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/2024/05. 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.

Water pump next to the church in the town center of Doel. Doel, Beveren, East Flanders, Belgium. [add]

Centralized discussion See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive How do we organize categories by date (14 May 2024) Proposal to prohibit political restriction templates (5 February 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) User talk:湯崩正海#Image Tagging File:青島ビール放尿動画事件.jpgとUser talk:湯崩正海#File:青島ビール放尿動画事件.jpgで議論しています。皆様のご意見を募集しています。是非、ご参加ください。(2 November 2023) Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch

June 15

Template merge

{{Should be substituted}} and {{Must be substituted}} appear to serve the same purpose, since the former says "should always". Should they be merged? Rd232 (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Support. I thought of it too. Rehman 01:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Agree. Neutral. No (difference) in parameters as well. I see not much difference if we are using one or two templates--Ben.MQ (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Disagree, looking at the history they were very deliberately created to have different meanings. One marks templates that "must be" sustituted because they have a purpose and/or syntax that require them to be. The other is for templates that "should" be, but they will work even if you don't. If the distinction hasn't been observed by those applying them, then that is a matter of documentation and education. --Tony Wills (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it still can be merged with the help of a few parameters. Rehman 04:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Parameters increase complexity and you'd likely see one of the above turned into a silent call to a combined template with the parameter specified. As in, {{Must be substituted}} would have {{should be substituted|must=yes}} within it. – Adrignola talk 14:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose The words do have different meanings, and there is a completely different look. The same user created both, so there is an intended distinction. As noted above, it was already discussed briefly at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Should be substituted and kept. They have already been translated into a bunch of different languages with their precise meanings; I see almost no benefit to changing things. It's just another template, which is no big deal, and trying to change it creates far more work than will be saved. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Support - While the original intent may have been to have two separate templates, the distinction between them is not so significant that we need to maintain two separate templates. The templates largely share the same look, other than the fact that one uses larger text. As Rehman suggests, have one template and use parameters. I actually think it increases complexity to have multiple templates that perform tasks that are only subtly different from one another, rather than having one template that accomplishes a related set of tasks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose - subst technically required and subst recommended is a major difference. You can ignore a recommendation for good reasons if you know what you are doing, but things don't work as expected if you ignore a required subst. The effects of a missing required subst could be subtle and unpredictable, from "breaks if transcluded indirectly" to "kills the server if used by more than ten readers simultaneously". –Be..anyone (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone diagrees that there is a difference. As far as I am concerned, that's not the issue. It's not clear to me how having two separate templates eliminates the risk of confusion between the two, however (if anything, it adds to it). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Significant differences based only on parameter can be just as confusing, IMO. It looks like we would have a situation where based on the parameter, we choose one layout or the other -- there doesn't seem to be much overlap in terms of the template content. If that is the case, we may as well have two templates, and make the difference more apparent in the name. Lastly, there has already been lots of translation work here, and the list of languages in the two templates do not match up. You risk messing up a lot of that work, or at least forcing people to re-do translation work, where everything seems well enough if left alone. If the templates were just being created there *may* be an argument, but at this point... there's hardly a benefit that I can see. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the lists of languages in the two templates do not match up is precisely a major reason why these templates should be merged. Because the two are currently edited independently, seemingly in disregard to the complementary role the two templates play in respect of one another, we now have a situation where, for example, one template is translated into Spanish and the other isn't. So, a Spanish-speaking Commons user only gets half the story. This presumably would not have been a problem with one template. With two templates, you are always at risk of inconsistent and incomplete edits that have no regard for the sister template or the distinction between the two templates. There is tremendous benefit in eliminating that problem, and I disagree that suggestion that the templates work well as is.

As for overlap, the templates both consist of a box with the same icon. We are not dealing with completely different layouts. We are only talking about a message changing with the parameter. You suggest that we might change the names, but if we were going to that degree of trouble, why would we not just merge them and do things properly? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I wonder how well the existing translations convey the distinction between "should" and "must". Unless one speaks 10+ languages, it's hard to monitor this. Where only one template has been translated, I suspect there is a good chance that the distinction is lost. Where both templates have been translated into the same language, but by different editors, I also suspect that is a lot of room for confusion. Again, there is less risk of this problem if we have one template that allows users to choose between "should" and "must" (and thus forces translators to distinguish between the two). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

 Weak support (updated from oppose) — if there's a required parameter for MUST vs. SHOULD as per Skeezix1000 a merged template would in fact help with its i18n. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Support the technical merge of both templates. My experience with templates is that it's much easier to maintain one template with some parameters than a group of distinct templates performing similar things, given that the changes on the "mother template" are not very complex, as in this case. From the looks of it, it will be extremely simple to merge them and keep compatibility in the way Adrignola explained above. The separate translations are actually a good reason to merge them, and not the opposite, as has been told above, and I don't believe that merging them will be such a big deal as well.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 18:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support. Just to reiterate what I wrote above, you could have {{Must be substituted}} still exist, just calling {{should be substituted|must=yes}} in the underlying code. No difference for end users but far easier for maintenance and new translations. – Adrignola talk 21:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

An optional required=no (or false or 0) with a default required=yes (or true or 1) might be clearer. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Just threw one possibility out there. It bothers me not as to what the parameter is eventually named, nor the value. – Adrignola talk 21:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I was just throwing the possibility out there, but the discussion here suggests a merge would be helpful. It would improve clarity to explain the contrasting meanings of "should" and "must" in a single place, and would make internationalisation clearer and easier. A template redirect would ensure that no-one used to the status quo need do anything different. Rd232 (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment - The discussion appears to have wound down, with 6 in support, 1 neutral and 2 opposed. Do Tony or Carl have any further comments/objections? Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment I had proceeded on the assumption that both templates were widely used. But in fact "should" is used in only 12 templates [1] while "must" is used in well over 100 [2]. "Must" has many more translations (I've borrowed he and nds from "should", which "should" had and "must" didn't). The distinction between "must" and "should always" is unclear in English anyway, and the languages I can understand make the distinction even less clear. So I've just redirected "should" to "must", and anyone who wants to adapt "must" to introduce a sort of "should" meaning with an optional parameter can do so. Rd232 (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Just as a note... there is a distinction of "should" and "must" in RFC 2119. I don't think it's in any way "unclear". In many circumstances, the difference is significant (which is why all the internet RFCs make sure to use those words carefully). Not sure if the distinction here is important enough to keep the two templates, but it could be -- doesn't sound like "should" was widely used. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

My oppose updated to weak support was inspired by RFC 2119, and much work on m:help subst-topics years ago before I pulled "right to vanish" on en:w:/m:/mediazilla: (doesn't affect the new userid here). –Be..anyone (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"should" and "must" have different meanings in English, that's clear. The distinction between "should always" and "must" is clear as mud. Rd232 (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

FOP of aircraft factory in France for EN:WP Featured Article in Candidacy

Moved to Commons talk:Freedom of panorama

Replaced images doesn't refresh - Purge doesn't help

..this problem seems ubiquitous. I really wonder if the admins are aware of these problems and if someone is working on it. --Alexrk2 (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed that too. Yann (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course Commons' admins are well aware of this problem. But we have no means to do anything about it, beyond soothing angry uploaders/users and filing Bug reports. --Túrelio (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Please all complain, add notes and vote at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28613 . Multichill (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Tnx, voted.. seems like this could take some time to resolve. Maybe it would be nice to place a hint on Commons so users don't get frustrated. --Alexrk2 (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

So nice to find out that I'm not the only idiot in the neighbourhood... Just wasted half an hour to try to understand what I did wrong... Ha ha ! It was not my fault. But the problem remains. Indeed, placing a hint somewhere (if possible, somewhere one could notice it) might be a good idea... In the meantime, I'll try voting, in case it would help anyhow... Oblomov2 (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC) (Oh no, I have to create a Bugzilla account or whatever and this will probably make me lose some more hours, I give up). Oblomov2 (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

---

File:2011 Turkish general election.svg has been re-uploaded under a new name, and the original file marked as a duplicate to be deleted, because there seems to be absolutely no way of getting any image version more recent than Jun 30 to display... AnonMoos (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The same problem is affecting me as well. Last time this occurred (about a six weeks ago) some of my images took weeks to refresh. However, if one changes their preferences to increase or decrease the standard image size (say from 800 by 600 to 1024 by 768), the "correct" version is displayed. 09:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This image is showing the wrong version since I cropped its border almost 15 days ago. In cases where there is an urgent need for the new version it can be solved by simply moving the file, however. It is possible that deleting an undeleting the file also has some effect, though I haven't tested it yet.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 09:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It's showing the cropped version for me. This image is squished really wide at 800 by 600 on my computer, does the correct version render for other users? OSX (talk • contributions) 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

is it? Weird, why can't I see the cropped version then? Even in different browsers?--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 10:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is what I see. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Strange, I can't imagine why I'm still seeing the wrong version. Incidentally, even with the low res in your image I was able to see that the last crop was better than mine, and tested deleting and restoring the image, to see if it would change something, but I'm still seeing the border version. About your image mentioned above, I think I'm seeing the squished version as well.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Added a sitenotice about it. Hopefully it will stop people from worrying when updates/replcements seem not to work. Feel free to improve the message and/or possibly add a link to a page where such images may be listed. /Lokal_Profil 09:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Village Pump / Proposals

user:Docu just attempted to effectively delete Commons:Village pump/Proposals by merging it here [3]. I reject this attempt to unilaterally get rid of something that has hardly had a chance to succeed or fail, but to my mind has already proved useful and certainly had enough community engagement that it is absurd to rely on old discussion as "consensus" to get rid of it. If there is a community agreement to close it now, fine, I'll accept that. But it should be a new proposal/thread/discussion (here, I suppose, would be logical). Rd232 (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal was discussed here and didn't gain sufficient support. While I understand that you are interested in porting ideas from English Wikipedia to Commons, you need to accept that not all gain the necessary support.

