ipr1 2024-05-23 21:00
19 Category:Bain copyright notice and Bettman 2 2 Asclepias 2024-05-23 18:44
20 Italian cultural heritage law application outside Italy 24 8 Rosenzweig 2024-05-25 10:25
21 Category:Steamboat Willie 13 5 ReneeWrites 2024-05-27 13:32
22 File upload wizard 3 3 Sannita (WMF) 2024-05-25 13:31
23 Another Person Image 3 3 Jmabel 2024-05-25 15:42
24 Feedback Invited for Wikimedia Commons Android App Upload Feature 9 4 Sannita (WMF) 2024-05-27 10:50
25 Scope question 5 4 Jmabel 2024-05-27 01:07
26 Upload Wizard, likely again... 12 5 Jmabel 2024-05-27 01:12
27 Privacy issues for faces and car license plates 9 7 Mr.choppers 2024-05-27 03:13
28 Add coordinates to images (bot task) 1 1 Fl.schmitt 2024-05-26 20:17
29 Seeking better understanding of an odd IP edit 2 2 Asclepias 2024-05-26 21:41
30 Philippines and COM:CSCR 5 2 JWilz12345 2024-05-27 14:51
31 Traditional/Folk music of Catalonia 1 1 Jmabel 2024-05-27 04:28
32 Strange PDF-Preview behaviour 1 1 Mfchris84 2024-05-27 09:55
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.
Women at the well, India, early 20th century. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive
Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day.

Oldies

Share my Content here with CC-BY-SA and on Youtube with standard Youtube license

moved to:Village pump/Copyright#Share my Content here with CC-BY-SA and on Youtube with standard Youtube license

Copyright for books or printed official publications?

March 06

What license?

archive.org

March 11

Great Britain & Ireland postcards

moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Great Britain & Ireland postcards

How to remove these images from Category:Temples?

The template {{RCE-subject|Temples}} categorises a bunch of files to the main Category:Temples even though these files are already correctly categorised in a subcategoryy of said main category. How can these uploads be removed correctly from this main category? - Takeaway (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think by adding Category:Temples_in_the_Netherlands into the list in {{RCE-subject}} template. Ruslik (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trying but not succeeding. - Takeaway (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a similar issue with use of that template. I was looking at Special:WantedCategories, and it seemed that most of the entries on the first page were due to use of this template. A few examples: Category:Bouwfragment, Category:Bijgebouwen, Category:Riet, Category:Gereedschap. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Template talk:RCE-subject. There was a recent edit which changed the categories on these files, they are now back in their work-in-progress categories. One problem is that the progress seems to have kind of ended, a final solution for these suggested categories (not using these last suggestions?) is welcome. Basvb (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 04

How big is Wikimedia Commons?

I've been klicking around trying to find out how big Wikimedia Commons is. I mean filesize. How many GB or TB or PB? -abbedabbtalk 17:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Special:MediaStatistics, 80,763,333,993,112 bytes (73.45 TB). This is just for the files, I believe, but the total won't be much bigger (per the dumps, all the non-media files compress to ~7GB). Storkk (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Thank you very much for the link and the quick reply! -abbedabbtalk 17:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's only current versions of files, we've also got deleted versions, and "old" versions. Also each file is stored multiple times on separate computers as backup. If you want to get a sense of the disk space involved in storing files (Which is a very different question from how much space all the files take up, since there's multiple copies of each file, etc), here are stats on disk total and disk free for the swift servers (Where media is stored for all Wikimedia wikis) in eqiad (eqiad = Virginia. There's also servers in codfw = Texas). Bawolff (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bawolff: Do they still have some in Florida as well? Reguyla (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category system

I think we should change how we use categories. For example, the Category:Unidentified plants in Germany is unnecessary. All media in this category should be in the Category:Unidentified plants and in a Category like "Photo taken in Germany".

Why is this desirable?

What do you think?

