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 (index) 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/2024/07. 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.

Stone village pump in Rinnen village (pop. 380), Germany [add]

Centralized discussion See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive 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) 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) Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch

Bureaucrats needed

Hi, would it be possible a bureaucrat to take care of Commons:Changing username/Current requests? No bureaucrat seems to have reviewed it for two weeks and there's a backlog of 17 users waiting :-(

July 03

20,000 high quality photographs for Art History enthusiasts

122.9% completed (estimate)

   

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

20,000 high resolution photographs of works of art from the Los Angeles County Museum of Art are being uploaded, starting with art from the Ancient world. The upload should finish by the end of next week. Discussion and testing started back in March 2013; you can read about the project at Batch uploading.

The photographs are described using the basic metadata information from the LACMA catalogue, so please help by adding categories such as date, materials, artwork style or descriptive text, or transcriptions for inscribed objects. The top level hierarchical category for the artworks is Collections of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) and a backlog of images to check and keep track of this project has been created here, which you can remove from the image page if you have reviewed and improved it. Please drop a note on my talk page if you spot a pattern of errors that might need fixing.

If you are interested in working on the Wikipedias, these images are high resolution photographs of artworks that will engage readers when illustrating articles, and are representative of a wide range of art topics, from early Egyptian pottery through to Modernism in the 19th Century.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank LACMA for making so much of their on-line catalogue and images available on a public domain licence for the widest possible public benefit. --Fæ (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

English boy's frock, c.1855

Great news and great images. --Jarekt (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

As an art history student, this is why I love Commons. Especially now our university no longer has a license for ARTstor. I'll see what I can do. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Great news, thanks LACMA. --99of9 (talk) 09:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I find some treasures and my own surprises in these images. The dress in the thumbnails at the top of this thread is a boy's dress and the lacy frock inserted left is also for a boy to wear. To the modern eye, it's amazing to think that English boys routinely wore fancy dresses of this sort in the mid 19th century. Some might be puzzled by the photograph above that looks like someone forgot to put a page in the scanner... it's not what it appears to be, though the description in the LACMA catalogue does not seem right either... --Fæ (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Before the age of "breeching", there often wasn't too much difference between boys' and girls' attire. The idea that the clothing of babies should make gender absolutely clear doesn't seem to have started to take hold until the 1920's (in the U.S. at least)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Multiple views of the same object

The LACMA catalogue has some artworks where several photographs have been taken (these are displayed as multiple views on their website in an embedded viewer), often these show different views of a 3D object, or interesting detail from a larger 2D object. I am uploading these as distinct images to Commons, though a small number are near duplicate images. As an example, I would like some views on whether we should keep all the images of Lustration of a Jina Rishabhanatha (Adinatha), there are 6 uploaded which appear to actually be 3 images in pairs. Taking one of these as an example:

Image 3: 2,000 × 1,238 pixels

Image 6: 2,100 × 1,300 pixels

Interestingly these are not simple re-sizing of the image, possibly they were taken as distinct physical photographs with different settings and differences in lighting (sharpness?) can be seen, unfortunately the EXIF data has been lost on one of these. I am unsure of why the curator has decided to keep such near-identical photographs in the catalogue, however it could be that they are trying to bring out slight variations in detail for future research purposes. --Fæ (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I've seen a number of quasi-duplicate images which appear to be scans of different physical copies of the same printed artwork. Probably shouldn't automatically delete any of these until a human decides which is best. AnonMoos (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Problems with some LACMA image names

Some images (including at least File:VII. From Spaniard and Morsica, Albino (De espanol y morisca, albino) LACMA M.2011.20.1 (1 of 6).jpg , File:X. From Spaniard and Return Backwards, Hold Yourself Suspended in Mid Air (De espanol y torna atras, tente en el aire) LACMA M.2011.20.3 (1 of 6).jpg , and File:IX. From Spaniard and Albino, Return Backwards (De espanol y albina, torna atras) LACMA M.2011.20.2 (1 of 5).jpg) are Spanish colonial casta paintings, which have been given rather strange semi-mistranslated English titles by someone who appears to have had little grasp of Spanish colonial racial terminology. I would really like to rename these files to remove the English "translations" from their names, if it wouldn't upset some grand scheme.... AnonMoos (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do go ahead, just ensure the "LACMA <accession number>" stays in the title as this is handy for ensuring that we avoid accidental duplicates, though it may be useful to mention the original sequence number, where this exists, in the text if removed from the filename (i.e. "(1 of 6)" above) as this indicates which of the original images this was in the catalogue entry where there are multiple views of the same object. LACMA's website has the capability of adding comments to the images, I suggest we make the effort to provide feedback where their catalogue entries are incorrect or poorly written. I have done this for a couple already but have yet to get any replies (it could be that this has little staff cover and may go unnoticed for a while). Try to remember to add images with requested corrections to Category:Images from LACMA uploaded by Fæ (corrections at source needed).

The uploads seem nearly complete now (at a total of ~21,500 images). It is possible that some uploads have been skipped due to partial matches of accession number (for example "M.22.73" would match to "M.22.73.44" or "M.22.73a-b") and there are a number of apparent duplicates that need a careful look and possible re-naming of sequences as a result. If there are skipped sequences, I would be happy to upload these, or for others to raise Deletion requests on duplicates and we can discuss which to keep, or if there is value in some of the near duplicates (for example some may be images with subtle differences in exposure or lighting). --Fæ (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Renamed them to:

• File:VII. De espanol y morisca, albino (Casta painting) LACMA M.2011.20.1 (1 of 6).jpg
• File:X. De espanol y torna atras, tente en el aire (Casta painting) LACMA M.2011.20.3 (1 of 6).jpg
• File:IX. De espanol y albina, torna atras (Casta painting) LACMA M.2011.20.2 (1 of 5).jpg

Not sure about the category, but someone could inform LACMA that their English translations of the titles of these paintings are of very little use in their current form... AnonMoos (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Further LACMA image name errors

I'm pretty sure that neither File:Woman's sleeve plumper, muslin dress and straw bonnet LACMA M.2007.211.440 and M.2007.211.739.jpg nor File:Buddha Shakyamuni LACMA M.91.90 (9 of 11).jpg has anything to do with Buddha Shakyamuni... AnonMoos (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• 
• 

Well spotted. I'm travelling now, but will look at renaming these next week if nobody else does. Again, worth reporting these to LACMA via their on-line comments as a catalogue error and adding to the error category on Commons as above so that we can keep a tally on how often this occurs (I think these database errors by the curators are rare, based on what we have noticed so far). --Fæ (talk) 07:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I would rename them if I knew what to rename them to (other than "old clothes")... AnonMoos (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I have created Category:Images from LACMA uploaded by Fæ (errors) to hold these as a backlog. Please add any others you notice to this. The images have obvious educational value, we just need LACMA to correct the identification at source, or perhaps if there is a pattern to these errors, we might be able to work out a solution to how accurately to identify these ourselves, eventually. --Fæ (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

A few others in the "Buddha Shakyamuni LACMA M.91.90 (X of 11).jpg" series aren't of the same statue, but I'm, not sure what they are of, or whether they're errors... AnonMoos (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I am finding these 'solvable' by some smart detective work. It looks like case by case investigation. I am adding the cases on the above errors category talk page and leaving notes on the LACMA catalog as I go along. I suggest that the erroneous identification is noted on any new descriptions as this will help avoid duplicate uploads in the future, or indeed confusion if the LACMA catalog is not updated. --Fæ (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing images in a series

Several hundred images show up in Category:Files with broken file links because one or more files of a series are missing, often duplicates or website error linking not to the intended image but a previous version of this series. Please check and fix. --Denniss (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I count 482 by using catscan2, mainly due to groups of multiple images all including broken links if two were duplicates; so probably about a hundred different cases which is not so terrible for an upload of 22,000 photos. I may be able to automate a fix to pluck out the non-existent links in the other_versions sections, rather than churn through these by hand; I'll ponder on it for a while.