The text discussion wasn't effectively deleted, but still remains available here. --  Docu  at 21:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"didn't gain sufficient support" - you opposed it, so you're not the best judge. And this is hardly consensus against. It's often easier to judge an idea when you've got a concrete draft of it, and there wasn't at the time. So, by all means, revisit it, but don't cite that discussion as proof it should be killed now. Rd232 (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

* Close Commons:Village pump/Proposals. Why? Ask Docu. Why not? Because having a place for discussions and ideas that need a bit longer to gestate is helpful - better than this Village Pump where they disappear up the page quite easily. And having them on a separate page allows separate watchlisting by people who might not be interested in the everyday discussions here, but would keep an eye on bigger ideas. Rd232 (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC) struck, since apparently it is impermissible to discuss the merits of having a proposal subpage. Rd232 (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Summary of discussion of proposal about "Village_Pump/Proposals"

Rd232, would you provide us your summary of the discussion of your proposal at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/06#Village_Pump_.2F_Proposals. Try to spare us your incivilities and just state the support and opposition your proposal gained. --  Docu  at 21:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I see. Your opposition to this concept is so deeply visceral that no new discussion of the proposal on the merits is permitted? Besides which, two can play that game. What arguments against the concept were offered in that discussion? Rd232 (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Docu's moving this section down again, after I tidied it up to above the Proposal with an explicit assumption of good faith seems almost like a declaration of bad faith; a public declaration of an intention to disrupt. Rd232 (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid editing other users' signed comments. As apparently we have different notion of "tiding", please refrain my comments at all times. --  Docu  at 22:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently we have a different notion of "editing" too. Rd232 (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

 Comment The page has already been created, so oh well. Participants have already become involved with that page, and therefore reverting the proposal by merging the page back to this one is not a good idea. If Docu really wants better consensus, we can all re-discuss the issue so that we can achieve consensus that will satisfy Docu and others who didn't think the previous discussion was enough. That being said, let's just share opinions/votes on whether the page should be kept or not. I hope not to see another argument about how the previous discussion was insufficient or how this section should be formatted. --ZooFari 22:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. If there had been some real arguments against in that discussion, or dangers or potential harm I could see, I wouldn't have gone ahead and created the page. As it is, I think it should just be given a chance (maybe 3 months) and then see if it's still in use, or has died, or should be given up on for some other reason. (Unless someone comes up with some real demerits now.) Rd232 (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"If there had been some real arguments against in that discussion, [..] I wouldn't have gone ahead and created the page.". That is really funny. It gives the impression you had actually been interested in other people's opinions. --  Docu  at 22:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Accusation of bad faith noted, and rejected. Would you care to discuss the page on its merits? Rd232 (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Your summary in the quoted sentenced is factually wrong. --  Docu  at 22:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just revisited the archived discussion, and I don't think so. If you want to argue it (really, is it worth it?) provide quotes. Rd232 (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward

The discussion is in regards to Commons:Village pump/Proposals. Should it be kept?

•  Support as user who wants this to move forward. The page will just need some time for it to evolve. --ZooFari 22:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

We are still trying to evaluate what conclusion to draw from the previous discussion. The page was created when the proposal was initially made. --  Docu  at 22:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That it was closed prematurely? I'm fine with admitting that. Whether we all agree on this or not, it's not going be much help since the page already exists and is linked from several different templates, and users are already participating. That's what my comment above was about. If this is an issue about Rd232 not knowing when to close things, or if you presume the user lacks knowledge about anything regarding proposals, then that can be discussed somewhere else without interfering the process already in process. It isn't easy telling whether you support that page or not, because more of the energy is going towards Rd232's actions (and/or conclusions of the previous discussion I suppose) and very little towards the idea of the page itself. --ZooFari 22:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't really closed. It drifted off without any substantial arguments against, and with a test case, very suitably, being the discussion of another VP subpage (Copyright). Rd232 (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Rd232 created it and added some topic, before it was proposed here.

It's only in his mind that the following happened: "If there had been some real arguments against in that discussion, [..] I wouldn't have gone ahead and created the page."

Funny actually. Curious what he will make up next. --  Docu  at 22:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, by "created" I didn't mean putting together a draft of the subpage (technically creation, which I did to assist the discussion, since it's much easier when you can see what it might look like) but putting it live, by moving the Copyright discussion there and linking it from {{Discussion menu}}. Your AGF valve may be malfunctioning. Please consider servicing it. Rd232 (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

".. and linking it from {{Discussion menu}}": You are quick in making more things up. Consider adding diffs when you try to relate your own actions.

At least you concede that you deliberately ignored the discussion ("by moving the Copyright discussion there"). --  Docu  at 11:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC) (edited)

My bad, I've just checked the history and I did add the new page to {{Discussion menu}} shortly after creating the draft, which was obviously premature. However moving the Copyright discussion there wasn't ignoring anything, it made sense at the time as the thread was going off topic, and it worked out just fine. Rd232 (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It may be "anything" to you, but it was the community feedback for your proposal. --  Docu  at 11:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

By "anything" I mean a substantive argument against the concept. There weren't any then, and there haven't been here (yet). Even now you decline to provide any. Rd232 (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Support per ZooFari, my arguments above, and in the original discussion (in which no serious arguments against the concept were advanced). Rd232 (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Support I remain uncertain as to how useful the page will be, in light of the lower number of users here, but it may be. It can be re-merged down the line if it becomes too quiet. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The lower number of users (and lower frequency of logging in, at least from the average user) is one of the arguments for a separate page, so that proposals that aren't time-dependent aren't mixed up with the general discussion and problem-solving of VP, and can be watchlisted separately. Rd232 (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
• show me the money. Think of the whole package. There's VP/Proposals, and there's VP/Copyrights (itself conceived inside VP/Proposals). Anything else? What the complete structure will look like? NVO (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • That's it. Also /Copyright isn't dependent on /Proposals, it's simply a centralisation of copyright/licensing discussion in a much better place than Commons talk:Licensing, which should be reserved for discussing the policy. Rd232 (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Given that I hadn't noticed the existance of such a page, and probably still wouldn't be aware of it except for coming across this discussion, I expect the main effect of seperating discussions that effect the wider community, onto a seperate page, will be to limit the number of people who participate to a small number. Most users who checkout this page are unlikely to re-read the info boxes at the top and notice new links to new discussion pages, let alone recognise that significant discussions may occur there. If you want wide community concensus discuss things in the widest possible forum (eg VP), if you want to discuss things amongst yourselves, by all means hide the discussions, but don't assume any decisions made are widely supported (or even known about). Perhaps a solution that would satisfy more people would be transclude that sub-page into the main page, or only discuss insignificant issues there. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I had some time ago requested a Sitenotice of the new pages (MediaWiki_talk:Sitenotice#Notice_request), and that ought to take care of awareness. Even without that, if awareness of it develops more by osmosis, I think you're entirely wrong in your expectation that having proposals on a separate page should have less input. In the interim, some proposals from VPR have been advertised here - and if there is any pattern in terms of participation for threads which have and have not been advertised in that way, I don't see it. The bottom line is that there will be transitional issues as people become aware of the page and get used to the idea - but once they do, you should get more proposals and more discussion of proposals, since proposals won't be buried on a page amidst a bunch of other stuff. Rd232 (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose This is an awesome forum and splitting discussion will hurt. I can buy moving some of the repetitive "is this a free image" stuff to a sub-page. But meta-topics like proposals belong here. The amount of discussion is not so large that splitting is needed. So better to keep things together and have community critical mass.TCO (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • As per my comment above, splitting proposals off should produce more proposals (because it makes it completely clear that there is a place for ideas to be discussed) and more discussion of proposals (because discussions will be more prominent within the page and not buried amongst other stuff, and not archived so quickly; and a separate page to watchlist helps prominence of those discussions). And it's less a question of volume of text, than the fact that proposal discussions have an entirely different timescale than most VP discussions; they can productively take place over weeks or even months. That doesn't really work at VP, where threads can easily age rapidly up the page with minimal input, and there's necessarily less of an atmosphere of being receptive to ideas, than in a specialised subpage. Bottom line: what's the harm in trying? If the concern is that discussions are not prominent enough there, it can easily be agreed to advertise every discussion here, at least for the time being (until it's agreed that the page's existence is well established). If that's done, then what's the harm in trying? Rd232 (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I've trolled the Internetz for years. Commons VP doesn't have such huge traffic. You split this thing, you'll get less participation AND have a less dynamic VP. If something is getting comments much at all, it will stay here. Plus, if really wanted, someone can postdate it to elude the archiver. But not needed. If it's been a few days without discussion, so be it.TCO (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
      • So, basically, your answer to my arguments is to restate your view as if I hadn't responded to it. Charming. Concrete question: how does your approach offer the advantages of being able to separately watchlist a page? That clearly brings more attention to the relevant threads even when people are watchlisting both and paying attention to both pages; but there are surely some editors who would watchlist VPR (in case something interesting comes up) whilst not bothering to pay much attention to, or even to watchlist, VP. Subpaging, done right, gives proposals greater prominence. If we agree to advertise every VPR thread at VP, it's very hard to see a concrete downside of the subpage approach. Rd232 (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
        • It's a trade-off, one for the other. You have to pick your poison. I would ask you why you think a topic that has had no replies in 7 days should be kept around, why it is really actively still being considered. Would also point you to, for example long-running discussions on en-main page-talk or even en-ANI, en-MOS talk, which are higher traffic forums than this one. An ideal solution would be to just have normal forums that display thread topics and then just have the threads. People will decide what to go to. Sections are a pain in the butt. Also, the damned colons, tildas, having people edit into your posts, and not having an avatar or autosig.TCO (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
          • • i) "It's a trade-off, one for the other." - what's being traded off? Please answer my question above re "what is the downside". ii) "I would ask you why you think a topic that has had no replies in 7 days should be kept around..." - because Commons has lower traffic, and contributors who log in less frequently than the average Wikipedia contributor, and because proposals generally have no time critical element (good ideas often take years to happen from when the idea is first brought up), and because proposals often involve a technical element which further cuts down the number of editors-passing-by who are going to comment - so more time is needed to allow people to come along. iii) "...which are higher traffic forums than this one" - I already said above that traffic on COM:VP isn't the issue. Kind of odd that you mention en.wp though - it has not one but two Proposals parts of the Village Pump (after I created Idea Lab to help ideas become proper proposals). Yet somehow having one here is controversial, even though people struggle to come up with reasons why it's bad (the only halfway convincing one is fixable in the way I already suggested - by mandating VPR threads be advertised at VP). iv) I don't see the relevance of that to this issue. Right now, a separate page for developing and discussing proposals enables separate watchlisting. Rd232 (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
              • • • The downside is you lose critical mass and activity. Not everyone wants to click on a lot of different ages and having a discussion group a certain size is more fun than all fragmented. this is something I've seen at forums lots of times. Subforums will kill a forum unless it's just vastly too big to keep up with.TCO (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
                    • "The downside is you lose critical mass and activity." - an assertion you give no support for. It's not like the proposals are so frequent that you're losing lots of threads from VP (and if you have advertising of VPR threads, you don't have any fewer anyway). And the loss of proposals posts from VP to VPR is even less of an issue; VP will get pinged daily multiple times whatever happens, and it doesn't make much odds to most users how often it gets pinged, since they don't check into VP obsessively. Meanwhile, if they watchlist VPR in addition to VP, they're more likely to catch those developments on their watchlist. Rd232 (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I voted against it based on my deep experience with forums. It's relevant and I stated the basis. now get off my back.TCO (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