Best regards, --MartinThoma (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, our category system is completely bonkers. There is no way that unrelated attributes should be combined as one category. The "Location" attribute is quite separate from the "Main subject" attribute, etc. It is a wonder anyone can find any images in our deeply nested labyrinthine mess. Looking for a picture of "David Cameron" outside "10 Downing St"? Well someone has put most of his pictures inside "in year" categories as if the date the photo was taken is the most important sub-attribute of "David Cameron". I don't know anything about the Wikidata project, but one has to hope they have discovered a better way of classifying things that perhaps could be used here. It is sad that so much volunteer effort is being wasted on this system that is of very little help to end-users. -- Colin (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the problem you see, but are you saying that Category:Narcissus in art‎, Category:Daffodils by country‎, Category:Narcissus by color‎, and similar categories shouldn't exist? I'd disagree with that. One reason is that having the files in question directly under the art, taken in country, and color categories would overcrowd those categories. The art category alone currently has almost 2000 files in it. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean for a category to be "overcrowd"? Surely you're not talking about technical problems, are you? --MartinThoma (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A system like this would also require a better browsing method designed for it - one where looking for images in the intersection of two categories would be very easy (among other things). If there are tools for browsing a category smartly the size wouldn't be an issue. BMacZero (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth a script/gadget to do category intersect searches probably wouldn't be that hard for someone with Labs access and would be a great benefit. Reguyla (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FastCCI, a default-activated gadget since 2014, can perform category intersections.    FDMS  4    15:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) There is a tool for that: FastCCI. Go to a Category, click on the little arrow next to "Good pictures" at the top right, click on "In this category and in …". It works quite well and it would work much better if we had a flatter category tree.
Our current system of categorizing stuff by multiple attributes is a relic of the early times where category intersection was not an easy thing to do. Which results in Categories like Category:Videos of Purple Boeing 737-300 of British Airways landing at London-Heathrow Airport in 1987 at sunset. Yes, I'm exaggerating, but unfortunately not that much. --El Grafo (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just started watching Dschwen's excellent talk again. Turns out I did not exaggerate: Category:Demographic maps of 15-17 year old dependent children whose fathers did not state proficiency in English and whose mothers speak English only in Victoria. This is adness. Coplete and utter adness. --El Grafo (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Totally seconding the recommendation for Dschwen's FastCCI presentation! Here you go:
  • FastCCI - Taming the Commons Category Tree. Dschwen, Wikimania 2014
    FastCCI - Taming the Commons Category Tree. Dschwen, Wikimania 2014
  • Talk: Now available under CC-By 3.0
  • Fastcci intersect
    Fastcci intersect
  • Fastcci intersect
    Fastcci intersect
Recherche multicatégorie Wikipedia (without "deepcat:" yet, in 2014)
 Info See also de:Hilfe:Suche/Deepcat (Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2015/11#Deepcat_Gadget:_intersection_and_subcategory_search_on_Wikipedia_and_Commons and phabricator), allowing category intersection search in cirrus. --Atlasowa (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think that the category intersections should be generated on demand, not hard-coded into category names. Users may want to break down a category by date, license or author, for example, instead of location. The main thing that prevents it is that the current user interface isn't designed for such intersections, even if they can be produced using work-arounds such as FastCCI. Without a better interface, it would be hard to establish a consensus to forbid category intersections, and without that, anyone can create them and there's nothing you can do about it. I once asked about categories like Category:September 2012 in Bute Street, Hong Kong and in the discussion one person even said that deleting such categories was vandalism. --ghouston (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like most people here I agree that we would be better off without intersection categories, IF we had the right tools, which are easy to use and enabled by default. And going a step further, some things like date and (possibly) place should not even be recorded using categories, but using a useful metadata system. (Which should integrate with Wikidata.) --Sebari (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, I think I see a consensus here: We should do what I proposed, but only after we have good integrated tools to make the intersections. I have two ideas for this: First, I would create another search page similar to write-math.com. You can see the search terms is [arrow][mnsymbol] right, where [arrow] and [mnsymbol] are categories which get intersected. I think this is a very natural way to search for the files. The second idea is to propose possible divisions (e.g. by color, year, ...). This can be done automatically by looking at which categories the files also have and applying an information-theoretic criterion like the Gini coefficient.