 Done by using something I knocked up before my porridge - reportRedlinksLACMA.py. --Fæ (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

July 13

resizing big images will get faster next week (VipsScaler)

On Thursday 18 July, Wikimedia Foundation is planning to deploy something new on the sites: the VipsScaler extension.

We expect this to make resizing big JPEGs and PNGs faster and more reliable, leading to fewer errors -- no matter whether you get a different size by clicking on a link like "Other resolutions: 320 × 239 pixels" or by hand-editing the filename to something like https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Thompson-Pond-2009.png/1000px-Thompson-Pond-2009.png . Also, right now, there is an "area limit" -- we don't let anyone upload a PNG to our site that's more than 50 megapixels. The area limit will go away; that should be nice for Wiki Loves Monuments! (There will still be a filesize limit, of bytes).

Downside: We'll see slight changes in visual quality, and a few images might break. We've already tested this ourselves, but we'd love more testing ahead of time to check for bugs so we can fix them early next week.

There's a test page at https://test2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:VipsTest that you can use to test this and find bugs before we roll this out on Thursday the 18th. This blog post helps you understand how to report a bug in Bugzilla. If you would prefer to mention problems in this thread, I can understand that -- we will respond but it might be a little slower than if you use Bugzilla. :)

Thanks to volunteer Bryan Tong Minh who wrote most of the code, and to WMF's Greg Grossmeier, Jan Gerber, and Tim Starling for working on this! Please feel free to comment here with any questions. Sumana Harihareswara, Engineering Community Manager at WMF (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• I just played around with Special:VipsTest a little bit which basically left me with one question: What default settings for the Scaler will be used on Wikipedia?

My tests yielded that bilinear scaling should most probably be on (what is used when this is unticked? Nearest neighbour?). The Amount of sharpening should probably be left at "0" (probably off?), it's already much sharper than with the old scaler anyway. --Patrick87 (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The default settings of the extension (which I assume are the one's that will be used but I don't know for sure):

• If its a jpeg file, and the thumbnail size is <83% of the original file size, then bilinear is not checked, and sharpening is set to 0.8
• Otherwise for jpeg files, bilinear is checked, and sharpening is set to 0
• PNG files have sharpening of 0, and bilinear not checked.

Bawolff (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... no bilinear resizing for PNGs? I mainly tested PNGs yesterday and the quality is pretty poor in my opinion. What is the resizer used when not usig bilinear? Is it nearest neighbour (looks a bit like it from the output).

I'll do some further tests this evening and report. Is there some talk page dedicated to VipsScaler (I don't want to directly file a bug as was proposed in the inital comment). --Patrick87 (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Just put comments here. I'll make sure the relavent people see them. For reference, which PNG's have you been testing? As for bilinear - Checking it makes the scaler use im_resize_linear instead of im_shrink (I'm not personally familiar with the precise differences). Bawolff (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Patrick87: Any update on your testing? I would love to hear specific reports of where Vips isn't performing up to expectations. I know you said you don't want to report bugs, but I'll just end up copy/pasting them there, so if you could, that'd be great :-). Greg (WMF) (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Just commented below with my new tests and filed bugzilla:51400 (actually saw your message only after I had posted that comment already). --Patrick87 (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• So far my test of a large progressive jpeg (test2:File:Large-progressive-jpeg.jpg) errored out with "Error creating thumbnail: vips warning: shrink: not integer shrink factors, expect poor results", which is not promising. Nonetheless, if it only fixes the png issues, that's still a huge step forward. I've filed the issue with large progressive jpegs as bugzilla:51275 Bawolff (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• After various tests on several types of images, the effect on engravings is quite disappointing. See this example on File:Claude Mellan - Face of Christ - WGA14764.jpg. Jean-Fred (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Much thanks to Patrick87, Jean-Fred, AnonMoos, and Bawolff for the feedback so far! I'll make sure the WMF release manager sees this thread by or on Monday. Sumana Harihareswara, Engineering Community Manager at WMF (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• As mentioned before I did some tests with the new VIPS scaler on PNGs. The results are... mixed. See bugzilla:51400 for details and the testcase I created for it showing various real world examples (PNGs used from Commons, used on Wikipedia, rendered in the size they are shown in the respective articles) side-by-side. --Patrick87 (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

problem with new thumbnailer

Unfortunately, there's a big problem with the thumbnailing of File:Shield of Trinity Aveling 1891.png. The current 595px thumbnail is a rather optimized 16bit grayscale+alpha image 82kb in size, while the 595px thumbnail under the new algorithm is a 32-bit RGB+alpha image 155 kb in size (or almost twice the filesize). It took about 6 years to get grayscale PNGs to generate grayscale thumbnails (one reason why some people still preferred GIFs for such images until relatively recently: File:Harleian Ms2169 St Mihell arms tricked original.gif etc.), and I would be quite disappointed to see such belated and hard-won progress suddenly be reversed at this point... AnonMoos (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Filed as bugzilla:51298. Bawolff (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Delay

This launch is delayed till we can fix bug 51370 regarding the default settings for the VipsScaler extension. Release Manager Greg Grossmeier is ill right now but he'll have more information when he returns to work. Sorry for the delay. Sumana Harihareswara, Engineering Community Manager at WMF (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Deployed

This is now deployed on all wikis for large PNGs only (so far, until we can fine turn Vips to create good quality thumbnails of other images types/sizes). Let me/us/bugzilla know if you run into any problems! Greg (WMF) (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

For reference, big here is > 35 megapixels. PNG files smaller than that still use old scalar. Some examples that used to not work, but now do (picked utterly at random):

• 
  Map of Paris - MapOSMatic 2010.png
• 
  1830londonNE.png
• 
  1830londonSE.png
• 
  1863 Meeting of Settlers and Maoris at Hawke's Bay, New Zealand large.png
• 
  2007 population 19.png
• 
  2020年重庆轨道交通线路图.png
• 
  7 sages of the bamboo grove wittig collectiong painting 16.png
• 
  AGAD Karol IV Luksemburski, cesarz i krol czeski, transumuje dokumenty Ludwika, krola wegierskiego.png
• 
  AP-66 cartel.png
• 
  AUH AD1902-2000 (2).png
• 
  A Scene from Troilus and Cressida - Angelica Kauffmann original.png
• 
  A chart showing the scale differences between HTDV to 8K Fulldome video resolution standards.png
• 
  Arrest 2.png
• 
  Dimitrios Karatasos.png

Bawolff (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, apparently there still are limits. This 162 megapixel road sign doesn't scale. Hmm, maybe the thumbnail (since the thumb would be rgba) goes over the file size limit or something. Bawolff (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Also file:Agriculture_characterisation_map,_Flanders.png, file:Basemap_for_Afil.png, file:Drapeau_hillion.png. So it seems the new limit is somewhere around 140 megapixels. Filed as bugzilla:52050 (But realistically, at some point there's going to be a hard limit, so don't hold out too much hope for super-huge files). Bawolff (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Commons tools not functioning

