Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

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

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES Commons Help desk Village pump (general discussion) Copyright Proposals Technical Graphics and photography discussion Photography critiques Image improvement Illustration workshop Map workshop Photography workshop Video and sound workshop Categories for discussion Undeletion requests Deletion requests Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests Oversight requests Telegram IRC webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator Welcome to the Village pump This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/11. Please note: If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias. Have you read our FAQ? For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer). Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam. Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page: Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead. For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump. To ask for image improvement, see: Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for photographs. Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps. Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for other illustrations. To ask for video or audio improvement, see Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop. For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation. For media requests, please post at Commons:File requests. Search archives:     Start a new discussion

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

It can only be speculated that, like the modern office water cooler, the village pump must have been a gathering place where dwellers discussed ideas for the improvement of their locale. [add]

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

Oldies

W.W.11

If there is anyone who would like to know what it was like growing up during the blitz in London drop me a line I was originally a Gael then moved to London so that my Pappa could work at Bletchley Park then on from there I warn you I can chat the hind leg off a donkey! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberta Adair-Denham (talk • contribs) 00:45, 19 September 2014‎

Julius Simonsen, Oldenburg

File:Sailing ship and lightship.jpg

I am trying to find out the photografer of an sailship picture on a postcard and trying to date the picture. On the back is the mention Verslag: Julius Simonsen oldenburg. when I check in google and the Commons it seems to be a postcard editor with a long history, so I suppose the photograph is anonymous. The postcard however is posted at 21-2-1944 Swinemunde in the middle of the war (going badly for the Germans)so I suppose the picture was taken before the war. The postcard is of sailing three mast big ship sailing past a ligthship.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Oldenburg was purchased by Finland and renamed Suomen Joutsen in 1931. Before 1922 the ship was named Laënnec. That would give a date range between 1922 and 1931. MKFI (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There is an other posibility: The German text seems to be: Segelschulschiff Horst Wessel (Sea school ship Horst Wessel) wich would match with en:USCGC Eagle (WIX-327). Oldenburg is only the city of the postcard editor website.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a German postcard, showing the tall ship Horst Wessel (left) and the lightship Kiel (background right). The postcard was published by several publishers; compare for instance [1]. The photographer was Ferdinand Urbahns. Although it's a little bit unclear whether the photographer was the father or the son[2] I suspect that it was the son. Ferdinand Urbahns junior died 1978, so this is still copyrighted in Germany and will remain so until the end of 2048. (And even if the father had been the photographer, the image would still be in copyright until December 31 of this year.) The Horst Wessel was commissioned in late 1936; a colorized version of this photo was sold by a German newspaper for a collector's album in 1939.[3] All in all I suspect that Urbahns senior may have been already a bit old and most probably his son took this picture. Lupo 07:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Chinese mainpage

• File:Chinese Wikipedia's Main Page screenshot zh.png
• File:Chinese Wikipedia's Main Page screenshot zh-hans.png
• File:Chinese Wikipedia's Main Page screenshot zh-hant.png
• File:Chinese Wikipedia's Main Page screenshot zh-cn.png
• File:Chinese Wikipedia's Main Page screenshot zh-sg.png
• File:Chinese Wikipedia's Main Page screenshot zh-hk.png
• File:Chinese Wikipedia's Main Page screenshot zh-tw.png

These pages have been diligently licensed with sub-licences of the included works. But then newer versions of the page have been uploaded. (And one of the works deleted, albeit for a valid reason - which means that the historical versions of the Chinese main pages won't work.)

Any solutions? Rich Farmbrough, 16:17 29 October 2014 (GMT).