But I should probably talk with somebody who is involved in MediaWiki development. I don't want to develop something and then it doesn't get integrated. (And I would prefer it if somebody else wrote the code.) --MartinThoma (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think we should make rash decisions and end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. There is no way that after a couple of paragraphs are posted on the Village pump that we can "see a consensus" on this. If you wish to see better search tools developed then very well, but I don't think that should change how we store images here. I think these are 2 different things that are often confused. I would hate to see the simplicity of the current system sacrificed for a complex, supposedly All singing, all dancing search system that you would need to be educated on or experienced on how to best to use it and that may well have hit and miss results. It's very easy to see faults in the current system but it may be impossible to develop a better system that handles such a variety of content and still stays simple, consistent and easy to use. Oxyman (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My thought was to improve the current search / implement a way to do easy category intersections and then talk again about how we manage categories as a community. Currently, it seems that nobody wants to change the way we use categories because the lack of tools. So this is a killer argument against changing the category system. However, I don't see any argument against new features in search / new search tools / a new design. --MartinThoma (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can see benefits to improving search tools, I just don't think that they should replace the category system Oxyman (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'd run into different problems by broadening the categories too much. For instance, should a search for intersection of "People" and "Germany" show German people in Germany, or non-German people visiting in Germany, non-German people living in Germany, or German people living outside Germany? Should a search for "Flowers" and "Germany" yield images of common German flowers (like daffodils), or images of exotic orchids in flower shops in Germany? FastCCI looks great, but I don't see it solving that issue. I'd say that narrow commons categories can provide a service if you are looking for something narrow. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those category intersections would be ambiguous. You could have separate categories, such as Located in Germany, Born in Germany, Holding German citizenship. The latter would only apply to people, the first to all kinds of objects including living ones, the second to all kinds of animals. It would look different if done via Wikidata-like topics. Nobody said it would be easy. --ghouston (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Basically that's why we need COM:Structured data. Does anybody know the current status of that? --El Grafo (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:MartinThoma says he sees «consensus here». Maybe here. In Commons at large, not really. Users who actually work for Commons (i.e. not merely use it as a vanity display case for selected photographs, or as a tool for WMF politics) are too busy adding categories to media files and are too bored already to even react every time a newbie pops up in VP suggesting the whole category data be dismantled just because it doesn’t fit their lack of knowledge about successful crowdsourced ahierarchic notional cladistics. Of course distroying is (or would be) easy, but it doesn’t make it right. FWIW, 90% of Commons files is uncategorized or undercategorized: focus on that and leave other people’s useful and meaningful work alone. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize with Tuvalkin's response. Nemo 10:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crêpes in Takeshita street. What more can I say? - Jmabel ! talk 00:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone could summarize all tools used for category intersection at Commons:Tools/Category intersection? -- Rillke(q?) 08:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing de-admin discussion

Please see Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 3).

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Manipulated image

File:Corset 16inch.jpg

This image has been said to be a "digital art work" rather than a photograph by a critic on en:WP. Since said critic had an obvious POV, this criticism was, apparently, ignored.

However the bottom button is clearly drawn on, and at a closer look it seems the figure is cut-and-pasted over the background, and that the "vital statistics" may have been altered. There is also no EXIF information.

Do more experienced digital image connoisseurs agree or disagree? And are there any clear indications worth looking for?

Rich Farmbrough, 22:36 5 April 2016 (GMT).

I do not think a cutting and pasting is original enough to warrant copyright protection. Ruslik (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rich Farmbrough: the following is all subjective, and could easily be explained by lighting weirdness, etc. but it seems to me there's a curved shadow on her right arm that follows the contours too closely, and the ISO noise/skin tone variation/grain over her chest seems of a different (zoomed) character to the rest of it. Not sure about the waist being digitally narrowed... I disagree about the bottom button, looks like it just caught the light and washed out the sensor. Others may have more quantitative/objective answers. Storkk (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Corset 16inch.jpg created. --Fæ (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 07

Checking a photo

I uploaded a file that its rights are likely disputed (although showing okay at source). Please, someone to check it. Thank you. --Francois-Pier (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty clear case of Flickrwashing from a known bad account, where the EXIF credited AP Photo/Rick Rycroft. I deleted it, but did not place a warning template on your user page because you're obviously aware of it. Storkk (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to import PD image from Commons under CC0 license from Flickr?