Image galleries have an option to view the geocoded images on a map. This can be done either using the "map" tab or the GeoGroup template. Recently, however, when using either tools, no images appear on the map, and a message appears "no geocoded items found". This has been the situation for quite a long time now, although both tools were functional in the past. Has anyone tried to fix this? Thanks. Gidip (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If I recall correctly most of the tools do make use of a database in para's toolserver account. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggested Para to to migrate GeoCommons to WMFLabs. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you both! Gidip (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Help me if you can

Kindly see my talk page where each and every file uploaded by me has been deleted by some users. When I approached here on the village pump my edits were immediately deleted by some one. You can see this thread for ready reference. Please help me if you can. Thanks Krantmlverma (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Your village pump edits have not been deleted. #Undelation request of the 15 files by Krantmlverma not listened so far still exists on this page, although the section is due for automatic archival very soon. Your only village pump edit prior to that was this message posted in April 2012, which was automatically archived after you received one response and one follow-up question (which you did not respond to). —LX (talk, contribs) 14:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Krantmlverma, it seems like you are trying for years to add images of Krant M.L.Verma or other people, and those are being deleted on the basis that you are not the photographer. I guess the simplest solution would be to upload photos you personally took of the subject and upload full resolution version of the photo (or scan) instead of tiny blurry thumbnails with irregular borders which can not be easily cropped. Many thumbnails you were uploading, like File:P.K.Khanna1425.gif, look like they were downloaded from the web, same with images like File:Krant reciting poems.jpg which look like photograph of someone else's photo. Similarly, many images were deleted because they were front covers or photographs scanned from books by Krant M.L.Verma, however people had doubts you were the author of those photographs or front-cover graphics. Also many images were so blurry or of such low quality as to make them unusable on Wikipedia. So far the most usable image I have seen was File:Krantji & Rajju Bhaiya.jpg which according to its description was taken by your son Swadesh Gaurav. If your son uploaded the image or sent an email to OTRS than I think it should be reuploded or undeleted. Krantmlverma, it seems to me that you have uploaded so many images with clearly incorrect copyrights, and took part in so many deletion request discussions where people were trying to clearly explain the issues with no impact on future uploads, that now all your new uploads receive extra scrutiny and people no longer spend much time explaining the issues. For example many times you were advised to use OTRS system for images of other authors, but OTRS database does not have a single email related to your uploads. --Jarekt (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Jarekt! for taking pain in my matter. I had earlier sent an undeletion request for 15 files which was not resolved. You can see it here. My e-mail address is already given on my user page as krantmlverma@gmail.com. I think you have not seen even a single amongst these 15 files for which I had sent the earlier undeletion request. File:Krant addressing wci mumbai1584.jpg, File:Krantmlverma.jpg, File:Ishwari Prasad Gupta.jpg, File:Baba Ramdev 1529.jpg, File:Ram Prasad Bismil2615.jpg and File: Ashfaq Ulla Khan.2657.jpg are some of the examples to be reviewed at least. I did not understand where to send my OTR request. I simply did what I was told on my talk page. Even then if something is not understood by me the community should provide some genuine help as you did here. Thanks once again for giving you the trouble. Sincerely yours Krantmlverma (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Krant, I'm afraid that you are still not getting it. Some of those images are definitely not acceptable and you have been told why on numerous occasions across numerous Wikipedia projects. Even OTRS, for example, cannot accept the book covers as being your own work (the photo of them may be, but not the covers) and the Wikiconference photo is not your own work but that of someone else. That you feature in an image and perhaps even have a copy of it doesn't make it yours. This latest discussion is typical of the problems and I am at a loss regarding how to explain these matters to you any better than has been done in the past. Many people have tried to do so over a very long period, and you've been blocked for competence issues on other projects when patience finally ran out. I think we have reached the end of the road here, sorry. - 2.221.215.167 13:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Sorry, that was me. No idea why I was logged out but not bothered about the IP showing. - Sitush (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• If you just need a picture for your articles it may be easiest to have a friend take one an create an account to upload it. If you want to add a new background then see Category:Sunrises or similar. I have a little how-to page at User:Canoe1967/Montages.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed. If it were not for the fact that Krant has a history of lying, misrepresentation, block evasion and self-promotion both with images and text. I don't mean to sound harsh but Krant supposedly has a doctorate and is a "senior fellow" (of what has never been determined) and yet it is not merely that he struggles to understand explanations in English but he has also struggled to understand those given to him in Hindi, which is the language used by Krant M L Verma in his books. I understand that Commons is (hopefully) sopmewhat less toxic than en-WP but even with an OTRS ticket there is no certainty. Or is the point of OTRS that it shifts the legal burden on to the person who makes the declaration? I am a bit hazy about the effects of OTRS, sorry both to Krant and everyone else. - Sitush (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the talk page. Hopefully a friend will upload a new image with exif for his articles before the latest one is deleted. It reminds me of a poor singer here that had the same image deleted 20+ times before I helped her and her photographer through OTRS. The image is happily licensed and in her article now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this logo simple enough to be PD?

On the Hindi Wikipedia, a user suggested that en:File:Toronto District School Board Logo.svg may be simple enough to not be copyrightable, and therefore eligible to be uploaded here. Is this the case for this logo? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Commons:TOO#Canada many would say it is okay. You could ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. They may decide either way or recommend a DR review after uploading.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a new discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Is_this_Canadian_school_board_logo_PD.3F - Thank you, Canoe :) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Link repointing

Firstly a diff : http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Flag_of_the_Mongol_Empire_2.svg&oldid=100614944

The local file was also moved to Commons.

Can someone explain how I would get a list of Pages containing links to Local files, so that checks can be made to see if the links are actually 'local' and not just alias of files already here on Commons? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand correctly. You want a list of pages (from where? enwikipedia?) that have local images on them (or do you mean link to them in a non-embeding sort of way)? Essentially a Special:UsedFiles? That would probably be a fairly easy db query (but also have a lot of results). Or do you only want a list of pages that embed local files which are duplicates of commons files (harder given the info is spread out across multiple databases). Or something else? Bawolff (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

From this diff, I guess he means that some of the target of the interwiki links have been moved to commons, but the links didn't update. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Zhuyife1999 is correct, Interwiki target that is now Commons, is what I'd like a list of. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, the closest thing I know of that exists in mediawiki proper is this list of interwiki links to wikipedia. I ran a query on the toolserver of pages in file namespace that link to wikipedia but the link is pointing to a file that also exists on commons (no guarantee that they are the exact same file, only that it has the same name. The data is there for if the file is exact same, but its a lot harder to access). Obviously there are also cases where its appropriate to link back to the original file on wikipedia even if that file now exists on commons. Anyway, here's the first 2000 results of that query, I hope its useful. Bawolff (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Is that report convertable into a Database Report? Or better a script that categories affected images into a maintenance Category? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the people who maintain the db report stuff. I included the query used at the top of [1], so it should be pretty trivial to turn it into a db report. I do not think its appropriate to use a tracking category for this sort of thing (also not the easiest to do). Many of these sorts of links are entirely appropriate. Bawolff (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, One tweak I'd suggest is to ignore entries where the local file and Commons file have the EXACT same name, most of the examples of that seem to be of the 'Orignal description was here [[link]]' Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