Automatic archives don't work on Commons:Photography critiques

Can anyone figure out why ArchiveBot doesn't seem to work on Commons:Photography critiques anymore? I'd like to try to rivive the page and having those very old threads lying around there makes the page look even more dead … --El Grafo (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a link on User:MiszaBot to a help page on Wikipedia. I think the configuration has to start immediately before the content (same idea as here), otherwise the Bot doesn't know what to do. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

{{Autoarchive resolved section}} is a much more comfortable way to archive pages, and it now has the same functionality as MiszaBot/ArchiveBot.    FDMS  4    12:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That may indeed be better suited for that page, so I gave it a try. Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Grey v.s gray

Is there a decision about wheather spelling "grey" or "gray" in category names? -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Meh. If you want Commons to be dominated by North American culture and alienate others, presumably because most Wikimedia Foundation employees are based there, then chose "Gray". If you believe Commons is an international project, choose "Grey". --Fæ (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I want neither. I want (and I suppose we all do want) terminological stability and coherence, the specific language in use for it being transparent. English was “chosen” for Commons on practical grounds, so we should demand it bend a bit to live up to that, even if we have to incurr in dialectological, glottohistorical, etymological, or orthographic blunders which would be rightfully unnaceptable in the English Wikipedia, where the intrincacies and complexities of English are not a hindrance but a delight. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Masterfully blown up into a divisive issue with a healthy dash of foundation bashing. --Dschwen (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice to see a bureaucrat showing leadership on this decision. --Fæ (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

As a dictionary will tell you, grey is the British and gray is the US variant. As Gray is also a physical unit and as gray even on :en redirects to grey, grey seems to be the better choice. --Túrelio (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Out of interest, here's how the 906 categories in Commons with Grey or Gray in them (as individual words) break down:

+------+------+
| grey | gray |
+------+------+
|  591 |  315 |
+------+------+

Not particularly conclusive as there are a lot of proper names in there (like Aaron Gray and Alex Grey), but the weight of pragmatism seems to also be on "grey". --Fæ (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

A bit more thought filters out the categories about people. This shows a better than 2:1 general usage:

+------+------+
| grey | gray |
+------+------+
|  558 |  251 |
+------+------+

If anyone wants to have a browse through these grey categories, you can find the gory detail in my sandbox. --Fæ (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Goldfrapp

Why is there a category "Goldfrapp" inside a category already named "Goldfrapp"? Liadmalone (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Look closely, one is a Commons:gallery and one is a category. Categories are used to sort and catalogue files. Galleries are used to present them, thematically, chronologically, as a narrative or a mix. With categories with few files categories and galleries may look much the same, but for example in this case there are some 185 files in the category; with a gallery you can choose the best of these images.--KTo288 (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, but now I'm puzzled: How come the link to the category from w:Goldfrapp leads directly to the Gallery and not the whole Category? While the link from w:he:גולדפראפ leads to the whole Category. Liadmalone (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

When you put the little link at the bottom of an article, "Wikimedia Commons has media related to Goldfrapp", you have a choice of whether to link to the gallery or the category. One wiki chose the gallery, the other the category. Delphi234 (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Weird transclusion-induced slow-down

What's going on here?

I had a big page with lots of templates on it, but it was okay, everything rendered down to the bottom. (old version).

I broke the page into transcluded sub-pages, diff. Now the renderer falls over two thirds of the way down.

Without having looked at the code, is it possible that what's going on is the following?

I can imagine that each time the renderer hits a template or transclusion, it needs to check whether anything has altered in the parameters or in the wikitext of the template or transclusion, that would invalidate its cached version of the output.

It seems to me that when I've split the big page into subpages, it may now be doing this twice. First to see whether the whole page needs to be regenerated it's checking all the templates (and all of their templates) for change. Then when it's rendering the page, for each transcluded chunk, is it possible it is running that whole same check all over again, this time to render the sub-page?

(Rather than forcing the sub-page to re-render in the first stage if it needs to, then knowing that all the sub-pages are then clean, when it comes to do the final build of the end page).

What it's doing at the moment cannot be right can it? And on the face of it must be costing the WMF and its servers huge numbers of unnecessary CPU cycles?

Is this a known perennial? Or can anybody shed some light on why this weirdness occurs and seems to be allowed to continue?