Hi all

I've been talking with User:Magnus Manske today about importing content from Flickr which is listed as public domain. Until now Flickr2Commons didn't allow content to be upload that was listed as PD because the PD template on its own isn't acceptable on Commons (as far as I understand) and will just get deleted. My question is would it be acceptable for Magnus to change Flickr2Commons to import images listed as PD on Flickr (e.g US federal images) but rather than add the PD license template use the CC0 license template instead when adding them to Commons? I know that it is possible to import them with the PD template and then change the templates to CC0 but its a lot of extra work and requires people to know they have to do this.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there are no legal restrictions on what we can do to PD images so uploading them as CC-Zero will not break any copyright laws, but the language of {{CC-Zero}} does not match language of Creative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0, which is where Public Domain link points to. The reason we add {{Flickr-public domain mark}} template for files uploaded as "Public Domain" to Flickr is that Flickr uploaders can say file is in "Public Domain" but do not have to say why, like we do. We no longer have {{PD}} and have to distinguish {{PD-self}} from {{PD-old-100}} or from {{PD-USGov}}. However as with everything else we could revisit the discussion on how to treat Flicks PD files. May be a better way would be to make {{Flickr-public domain mark}} a valid license template, the way {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} is where we would state that Flicker uploader tagged this file as Creative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0 Public Domain file and we would encourage uploaders to change the template to PD template but not force them to do so. The issue is that this will likely lead to "flickr-washing" where people that do not know the file license for Commons will upload it to Flickr with PD tag and copy it to Commons. We do not have such issue with {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} because we only accept it from large institutions. --Jarekt (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was discussed at Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images, and making "Flickr-public domain mark" a valid license template was clearly rejected. --ghouston (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between PDM and CC0 is that CC0 is like {{PD-author}} where a copyright holder release an image into public domain under the terms of CC0, while PDM is only a "Mark", and not a license, to show that a thid party (not the photographer or reuser) has identified the image to be public domain. Therefore, no, we cannot mix PDM and CC0, and if a Flickr user is indeed the photographer, they shall choose CC0 as the license of the image on Flickr instead, not PDM --Zhuyifei1999 (talk)
Are we having the PDM discussion again? Ok. Someone really needs to create a policy/guideline page specifically about this to just link to. Josve05a (talk) 06:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 08

Geocoord harvest

Hi,

what are the ways to harvest geocoords, when taking pictures? I have Cannon G10 so I cannot use a module, which writes GPS directly to EXIF and let say I am not ready to buy a new camera. I was trying to use Holux GPS tracker, but its software and even tracks where somehow corrupted, maybe not compatible to my Windows Vista. Are there any gps trackers, which can be fliped on camera, like flash? Or can I load GPS track to a cellphone even its in the jacket and case?--Juandev (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Juandev: There are geotaggers that you can mount on the en:hot shoe. Whenever you take a shot, the tagger will record the position (you may have to play around with the flash settings, I don't know much about Canon compact cameras …). When you get home, you connect the device with your PC and a piece of software can write the position into the EXIF. For example, here is a video that describes how this works with a Jobo PhotoGPS2 and a Lumix LX3. There are other manufacturers who do basically the same thing. --El Grafo (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see, there are also mounts to fix my cell phone to hot shoe, but they are using it to take a same picture via cell phone or use cell phone as a bigger screen. Do you have such device. Is it posible to move cell phone to horizontal level and use it for GPS capture?--Juandev (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for assistance mass changing the categories and license templates on a set of images imported from Flickr using Flickr2Commons

Hi all

I'm looking for assistance from someone who knows how to mass add a category to files in the results of Special:LinkSearch and also to change the license template of files imported from PD to PD-USGov from Flickr. I'm doing some work with a number of Biosphere Reserves to make their images available on Commons and want to create some examples of how measuring views would work for them, I can provide guidance for them on using GLAMorgan (thanks Magnus) using some National Parks (which are also Biosphere Reserves) as examples to the guide I'm preparing for Biosphere Reserves. These National Parks and Biosphere Reserves also have Flickr accounts:

I need help with two problems I'm stuck on:

1. A number of files have been uploaded from the Flickr accounts already but the files are not in any specific category, I can find the files by searching for the different urls (found using Special:LinkSearch and a user lookup tool on Flickr. Here are the urls that will like to the Flickr account for Yellowstone National Park.