July 25

Cascade protection of description pages

Who came up with the absurd idea that description pages are "protected" (=blocked from edits) by cascade when the image is used at whatever main page of whatever project? I understand that the image should be protected from overwriting. However, why to freeze the description page? The exposed use of the image is a valuable occasion to attract interest of editors which can improve the file description and categorization. To impede such chance is counterproductive, harmful, senseless. --ŠJů (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Where? I don't see them cascade protected, for example: File:WMCommonApp_c.png (cascade protected) => Template:Cc-by-sa-2.5/doc (fully protected) => Template:Cc-by-sa-2.5/doc (semi-protected) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Cascade protection is not vs the good users, it's vs the bad users/IP trolls. Those images are like magnets for vandalism. If there's something to improve either directly ask an admin or use {{Editprotected}} on the file's talk page with your proposed changes. --Denniss (talk) 10:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, I think the OP is referring to images such as those that appear on the English wikipedia's home page, today it's File:DeWitt Clinton by Rembrandt Peale.jpg. We at Commons cannot edit the description of that image, nor add or change any categories. I remember in one example I had to upload a duplicate of such a protected image merely to improve the description, which later got merged back to the original. I quite agree with the OP and I propose that we (somehow) remove the block on editing the description, but keep the block on uploading new versions. -84user (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

@Denniss: Those images are "magnets" for all users, not more for vandals than for good users. The block obstructs all edits and dissuades all users, not only vandals. Some fatal error can be corrected through {{Editprotected}} but when somebody want to make some minor improvement, the block discourage him quite surely. I think also, there is very much various waiting work for admins on Commons, we don't need to burden them with such redundant pointless tasks. --ŠJů (talk) 03:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with ŠJů, descriptions should not be protected but reuploads should. I often notice it when trying to correct image I was just looking at on my user page. However since I am an admin, it is not an issue for me. --Jarekt (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Search images by size

I am adding banners to Wikivoyage articles.

To do this, I need an efficient way to see all images in a category that have a width > 2100 pixels.

Is there a way to get this?

If there were a project similar to dbpedia but targetting Commons, I could run SPARQL queries... is there such a project?

Thanks a lot! Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, cool project!

Hmmm… CatScan2 won’t do it, as you can filter by size but not broken down by width/height.

I just tried, and have two difficulties. 1) After I enter "Paris" as a category and changes "Namespaces" to "File", I always zero results. 2) When I change "Project" to "commons" I get "Unknown MySQL server host 'encommons.labsdb'". Any idea how to solve these problems? Nicolas1981 (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You could run SQL queries on the ToolLabs databases − see the layout.

(I believe there are plans to have a dbpedia for Commons, but last time I heard of it it was nowhere to be ready, not even started).

Jean-Fred (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Resources are needed for more important things like VisualEditor, I guess. I predict they will next develop a talking paperclip to assist users with their contributions. -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Note db-pedia is done by totally different people than Visual editor (WMF vs I'm not sure who, but somebody not associated with WMF), so the projects are not competing for resources. I have no idea about db-pedia plans. There are some plans for wikidata, but I'm not sure if they would meet your use case. Anyhow, if you have access to tools lab, you can run sql queries to find this info. Efficient is not the word I'd use, but provided you're doing categories with less than 100000 entries, its probably efficient enough. The query you would use would be:

select img_name, img_width
 from categorylinks
 inner join page on page_id = cl_from
 inner join image on page_title = img_name and page_namespace = 6
 where cl_to = 'Some_category_name' and cl_type = 'file'  and img_width >= 2100;

Bawolff (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

For immediate use the gallery details gadget will show the resolution of images in categories. You might be able to combine it with RegexMenuFramework to quickly filter small images from a single category page (200 images). MKFI (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently RegexMenuFramework is usable only when editing articles, applying regexes to the text of the article. It does not have any impact on browsing files. Nicolas1981 (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Two language selectors for anonymous users

I noticed that we have two language selectors for anonymous users: one if Commons-specific, another - Universal Language Selector. Unfortunately Universal Language Selector doesn't work for anonymous users, and this seems not logical, since language settings may be stored on client side too, if account on server does not exist.

Current state of affairs definitely does not improve to user interface consistency :-)

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

And how should we change that? Disabling our local one is not an option… hacking it into ULS… and the next change to ULS will break it. Suggest asking Krinkle whether ULS offers an API for integration of such tools. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate images of children

Hi all,

I wanted to let you know about a change to the contact-us page for image problems. We've set up a special email address legal-reportswikimedia.org to report Inappropriate images of children to the WMF. That address is monitored by several members of the Legal and Community Advocacy staff and should ONLY be used to report inappropriate images of children. As always deletion (if you are able and feel comfortable doing so) is appreciated to get it off the site as soon as possible but we do not recommend downloading or archiving any potentially inappropriate content yourself. Doing so could place you in significant legal peril.

In order to ensure that everyone can find the email address if needed I've considered putting it in the edit notice for the Commons Village Pump (here) and Admin noticeboard. Does anyone have a concern with that? Jalexander (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No concerns. Thanks for creating this! -- Rillke^(q?) 12:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Does "inappropriate" mean "sexual or quasi-sexual"? And, if not, what does it mean? - Jmabel ! talk 02:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

In general, yes, the full process we have to go through is a bit more complicated (artistic/historical etc have to be brought into the discussion at times) but I think erring on the side of caution is always better for reporting. Jalexander (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Now that I know what you mean, I find this notice quite annoying. How many cases did we ever have of someone reporting inappropriate images of children to Village Pump? I do not recall ever running into one. --Jarekt (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Move and replace

Hi all, the move and replace tool seems to occasionally make null edits, apparently thinking the page contains a rename template when it doesn't (example). Does anyone here know how to fix this? Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

There's page.text = $.trim(this.pageContent.replace((this.templateRegExp || /(?:([^\=])\n)?\{\{(?:rename|rename media|move)\| in the code. I guess a line break at the top is a white space. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed -- Rillke^(q?) 13:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Doubt so. I don't see any difference if I compile the JS in my mind. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

if (newText === this.pageContent) { return this.nextTask();. -- Rillke^(q?) 15:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, didn't notice it. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

English

Hello,

What is the correct formulation:

• x in the Cemetery Père-Lachaise
• x in Cemetery Père-Lachaise
• x at the Cemetery Père-Lachaise

Pyb (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"Cemetery Père-Lachaise" versus "the Cemetery Père-Lachaise" is hard, and even as a native speaker I couldn't state anywhere near a general rule. Names of places generally don't need "the", but "the Statue of Liberty" and "the White House" use them. I can imagine both "Lowell Cemetery" and "the Lowell Cemetery", though the latter might imply that it is the cemetery of Lowell, and the first that it is a cemetery named "Lowell Cemetery". I wouldn't stress too hard either way.

I would generally say events happen at the cemetery, but things are in the cemetery. I'm sure there are subtleties I'm missing here, but "we're going to the funeral at the Cemetery" and "the grave is going to be in the Cemetery."--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your answer. Pyb (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

In English, I would refer to Père-Lachaise, Père-Lachaise Cemetery, or possibly the Père-Lachaise Cemetery. Cemetery Père-Lachaise falls halfway between French and English. - Jmabel ! talk 02:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, Père-Lachaise Cemetery and the Père-Lachaise Cemetery are equally OK. The former uses Père-Lachaise as part of the name, the latter uses it as an adjective to clarify what cemetery. I might not capitalize Cemetery in the latter. - Jmabel ! talk 02:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Logging oregon.jpg: an expert on ancient photography needed

For several years this “historical” image illustrated a Wikipedia article w:Lumberjack. In November 2012 I noticed some disproportionality in objects displayed, and my further investigation revealed also errors in lighting, explicit traces of a montage, as well as such egregiously implausible detail as a hanging bottle. All these details I labelled with help:ImageAnnotator, so that annotations are now available. Of course, I also kicked the “photo” from English Wikipedia and fixed its caption in the gallery.