Cheers, Jheald (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You hit "Post‐expand include size" limit, which you can observe yourself as the page is now a member of Category:Pages_where_template_include_size_is_exceeded. See also w:en:Wikipedia:Template_limits#Post-expand_include_size. Ruslik (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting - never seen it do this with transcluded subpages before (but then, it's unusual to have template-heavy transclusions like this). Andrew Gray (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, @Ruslik0: the enwiki note and bugzilla report are very informative. It seems one issue is the total length of text PHP has to copy. Another layer of transclusion means another step of copying, hence why it gets pushed over the transclusion limit. Jheald (talk) 07:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

November 03

Charles Overstreet collection

I recently uploaded a few pictures that I found on Flickr from the Charles Overstreet collection of WW II photographs https://www.flickr.com/photos/imlsdcc/sets/72157622639536326 I am planning to upload a few more that illustrate various topics, but before I proceed, I wonder if we should have the entire collection on Commons. They appear to be licensed appropriately, with one exception, 4120672204, a photo of a newspaper clipping. Is there an activity on Commons that vets collections like this one?--agr (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@ArnoldReinhold: . Maybe worth explicitly confirming that CC-BY with the Flora Public Library, and getting an OTRS stamp. But otherwise it looks great. Jheald (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

How to handle new files missing information template

It seems to me that first step towards Commons:Structured data is to have information about source, author, license , etc. for each file and to have it in a standard machine-readable format provided by Infobox templates. Many files on Commons are missing Template:Information or other Infobox templates. A quick look at Special:MostTranscludedPages shows that we have 23,717,439 files with {{License template tag}}, 21,238,318 files with {{Information}} and 1,789,294 files with {{Infobox template tag}}. Which means that we should expect to find 23,717,439-21,238,318-1,789,294=689,827 wiles without any Infobox templates. Most of them are old from the era before such templates were introduced, some have syntax errors preventing proper parsing of the page, but we also have steady stream of new uploads without any infobox templates, see for example files from last week here. How shall we handle such files? I do not think we have a policy stating that files should have Infobox templates - should we? Many of the files do not have proper source and/or author information but it is hard to automatically figure out which one is missing what. Any ideas? --Jarekt (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

November 04

resurrecting Commons:Photography critiques

Since it was created in 2006, Commons:Photography critiques has never been a high-traffic page but lately it has been essentially dead. I think that's a shame because it could be a great place to get feedback on our images. A place for getting quick opinions on questions à la "do you think this image would stand a chance at FPC/QIC/VIC?" or "I can't decide which of these to enter at the Photo challenge – what do you think?" A place for prolonged discussions about details and techniques. A friendly place to learn from each other. A place for constructive criticism without the need to decide for  Support or  Oppose.

I've tried to make the page look less abandoned and more welcoming by re-activating automatical archiving and giving it a new header (improvements welcome!). The only thing that's missing now to get things running again is people using the page. I hope that once we have a bit more activity, it'll pop up on the watchlists more often and make its way back to people's minds. So if you have any image that could be discussed there, please don't hesitate to add it to the page – and if you don't, maybe at least consider to add the page to your watchlist. Any ideas on how to improve the page are of course very much welcome here.

Thanks for your attention, --El Grafo (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

El Grafo thank you for the initiative, I was looking for that;

I was blocked, so I didn't have the possibility to improve the page, and after the will for that.

Now, we expect the use of the page, and good volunteers helping the community. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Photo challenge new banners

What up team?!

I was looking the winners template of the Photo challenge, and there are not the pretty, so I create this three here to substitute, and I want to know what's your takes on it: User:Rodrigo.Argenton/test. All of them have slices modifications to test, if you could give a feedback about it I will honestly appreciate.

xoxo, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The banners are far too large in my opinion, and your logo uploads are copyvios (derivative works missing attribution).    FDMS  4    16:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Sorry, our logo is in the PD.

FDMS4 Thank you for our opinion

My mistake, I tried upload three times, my internet is not ok, and then I forget to put the source

I did a smaller version ( you need to scroll to see), so what do you think? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I like banners and templates with width=100% … But rather ask for feedback at Commons talk:Photo challenge.    FDMS  4    17:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I was doing that, maybe I could that more clearly, in a separate section :P.

And I'm too lazy to go the discussion page of Anna reg, WikiPhoenix, Mykola Swarnyk, Einstein2, so guys, could came here and give your opinions on that? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks sleek. But do you intend to replace the congratulation templates (e.g. {{Photo Challenge Gold}}) or the award template for the file description page ({{Photo challenge winner}})? Because if its the first (which really does look bad), you need the file name instead of this picture - and in my opinion it makes sense to leave the winning picture on the left - but I'm all for exchanging the cameras and the yellow box for something better. I'm not so sure about the text...