However I cannot work out how to add the files that appear in the search results of the search tool to a specific category e.g Images from YellowstoneNPS Flickr account

2. Magnus has changed Flickr2Commons to allow us to upload files marked as PD however the PD license on Flickr is insufficient and it needs to be changed for all the files imported to PD-USGov, I don't know how to do this.

Any help would be greatly appreciated

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghouston: Thanks very much, I've been through all the Flickr accounts and found maybe 5000 files that need adding to the Category:Files from ????NPS Flickr stream categories I made a list here User:John Cummings/BR Flickr accounts, would it be possible to use a tool to add all these files to those categories? If the list needs to be in a different format please let me know. Thanks again John Cummings (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite a few. I've done the next one: Category:Files from DenaliNPS Flickr stream. I searched using the standard search for insource:57557144@N06 and insource:flickr.com/photos/denalinps and used cat-a-lot to add them to the new category. I'm not sure that it would be a good idea to try and change licenses automatically, since it's possible that not all the files on those Flickr streams were made by government employees. --ghouston (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghouston: Thanks so much for this, sorry I didn't explain myself well with the license template. Basically there is a problem in that Flickr licenses and Wikimedia licenses don't match up exactly so files copied from Flickr to Commons that are listed on Flickr as PD need to have their licenses changed to PD-USGov. For example, I just transffered a few 100 files from Flickr to Category:Files from RockyNPS Flickr stream, which all currently have PD licenses but should have PD-USGov and since the PD license isn't enough for Commons then they may get deleted if the license isn't corrected. Thanks again John Cummings (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that can be done with VisualFileChange. For that category, I replaced {{Remove this line and insert a public domain copyright tag instead}}{{No license since|month=April|day=12|year=2016}} with {{PD-USGov-NPS}}. --ghouston (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghouston: Thanks very much, I will have to learn how to use that tool, I have a few 1000 more new photos to import from the other Flickr accounts. John Cummings (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 09

Categories for Aviation and for Air transport

I'm seeing hierarchy of these two terms managed inconsistently in the category tree. For example, the following structures exist:

So I have some questions:

  • Should categories exist for both aviation and air transport?
  • If we should have only one, which should we keep?
  • If we should have both, what is the difference between them? Which should be higher in the category tree, or should they be at the same level?

It might be of interest to know that there are 699 categories with names starting with "Aviation in", and 116 with names starting with "Air transport in".

Comments? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first question: Definitely yes. There's more to aviation than transporting things: Think of science, aircraft development, air sports … Pretty sure air transport should come below aviation in the hierarchy – and in fact it does, it's just that aeronautics shouldn't be a subcat of air transport. --El Grafo (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except that air transport is above aviation in some lower parts of the category tree. That inconsistency is part of what prompted my questions. I'm looking for input for all levels, not just the top. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the first question, yes. Aviation is not only about air transport, it is also about physics. For example, air resistance is a part of aviation. And for the hierarchy, air transport should be below of aviation. ★ Poké95 08:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts: if aviation is the science (and education/training, and maybe other things), then do aviation categories belong under science and technology and air transport categories belong under transport? What exactly goes in each of these? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using image with Governmental source?

http://images.detik.com/albums/detikfinance-1/Jalur_Kereta_Kalimantan_Infografis_Detikfinance.jpg http://images.detik.com/albums/detikfinance-1/Jalur_Kereta_Sulawesi_Infografis_Detikfinace.jpg http://images.detik.com/albums/detikfinance-1/Jalur_Kereta_Papua_Infografis_Detikfinance.jpg

So these images were made by Andhika Akbaryansyah for detik.com using information from Indonesian Ministry of Transportation, normaly things from governmental sources are free right? So what should we do? I think the worst case scenario is that we have to remake the maps

I want to use them in this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Indonesia

Sorry for my bad English — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony.stevenson (talk • contribs)

  • Most governments in the world retain copyright on their works (the U.S. federal government being the most prominent exception). Do you have any particular reason to think Indonesia does not? - Jmabel ! talk 15:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are many licence templates concerning that issue. For Indocnesia, Template:PD-IDGov applies. And, as for as I understand it correctly, most works of the Indonesian goverment are PD.--Antemister (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When created for detik.com the files are not a government work nor is detik.com a government source. --Martin H. (talk) 08:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images?