So basically you're saying you just don't like it? Because you've given no indication as to how your "deep experience" with "forums" (Commons is a MediaWiki wiki, not a forum) translates into concrete reasons to oppose. Every attempt to do so I've knocked back; so either change your mind (it is allowed!) or continue discussion (en:Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion). Rd232 (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I said it was based on deep personal experience from discussion forums. Take that for whatever it's worth. And get off my jockstrap. you're not contributing anything. You've already said you think my point unsupported (I disagree). So, we're not getting anywhere. Now just stop trying to have the last word.TCO (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "trying to have the last word"; I thought we were having a reasoned discussion on the basis that one of us might persuade the other by the strength of argument, or else agree to disagree through different opinions on the strength of different arguments. "I don't like it and I'm not telling you why" doesn't really fall within that. Rd232 (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Support I agree with Dcoetzee. I hope it works (but still remain skeptical). In any case, it can be remerged and marked historical if it doesn't work. Killiondude (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Support - My experience with VP actually goes in the exact opposite direction of what TCO says. I specifically recall one recent controversial proposal to use Commons as an universal repository for templates, which attracted hordes of users from wiki-en and for weeks dispersed attention from the regular issues of VP. I really would like that such proposals would be moved to a specific place rather than being mixed up with general discussions. An improvement to the current VP-Proposals would be to create each proposal in its specific subpage, so that one only has to follow those proposals one is interested in, rather than having everything showing up in the watch list everytime someone comments in one of the proposals.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 13:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Personal experience rocks! (I mean it.)TCO (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Darwinius provided specific reasoning that can be engaged with, drawn from personal experience. Perhaps you could take that as a model. Rd232 (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Mega-discussions like that should normally be moved to a sub-page when they reach a certain size. One extra page to watchlist (VPR) is a couple of clicks, but subpaging every proposal would make it easier for people to follow just that discussion, but make it harder for people who are generally interested in following discussions on that page. There's a balance there, and in my experience, sub-paging discussions on an ad-hoc basis when they reach a certain size works pretty well. (And the flexibility to do that is one of the advantage of a wiki.) Rd232 (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, subpaging only at a certain size would probably be the best solution, indeed. We subpage every proposal at the wiki-pt Village Pump, and it suffers from the problems you point above (to the point that some proposals are even completely missed and not commented upon, due to people failing to notice the subpage being added to the VP).--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 08:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Support keeping it for at least a few months. It seems useful to separate out VPR discussions, given the volume of chatter at VP. It's too early to see how well it's working, and I don't see it as an immediate threat to the health of VP. --Avenue (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

July 4

Cropping PDF files

I found http://www.sos.louisiana.gov/Portals/0/FreedomTrain/TheTributeofFrancetotheMemoryofDrFranklin1790.pdf which has a death notice related to Benjamin Franklin in French

I do not have the full Adobe Acrobat. How do I cut off the caption and include only the death notice? The death notice is certainly PD, but the caption probably is not. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• GIMP can open (individual pages of) PDF files as raster graphics. NVO (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• The caption is part of the image embedded in the PDF. I've used Acrobat to extract the image and JPEGCrop to losslessly crop out the notice, and uploaded at File:Benjamin Franklin death notice.jpg with a transcription of the French text. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not really a death notice. It's a pamphlet with a transcription of a speech regarding Franklin's death. Powers (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you so much! WhisperToMe (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancies between Inkscape and WikiCommons SVG rendering

I've been having issues with producing images in inkscape and then seeing them being rendered by wikicommons. The issue is mainly text size and placement and I'm not sure if it concerns Inkscape or wikicommons. Can you please advise, as I'm producing quite a few images right now for a wikibook. See below Pluke (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

For me, this image renders just as bad in incscape as on Commons. Perhaps you should convert the text to paths. /Esquilo (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Strange, which version of inkscape are you using? I'm on the portable apps version 0.48.0 running in windows XP. Can anyone else check to see if they get the same issue? I'd prefer not to use paths so that it's easier to edit. Pluke (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just tested it in 0.48.1 and it looks correct, as does the pure svg render in chrome. It seems to be the png render that is causing a problem. Can you see if you can replicate this problem (and the correct versions)? Pluke (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Set it to COM:GL/ILL. -- Perhelion 13:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I might know what is going wrong. I have it under the "Sans" font in Inkscape, which apparently defaults to Arial in Windows, the font that wikipedia replaces it with is slightly larger, hence the misalignment. Is the only way to fix this to go through each image individually and change the font to dejavu sans? Surely I can't be the only experiencing this issue?Pluke (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Use before upload Commons:SVG_Check. And see the infos here: Help:SVG#Fonts - there is also a link to the list of fonts which are available here. If you really need to use a specific font then upload a version of the svg, then convert the text to paths and upload as a new versions clearly describing in the version comment that the old version did contain text and this doesn't. Reason: Text as path is really bad for editing the svgs afterwards (e.g. translation, mistakes, ...). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

July 6

Old File Version Archive Request

I recently uploaded File:USMC 4th MLG vector.svg. However the first three attempts didn't render properly (showed as dead image link on my system). I have since resolved the rendering issue, but there are now four versions (three attempts and a revert) in the upload log that show no image. I'd really appreciate it if an admin would hide/archive, whichever is the proper term, these old versions that don't diplay anything. Thanks Jdcollins13 (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Jarekt (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

thank you very much Jarekt, Jdcollins13 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Secure server problems

In case anyone else has had the problems accessing Commons today that I've had (frequent 503 errors): it turns out this is a problem specifically with the secure server, so switching to the main server (until this is fixed) solves the issue. See also en:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Frequent_503_errors.3F. Rd232 (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

seems fixed now. Rd232 (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

User categories

I would like to catch the idea of «user categories». Let me show some examples of user categories: Category:Photos by Ilya Ilf, Category:Karl Bulla, Category:Photographs by Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky, Category:Mikhail Evstafiev, Category:Photos by Ilya Varlamov, Category:Photos by Vasiliy Zimin. Why those categories are not marked as user categories? And why some other categories containing the works by modern photographers are labeled as user categories? I studied COM:USER and still cannot understand the difference between user-specific categories and author-specific categories when some photographer acts like a Commons user.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Because Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky died years before the Internet/Commons and didn't upload them himself? --  Docu  at 23:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thus the photographer that uploads his art himself is nothing but a user now? -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"user" is meant to mean "contributor" and "artist" in this context. --  Docu  at 23:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Why artist categories are visible, but user categories are hidden? Why artists alive are worse than dead ones?!--PereslavlFoto (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Basically, you have to be dead (or exceptionally expensive) before officially recognised as a real artist. --Foroa (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's get back to the question: some living wikimedia contributors have "author categories" while others must live with "user categories". What, precisely, makes User:Zimin.V.G. more equal than others? NVO (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• I would say the reason to give artists a category for their works would all be to do with notability. But I don't mean notability to the strictness of wikipedia notability, but simply some notability beyond wikimedia/wikipedia. If it is a collection of images from some external source, then a category or gallery of those images is useful if for no other reason than to easily verify whether we already have a copy of that image - maybe it is a maintenance category. If an artist (eg photographer) uploads all their own images here, then there are galleries of their material available via the Gallery tool. So I think a collection of images of a flickr user account may have a gallery/category, even if they are otherwise un-notable. But if the entire contents of a gallery/category are uploaded here directly by the author, unless they really are wiki-notable, we don't really need a main-space gallery/category. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

NB I cleaned up a lot of user category entries recently, and may have moved some legitimate mainspace categories into user-category space, feel free to revert any changes that I made in error :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Personally, I think author categories for users should be displayed in the same way as for others.
  This should apply to categories in the basic format (e.g. "Photographs by Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky"). I'm not convinced of the utility of subcategories in these for every 10 images.
  The main problem we have today is that we can't easily identify topical categories from other categories other than by tagging them as "hidden". The "hidden" attribute should eventually just move them to a new line, but currently it doesn't. If we mixed all of them with topical categories, it just gets messy.
  To have user categories display for all users, a workaround used by some is through a link in a user template. This has the added benefit that it's also accessible from Wikipedia. --  Docu  at 10:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• I was just reviewing the categories listed by PereslavlFoto, and it occurs to me that there really is not a problem for us. If a user creates a category for their images, and doesn't mark it as a {{User category}} then they have relinquished all control of it. Like any other category it is subject to editing by any user and may be out-right deleted if it is seen as out of scope or otherwise unwanted. If they mark it as a {{User category}}, then it will in general be left alone, and they can add/delete images etc to their hearts content. If they want everyone to be able to find their category they can add a link from their user-page. So there really is not anything that needs to be specifically policed. For those not marked {{User category}} send them to {{Cfd}} if they are seen as unwanted, and decide on a case by case basis. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Tony Wills: it's an interesting turn. No doubt that "Like any other category, [user category not marked with {{User category}}] is subject to editing by any user". But what (apart from personal ethics) precludes such editing when {{User category}} is in place? Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy is silent about it. Proposed Commons:User categories is dormant since January.NVO (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that the problem is that the user hates hidden categories for his works. He might think that nobody will see him or find him less important. (He reverted several times the user cats) --Foroa (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This is far from truth, because you take emotions for the reason (using the word «hates»). In reality the Commons users cannot understand why do the same photographers have different category types. Is it for discouraging people to join Commons? The reason in not emotion but logic. I beg you to see the problem, not the people pointing to it.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it for discouraging people to join Commons is a fairly bizarre assumption, as nearly 99.9 % of all new users who are going to join Commons (including myself anno 2006) do neither know the difference between user and photographer categories, nor they (or a lot of them) know what categories are at all. (And, just for the records, even some "established" users with some high pretensions seem sometimes not to know how to categorize correctly.) - A.S. 20:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

(You are right, I am not a major burial specialist. So back to the question.) — What is the difference between authors and users, and why a photographer publishing at Commons has no right to be a photographer? — (You must know that en:Argumentum ad hominem is a en:Logical fallacy.)--PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

User categories are a concession to users to make them maintenance more easy, user categories are not topics, besides the maintenance aspect there is nothing that makes it acceptable that users include themself in our educational content. Commons is not flickr.com where people build their own photostreams, albums and so on. Some of the above mentioned categories are maybe simply not created correctly, but Category:Mikhail Evstafiev who is considerably notable judging by wiki articles is correct for example. --Martin H. (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there any rule distinguishing authors in two groups, the notable ones and the other ones? How can a man catch up what categories are not created correctly? Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt about Flicr, please see the example. A usercat from Flicr user is treated as photography category.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

User categories: Flicr

Why do the Flicr users have their author's categories? They are just users, same to ourselves.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