For a half of year there was no further development of this case. 6 days ago recently appeared user Lylemcglothlin (talk · contribs) posted a rebuttal on the image description page. Actually, I’m a mathematician not a photographer and this dispute can be difficult to me, especially because I’m not a native English speaker. Can a couple of experts present an opinion about my arguments of November 2012 and Lylemcglothlin’s arguments? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Those were good observations and questions you raised, worth a discussion, but it doesn't necessarily imply the conclusion that the photo is a montage. The comments from the other user sound serious. Also, it looks like this type of pose was popular with the lumberjacks. It was either a popular type of photo or a popular type of montage. Compare with this other photo (attributed to Wilhelm Hester). It also has a bottle attached at about the same place. I guess it could have been part of the typical equipment. Or this other one (attributed to Darius Kinsey). The photo attributed to John Fletcher Ford doesn't seem to be in the collection of the U. of W. or in the collection of the OSU, but it is in the collection of the Oregon Historical Society, who doesn't seem to question it. The light bars could be some effect left by a subtle OHS watermark. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

July 27

Rotatebot malfunction

The Rotatebot has not worked since July 16 and the Backlog is now more than 1,000 images. Hopefully, someone (a techie?) can fix this bot's problem and get it to work. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Luxo, the operator, seems to be lost in space without access to the Internet (Mails may not reach him). That's another Bot who needs at least another user with access rights to restart the Bot in case of problems. Or we need some public logs to have an idea what happened to the Bot. --Denniss (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think accessing is possible without a person with root access on toolserver. In most cases, the home folder of the user (~ or /home/username/) is read-protected. But there might be someone who can re-setup that script. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

There are multi-maintainer accounts for this reason. The source code is available:

• View
• SVN:

svn checkout https://svn.toolserver.org/svnroot/luxo

-- Rillke^(q?) 10:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It is designed for toolserver, where I don't have any access. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You can request an account at tools:accountrequest, tswiki:Accounts -- Rillke^(q?) 07:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Already done before, but I canceled. What's the good of having a toolserver account when I have a tool labs account? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

May it be an option to try using the clone that was originally set up to help with mass rotations? --Denniss (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Fixed by DaB. (Thank you DaB.) ; See Special:Contributions/Rotatebot--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy deletions

Do we actually have a written policy on courtesy deletions anywhere? I can't find it. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we have; only cases, such as this one or Category:Courtesy to depicted person deletion requests. --Túrelio (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

That category is interesting; it has 2 DRs both of which I would not have deleted on the basis of the nomination. Both are from IPs. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Montreuil - Salon du livre jeunesse 2011 - Frédéric Petitjean - 001.jpg is a photo of the guy at a book signing in his official capacity as a public figure in France, and there is another photo from the same event by the same photographer in his category here on Commons. The other is an IP claiming to be to subject, and would appear to be, again, taken in her role as a public figure. These are not good examples of what we should be using to discuss courtesy deletions. :( russavia (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

IAR. I do it sometimes for unused/unlinked images out of respect for an uploader (who used their valuable time and effort to find/create the picture) who wishes it to be removed. IMHO, if it can be done, it should be. Just my two cents -FASTILY 20:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I created this category − indeed to try to surface some “case law” − and put there the few DRs I knew about because the pictures happened to have been taken by a fellow French user − feel free to add more DRs. Though I believe many courtesy deletions actually happen without DRs, after discussion on whatever village pump. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

When is a "disputed map" issue solved? (wrt File:Ripuarisch.png )

File:Ripuarisch.png received a "disputed map" tag. Afaik the sources are given correctly. The only remaining issue is a nice-to-have addition request from an anonymous user. Who decides when the tag is removed? Hans Erren (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

If you think that all substantial issues have been resolved you can removed the tag. Ruslik (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done thx. Hans Erren (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Flickr User-Box with a space in my name

Hi, I tried to use the Flickr user-box, but it does not work properly because my Flickr username has a space in it. I tries enclosing my name like in "name" or 'name', but it did not work. --Xicotencatl (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You must specify either the path alias or your flickrID in {{User flickr}}. -- Rillke^(q?) 20:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Court houses in Australia and subcategories

For some strange reason, some websites maintained by governments of Australia (mainly state ones) use "court house", but not even in Australian English, or any other English I am aware of, is "court house" a correctly spelled/spelt term.

Should we not rename things to "courthouse"; or, why then is this category, subcategories, and pages named "court house[s]"? "Courtroom", after all, is never "court room"; and, "courthouse" is a one-word compound noun, like "courtroom". --Qwerty Binary (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

User category for derivative files created by other users?

I failed to get responses at Commons talk:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy so I will drop this question here:

Is it allowed to create a user category for files uploaded by other users but based on my uploads (Category:Derivatives of files by User:MKFI)? For example, File:Multitech Microprofessor II Tietokonemuseo (cropped).JPG is uploaded by User:Ubcule, but it is a crop from File:Multitech Microprofessor II Tietokonemuseo.JPG photographed and uploaded by me. I already have a user category Category:Files by User:MKFI for images that I have photographed myself. MKFI (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I have created the derivative file category. MKFI (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

A bit late to the party but for what it is worth: I would have supposed you would add the category Category:Files by User:MKFI even to those derivs ; but if you don’t I don’t have any issue with you having this Derivs one. Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

July 28

Image renaming

I'm new here and I don't know how to get an error in a file name fixed. The file in question is File:Ron Kupla watches fan reaction to his blown call.jpg. The name "Kupla" is misspelled (the proper spelling is "Kulpa"). Could someone fix this and explain to me where to take such concerns in the future? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, You can see the explanations for use of the Template:Rename. It may look a bit complex on your first use. Have a look at the page with the explanations about the numbers for the renaming reasons. Glad to help with your mea Kulpa. :) -- Asclepias (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help :) AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I added the link to the header of this page. We should actually put a synopsis of the number scheme one the main page of Template:Rename as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You may use the automated script for that (described at Help:RenameLink). Jean-Fred (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done as requested, using filemover rights. Also added the watermark warning and a few categories. -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Location template by default

Can we please do something about all uploads having {{Location}} now? I must have seen 100 images which apparently were taken at 0,0 just in the past day. Maybe make the template commented out if 0,0? Not like many people will be taking photos there. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Already reported the 23rd and the 25th, and apparently ignored. I find it disgraceful that back then a new upload “wizard” was deemed such an important addition and there was even resources to sprinkle it with some k12 cartoons — but now when it’s broken nobody even cares to acknowledge the error, let alone fix it.