The text is fine for the file description page (in fact, I just saw that that's the text you used), but I don't like the format. All other assessment templates (Template:Featured picture, Template:Valued image, Template:POTY template, Template:Quality image) have a similar format to Template:Photo challenge winner (and I do think that the other template is more in need of an overhaul).

Your derivates of the commons logo look really nice - the only thing I'm still questioning about the symbol is that the photo challenges are specifically only for photos (and no other media - which would be included in that symbol) - not sure if that's important, but I did want to say it...

Best wishes, Anna reg (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Anna reg, thanks for your thoughts

Although I don't see the obligation to use cam icon in the {{Photo challenge winner}}, but if you (you + others) want, we can think in another logo using cams... And why you don't like the text disposition? Or is just because this is one is out of the "pattern"? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that using cameras was necessary - in fact, I said that I liked your derivation - I just wanted to point out that the commons logo could be associated with more than photos. As for the format - being out of pattern is one of the reason - but the main reason is that I think that pattern developed because they fit file description pages better. File description pages are normally held as short as possible, but you still have to scroll down quite a lot to get all the information you want/need. Keeping that in mind, I think that broad templates with a small height make sense on those pages. In contrast, the congratulations for the discussion pages should stand out - and the pages can/will be archived if they get too long - which is why I'd immediately support your format there.

Does that help? Anna reg (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Related changes not show pages where template is transcluded in a noinclude section ?

Another day, another oddity.

I've been using

Special:RecentChangesLinked/Commons:British_Library/Mechanical_Curator_collection/Synoptic_index/footer_template

and

Special:RecentChangesLinked/Commons:British_Library/Mechanical_Curator_collection/Synoptic_index/to_do

to follow the detail of the work everybody has been doing with the map tagging campaign (6200 tags now added, 67% still to go), plus any other changes like people noting new book categories for images they have uploaded.

A couple of days ago I broke some of the biggest pages into transclusions, to make editing more efficient. These are pages like Synoptic_index/France and Synoptic index/England - North West

I can see them in "What links here" for the footer template,

Special:WhatLinksHere/Commons:British_Library/Mechanical_Curator_collection/Synoptic_index/footer_template

but changes aren't showing up in the related changes,

Special:RecentChangesLinked/Commons:British_Library/Mechanical_Curator_collection/Synoptic_index/footer_template

One thing about the pages which aren't appearing in related changes is that the footer is wrapped in a <noinclude> ... </noinclude> pair, so that the footer is only visible when the sub-page is viewed on its own, not if it's part of the larger page.

But I do want to see changes for the sub-page -- which surely I ought to be getting, because it is included in the "What links here" list as a transclusion.

So is it the <noinclude> tag that is stopping this, and if so, why ? Jheald (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you just need to select the "Show changes to pages linked to the given page instead" checkbox (try [4]). The default is to give a list of changes to pages linked on the target page, not pages linked to the target page. For reference, Special:Recentchangeslinked and Special:WhatLinksHere get their information from the same source, so they should always be in sync. Bawolff (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bawolff: Thanks, that makes sense. I'm so used to templates that are link bars to all the pages that they are used on, that I never noticed the difference. But "Linked to the given page" is exactly what I wanted. Thanks for straightening this out for me. Jheald (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Upload of previously deleted image

I'm trying to upload this image from the National Congress of Chile, but I can't because it was deleted before because it didn't have license. The image is under public domain in Chile (created in early XIX century). I would appreciate any help with this. Thanks. --Warko (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you point us to the deleted file? Ruslik (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Note, generally if you're uploading a previously deleted file, you need to upload with Special:Upload (Not upload wizard), and select the ignore all warnings checkbox. The file was originally at File:Francisco_Antonio_Pérez_Salas.jpg Bawolff (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• You might better do this as an undeletion request on File:Francisco Antonio Pérez Salas.jpg, bringing the new evidence that it is public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 21:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

November 05

Kirk Stauffer photo copyright concerns

1. Masem (talk · contribs) noted here copyright issues with this image: File:Lorde in Seattle 2013 -1.jpg
2. So I checked the only other one uploaded by that user and tagged it for flickr review as well: File:Lorde in Seattle 2013 - 2.jpg -- also now has problems there.
3. Then I see this photo collection: Category:Kirk Stauffer photo collection -- so that will probably have to be examined for copyright problems, also.