July 7

Uploaded a new version of an image, but it isn't updating

Crosslink to older VP section on the same topic: #Replaced_images_doesn.27t_refresh_-_Purge_doesn.27t_help --Saibo (Δ) 04:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version of an image (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_beach_in_maine_on_a_clear_day.jpg). The upload seems to have been successful, but the site is still displaying the old version, and Wikipedia articles that link to the image are still showing the old version. I tried refreshing the page, clearing my browser cache, and manually purging the page, but the new version still won't show up. The only way I can display the new version is if I scroll down to the File History section of the page, and click on the new version, and the it will load... but this doesn't solve the problem of the new version not displaying on the main file page or in Wikipedia articles. Help? Thanks, --BMRR (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see that this is known issue. Sorry. --BMRR (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Same problem for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Strassen_algorithm.svg. (See https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28613, Elder article on village pump). Is there any workaround? --Xypron (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge there are only those workarounds: Only if it is very urgent (e.g. main page or similar) then just embed a slightly different size which wasn't used by anybody before (e.g. 179 instead of 180 px width). This will have the correct thumb. I guess deleting and restoring or simply uploading a duplicate under a new name could help, too. Those work arounds shouldn't be used for non-urgent cases as they are creating work and are non-standard. Just waiting helps. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

From my experience, deleting and restoring does nothing to resolve it, but renaming the file solves it, if there is some urgent need.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 08:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

US National Laboratories as opposed to Department of Energy

This is kind of a broad concern. I see a large warning on our DOE template that works of National Labs may not be PD. And as far as I know, they are most or all run by contractors. (Some of the lab websites have a copyright notice, some don't. Also, for example, Ames, clarifies that the USG has a non-transferable right to publish all their images...so even seeing something on the DOE site might not be assurance that it is PD as general, they might just be exercising their right, but not ours for lab image republishing!) We have a LOT of images from National Labs. I am seeing them in Featured Articles at en-Wiki and the like. (It's not an isolate thing.) I pretty much LOVE these images. But also have this concern that we are broadly non-compliant. Appreciate any thoughts, not just on "the rules", but also practical things to make sure we're using compliant images (and that I not rule out good pictures.) P.s. I guess I could just throw a bunch of important pics into Deletions and get insight that way, but thought I would ask here first!  :-)

Some pics (must be more):

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Xenon_tetrafluoride.gif (from a DOE website, but the pic was taken at Argonne)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Uraniumtetrabomb.jpg (this is at Wiki, but y'all are the experts, plus you know eventually it will be here!  ;-))
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oak_Ridge_Y-12_Alpha_Track.jpg (has impressive sounding justification and perhaps is by a USG photog, perhaps not, ORNL is a NL and was run by a contractor)

TCO (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Very legitimate concern, I think. However, the latter two you mention are Manhattan project photos (pre-dating the private involvement in the national labs I think, which were only created after the war), and the last one explicitly mentions the US Government employee who took the photo, so I don't think there is any issue with those. The first one may be an issue, though apparently being published before 1964 would mean that a copyright renewal would have to be on file at the Copyright Office somewhere for that one. For modern images, however, yes they are a concern (unless it is documented that a US Government employee took them). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel better. Guess I still have a mildly persnickety wonder about even MP era photos as the sites were often contractor-run even then. And there must be a difference in the type of contractor. If USG just hires a photog to do some photos, we would treat that as USG property (image made for hire, although even then I guess it would matter the actual contract), but then the labs now, are on Federal land, but are contractor-administered and the employees are not exactly civil servants. But...eh...you made me feel a little better.  :-) TCO (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan Project I think would be entirely considered federal employees, or close enough. Contractors/employees may have been loaned by private institutions but the work was definitely only for the federal government, and I don't think they were contractor-run at all. Any photos would have been highly classified anyways. Official private involvement in running the labs themselves only started after the war... 1946/1947. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

They used contractors even back then. Not sure the nature of the contracts, but say at ORNL, Eastman Chemical (formerly Tennessee Eastman hired several thousand females to work at uranium separation). The work had federal purpose then and after. Perhaps the nature of the contracts differeed (which would be great). But even at LA, there was a definite desire from the beginning to have a bit of an academic atmosphere and Universty of California was the meta-contractor. See the current FAC on Manhattan Project (great article, btw!) I feel a little better with the Wescott photos as he may have been directly contracted by Army History or the like (althouth still unclear).TCO (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to write to Ames (want to ask for a bigger file anyway, to try to get Featured Picture). Will ask what they know about rights status as well. The thing about 1964 makes me feel pretty good, that this stuff is off copyright from a practical perspective, but will just be interested to see what they say.TCO (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

They said it was PD, but gave me a release anyhow. and bigger pics! Putting them on Wiki since this is where image is now.TCO (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Naming order of Japanese people

Hi! There has been a little debate regarding the usage of Japanese names.

• User_talk:Aphaia#Naming

User:Aphaia appears on several photographs posted to the Wikimedia Commons. I altered image descriptions, a category name, and category content so that the name reads as "Naoku Kizu" instead of "Kizu Naoko" to make the name order consistent with pages/categories/etc of other post-Meiji 1 Japanese names

• In the Japanese language, a name is written with the family name first and the given name last. Kizu is the Wikipedian's family name, and Naoko is her given name, so in Japanese her name is "Kizu Naoko"
• In English, most other European languages (Spanish, French, German, etc), and languages like Thai, Arabic, Hindi, Indonesian, etc. the common practice is to reverse the name so that it fits western naming order, so the family name goes last and the given name goes first. I.E. "Naoto Kan" (Kan is family name) instead of "Kan Naoto" - This practice is done in those languages widely by the press, book publishers, governments, individuals, etc. in Japan and foreign countries.
• In some other languages (Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, Hungarian) the Japanese names of post Meiji 1 figures remain expressed in the Japanese order.
• The MEXT (Japanese education ministry) published a survey asking Japanese people if they believe the practice of having the name switched, which originated in the Meiji era. There was no consensus in the survey results. See the end section of: http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/12/kokugo/toushin/001217d.htm (in Japanese - For an English summary, please see en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan#MEXT_document_on_Japanese_names)
• While widespread practice has the names of Japanese and Hungarian people switched to western order, typically Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese people do not have their names switched to western order.

The practice of name switching is commonplace, and most Japanese have not expressed opposition to it. However Aphaia has a strong preference for having her name written as "Kizu Naoko" even in foreign languages. She takes offense whenever a person expresses her name as "Naoko Kizu". Aphaia expressed a preference that her category, images portraying her, etc. should have the text read "Kizu Naoko" in Japanese order.

However, manuals of styles of various Wikipedias ask that post-Meiji 1 Japanese names be put in western order if the Japanese person is of the modern day era (on the English Wikipedia, if the person is born on or after the first year of Meiji). On the English Wikipedia, editors do not allow specific pages to be expressed in Japanese order, even if the subject has commonly used or has a preference for Japanese order. On EN all post Meiji Japanese people are to have their names written in western order. (Pages on subjects born before Meiji 1, who are historical figures, use the Japanese naming order).

• English Wikipedia: en:Wikipedia:MOS-JA#Names_of_modern_figures: "For a modern figure—a person born after the beginning of the Meiji period (January 1, 1868 onward for our purposes)—always use the Western order of given name + family name for Western alphabet, and Japanese style family name+<space>+given name for Japanese characters.[...]"
• French Wikipedia: fr:Wikipédia:Transcription_du_japonais#Noms_de_personnes: "Les noms de personnes japonais sont toujours mentionnés sur Wikipédia dans l’ordre prénom, nom, contrairement à l’ordre traditionnel japonais (nom, prénom) :" - It makes exceptions for historical figures and two modern day pen names (Oh! Great and Edogawa Rampo)
• Spanish Wikipedia: es:Wikipedia:Manual_de_estilo_para_artículos_de_origen_japonés#Nombres_de_personas: "Para el título de figuras modernas, aún no existe un acuerdo en el orden del nombre, aunque se usa preferiblemente primero el nombre y luego el apellido." - Apparently the Spanish editors may not have technically reached an agreement yet on the naming order themselves, but established a preference for western order.
• German Wikipedia: de:Wikipedia:Namenskonventionen/Japanisch#Namensreihenfolge - Based on Google translate, generally people born after 1926 get western order, except for people who appear in German literature using the Japanese order - there may be something about personal preference being a factor, but I'm not sure... (modern sumo wrestling names are always in Japanese order on DE)
• Russian Wikipedia: ru:Википедия:Статьи_о_Японии#Имена персоналий - Because all names are "Family Name, Given Name" in article titles, Japanese names in article titles are "Family Name, Given Name" - But in the articles themselves, Japanese names are in western order ru:Исихара,_Синтаро

I believe that despite preferences of particular individuals, the Commons, like the Wikipedias, should maintain/enact a manual of style governing all post-Meiji Japanese names so that they are expressed in the same naming order, but that would only affect Files, subject pages, and categories since those pages have "official" Commons content (analogous to Wikipedia articles. I would stress that Wikipedians, when on talk pages, category talk pages, user talk pages, user pages, etc. etc. should continue to refer to Aphaia as "Kizu Naoko" WhisperToMe (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

A name is what people go by. If she wants Kizu Naoko, there's no harm in using that for her name everywhere. Otherwise I demand that Cherilyn Sarkisian be written that way everywhere.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well Cher was a stage name is "Cher" so the English Wikipedia uses that - Turns out she legally changed her entire name in 1978 to "Cher" (no family name, no middle name) - So that is her name, full stop.

Likewise on EN if a Japanese person has a stage name/pen name "Aba-kun" the English article is "Aba-kun" but the article states the legal name is "Taro Sato" - That differs from the presentation of a Japanese name (what order is the actual name in). On EN and other Wikipedias pen names and stage names of post-Meiji 1 Japanese people go in Western order too (Yukio Mishima, legal name Kimitake Hiraoka).

Speaking of "Cher" we could very easily refer to the category and in many occasions author as simply "Aphaia" or "Britty" but there's still the question of how to refer to her legal name in "official" Commons material.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

A photographer can be credited by any name they choose, regardless of Wikipedia article guidelines (besides which, this is Commons, not Wikipedia, and we don't operate under their guidelines). If Aphaia chooses to be credited as Kizu Naoko, you have no right to demand it be changed to something else, or to unilaterally change her uploads to something else. For any files you have already modified, I would strongly suggest you revert your changes. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Aphaia, is the subject of the photos in the category, not the photographer. The category and photos are at Category:Naoko Kizu

While Commons is a separate project from the Wikipedias, it could easily establish its own manuals of style, and due to it's relationship with the Wikipedias, I think it would be a good idea.. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, misunderstood. Still, please respect her wishes. If she wishes to go by "Kizu Naoko", and she obviously does, please respect that wish. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If the Commons community has a consensus that certain individuals may have their names expressed in their preferred orders versus the standard order, then I would be happy to honor those wishes.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

As it stands, as far as I'm aware, there is no consensus either way, which means it defaults to the editor's choice in the matter, not the other way around. Look, I'm sure you mean well and are just trying to create a sense of standardisation, but I find it distasteful when the desire of an individual overwhelms the desires of other editors, and this situation seems to have that appearance. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

In some cases Aphaia was the editor who added her own name in the photo descriptions, and in some cases she did not edit the descriptions at all.