(Mattbuck, Commons:Upload and Special:Upload seem to be unaffected, for what that’s worth. The 24th I uploaded 101 images, none of which with falsely tagged to be on the Greenwich Equator; now adding their locations manually one by one.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 09:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Not "apparently ignored"; per Bugzilla: 51879 it looks like this was patched on the 25th and presumably is waiting to go live. Commons:Bots/Requests/RillkeBot has been set up to clean up the old uploads after the patch is active. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, apparently ignored — even if not actually ignored. The matter was raised here and was not follwed up in here. Too bad that the Village pump is found to be a good place to spam about all the latest “enhancements”, but not to answer real world matters. -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Deployment is scheduled for Monday, July 29, 2013, if I understand everything correctly. However, I could try to overwriting the Upload Wizard config at Commons, if this is desired, to fix the issue here. -- Rillke^(q?) 14:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

--Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I created Category:Media with default location so we can remove such templates. I will wait a day or two for it to populate and run a bot to clean them up. --Jarekt (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed some by VisualFileChange.js --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

My bot will run over all UploadWizard uploads (due to its edit summary it's easy) and does not require the category. Given a full job-queue, this was a way to achieve the desired result more quickly. -- Rillke^(q?) 09:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I should have checked on other fixing efforts before I started fixing things. Category:Media with default location seems to be empty for now. If it stays empty for a while I will dismantle it. --Jarekt (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Search and Category license options

I followed an invitation link to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/AppropriatelyLicensed, which I read one third through, then started skipping through, then skipped to the end of and found it had sort of stalled in a quagmire, and everyone went off to have a beer. It occurs to me that we should simply have a search function that simply defaults to only finding media with a truely free license (ok, that will probably be impossible to define, but I am thinking PD, CC0, or unadorned CC without elaborate attribution requirements), and you have to tick an appropriate box under advanced search to find that "less-free" stuff. Simlarly categories only show the "really-free" stuff unless you click on the "show all" (or whatever) box. Of course you have a preferences setting that defaults to "show-free" and can be changed to "show-all". So most users (all not-logged-in/IP users) just get the good stuff ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd generalize it: you should be able to filter which licenses you want to see and which ones not, because any license can potentially be too restrictive for somebody. But the default should be to show everything we have. darkweasel94 12:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Counting uploads

Does anybody know of a simple way to count the exact number of files a particular editor has uploaded? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of edit counters, here is one: [2]. MKFI (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Perfect; that tells me my number of uploads. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You might want to try the dedicated (and quicker) Commons Uploadcounter by Pleclown. Jean-Fred (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

July 29

credit-line-template buggy

Seems if it corrupts the following self-template here. --Itu (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed {{Credit line}} must be used as value of the other_fields parameter of {{Information}} − as it is indicated in its documentation. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Itu (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

de-adminship discussion

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Bidgee (de-adminship)

Penyulap ☏ 20:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Mr._Malibu_.26_Maria_Shriver.png takedown update

Ahoy all,

Following up from a DMCA takedown we had about a month ago I've posted an update on the DMCA notices page. In short, after some internal discussions and an unofficial request from the uploader, we talked with the DMCA filer and they have officially withdrawn their claim. Jalexander (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping us informed.--Jarekt (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

July 30

One more trouble with location zeros

Is it only me, or file pages using {{Location}} after {{Artwork}} are showing next to it a lose "0"? (Example.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Also after {{Information}} — (example). -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Zero? Which zero? -- Rillke^(q?) 15:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I also do not see any loose zeros. --Jarekt (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

There was previously one, seems to have been fixed. darkweasel94 19:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is gone now. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"Please make this title more meaningful"?

Earlier today, I uploaded a number of photos and encountered the following interesting incident. Using the Upload Wizard, in the same upload, the file name File:Opteka 58mm lens filter set.JPG was accepted, yet File:Fotodiox 52mm lens filter set.JPG returned an error "Please make this title more meaningful". I got round it using the old upload form, but I'm guessing this is a mis-firing file name filter of some form? -- KTC (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I’m guessing that "Foto"+number triggered that warning. -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I would agree. I think the software is set to reject files like Foto, Dsc, Img, type thing. Is there a way to edit the error message to explain the fault? "Please make this title more meaningful. Do not use common prefixes (Foto, Dsc, Img...) or blocked characters." We could even add a link in the message that has a list.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It's probably caused by MediaWiki:Filename-prefix-blacklist. We have a similar, more detailed rule in MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, so I'm not sure it's really needed. There at least used to be a way to report blacklist problems from within the Upload Wizard, but since the last report is from December 2011, I'm guessing it's been disabled, probably because literally none of the feedback there was legitimate. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

May be an additional clause could be added that numbers followed by "mm", "km", and a few others are accrptable? -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this filter is triggered by the prefix "Foto" regardless of what follows. --Patrick87 (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

July 31

Disruptive DRs

I just came across some disruptive DRs by an IP of files I had on my watchlist. Has it ever been discussed that IPs shouldn't be allowed to file DRs? This would save our admin mucho headaches.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't see that changing anytime soon, for example, what if some lame-arse admin wanted to troll you canoe ? If they can't file a DR on one of your images, then how can they swoop in wearing underpants on the outside like a 7 year old to save the day and impress the heck out of you ? Hypothetically speaking of course. Penyulap ☏ 13:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to find out if something has been discussed here before, it's usually a good idea to search the archives. There are input fields near the top of this page. If you search for "ip deletion", Commons:Village pump/Archive/2012/07#abusing anonymous ip is the first result. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

 Support. I think the techs should just change it with three support votes in this section. Only IPs should be allowed to revert consensus and then we could see their reasons. Their is no reason we can't create a special tag for them that would put the files in a pre-DR review category.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

 Support Yes it has been discussed before, so this is a well trodden path. It would be bizarre for a new contributor to start helping on Commons with DRs in their first edit, so limiting DR creation to confirmed accounts could hardly be considered a huge burden on those interested in creating valid DRs. I would hope that everyone knows that setting up an alternative new account is a better way of preserving anonymity, rather than, say, revealing that you happen to use SkyMesh to access the internet. --Fæ (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose Completely forbidding DRs for IPs,  Support some kind of "preliminary" DRs that need to be reviewed first (however I doubt this would significantly reduce work for administrators in the end). The problem I see with forbidding DRs fo IPs is, that a copyright holder (or someone affiliated with the copyright holder) who does not have an account might find an image used on Wikipedia without permission. We should then allow to anonymously request deletion. --Patrick87 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If there is a good reason for the copyright holder to protect their anonymity, or to have concern for the Streisand Effect, then they would be better advised to email in via OTRS rather than raise a public DR. There is also no problem (on Commons) for an anon IP to request a DR if the (incredibly simple) step of creating a single purpose account to raise a DR is not acceptable for them. --Fæ (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

 Comment What is exactly the extent of the problem? Otherwise, I am really inclined to believe this is a solution in search of a problem. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

An IP can still use a copyvio speedy tag if they are the rights holder. If another editor wishes to question the copyvio tag then that editor can ask for OTRS or DCMA office action and then tag it DR pending the other outcomes. The problem I saw recently was an IP that was blocked for disruptive DRs. Admin had to block and revert the DRs. With regular copyvio tags then any editor can deal with them and disrupting IPs will clue in.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose This cannot really be enforced on a technical level anyway, so any DR started by an IP in violation of this proposal will still need to be dealt with by an admin. Speedy-closing a legitimate DR just because of who started it strikes me as pretty silly. darkweasel94 17:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, on a technical level, this would be pretty easy for a bot to handle, even to the extent of sweeping up and leaving polite messages on IP talk pages encouraging them to create an account to do the same thing. Hypothetically speaking as, based on the last few times this was discussed, changes like this that can be argued to "suppress" access will never get voted through even if the majority of such DRs are a source of disruption or just a waste of time. --Fæ (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I should have asked about the tech aspects. If a bot would work we could have it message the admin board as well. Then they could hand out disruptive IP blocks before too many lame DRs get created. --Canoe1967 (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to have lots of voting like this, may I suggest cut'n'pasting the whole lot across to VPP. Penyulap ☏ 05:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

 Comment I don't like the barriers described in the talk linked above. As I don't like the way you have recently blocked IP-addresses from creating templates. (I used to create template translation subpages and now I can't.) I've requested several reasonable deletions myself and I've seen plenty of such DRs by other IP-addresses. If admins really are about to crumble under the load of false DRs that are by IP-addresses and not by registered users (what's the actual state?) then you might want to make it harder for IP-address to create a DR (i.e hide the toolbar link for them), but not fully block them. 88.196.241.249 06:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

actually hiding the toolbar may have the opposite effect on nonsense DR's, filtering out good faith ones and leaving the rest.