-- Cirt (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

As a note, there is the User:KirkStauffer that has uploaded most in that collection, and those images are tagged on flickr with the right license (CC-BY). The ones above are updated by User:Kirkstauffer (differing by one letter), and that's the two in that collection that lack the right license. --Masem (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I messaged Kirk Stauffer on Flickr about the Lorde images, and he replied: "I forgot that I used to contribute some my concert photos to Wikipedia! [5] Instead of sending you a photo to post, I’ll add it to my Wikipedia collection and link it to Lorde’s page. I should be able to get to that in a day or two – and will use a photo that’s similar to one of your selections." Perhaps he didn't upload to Commons one of the photos that he also uploaded to Flickr. Adabow (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Or perhaps vice versa, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

ESA Rosetta images now under CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO license

Good News, all Rosetta images (and the ones that will still come) are under the CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO license. See here: http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/04/rosetta-navcam-images-now-available-under-a-creative-commons-licence/ Should we upload now, or when the mission is competed (all at once)?

Oh, and they even mentioned wikipedia: ... or to post them on Wikipedia... Amada44  ^{talk to me} 11:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Great news! However, we probably should create a license template for the IGO-version of CC BY-SA 3.0 before uploading any files (plus maybe a Custom CC license tag that wraps the CC-IGO and a Source template}}) … --El Grafo (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I have just seen, that someone has uploaded already many images: Category:Photos taken by Rosetta and made a custom license {{ESA-ROSETTA-NAVCAM}}. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 14:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I would have sworn to Bob that {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-igo}} wasn't there when I typed this, but it was actually created yesterday … --El Grafo (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Plant classification

A took 3 macro pictures of a plant on the rocks in South Korea. I have little botanical classification knowledge. The problem is dertermining the big classifications, where I only know the common names if any. If I get past that I can check the images of the individual species. Is there any instuction manual how to classify plants for dummies? I think a lot of uploaders have similar problems and dont bother to research the correct latin classification names.

• 
  Rose hips. I don't know which one, but you can put it here: Category:Rose hips
• 
  Rose hips
• 
  pretty sure that it is some kind of Tradescantia. Maybe put it here: Category:Unidentified_Tradescantia

Are fruits (classification Commons) by definition edible? The local geographic classification is confusing: I have created Dolsando (island). (Yeosu, Jeollanam-do) seems to be a city but it has islands and very rural areas.

Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Smiley.toerist, identifying plants down to genus or even species level from one or two pictures can be extremely difficult to impossible even for experts. But if you know the common names, that's a good starting point. The one with the red fruits seems to be some kind of Rosaceae, but that's really just a guess. de:Wikipedia:Redaktion Biologie/Bestimmung is specialized on identifying biological species. It's a german page, but english shouldn't be too much of a problem there. There's also the french fr:Discussion Wikipédia:Atelier identification/Identification d'un être vivant, but that seems to have a much broader scope. Hope that helps a bit? --El Grafo (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

PS: Botanically (and also at Commons), there's no distinction between edible and non-edible fruits. --El Grafo (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can alway put unidentified plants here: Category:Unidentified plants. Lots of people comb that category at random intervals. cheers, Amada44  ^{talk to me} 14:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Checkusers/Requests/Gmaxwell (de-checkuser)

Hi community — this is just to inform you that I started a formal request to have CheckUser privileges removed from the account of Gmaxwell (talk · contribs) as result of inactivity for a period longer than one year. Your thoughts and opinions are, as always, warmly welcome and encouraged. Thank you for your time, odder (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

November 06

Launch of Open Government Licence 3.0

This just in (United Kingdom Government, that is). Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Townland in County Donegal