I have encountered two image files that appear to be the identical. Not sure if I am missing something or this was deliberate. The image files are File:Goldwater1964SanFranciscoKKK.jpg and File:Ku Klux Klan with Barry Goldwater's campaign signs 03195u original.jpg. Note: there appears to be an IP that has made claims to being the individuals in the hoods. See File talk:Goldwater1964SanFranciscoKKK.jpg and "Notes" in the Summary section of the File:Ku Klux Klan with Barry Goldwater's campaign signs 03195u original.jpg. Mitchumch (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jmabel and Pokéfan95 Thanks for responding. Good eyes. I hadn't noticed either of those elements.
Should the statement "The original caption is wrong. My wife and I (the two on the left) and three friends, strongly opposed to Goldwater, made those hoods and signs, and marched in the parade up Market Street. We naively thought people would know we were being sarcastic. Many did, but the man on the right did not. --John" be allowed to remain on File:Ku Klux Klan with Barry Goldwater's campaign signs 03195u original.jpg? Mitchumch (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with it; the alternative would simply be to describe neutrally to indicate that there is no citeable evidence as to whether it was satirical (unless, of course, someone can come forth with such evidence). Do we have the actual U.S. News and World Report story for which the photo was used? That could well clarify the matter. - Jmabel ! talk 15:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 10

How can I add marks based on coordinates on a .svg location map and then download the edited file?

To be more specific, I want to use that file to the right and add different cities there with coordinates. I know how to do that, but not how to download the file with these dots then. Can someone help me?

--Flying Desert Snow Leopard (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "dots" in this svg file and you do not need to download this file to add new "dots". Ruslik (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what I want to do is adding the dots and then download that file including them. I need it for a private purpose on my hard drive. --Flying Desert Snow Leopard (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe add the file the usual way to a sandbox page, including the dots, then do a screen capture and edit it down to the part you need? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Flying Desert Snow Leopard: I assume you use something like en:Template:Location map? In that case, there simply is no graphics file with dots. The template uses a png thumbnail generated from the SVG file as a background and a png version of File:Red pog.svg for the dot. But they are never merged into a single file: Html (CSS?) magic is used to display the dot on top of the map. The only quick way to get a single image file with both the map and the dot from those templates I'm aware of is the screenshot method mentioned by Auntof6 above. --El Grafo (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that works indeed. Not good and very roughly, but it works. --Flying Desert Snow Leopard (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Memorial of Rebirth

I fail to see how the images now in Category:Memorial of Rebirth are any less subject to deletion as copyright violations than the many images of that work we have deleted in the past. I've seen images deleted in the past for what I personally would have considered de minimis inclusion of the monument; most of these are straightforward images of the monument as such. Am I missing something? -- Jmabel ! talk 15:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an explanation on the category's page. Ruslik (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... which does not seem to me to provide relevant explanation for at least the bulk of these photos. For example, can you explain how these criteria would apply to File:Monument în cinstea eroilor Revoluției din Decembrie 1989.jpg? - Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I can't see how we can even have such a category, given that Romania does not recognize any freedom of panorama for architectural or sculptural works, even those on permanent public display, until 70 years after the death of the author (who, in this case, isn't even dead). As near as I can read it, all of these images represent copyright violations and should be removed. I am going to nominate one and see if others agree with me. KDS4444 (talk) 07:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 11

Wrapping up an old discussion

I'm wondering about the process. I'd like to act on this. Input? Thoughts? Guidance on how things go around here? Thank you and best wishes to all, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images not appearing in categories after UW upload