For instance this photo used Western order from the start: File:Wikimania_2008_dungodung_64.jpg [4] (possibly because the Wikimania Alexandria name badge in the photo that she is wearing puts her name in Western order) - She did not edit the description in that photo (she probably didn't know the photo existed, since I added that photo to the category) - In photo descriptions which Aphaia edited, she used Japanese order - In some photos her legal name is not mentioned, and only her screenname is

She was the author of the Category:Kizu Naoko category - I moved that category the to western order to make everything consistent and added more photos to that category.

Speaking of the name badge, another factor that prompted me to use western order was that in some Wikimedia/Wikimania materials her name is written in Western order (the name badge, also the page title of http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Presenters/Naoko_Kizu , although the text inside the page uses Japanese order)

In some other Wikimania materials I found the name was put in Japanese order: http://wikimania2008.wikimedia.org/wiki/Program_team and http://http://wikimania2008.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schedule (in schedule her name appears as "KIZU Naoko" while other Japanese/Japanese diaspora person's names are as "Tomohiro Fukuhara, Yoshiaki Arai")

To illustrate how the name is written in Japanese, I used the format that is seen in various European language Wikipedias on how Japanese names are displayed in Wikipedia articles and added "Naoko Kizu (木津 尚子 Kizu Naoko) - aka Aphaia, Britty" to the category description

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Please honor other user's wishes about how their names are used. I agree with Huntster - I see no ambiguity about this. --SJ+

We should always default to respecting the wishes of the subjects or creators of photos - where possible. It requires a very good reason to do otherwise, since it is simply inconsiderate. Simple pedantry is not a very good reason (even if it fuels Wikimedia :). --SJ+ 14:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I understand the sentiment. But I do not believe that this issue is pendantic. In my earlier years, I interacted with people who crafted the Manual of Style on Japanese names on EN. And discussions about which naming orders or better, or how to assign naming orders, came up constantly: en:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_for_Japan-related_articles/Naming_order and en:Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Japan-related_articles)/misc5#Name_Order_Discussion are some examples of discussion. It was very difficult to come up with the standards on how the names would be ordered, and who would get what order. Because of the level of controversy, I would think that such a thing isn't pedantic (at least by Wikimedia standards :) )

If this was a small, personal project with a group of close friends, or something about social networking, or something more informal, I would without hesitation have the name be written as "Kizu Naoko" - But Wikimedia Commons is a large educational project and I think conforming to general English/other language media print standards would be important. While I haven't found Aphaia's name in the news, if she suddenly had an article written about her in the NYT, or Agence Presse France, or the BBC, I would imagine that her name would appear in western order.

Looking at the archives, I found a case where going against the subject's wishes on the name (in this case though, he's a public figure in the news constantly) may be editorially the best choice: en:Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Japan-related_articles)/misc5#Name_Order_Discussion

"The naming of biographical articles in Wikipedia is complicated by the fact that one individual may be known under several different names at the same time, and may change their name a number of times in their life. For example, we have an article at Cat Stevens (his stage name) even though he was born as Stephen Demetre Georgiou and changed his name to Yusuf Islam. To be neutral, our only choice is to examine popular usage. —Morven 23:20, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)"

"Sometimes, I feel that those of us who live in Japan, or are just more familiar with Japanese culture than most of the English Wikipedia user profile, need to step back and realize that even though doing it this way is "right", when it has been established on WP to do it that way, it is for a very good reason. Most of the people reading about Japanese people in WP are not us, but others. I think the conventions are usually formed with that in mind, and thus, are what we should follow in the WP playground. Neier 08:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)"

I am aware that the discussion is old, but I think the sentiment should illustrate how I feel about the issue.

I think the determination for Commons on how to handle these issues ought to be not be necessarily what the subject of photograph wants. It is what is best for the reader or what the reader would expect. Commons is mainly for the user/reader. If the international media made a story about or featuring Aphaia, they would certainly use western order. I believe that acting in a manner that would help the reader in understanding the content would be a "good reason" for an exception to going by the wishes of the subject.

If the consensus is "Well, Aphaia is not a public figure (yet?) and people who talk about her use FN-GN, so in this case it would be best for the reader to see her name in FN-GN and give an exception" then I would be fine with that. I just hope that I illustrated why I take the position on the matter that I take.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I just found something interesting: There's only one journalism-related article that I found about Aphaia so far, and it mentions Aphaia's name in Japanese order (not sure if the journalist knew whether "Naoko" was her first name or if he believed it was her family name.

Cohen, Noam. "Some Errors Defy Fixes: A Typo in Wikipedia’s Logo Fractures the Sanskrit." The New York Times. June 25, 2007.

I just sent an e-mail to Noam Cohen asking him if he knew that Aphaia's family name was "Kizu."

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Anyway, a recent trend is for Chinese people (at least) who have become famous in the last few decades to become known in English by the Asian name order: Yao Ming, Li Na, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep - As the MEXT/Mombusho article points out, typically Korean and Chinese people do not have their names switched. And some Chinese people working abroad continue to be referred to in FN-GN order. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Policy Translation

Hi. I´m natural spanish speaker. I´ve been looking for this policy in spanish but I couldn´t find it. I´m able to translated, but I´m not sure if I can, if I must request some permission, if I need concensus or I can do it without problem. Can someone tell me if I can create Commons:Umbral de originalidad or is there any other method I should follow? Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

We can probably copy es:Umbral de originalidad to Commons and make minor changes or something. Killiondude (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I translated the policy :) But I don´t know how to add the headline: "This project page in other languages: English | Spanish | +/−" --Andrea (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

What you did one day later works for me, thanks. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Technically were other users, I just made a small adjustment :) But yes, I think now is perfect. Cheers. --Andrea (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

July 8

Inkscape Text Problems

I'm having problems with the way text appears in many of my Inkscape submissions and I don't understand why. Image File:Baker's San Felipe Flag.svg should have each word centered down the white stripes of the flag, and not left justified. Also, the font has changed to some sort of default, which I didn't specify. On File:San Jacinto Flag.svg, two of the words are showing up on the ribbon over the sword but a dark rectangle appears where a third word, "Liberty" should be. I was about to upload another submission, but the thumbnail showed another dark rectangle over the text. All of these files look perfectly fine in my Inkscape, but once they're uploaded, the text goes crazy.--Glasshouse (talk) 00:2Italic text8, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The software that Mediawiki uses to convert SVG to PNG can be a little quirky, and it is a known issue that just hasn't been solved yet. See Commons:SVG Check and Help:SVG for more information. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, any font used in an SVG file must be one of those listed here. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've hand-massaged both files, and the San Jacinto flag should be fixed (correct font and halved the file size). Also "fixed" the San Felipe flag, but the damn caching problem has decided to rear its ugly head for this file, and the image refuses to update. Sigh...that's getting old. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the help. I'll use the fonts in the list you referenced, and as for the San Felipe flag, I guess we just wait until the cache updates itself?--Glasshouse (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Mysterious black rectangles are generally a symptom of the non-standard Inkscape "flowtext" nonsense... AnonMoos (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Allan_Manning's_Signature.jpg

It's not really about deletion, but about a problem concerning the license ( {{self|Cc-by-sa-3.0}} ) used in :

• File:Allan Manning's Signature.jpg
• File:Allan Manning's Signature.svg (derivative)

Uploader is not the author of this, and can't license it with a free license.

Scanning something do not create a new copyright => the scanner is not the author of it. What remains is the author of the element represented , here the signature of Allan Manning. But there's a long habit on commons to consider signatures PD Simple (or {{PD-signature}}). Hence, this file can't be licensed with a free license (with self), but should be maybe tagged PD.

Lilyu (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Martin H --Lilyu (talk) 10:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Special:Upload page

Hello!

Is there any way to implement the templates {{int:filedesc}} and {{int:license}} to the upload page in their appropriated places? The output of this form contains the section titles == Summary == and == Licensing == , I think that it would be nice it they were exchanged with the internationalized templates. And as long as I am on it, is there any way to add

== {{int:filedesc}} ==

in the preloaded text of the basic upload form? I forget to add it manually too often when uploading something... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Often asked, and so far the answer is basically 'not now, probably someday," but I don't remember the rationale. Someone? - Jmabel ! talk 17:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

help uploading larger size images, but that have changed file extension

Hi. I requested and got a donation of 3 larger size images. However, the extension is .tif (an allowed kind for us), but our original was .jpg. Trying to upload "new copy" does not work as the extensions are different and it won't let me change destination name. Should I upload as all new versions? run some conversion of my own through Paint (don't want to lose content though)? What?

Concerns these three images: [5]

P.s. I know it's Wiki, but help your brother?

TCO (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Upload as a new version, and add an "other versions" entry to the .jpg. --Carnildo (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Not sure how to add an other versions, but will try.TCO (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a template {{Other version}}. - Jmabel ! talk 17:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan and Arab world maps

Hi, I m an admin in Arabic Wikipedia and I m wondering, with the independence of South Sudan, if you are going to update some maps in Commons. There is a lot of maps dealing with the Arab league or the Arab world that still contain South Sudan. Can any one remove the South Sudan from those maps Category:Arab League ? --Helmoony (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that you identify suitable maps to be modified, and file a request at "Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop" for new versions of the maps to be created and uploaded. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that in some cases, the existing file should be updated, and in others it should be retained and the new file uploaded under a new name. Powers (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't suggesting that the new files be uploaded over the old ones (these may be useful for historical reasons). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, someone has already moved the dicussion there. --Helmoony (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Attributing A Derivative File With The New Upload Wizard

I like the fact that the new upload wizard is quick and easy, but I only have the option to list the item as my own work or as someone else's work. I often borrow elements from other wiki artists, and I want to give them credit for their work, but the upload wizard, as opposed to the old form, doesn't let me attribute a file as a derivative of someone else's work. How are we to handle derivative submissions going forward?--Glasshouse (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The upload wizard (UW) is simply incomplete and will not be complete in the near future. Just use the old form Commons:Upload instead.

It would be best if you leave your UW feedback at Commons:Prototype_upload_wizard_feedback. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

July 9

Username policy for organizations

Could I request additional comments on a username policy question which I posted on that project's talk page? Please see Commons_talk:Username_policy#Test_case.