Hello. I just created Category:Bridge End townland, County Donegal Bridge End is also called Drummonaghan. The pictures in the category were taken at Drumadooey . GeoLocator shows a spot near Bridge End. I followed the information on en Wikipedia: en:List of townlands of County Donegal. Then I discovered the Category:Bridgend, County Donegal which seems more or less in the same area Bridgend(one word and only one e (Pen-y-Bont ar Ogwr). But the information in several languages says it is in Wales. The information in English that it is in County Donegal and no gaelic (?) name given. The pictures in that category were taken in County Donegal. If there is someone who knows if an Irish townland is a village or the difference between them and get the categorization right? Maybe the Category:Townlands of County Donegal should also be a sub-category of Category:Towns and villages in County Donegal. Traumrune (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

November 07

Sexual and Relationship Therapy journal - tables and figures

• Prause, Nicole; Verena Roberts, Margaret Legarretta, Margaret, Liva M. Rigney Cox (February 2012). "Clinical and research concerns with vibratory stimulation: a review and pilot study of common stimulation devices". Sexual and Relationship Therapy 27 (1): 17-34. Routledge. DOI:10.1080/14681994.2012.660141. ISSN 1468-1994.

This journal article has useful figures on pages: 25 (table with simple text), 26 (Figure 2), 27 (Figure 3), and 28 (Table 2).

I was wondering if any of these could be uploaded here to Commons with a free-use license? Specifically, if one could use their data to make their own figure or table, and then would that be free-use? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Raw facts or data are generally not copyrightable, but a specific presentation or analysis based on the facts is copyrightable. The illustrations couldn't be copied to Commons unless they're from an open-source journal (which doesn't seem to be the case)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, AnonMoos, that seems like a cogent analysis. I'll see about maybe trying to get permission. -- Cirt (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

File usage on different Wikipedias

This has probably been asked an answered before, I just couldn't find anything - sorry for the probable duplication. There used to be a gallery function on the Uploads page, which showed you which of your pictures were being used in Wikipedia articles. What happened to that? Is there any way to check file usage now, for more than one image at a time? It's not essential, I just always thought that function was neat. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You're looking for GLAMorous. darkweasel94 18:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Adam Bishop (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Bad public domain claim

File:Jacop Epstein Rockdrill study.jpg is tagged {{PD-Art}}, even though the (UK-based) artist only died in 1959. (I'm on very slow hotel wi-fi, so unable to locate a better noticeboard, sorry) Andy Mabbett (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking for small tasks and mentors for Google Code-In - Got something in mind?

Hi everybody! Google Code-In (GCI) will soon take place again - a six week long contest for 13-17 year old students to contribute to free software projects. Wikimedia took part in 2013 already with great results. Tasks should take an experienced contributed about two-three hours (but "beginner tasks" are also welcome which are smaller) and can be of the categories Code, Documentation/Training, Outreach/Research, Quality Assurance, and User Interface/Design.

Do you have an idea for a task and could you imagine mentoring that task?

For example, do you have something on mind that needs documentation, research, some gadget issues, or any templates to port to Lua on your "To do" list but you never had the time? If yes, please go to mw:Google Code-in 2014, check out the "Mentor's corner", and add your task there (adding until Sunday even if it's only a stub very appreciated - we can still polish them until December 1st when the contest begins)! And if something is unclear, please ask on the talk page. Happy to help! --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Upload count

I know I have sent thousands of pictures, but how many thousands? Is there a counter? Jim.henderson (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You can use one of the editcounter tools, like toollabs:dewkin/Jim.henderson@commonswiki.    FDMS  4    21:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Actually, your upload count appears to be incorrect there … ping User:Ricordisamoa …