Is this a known issue? It's the second time I noticed it.. this time, I uploaded four images at 01:03 using the Upload Wizard, and put all of them in Category:Worben in the wizard at the same time. But only three of them are now displayed in the category. File:Alpen Worben 2016 04 10.jpg, although the category is correctly present in the file description page, as far as I can see, doesn't appear on the category page. The last time I encountered this issue, a "null edit" to the category page (and/or the image description page? I don't remember...) solved it, I think. But for now, I'm not doing it, so others can have a look at it if needed, maybe it's a technical issue that should be reported somewhere more fitting? Gestumblindi (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image shows up in the category now. I did notice yesterday that there was a lag before images started showing in a new category. MKFI (talk) 06:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a long known and common issue. New images don't show up in categories because of caching. ★ Poké95 09:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Every since category updates went to job queue they're ever-slow --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please can someone change the license templates on the files in Category:Images from Dry Tortugas NPS Flickr account to Template:PD-USGov-NPS?

Hi all

Please can someone change the license templates on the files in Category:Images from Dry Tortugas NPS Flickr account to Template:PD-USGov-NPS? I've imported the files using Flickr2Commons however the license on the account isn't correct.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings: is there any evidence that that Flickr account uploads only photographs that were created by NPS employees? The first file I clicked was https://www.flickr.com/photos/drytortugasnps/6022101789/ , where the EXIF credits a "John L. Dengler" and mentions "All rights reserved". His bio mentions NPS as a client, but I don't believe that necessarily makes his photos PD. Storkk (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Storkk: , thanks for the message. The account profile says "This is the official Flickr page for Dry Tortugas National Park managed by the public affairs office. All images posted on this site are in the public domain and consequently are free; they may be used without a copyright release from the National Park Service". John Cummings (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Files do not appear

Hello.Some of the files do not appear in Category:Book of Hours 1984 (example), what is the reason?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure what's wrong, but I fixed your example by making a null edit to the file page in question. I suggest you try doing the same to any others that exhibit the problem. - Jmabel ! talk 20:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2016-15

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

Recent changes

  • The visual editor can generate wikicode with image options in your language. Examples of image options are "thumb" or "left". You can ask to change to options in your language in Phabricator. [1][2]
  • Wiktionaries and Wikisources can now use the visual editor. It is an opt-in beta feature. It still needs development to work better with these projects. [3][4]
  • ORES is using new models. Tools that use ORES' predictions can behave strangely. ORES also has a new API. [5]
  • The visual editor now supports classical Greek characters. [6]

Problems

  • There was a bug when you used keyboard arrows in templates in the visual editor. This has now been fixed. [7]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 April. It will be on all wikis from 14 April (calendar).
  • The wikipedia.org portal will get many small bug fixes and improvements. Most will be for the search box and suggested results that were added in March. [8]

Meetings

Future changes

  • Wikimedia has a new backup data center in Dallas. Because of planned work on this, you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for a short period of time on both 19 April and 21 April. This will start at 14:00 UTC and last for 15 to 30 minutes. [9]

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

20:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Heh, the VisualEditor takes up half this report, how nice. It’s like the ship’s captain reporting gleefully about the work of termites and bore weevils. And it now infects the Wiktionnary, too! I am sure this was achieved after insistent calls from that project’s most proeminent developers (not!). We can we predict a surge of new, really valuable content being added to yet another project! VisualEditor — not the only one, but surely the best tool to bring stupid to a wiki near you! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 12

Templates for "source" and "author" when neither is known nor relevant?

I am wondering if Commons currently has templates that can be used within the Information template to specify the authorship and source of files which do not require these things because they are either too simple or are obviously utilitarian. I am thinking specifically of the file File:Google-Wallet-Logo.png, which is, predictably, a depiction of the Google Wallet logo. The uploader has claimed him/ herself as the author, and "own work" as the source. Even if the uploader created the PNG file him/ herself, it is still a copy of someone else's work (which means the authorship claim is bogus). But that work is too simple to qualify for copyright protection (despite the current licensing of the image, which is marked as CC-BY-SA 3.0) which means the source doesn't matter much and the neither does the "original" author. I understand that an uploader can put entries like "Author unknown" in the author field, but this means the entry is not machine readable and is not standardized. Is there a way of marking such files using some kind of template/ tag? KDS4444 (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

template:unknown might fit. Basvb (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IEG grant submission for Wikimedia-powered e-books - feedback welcome