The issue is that some Wikipedia projects, like English Wikipedia, discourage group accounts such as those which might be used by anyone at an organization. My question is whether Wikipedia Commons supports such accounts. It seems to me that an organization might have media files which it could be willing to upload, and an organization account would be the most appropriate kind of account for doing this.

However, the global login created might be problematic for its existence on some Wikimedia projects. Could someone please comment on this on the talk page given above? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Fun with sortkeys in General views of USS Ronald Reagan

• 
  0°
• 
  045°
• 
  090°
• 
  135°
• 
  180°
• 
  225°
• 
  270°
• 
  315°

More for the above gallery in Category:General views of USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76). The numbers used for sorting are approximate.

It's a bit silly, I concede. Anyways, enjoy. --  Docu  at 07:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• I do something like it, too (street numbers), so it can't be silly. But it needs regular attention in the future. Sometimes the subject is too narrow or unpopular to be safely left unattended. With CVN-76, you're guaranteed to have more and more new photos every month. NVO (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • In this case, new ones get added to the end. (Not all images in the category are sorted BTW). --  Docu  at 07:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

? The 2nd image is ≈ 45 ° on the photographers port side and the last is 45° to starboard. If you want to use the full 360 deg notation then the 2nd should be 315° and the last 45° because degrees are counted clockwise.--P.g.champion (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I thought about using 0° for the view now at 180°. Feel free to revise it. --  Docu  at 10:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Archive template problem

Why is [6] not showing up at the top of Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop? There seem to be three levels of templates, and I'm not sure I edited the right thing, or if I did, whether the new version will ever get transcluded over a cache of some sort. 99.24.223.58 10:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That template is obsolete. The template used for archives is Template:GraphicLabArchive. However, don't add "(stale)" becuase the template is localized. You may, however, modify the part that says "Completed requests are archived regularly" in the English translation page: Commons:Graphic Lab/top/en. Changing it to "Completed and stale requests are archived regularly" will work, but will need to be changed for all other languages as well. --ZooFari 17:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Could someone who knows what that means please do it? I'm a monoglot, but I know better to tell people that only the completed requests are archived when old stale requests are archived too. All should be linked from the archive box, unless there is a reason not to. 99.24.223.58 22:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Help: I cant't restore original File:LocationSouthernSudan.svg

I tried revert to original upload of File:LocationSouthernSudan.svg (see here), but the system show other picture that original, The original picture was a pink and red svg map scheme, like ohter files File:LocationSudan.svg, File:LocationAngola.svg, etc. But an user upload other type of map. I tried rever this, but commons show ohter picture. See the history of image. Shooke ^{(Talk me in spanish, english or italian)} 17:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Have Some problem with server, i reverted image, but not show the same that original, i not understand Shooke ^{(Talk me in spanish, english or italian)} 17:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Some administrator can be restore to original upload?. Have Some bug that not show the image Shooke ^{(Talk me in spanish, english or italian)} 17:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a caching issue. It just takes some time for the system to update the thumbnail images. Leave it alone for an hour or so, then check it again. It should have updated itself by then. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

But the problems are other users, that not wait for this and revert again Shooke ^{(Talk me in spanish, english or italian)} 17:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Patience; besides, the red/orange map needs some fixing (overlapping and such, give me a few minutes) Seb az86556 (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Shooke ^{(Talk me in spanish, english or italian)} 17:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed: the two are now separate objects, rather than one plastered over the other. Seb az86556 (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The newest version looks rather horrible. I don't think that's what you intended, Seb. Killiondude (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Looked horrible due to the bug, I fixed it moving to File:Location Southern Sudan.svg. It may me moved back to the old name when the server issue is resolved, but for now this is the only practical way to solve the bug I'm aware of. Otherwise the wrong version may stay there for weeks.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 18:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Darwin. I think that rename the file like LocationSouthSudan.svg, see Category:South Sudan. Thank Shooke ^{(Talk me in spanish, english or italian)} 19:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I can rename it again, if there is a need for that and there is no opposition. If LocationSouthSudan.svg is the best final name, I may issue an universal replacement for the file name as well (I have not done it for the current name, since it was meant to be a temporary fix only).--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 07:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why people cannot be patient and upload a new version using a new file name. You broke the sense, mainly in Wikinews articles where the old map was so far used to show both Sudan and South Sudan in one map which the 2007 version was the only useful map. There a different usages of maps. Never ever upload a new version on the same file! --Matthiasb (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW: There was even no need to such confusion, since File:LocationSouthernSudan-Independent.svg exists since May 2011, now using the correct naming File:Location South Sudan.svg. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Unsourced Flickr image" templates on image that didn't come from Flickr

An image that I uploaded a few minutes ago, File:ElzaGate.jpg, has been tagged as an unsourced Flickr image. That doesn't make much sense to me, since I didn't get the image from Flickr. It's a PD-US image, and I think it's likely that someone else uploaded it to Flickr at some point, so I guess that maybe it was detected as being identical to a Flickr image. I've never encountered this particular issue before. Will anyone object if I quietly delete the template as irrelevant? --Orlady (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If you didn't get it from Flickr, why did you add the template {{flickrreview}} ? /Esquilo (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Added by new upload wizard? Bulwersator (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me, I'm sure someone posted on Commons they their own photographs were being tagged with {{flickrreview}}, a month or so ago but can't find it. Bidgee (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I know where it is, it's somewhere in the UW feedback page, in more than one thread if I well recall.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

July 10

Missing Creative Commons templates

Hi everyone, I created all the missing Creative Commons license templates like for example {{Cc-by-2.0-za}}. I do this by looping over the countries at {{Cc-country-flags}} and combining this by the different types (cc-by-/cc-by-sa) and versions (1.0, 2.0, 2.5 & 3.0). If the template exists at the Creative Commons site, it will be created here. Some messages are still missing (see for example {{Cc-by-3.0-cr}}). I'll add them to Translatewiki later. Expect these messages to show up in the next couple of weeks. Multichill (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

How many images from www.flickr.com...

I recently appealed to a flickr contributor to make one of their images available here. I tried to figure out how many of our images come from www.flickr.com .

If I am not mistaken there are about 655,000. Geo Swan (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You did catch also category descriptions with weblnks to flickr. With Category:Files_from_Flickr you see 175484 Admin reviewed Flickr images, 140295 Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR, 124391 Flickr images uploaded by Flickr upload bot. = 440 170 reviewed images. If some images are not in several of these cats. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Upload new version of picture problem

Hi! I tried to replace File:Kawanishi E7K seaplane.jpg with unretouched version from crimso.msk.ru but I can't see the new version, only the old version resized to the new version's size. I tried to clear cache (even by action=purge) but it didn't work. Can anyone help me? Thanks... --Sceadugenga (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a known technical problem with the display of thumbnails that doesn't have any simple solution right now. You'll just have to wait a few hours and try refreshing the page again. The new file has been uploaded, though – if you click on the "full resolution" button you will see it. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"hours" or even days/weeks, yes. Please just wait and continue to discuss this problem at the relevant sections above - if needed (avoid a scattered discussion). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

File is showing the correct version now (at least to me), as are the various project pages. Hopefully this indicates the servers are slowly returning to normal...update lag time seems to be decreasing. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of the in category names

[Discussion copied from "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands" for more comments.]

Rename Category:Rail tickets of the London Underground to Category:Rail tickets of London Underground (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Rail tickets of the London Underground;Rail tickets of London Underground;r; grammar

 Comment: I don't think grammar requires the the to be removed. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not correct, grammatically or otherwise, to use the article with "London Underground". As a , it does not require the article. Ravenseft (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, are you suggesting that it is always grammatically incorrect to use articles with proper nouns? If so, I think that is not right. It is grammatically correct to say "I visited the White House today", and incorrect to say *"I visited White House today". For that reason, there is nothing grammatically wrong with "Rail tickets of the London Underground". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your example is not helpful. The White House's official title is "The White House", like "the United States" and "the British Virgin Islands", so in these cases the "the" is indispensable. Hence, "Mountains of the United States" is correct and "Mountains of United States" is wrong. However, when "the" does not appear in the name, it is unnecessary to use it. So, "Cars made by Toyota" and not "Cars made by the Toyota". I realise this is not the place for an English lesson, that can be found elsewhere, so perhaps another native English speaker could confirm my explanation? Ravenseft (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I regard myself as a native speaker, and I have not heard of any rule which states that the is only to be used when the word is part of an "official title". (And how does one find out what the "official title" of a proper noun is? Why is the "official title" of the USA "the United States of America" and not simply "United States of America"?) The website you referred to is interesting, but it doesn't seem to lay down any hard and fast rule on the matter. For example, http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/nouns-proper_3.htm states: "We normally use 'the' with the following sorts of names: ... the Ritz Hotel, ... the Royal Theatre, ... the Crystal Palace". I don't see how "the London Underground" is distinguishable from these examples. Anyway, I'm happy to hear views from other editors on this issue. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm copying this discussion to the Village Pump as this is probably not the best place for it. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The answer to your question is quite simple - there is no "the" in London Underground. London Underground which issues the tickets in this category is a company founded in 1985, the full title of which is "London Underground Limited". I believe your confusion may have arisen from the fact that LU is sometimes used as a synonym for "the Tube" which refers to the network in general. The "the" is therefore superfluous at best and grammatically incorrect at worst; it also gives rise to the impression that more than one company is issuing Tube tickets. Ravenseft (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ravenseft, unfortunately in some respects you appear to have an unhelpfully oversimplified understanding of linguistic usage/grammar, and a simple Google search suggests that there are plenty of occurrences of the phrase "the London Underground" on UK sites: [7]... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see many other categories that includes a definite article. /Esquilo (talk) 04:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a fair number that even begin with "the" -- see [8] -- and I imagine quite a bit more with "the" in the middle (e.g. Category:Flags of the United States etc. etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A definite article isn't uncommon in category titles. See e.g. all the sub-categories of Category:People of New Zealand by region and all but one of the sub-categories of Category:French Revolution and of Category:Transport in the Dominican Republic. The exception in the latter case is Category:Buses in Dominican Republic, which seems just as unnatural to me as Category:Rail tickets of London Underground. (I'm not saying that "London Underground" always requires an article; there wouldn't be anything grammatically wrong with Category:London Underground rail tickets, for instance.) This nomination seems to be based on a very peculiar idea of English grammar. --Avenue (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of the categories AnonMoos links to seems to be books, films etc where 'the' is a part of thier name. There is a definite distinction between Category:The Black Cat and Category:Black cats. /Esquilo (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Point of order -- Ravenseft wrote “The White House's official title is ‘The White House’...” ‘The White House’ is a nickname. The official title of the POTUS`s residence is something like “the Executive Mansion”. Geo Swan (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It is very common in English to use the definite article before proper nouns that are of the form "Adjective Noun", even if the noun doesn't strictly include the article, except when the noun is used as an adjective. (As noted above: "I went to the White House", but "White House security is tight".) "London Underground" fits this pattern; it sounds stilted (at least to American ears) to omit the definite article. Exceptions include the titles of creative works (e.g., Dangerous Liasons or Scary Movie), though such works often incorporate the definite article anyway (e.g., The Little Mermaid). Powers (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"London Underground" is a en:Proper noun. The definite article should be excluded. Rd232 (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Or, to be more precise, it's a proper noun referring to the company existing since 1985 (en:London Underground) and by extension the institution existing since 1933. Rd232 (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