There is a specialised one by Pleclown: uploadsum − 6299 uploads, 7 GiB. Jean-Fred (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was guessing at somewhat more than half that number. The link does not work for me. I wonder why "Contributions" or "Uploads" doesn't supply such information. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Counting things can take a long time if there's a lot of things to count. Generally MW avoids counting things that can be very big, particularly if a user could trigger the thing to be counted over and over again. Places where there are total counts (Contribs at Special:Preferences [The reason your total edit count isn't shown all over the place is political concerns over editcountis, see for example rev:41921. Of course mobile seems not to care about that], categories, and Special:Statistics) generally have the total written down somewhere, and simply add one to the total everytime you do an action. Bawolff (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You can use UploadStatsBot's services, if you would like to get daily updates. -- Rillke^(q?) 23:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations; there's no need to keep careful track. "Three or four thousand" is the answer I've been giving this year, and the underestimate didn't much matter. "Six thousand" will do for the rest of the year, and "six or seven thousand" next year at current pace. Every month or two, someone asks. A few days ago Dorothy Howard asked, and it's the first time it was someone important enough to make it worth checking properly. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

November 08

Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls

Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls is a new tracker category that contains pages with template calls that use duplicates of arguments, such as {{foo|bar=1|bar=2}} or {{foo|bar|1=baz}}. It's rather full at the moment with 4.600 subcategories, 1.300 pages and 37.000 images. Most of these problems are probably caused by a small number of templates that are transcluded on a large number of pages. First focus should be to fix the {{Creator}} templates. Who wants to help? Multichill (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like some of these may have been the fault of Dexbot, or at least it really didn't like the Wikidata parameter being repeated in a creator template. See eg this diff Jheald (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That's nonesense Jheald, the page already contained duplicated arguments before dexbot touched it.

You should be more careful before blaming someone. Multichill (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Multichill: it looks like Template:Welcome has one of these "duplicates", but i don't find where it comes from. I think this can irritate many users, especially new ones. Can you fix the template? Holger1959 (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

File:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression.svg

Anyhow the (loooong) template syntax on the image description is broken. I.e. no license is displayed anymore. It must have happened during this edit. But I can't find it. Can somebody else have a look and fix the syntax? Thx. --JuTa 20:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Difficult case. :-( --Leyo 20:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. Some of the templates where not closed with closing curly brackets.--Snaevar (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

November 09

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology journal cover

• en:File:Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology journal cover.gif

Could this image be uploaded locally here to Wikimedia Commons with license {{PD-ineligible}} ?

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

ID assistance request

Hi Folk, I photographed a vintage car run, I'm not all that good at vehicle model identifications request help with identifying each vehicle then adding them into the vehicle categories. All images can be found in Category:Brockwell Port to Whiteman Park Classic Car Run 2014. While the run occurred in Western Australia there are more European and US vehicles than Australian manufactured ones. Thanks in advance Gnangarra 13:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Please use SVG

The Toolserver link is dead. Is there a good replacement on Toollabs? --Leyo 15:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright of works from Washington, D.C.

I was recently reading through commons policies, trying to see if there was any way I could upload this flickr image, which is of the new model of Spinosaurus displayed at the National Geographic headquarters in Washington, D.C. As the model was not produced by a federal employee, I read through en:Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments. I the last section, Organized and Unorganized Territories, it mentions that US law does not state whether "organized" territories, such as Washington D.C., fall under section 105, which prevents copyright, and that it accepts registrations under its "rule of doubt". Does this mean that I can upload the image, as the sculptor was employed by Washington D.C. to create this model? IJReid (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably, no. Ruslik (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

National Geographic Society works are not government works; they are copyrighted like any other private corporate work. Is there any reason to believe that the Spinosaurus model was created on behalf of anyone other than the NGS (which is a private organization)? As for whether District of Columbia government works are copyrighted, or whether copyright exists as all in D.C.: First, I am not a lawyer, but it appears to me that the current version of en:Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments#Organized and Unorganized Territories is misleading about D.C. and Puerto Rico, and should be changed. D.C. and Puerto Rico are in a different section than the "rule of doubt" in Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Chapter 200 (COPYRIGHTABLE MATTER - IN GENERAL) is pretty clear:

206.02(c) [District of Columbia.] Works of the government of the District of Columbia, as now constituted, are not considered U.S. Government works.

And as for D.C. being a place where copyrights don't exist, that's a nonstarter: Chapter 1100 (ELIGIBILITY), says:

1102.08 [United States.] The "United States," when used in a geographical sense, comprises the several States, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the organized territories under the jurisdiction of the United States Government. 17 U.S.C. 101.

--Closeapple (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)