Also, just as many registered users and admins will make nonsense DR's, if not more, than unregistered users. Maybe the unregistered ones are just more noticeable because it's an IP. Some people don't have access to the tools to see who is doing it (no I don't mean CU) so it frustrates them which is I guess the intention. I suggest just turn all nonsense DR's into an Epic fail by not caring. Penyulap ☏ 07:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

 Comment People who have never used a wiki and come here to complain about the misuse of their copyrighted image may well do a DR as their one and only edit. Expecting them to work out how to add copyvio templates or file OTRS request straight off the street (or the web) is a little unreasonable for their first edit. On the other side, people with malicious/disruptive intent, especially those with a wiki grudge, would hardly pause at the requirement of creating an account and even doing a few innocent edits to get autoconfirmed. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose Considering that I've filed a number of legitimate (and accepted) DRs of more than year-old uncategorized images from an IP quite recently (when editing from work, where I prefer not to create an alternate account for simplicities sake), I strongly oppose making it harder for drive-by users to help with cataloging and triaging our massive flow of un-sorted and un-checked images. We need more people examining (and categorizing, including DR'ing) images, not less. JesseW (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose anybody should be allowed to file deletion request. Often copyright holders of copyvios we are holding are not Commons users. I prefer for them to file DR, than emailing legal department. --Jarekt (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I am resolving this because it probably needs broader input in a different forum. I only started the thread because I thought it may be close to unanimous. Looking at the above points, I now see that may be a fix looking for a problem. Admins may wish to track disruptive IP DRs from this point on, and see how much of a problem it really is. If they don't think it is such a big deal then we can just drop it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Cuisine of Punjab category

Hi,

I am a regular uploader of photographs of food dishes on wikimedia commons, in public domain. Recently I noticed that some one have changed the category of Cuisine of Punjab to Cuisine of Punjab, India . I think it is wrong because Punjab is a big region divided between Pakistan and India. In India it is further divided into three provinces. When I mark my photograph for Cuisine of Punjab category, it is for the entire Punjab not Indian Punjab nor Pakistani Punjab. Therefore I request here to re adjust this category to Cuisine of Punjab instead of Cuisine of Punjab, India.

Add it to Commons:Categories for discussion--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not just create a "Cuisine of Punjab region" category? Or just remove the redirect, I can't see any discussion about it's creation. I find the India disambiguation a bit odd, how are we to know if the uploader is located in Indian or Pakistani Punjab. I think it would be best to try to sort this out here rather than send it off to CFD, that place has a backlog that is thousands and no one seems to care. Liamdavies (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You could also just use this cat, Category:Punjabi cuisine, it seems like the appropriate place. Although I still don't see why this couldn't just be located at Category:Cuisine of Punjab, and would support that move. It appears that the status quo was created by a user about 10 days ago, ([3] [4]), I'll ask the user to pop in here and explain why. Liamdavies (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Talk at Wikipedia / Template:Talk at enwp

I just came across the two templates mentioned above, and wonder if there is any consensus to do such things? Matters on Commons should be decided on Commons, not on one particular local project. Such a template excludes people banned or blocked on that project, people not speaking that project's language and people who otherwise don't want to or cannot participate on that project. Consensus that may have been formed on some local project shouldn't apply to Commons. I wasn't sure if a deletion request is the best way to do this as it seems more like a policy issue, so I'm raising it here. darkweasel94 20:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• But an enWP discussion for instance can impact a Commons image, and there is no point forcing a fork of the discussion. When the discussion started on WP, often about the suitability of the image or some modification, the template provides a convenient courtesy notice. Dankarl (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The template basically says "if you want to discuss this image, please don't do so here but at some other project" - and that's not a good idea. darkweasel94 23:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• I thought some time about it and I'd go as far as to say: remove local file discussion pages all together (and clearly eliminate those templates!).

If a file is uploaded to Commons all discussion related to that file should go there. Otherwise we could have split discussions for every language of every WMF project plus the (in principle) centralized discussion on Commons. A needless mess, hindering communication between projects. If a file has a problem on the English Wikipedia it's probable it has the exact same problems on German Wikipedia (not to talk of the problems which might have been mentioned on Bengali Wikipedia – which I'll never ever read since I'm not active in this project.

Actually I even have the gadget enabled to bypass local file description pages (as might others). That means I never see local file discussion pages at all. I therefore strongly suggest to collect discussions on Commons. It will allow people from all projects to contribute to the discussion and it will make people of all projects aware of the problems that might exist with a file that might have gone unnoticed otherwise. --Patrick87 (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I created those templates. If Darkweasel or anyone else is so intent on the discussion not occurring at another wiki, then he is welcome to migrate the talk pages to Commons, so that the discussion isn't forked. Good luck with that; there is a lot of text, and the number of file talk pages on English Wikipedia is in the millions, making automatic redirecting a non-starter as a proposal. The rest of us appreciate having discussion centralized - those of us who are out to actually enable better content rather than trying to make a point about the horrors of having to register an account at a second wiki and to comment there.

As for people who are banned at Wikipedia - well, with all due respect, if they didn't commit ban-worthy acts, then they could have their say in the discussion. That goes with the territory - if you misbehave on a wiki, you can't participate in it. There are consequences to community-defying behavior, but that shouldn't inhibit discussion for the rest of us.

Finally, as for someone who speaks a language other than English, the person will have no problem commenting on file talk pages for Commons images in their own language. Only other pages (e.g., articles) require English. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm someone who doesn't like to be pre-judged. I also find it rather offensive that people who are welcome to contribute on commons should be made to feel unwelcome to do so. If you feel the need to punish someone who has done something wrong on en.wiki, then go and punish them there rather than think you can do it twice over here for the hell of it. Edward Snowden and Julian Assange don't get the death penalty everywhere they go. Penyulap ☏ 05:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I really understand you comment Magog the Ogre. Basically you're saying that you want discussions centralized, too. So how is this a contradiction to encourage people to have the discussion here on Commons, where the file is hosted and where discussions are centralized per definition? I see that it's not feasible to move all the existing content from all projects to Commons at this point, but at least we can deprecate the use of these templates now to not make the situation even worse. I'd favor the other way round: Templates telling people to have the discussion on Commons put on local file discussion pages. --Patrick87 (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"If you misbehave on a wiki, you can't participate in it" - yes, true, but you should still be able to participate in other wikis, especially Commons which has implications far beyond both the wiki where you're banned and itself. We have at least one bureaucrat here who is indef-blocked on enwiki. And I didn't even say we should move existing talk pages to Commons, just deprecate this template and from now on ignore everything that happened somewhere else. Remember that file talk pages on other wikis won't show up on any Commons watchlist, so people who are potentially interested won't be able to see anything that happens there. darkweasel94 10:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong with those templates. People at local wikis often do not speak English, or are not familiar with Commons. Such discussions about files we are holding will be happening all over the place, if we like it or not. And I do prefer to have link to such discussions here at Commons, so we can find them in the future. --Jarekt (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• We do not require other people to talk English on Commons, therefore they can also communicate in their native language if the wish to do so. But if they can speak English it would be preferable if they did, so other people who are not able to speak their native language (which is the much more probable case) can join the discussion (something totally prevented by local file discussion).
• I'm not familiar with over 200 localized Wikipedias and not a single other WMF project. Do you think I feel any better when I'm redirected while I would feel familiar with Commons? The images are hosted on Commons, so maybe we should encourage people to make themselves familiar with Commons – the great project which hosts their files – in the end?
• Nobody suggested to replace those templates without substitution. Surely we will make sure to keep this information! --Patrick87 (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