While proper nouns are not normally preceded by an article (e.g. Chicago, Lady Gaga, etc.), they often are (the New York Times, the CN Tower, etc.). Whether it is a proper noun or not is a red herring. What is the most common usage, with or without an article? What does en-wp use? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The company/institution name does not include the definite article. On the other hand, when referring to the system, especially prior to 1933, the definite article is used, because then it's a common name (adjective+noun). Rd232 (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If including the article is only considered to be a solecism by a few railgeeks and company employees, but hundreds of thousands of ordinary riders are perfectly happy to include it, then I see no reason to change the category names. Meanwhile, the article en:London_Underground includes the article several times in the introductory section alone... AnonMoos (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ordinary riders call it "the tube". Rd232 (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? I call it "the Underground". That phrase is used in 'Art on the Underground' and 'Poems on the Underground', so I'm not the only one. But the whole conversation is slightly silly anyway. Is this amount of discussion worth it just to decide on whether to include 'the' or not? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is potentially an issue that affects thousands of categories. I don't know if any definite rules concerning the use (or non-use) of the in front of proper nouns can be identified – if someone can help in this regard, please do. However, based on the discussion so far it looks like there is no single right answer, which means that each disputed renaming request will have to be separately discussed in the hope that consensus can be reached. We should strive, though, for consistency within each branch of the category tree, at least (in other words, we should not have "Category:Rail tickets of the London Underground" coexisting with "Category:Escalators of London Underground").

It has also occurred to me that a distinction should be made between companies and places. It may be appropriate to leave out the definite article when referring to a company ("I work for London Underground [Limited]") but less so when referring to a place ("The London Underground [system] transports thousands of people each hour"). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Anybody speaking russian there ?

Hi,

Could anybody tell via the Russian Embassy or something that the pic ru:Файл:Unigpo28051942ausstkat91.jpg is somewhat the same as File:Bundesarchiv R 49 Bild-0022, Berlin, Ausstellung "Planung und Aufbau im Osten".jpg here and therefore should be deleted there after the use of the Commons one ?

Yours sincerely,

Ultrogothe (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Why should they? It's a cropped and contrast enhanced variation which maybe fits more into what they want to do with the file. --Matthiasb (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I added NowCommons template to the russian page. Thair copy is of much lower resolution and quality. --Jarekt (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

July 11

Category:SNCF Class Z 23000

This type of train was never owned by the SNCF but the RATP. See french wikipedia. Please rename. Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Please leave a request at "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands". Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not clearcut, see discussion page. CMP or RATP? Do we in general use the historic company or the actual company? Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case, you've done the right thing by initiating discussion on the category talk page and notifying editors of the discussion here. Sorry I can't participate – I know nothing about trains. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

July 12

Thousands of medical images

Working on the donation of a few thousand / tens of thousands of medical images under a CC3.0 license. If we are able to come to an agreement how would I go about arranging the upload here? Or should I speak with the WMF? --James Heilman, MD (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk to User:Multichill, he has experience with large batch imports. Otherwise, see COM:BATCH. Lupo 06:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Start a page at COM:BATCH and lets continue discussion there. But in general we will need 3 things to do successful mass upload

• Access to the images: they should be either online somewhere or you might need to upload it to our new staging area
• Prepare metadata: For each image we will need as much data as is available. Ideally data would be provided to the uploaded in a spreadsheet.
• Categories: Although this step can be done after upload, it is usually easier to assign commons categories to each image before the upload

Once we assemble those 3 things the actual upload is rather straightforward. --Jarekt (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Great thanks. Will let you know the details when they are finalized. --James Heilman, MD (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio tag

On template:copyvio, it says Appeal: If you think that the file does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page and remove this tag. But if the uploader sees this and (say, they add some extra information on the copyright status) remove the tag, they will get a 'Please do not remove speedy deletion tags' warning. Maybe the wording should be changed. Who was the 'you' in that line referring to? An admin, any user that is not the uploader? --Ben.MQ (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think there's a settled policy against removing speedy deletion tags. If you think it's not a matter for speedy, and want it to be taken to a formal deletion nomination, that's the only way. AnonMoos (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

French translation help

Please could someone help me by translating a couple of sentences from French to English at Commons:Administrators/Requests/ArséniureDeGallium. It's fairly urgent, as the Admin Request closes soon. --99of9 (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

July 13

Editing the Upload Wizard

Re Commons_talk:Licensing#Free_Art_License.3F - does anyone know how to get changes made to the Upload Wizard? I get it's an extension (mw:Extension:UploadWizard), developed as part of the Usability Initiative (cf [9]), but I can't see anything about how to change the Wizard structure. Maybe only the developers can? Rd232 (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

<snip> discussion moved to Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Upload_Wizard_-_Free_Art_License. please continue there to avoid a scattered discussion. --Saibo (Δ) 01:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Saibo (Δ) 01:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Free image?

Hi, can any admin/expert please check if this image is free for real? It was taken from a fan page and it really doesn't seem like a public domain photo. The license confuses me. Mel 23 talk 02:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion here. No evidence that the license is valid. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Classification of war memorials

During a walk I, I found this. How can I correctly classify the war memorial? It has al kinds of of cross references (Mainz, air raid date). And is it usefull to set the full names of the deceased so that the can be found? Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Added Category:World War II memorials in Belgium. I also think we need to create a category system such as "Foo" (as in RAF, RAAF, USAF) monuments and memorials in "Country"? Bidgee (talk) 09:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Further research finds File:Wellington Bomber memorial - geograph.org.uk - 804620.jpg. It gets more and more interesting. Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

CC-NC allowed?

I thought that material with non-commercial restriction is not allowed, but I found Category:CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0-DE? -- JakobVoss (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

See User:Axpde/GFDL or CC-by-nc-sa, which is “responsible” for most/all files in this category. --Leyo 09:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It is allowed only when used as an alternative license together with a free one. --AVRS (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding non-free licence tags is counter-productive, but I assume that discussing this with Axpde is fruitless :-( -- JakobVoss (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Im Gegenteil, das ist nicht kontraproduktiv. Nachnutzer aus dem Bereich Schule/Studium usw. brauchen garnicht erst fragen, sie können bequem nachnutzen. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 10:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That was exactly my intention (I'm a teacher myself). a×p_de^Hello! 15:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not. GFDL+CC-NC is actually a good improvement when compared to only GFDL for all those who whant to use the image in a non commercial way. For the others it's the same, so there's no harm and all gain. --- Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless the category should be deleted. 1) it is sorted wrong into Category:Creative Commons licenses which is a section of our free licenses copyright statuses, but this is not a free copyright status. 2) the alternative category of Category:Copyright statuses - unfree copyright statuses - is expected to contain no content other then the only allowed unfree Wikimedia content. Axpde can add this tag to his files but he can not create a license category, the scope of Commons is not to offere images under various unfree copyright status but under free licenses, therefore this category is unecessary and only confusing. --Martin H. (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not create a subcategory "non-free Creative Commons licenses" to clearly differentiate? Effeietsanders (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The category is useless on itself, but when crossed with GFDL may be of some use, still. But in any case it shouldn't be categorized under the free licenses or mixed with them in some other way, of course.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 13:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

@Effeietsanders: Scope of this project. Creates the wrong impression that Commons accepts content under free licenses as well as unfree licenses, or that Commons is a source for free as well as unfree content. --Martin H. (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Since double licenses are allowed, CC-NC is of course "allowed" insofar. I think that the reasoning that sometimes CCBYNC is preferrable over GFDL makes sense. In that case, categorizing the NC also makes sense, as long as it is clearly seperated from the free licenses so that people don't get confused. I merely suggested a method for accomplishing that goal (since it /is/ a Creative Commons license, removing it totally from that category doesn't make sense to me) - if you know a better method, that could of course be considered just as well. I do not see where the scope of the project has any influence whatsoever on how we arrange our categories. Effeietsanders (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at Category:Creative Commons licenses, it doesn't read "media files published under free Creative Commons licenses" but simply "media files published under Creative Commons licenses". And my pictures have CC license, so what's the problem? I added a warning to the category in case someone wants to use just this license ... a×p_de^Hello! 15:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all CC-NC is not "unfree" it just limits the access just as BY or SA. Everyone is allowed to use my pictures as long as he does it non commercial, uses the same license and states the author (me :). Whenever someone wants to use my pictures commercially he must do this under the terms of GFDL which is "free" as well. Btw. this construct is not my own idea, there are several other photographers having similiar licenses! And if some private user wants to search some NC pictures, why don't we give him the chance to do so? We could add a warning to this category that this license is only valid in combination with another license as GFDL! a×p_de^Hello! 15:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

CC-NC is indeed "unfree". See freedomdefined.org. The distinctions between NC and SA may seem arbitrary but they are well-established, and with reasoning behind them. You can add a NC license, provided you have one free license, as it could indeed very much help re-users elsewhere (but not Commons). Having GFDL as the only free license is discouraged because it has practical limitations that prevent some usage which is normally in the intended scope of "free" usage. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

GFDL is a free license, and if someone wants to use my pictures commercially he has to use this license, that's the price he has to pay! a×p_de^Hello! 16:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No one said anything against your licensing. Its absolutely ok. Its however not required to create a category for unfree copyright statuses. Iis not what we collect - although we not forbid people to add them as you correctly said. Its extremly misleading as this posting shows. It adulterates our free content related copyright status categorization. --Martin H. (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If they are here, we may as well categorize it. I would simply make a "non-free licenses" category, or "non-free Creative Commons licenses", and make sure to categorize them under that. The current one *is* misleading; it is simply called "Creative Commons licenses" and not all of them are free. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What about giving the “non-free”-related categories names beginning with something like “Images multi-licensed with”? --AVRS (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I must write here german, my english is too bad. Bevor ich die NC als zusätzliche Lizenz aufgenommen habe, kamen fast wöchentlich freundliche Nachfragen meist von Studenten, auch von Schülern und Lehrern. Mit der NC kommt sowas fast nie mehr, die Lizenz erfüllt ihren Zweck. Anfragen von Schulbuchverlagen und Ähnliches kommen weiterhin, ihnen erlaube ich die Weiternutzung dann natürlich problemlos. Ich möchte Bildung nicht behindern, ich bin selbst Dozent. Dafür ist diese Lizenz bestens geeignet. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Before I have the NC was added as an additional license, almost a week of friendly inquiries were mostly students, even by students and teachers. The NC is something almost never, the license is effective. Requests from textbook publishers and the like continue to come, I will allow the continued use them then of course easily. I would not interfere with education, I am a lecturer. For this license is perfectly suited.

translator: Google

{{BadJPEG}}

Can we please get some clarity re {{BadJPEG}}.