Hi everyone! I have just submitted an Individual Engagement Grant request to research how it would work if one would like to create e-books with mixed content from various Wikimedia projects together. The reason for requesting this grant is that I'm working on a hybrid print and digital (Wiki)book on Dutch digital arts, for which I'd like to do such a thing, and I want to work on a more 'universal' solution from the start. You can find the grant submission here. I explicitly want to make sure that media from Wikimedia Commons can be included there too. Feedback, questions, use cases, and of course endorsements are more than welcome there. Thanks! Spinster (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case someone is totally bored right now …

The images used in the collages above are (at least in part) not the uploader's own work and may not be compatible with each other license-wise. Originals must be found and description pages updated per COM:Collages or we'll have to delete them. Unfortunately, I don't have time for that right now, but maybe someone else is bored? I'll start a list below. Pinging Berkaysnklf as the maker of the collages. --El Grafo (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest donation of photos from Italy

St Mark's Campanile, Venice (1949). By en:Paolo Monti

Hi to all,
As the Wikimedian in residence at the digital library of BEIC (GLAM/BEIC), I'm happy to announce that we uploaded almost the entire digital photo archive of an important Italian contemporary photographer, Paolo Monti (1908-1982), with nearly 17.000 images (the whole archive was acquired by Fondazione BEIC). This is the biggest donation of images in "one shot" ever made in Italy by a cultural institution. It’s also the first time that a digital archive from a famous photographer is almost completely uploaded into Wikimedia Commons.
The photos represent various subjects (art, events, architecture, people, portraits, nature, artistic nudes, experimental) and were shot since 1950s to 1980s. Many of them are B/W, but there are also many amazing colorful artistic/experimental pictures as well as the first strips collection (with test prints etc.) of Commons. There are also many precious contemporary architecture photos, because Paolo Monti was commissioned to do reportages for magazines and catalogues - and of course he made it with the full permission of the architects. So we do not have to worry the typical lack of "freedom of panorama" in Italy.
The photos uploaded few days ago were all selected and "tagged" manually by BEIC-commissioned cataloguers working according to the standards. To give Commons the best quality end result possible, the upload was done with the highest resolution available and with all available metadata. See them in Category:Photographs by Paolo Monti.
I'd like to thank the many commoners that helped us till the first minutes - I was amazed by their enthusiasm - and kindly ask for you patience and help, because I know that some commoners don't like "red" (uncreated) categories derived from the original catalogue. We worked hard to fix the most part of them and I think we will be able to complete this work in the next weeks - with your help. Yes, there is a lot of work to do, not only in improving categories, but also in using images into Wikipedia articles, and - if you like - selecting the best photos to candidate them as "featured pictures" or "valued pictures". Thank you, --Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A wonderful donation, indeex! As for the redlinked categories, I see that some of the ones with Italian names were actually defined. One is Category:Bambini. I believe it is our practice not to define categories with non-English names if the purpose is to redirect to the English-named category -- at least, I've seen many such categories deleted. Also, if these categories are created, they should not redirect to Italy-specific categories. For example, Category:Bambini redirects to Category:Children of Italy, but it should redirect simply to Category:Children. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Mesh Network Community

Hello All,

I have written a proposal for Wiki Mesh Network Community, please share your suggestions in the talk page.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Wiki_Mesh_Network_Community

Alagunambi (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested for building a database for public domain (AutoresAr)

Hello everyone! We're presenting a proposal for building a database of argentinean authors in the public domain. Our proposal is based on a project already been carried out in Uruguay, called AutoresUy, already accepted as an unique identifier in Wikidata. We think it's necessary and desirable to have more projects of this kind. In order to achieve this, we have set up a plan that includes workshops, edit-a-thons and lots of hard work to build, improve, and expand this database and help Wikimedia projects. Please leave your input in the talk page, or directly an endorsement if you think it's worthed.

IEG proposal for AutoresAr. --Scanno (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata support: arbitrary access is coming on the 26th f April

Hey everyone :)

A while ago I asked for testing of the arbitrary access feature here. This will enable Commons to make use of all the data that is on Wikidata. Given that no major issues were found during testing we are going to enable arbitrary access for you on the 26th of April. I hope this will make many great things possible for you. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=192993817"