We can not prevent people from discussing images wherever they want and whatever language they want. They will be doing it with or without our blessing. The only choice we have is if we want to have friendly template to put around the link to such discussions, or not. I prefer a friendly template. Even that is not much of a choice since The templates are in use so we can not get rid of them without labor of replacing them with something else. --Jarekt (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but I have the feeling this template is rather used to encourage people to have the discussion elsewhere instead of directing the discussion to (with the current software) inevitable discussions on local talk pages. That's why I don't like it and would reccomend templates redirecting the other way round where necessary). Instead of improving upon the current situation it worsens it by relaying even more useful input to local file talk pages instead of keeping it centralized and easily visible for everybody on Commons. --Patrick87 (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

What I could live with is a neutral template "there have also been discussions about this file on enwiki, dewikinews, frwikispecies, ..." - but we shouldn't encourage people to do that, and in case of disputes, consensus on Commons should always override consensus somewhere else (other wikis can always upload their preferred versions under different file names, after all). darkweasel94 18:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with darkweasel's statement above. Killiondude (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Flickr uplaod bot failure

FUB has failed with File:Jewellery Quarter Station - watch sculpture.jpg (a later upload succeeded). Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

August 01

List of licenses in the new UploadCampaigns and hint for JSON editing

I'm not really sure if this is the correct place to ask, but I haven't really found any places more suitable. After the Update to UploadCampaigns on 22 July 2013, I have been tinkering at bit with it today. Mainly because I noticed that the header seemed to have vanished on the Danish upload campaign. Besides my initial struggles with the ever present Invalid JSON answer, I found jsonlint.com and did the editing in there. That may be of use for somebody else :)
I do seem to have one "issue" with the licenses to be selected. I have tried adding a number of third party licenses that seems to be ignored, I have tried with only pd-usgov-nasa, which also seems to be ignored. The MediaWiki page on the subject doesn't provide much clue either. Can I find a list of the accepted licenses? And is it possible to add custom licenses? --heb [T C E] 08:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I've put a snapshot of the default config to Commons:Upload Wizard/defaultConfig. Writing a JavaScript user interface for creating campaigns should be possible, but I don't know anything about the WMF's plans for UpWiz. If they don't have any intention, I would be inclined filing an Individual Investmet Grant proposal as this is nothing I or someone elso should do during their spare time. The licenses available are listed at "licenses": { in Commons:Upload_Wizard/defaultConfig. One would have to ask at bugzilla: in order being able to add custom licenses. -- Rillke^(q?) 10:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Please help us develop consensus on an Infobox photo

Could available editors please give their opinion on which of these photos would make a better Infobox pic for the en:Rick Remender article? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That is wikipedia discussion. It has little to do with Commons. --Jarekt (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

‎Using text from Wikipedia or promoting conspiracy theories?

I have a small edit was over at Category:Islamophobia. The long standing consensus have been to use the into text from the corresponding article at the English Wikipedia and also include it in Category:Racism as several very reliable sources (papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals) support it. Attempts to discuss it have so far only resulted in insults. // Liftarn (talk)

Oh boy, both of you guys have been around long enough, to know not to get into such edit wars. I do not think we need whole article on a subject there, so I just copied first sentence from the English Wikipedia and provided link to EN WIKI article. I also locked the page for a week. --Jarekt (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

And it will start over again when the clock ticks over since we all know he can not be reasoned with as the talk page already shows. // Liftarn (talk)

Copyfraud at Getty Images

Apropos https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=65768915#Copyfraud_at_Getty_Images - The image has been deleted. Can someone post a link (even if it's dead) to the source? Is the (alleged) copyfraud ongoing? --Elvey (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

See box below. --Jarekt (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

File:WP_on_Getty_images_with_watermark.jpg description

Wikipedia's main page from January 17, 2012, as photographed by Karen Bleier of Getty Images. Note the Getty Watermark (please don't remove). Getty sells licenses for this image and claims copyright. I originally saw this image (without watermark) at NPR http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/01/17/145362949/the-social-reference-desk-a-band-aid-for-the-wikipedia-blackout Getty's data read: Title: The online encyclopedia Wikipedia is vie Caption: The online encyclopedia Wikipedia is viewed on January 17, 2012 in Washington, DC. Free online knowledge site Wikipedia will shut down for 24 hours beginning at midnight eastern standard time in protest at draft anti-online piracy legislation before the US Congress, founder Jimmy Wales said Monday on Twitter. AFP PHOTO/Karen BLEIER (Photo credit should read KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images) Date created: 17 Jan 2012 Editorial image #: 137246977 Restrictions: Contact your local office for all commercial or promotional uses. Full editorial rights UK, US, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Canada (not Quebec). Restricted editorial rights elsewhere, please call local office. License type: Rights-managed Photographer: KAREN BLEIER/Staff Collection: AFP Credit: AFP/Getty Images Max file size/dimensions/dpi: 34.5 MB - 4256 x 2832 px (14.19 x 9.44 in.) - 300 dpi Download file size may vary. Source: AFP Release information: Not released. More information Bar code: AFP Object name: Was6144007 Copyright: 2012 AFP Keywords: Finance, Technology, Horizontal, USA, Internet, Washington DC, Capital Cities, Encyclopaedia, Wikipedia. Find similar images Source: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-online-encyclopedia-wikipedia-is-viewed-on-january-17-news-photo/137246977

Invitation to help with WLM 2013 in the US

Dear Commoners,

Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United States needs your help to assist new contributors, plan contest details, contact the press, and help promote the contest through our online presence. If you live in the United States and are interested in helping to organize the contest, please learn more about the event and sign up to assist us. Remember to subscribe to our mailing list - if you have any questions, please ask there.

We are looking forward to making this event successful and we appreciate all your assistance in this matter.

Thank you, —Mono 22:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

August 02

Want to import Flickr images through UploadWizard?

Apply to become a license reviewer. (All users with admin or license review rights have access to the Flickr importing interface in UploadWizard.) Kaldari (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I want an unbiased person/admin to go through the following and give proper explanation about this issue.

The main page of the Wikimedia Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) states that "Donate your photos to Wikimedia projects wherever you go"

My uploads are being deleted continuously, i did not upload any improper material, Last time i uploaded 48 images of copy of a Constitution (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Social_Informer). That was deleted by a user named "Magog the Ogre" in Wikimedia, He states himself as an administrator on Commons and English Wikipedia on his user page.

I have seen pictures of stones, walls, papers, and other things uploaded by users on Wikimedia, how come the images of a constitution gets cheaper than the other images to get deleted from Wikimedia.

What is happening in Wikimedia, you state one thing clearly and do something else, If you say this person stated as admin "Magog the Ogre" did is correct. Change the promotion statement that appears on the main page of Wikimedia commons to save the precious time of innocent people around the world.

It makes me feel very disappointed, if there is a good space to store the images of the constitution let me know.