In particular this is relating to the ongoing behaviour of User:Mikhail Ryazanov and his habit of tagging large numbers of others' perfectly good JPEG uploads as if they're somehow not worthy of inclusion here. Latest would appear to be here, re Category:Engravings from Album du Centenaire

Whilst recognising the advantage of SVG (which this crude template suggests, even though it would have no value whatsoever for book scans like this), and the narrow advantages of PNG in some cases, there is no reason why this large number of images should be considered for any form of format conversion. Especially not by drive-by tagging like this, which the uploader is clearly puzzled by, if not downright infuriated (the tagging editor does this a lot, some editors, myself included, considerably resent it).

There are some scans with technical problems, either of the source material (often unavoidable), of the scanning process, of image processing post-scan, and only rarely of the final format. Some of these are fixable, some are fixable after upload by other's collaborative work - I'm certainly grateful to user:A7N8X and his cleanup work to my own Category:Scans from 'The Book of the Motor Car', 1912. If scans are truly poor, then it's reasonable to re-work them, or even to request a re-scanning. The very least of these issues though is the technical format of the file. This tagging as if all JPEGs are too poor for inclusion here is quite unwarranted, and it's especially discouraging to the scanners. It is simply untrue that using PNG will improve quality. This may be seen by the tagger's own uploads, and especially where they have converted others files from JPEG to PNG and re-uploaded, sometimes then even seeking deletion of the original. Winding up the contrast to pure black & white is not always an improved image, even if it often looks "sharper" or "clearer" at first glance. Especially for those working with old or faded source materials, this absolute contrast (the narrow case where PNG might show some real benefit) is unattainable and undesirable anyway.

Is JPEG to be banned from Commons? If so, then ban it.
If not, then lay off this disparaging template, especially when it's used in such a critical and unhelpful manner to others' work. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Those are good scans. And the JPEG conversion makes them worse because of lossy compression, while PNG format keeps them in good condition because of lossless compression.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not scan the Category:Engravings from Album du Centenaire items, I made with a camera greatly enlarged photographs, which are JPG, I did apply no conversion whatsoever. Can someone explain me what is bad about these JPEG files? --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any example where this JPEG "lossy compression" has caused any detectable loss of image quality? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any problems with those photographs either and I am not sure what people fixing images tagged with {{BadJPEG}} should be doing with them. Converting JPEGs to PNGs is not going to improve anything. --Jarekt (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I may list several problems with those images. 1) There are small gray dots around any big black dot, seems like they appeared because of compression. 2) There are light spots here and there, seems like the portraits were not retouched. 3) They are not contrast enough, because the image prepared with black ink only cannot contain light gray places.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(1) The original dimension is ca 10 cm x 7 cm , the linear enlargment is about a factor 10. (2) Old books have dots, yellowish-grey area's and other imperfections and the old paper was not blank, therefore I added much contrast, removed on the sides parts wich came from neighbouring images or texte (that however gave white side parts, I tried to avoid that) and I did a minimum of retouching. (I let further improvement be done by users of the images). But I still do not understand what you mean by compression. My question: At what stage of the process there was compression and how could i have got a SVG or PNG format without passing by the JPG format first? --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Everything's right! Theoretically speaking, it's better to avoid JPG files from start, and make the photos in TIF or RAW formats. As soon as they are done in JPEG, it is not bad because camera JPEGs are usually compressed with fine quality producing quite big files. Any possible loss can appear with saving the final JPEGs. Yes, it may be tiny and invisible; but with PNG it may not be at all. That's the only difference.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

PS:Does it help if you explain by comparing it with the Gallica version: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5656749b/f16.image.r=L'Assembl%C3%A9e+de+Vizille.langES ?--Havang(nl) (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Those are extremely small images.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the format my originals have too. If you save the google version on your computer, and try to make it as big as my versions, thy look bad. Thanks for explaining those things. So the limit is the quality of my pocket camera: I don't have TIF or RAW format (or I don't know how to programm my camera for that). Finally: ==> Do we keep or remove that badJPEG tag on the category? --Havang(nl) (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If the (your) camera can't save as PNG, then upload as JPG. But I prefer the template:ShouldBePNG. -- πϵρήλιο 22:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting the costume issue

In 2009, a series of highly contentious deletion requests were created around photos of cosplayers and other people wearing costumes of non-free copyrighted characters. Most of the discussion was centered at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan. In addition to the files mentioned there, we have an extensive hierarchy of costume categories, rooted at Category:Costumes and Category:Masks. At that time, a legal opinion by Mike Godwin, obtained by User:Piotrus:

I do not see a legal justification for removing the images we are discussing here. It is common for photographers to take pictures of people in costumes of copyrighted and/or trademarked characters. In general, such photographs are understood as lawful.

I believe the deletion of the photographs you were talking about was unnecessary, and that this represents a too-conservative worldview with regard to the applicability of copyright and other intellectual property theory.

Feel free to reproduce this e-mail on-wiki.

--Mike Godwin General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation

As a consequence, we retained those files, our policy page Commons:Fan art was modified to state that "pictures of people in costumes of copyrighted and/or trademarked characters, In general, are understood as lawful," and Commons:Image_casebook#Costumes_and_cosplay was modified to read as follows:

There is not yet consensus around whether photographs of a person wearing a costume are permitted. Some widely-agreed upon points:

• The photographer has rights to the photograph and must license the photograph under a free license.
• If the costume is a completely original design (not based on any existing character design), and the designer has released it under a free license, it is permitted. (There isn't a tag for this at the moment.)
• If the costume is an accurate representation of a character whose design is released under a free license or in the public domain, it is permitted.
• If the costume is a modified or original representation of a character whose design is released under a free license or in the public domain, and the costume designer has also released their design under a free license, it is permitted.
• If the costume is purely utilitarian and has no distinct or original graphical features - for example, if it's the kind of clothing that an ordinary person might wear on the street or on the job - then it is permitted under #Clothing above.
• If the costume is not the central focus of the image but only an incidental feature, or one among many costumes, it is likely to be considered de minimis.
• If the costume conveys an accurate representation of the original non-free copyrighted character, and is the sole and central focus of the image, it is more likely to be considered a derivative work and so not permitted. A commonly cited example is an accurate Darth Vader costume.

Mike Godwin, legal counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, has taken the following stances with regard to costumes: [copy of statement above]

There is not yet consensus on whether we want our policies to be this permissive.

Although Mike's statement was accepted, it was never fully accepted by all users (including myself) due to its counterintuitive nature. Recently, I asked our community liaison, User:Moonriddengirl, to investigate further and follow up with the Wikimedia Foundation's current legal team, which Mike is no longer a member of. They have asked that Mike's statement, above, be retracted, and issued the following, considerably more nuanced statement of their own. This has been discussed and agreed upon by all three lawyers in residence:

This is a complex and difficult issue, which in the end comes down to the decision of individual contributors. Although we cannot offer legal advice in particular cases, we can provide these general thoughts. In short, both costumes and masks are copyrightable. Additionally, posting pictures of costumes or masks that are themselves under copyright, or which depict characters that are under copyright could qualify as copyright infringement (subject to a fair use analysis).

The 1991 policy decision on costumes and masks by the Copyright Office appears to still be in effect, and although it is only advisory, it is a good indication of where courts tend to fall on this issue. It says that masks are definitely copyrightable, and that costumes may be copyrightable in certain circumstances (or at least certain features of the costume might be copyrightable), subject to a complicated legal analysis to determine whether the aesthetic aspects of the costume are "separable" from the costume's role as an article of clothing (the utilitarian aspects). Some information on the separability test can be found at [10].

The separability test is an unfortunate example of where American law can get rather confusing, as the outcome may differ from court to court. However, the important thing for us to keep in mind is that if someone obtains a copyright for either the character that is being depicted by the costume, or obtains a copyright for the costume or mask itself, she could send us a DMCA takedown notice for any photograph of a costume or mask depicting that character (as it could be considered a derivative work), and the individual who posted the image could also be liable for copyright infringement. This is similar to the "Mickey Mouse action figure" example at Commons:Licensing#Derivative_works, which demonstrates that reproducing a 3D copyrighted work in 2D (or vice-versa) is not sufficient to escape liability.

The separability test is legally complex, and because it is performed only once a matter goes to court, the outcome is uncertain. The same is also true of the “fair use” defense, which is often regarded as a dangerous and expensive defense to rely on. The safest approach is to assume that if a costume depicts a character that is under copyright, or if the costume itself is produced by a company that is likely to have placed it under copyright, posting photographs of it may result in a DMCA takedown notice, and possible liability to the individual who posted it.

--Wikimedia Foundation legal team

Based on the cited materials, I believe this is a more accurate characterization of the state of the law regarding photographs of costumes. If we accept this statement, it will lead directly to the deletion of many, but not all, works under Category:Costumes and Category:Masks, and the revision of Commons:Image_casebook#Costumes_and_cosplay and Commons:Fan art.

My own point of view: I largely agree with the statement, with a couple caveats. On the one hand, I believe that there are many images for which it is appropriate to consider separability (for example, any costume consisting entirely of ordinary clothing), and I believe we can do so conservatively to avoid the aforementioned legal risk. On the other hand, I would assert that even home-made costumes and masks of non-copyrighted characters cannot be accepted without a proper free-license release from the creator (that is, the copyrighted creations of a "company" have no special status that the copyrighted creations of individual fans do not, regardless of how likely they are to pursue legal action).

I would like us to reach a clear consensus here about guidelines for evaluating this type of work before proceeding to nominate them for deletion. So my questions for you are: given a photograph of a costume (for example, File:Gen Con Indy 2008 - costumes 118.JPG), what questions should we consider, and how should they weigh in our deletion decisions? Some of the questions I think are relevant are:

• Is the photograph in the public domain or released by the photographer under a free license?
• Is the depicted character's design either in the public domain or released by its designer under a free license?
• Does the costume depict an original character invented by the costume designer?
• Is the costume's design either in the public domain or released by its designer under a free license?
• Does the costume contain any elements that are separable from its role as a utilitarian article? Are those elements copyrightable? (in particular, does it consist entirely of ordinary clothing?)

I will do my best to summarize the resulting decisions in the Image casebook. Thanks for your consideration. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)