Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:VP)
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
Help desk
Village pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
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.

Please note

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page

Search archives


A village pump in Burkina Faso [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch



Image change request from the Prado Museum - Request for community input[edit]

Dear all,

TLDR: WMF Legal would like to know your opinion about whether and in what quality we should host images from the Museo del Prado based on their concerns about really high quality versions on Commons (list of images at the end of the post).


The Museo del Prado has contacted the WMF, asking for the removal of a number of images from Commons. Initially, they simply wanted the images taken down, but after discussion with them, they have suggested that they are only concerned with Commons hosting very high-quality gigapixel images and they are willing to accept Commons hosting lower quality images of the artwork under a public domain license.

We’ve asked the Prado to define what quality they would find acceptable and they suggested that 1000 pixels would be acceptable. They also noted more generally that they would be fine with something that was “very good quality to be used on a screen and make possible to appreciate and study all the details of the paintings.” They also noted, if we agree to make a change, that they would be happy to provide the new files to replace the current ones.

I’ve put a list of every image that the Prado brought to our attention at the end of this post.

As many of you might know from the limitations on reuse of PD-art works, Spain has a 25-year ancillary copyright that may cover these images and could be brought against the uploaders of the images and anyone using them in Spain. Further, in this case, the Prado has argued that their gigapixel images, due to their quality and the techniques in creating them, go beyond mere 2-D reproductions and should not be covered by the U.S. Bridgeman exception or the Commons policy on reproductions of 2-D art. They, along with Google Earth, have made a video showing off the elaborate process used to create the images.

We don’t agree with the museum’s interpretation of Bridgeman, but we can’t say for sure how a U.S. court would handle this case. Because of these issues, we want to hear from the community about whether high-quality photographs of 2-D Spanish works should be hosted on Commons. We particularly want to consider how we should balance the desire to keep these images with the potential rights of the museum under Spanish law and consideration to safeguard image uploaders and reusers worldwide.

Our question[edit]

So, with that explanation, we want to ask you what you’d like to do with these images. Given the differences between the rules in the U.S. and Spain, and the different interpretations of these rules that are possible, do you think the WMF should make every possible argument to keep the high resolution images, or replace the current images with lower resolution versions? We’ve thought of a few different options for how the community could approach this issue and are open to others. We’ve tried to outline what we think the results might be for each one.

  • WMF and community members work together with the Prado to change to lower quality images provided by the Prado and remove the gigapixel images.
  • We think this may make the most sense in this case because it heads off a potential lawsuit, allows the images to all remain on Commons and be accessible for free worldwide, and is likely to lower legal risk to uploaders and reusers of the images.
  • On the other hand, it would make it harder to do close-ups of the paintings or reuse them in other ways.
  • Keep the images in their current quality.
  • This would likely mean one or more lawsuits in Spain under their ancillary copyright, followed by an uncertain one in the U.S.
  • Reusers would likely face higher legal risk as compared to replacing the images with lower resolution versions.
  • Community members choose to remove the images from Commons entirely.
  • This would avoid any debate about what quality is appropriate for Commons and avoid misleading reusers of the images.
  • Other projects would still have the option to host the lower quality versions of the images acceptable to the Prado if they wish to do so under the Licensing Policy (Spanish Wikipedia perhaps).

List of images the Prado would like changed (Copied from list provided to us by the Prado, links added by us)[edit]

Portrait of Philip II by Sofonisba Anguissoña (Felipe II, Sofonisba Anguissola)
The Dead Christ Supported by an Angel by Antonello da Messina (Cristo muerto sostenido por un ángel, Antonello de Messina)
Fran Angelico: The Annunciatium (La Anunciación, Fra Angelico)
Lazaru’s resurrection by Juan de Flandes (Resurrección de Lázaro, Juan de Flandes)
Death of the Virgin by Andrea Mantegna (El Tránsito de la Virgen, Andrea Mantegna)
Artemis by Rembrandt (Judit en el banquete de Holofernes (antes Artemisa), Rembrandt)
Martyrdom of St Felipe by José de Ribera (Martirio de San Felipe, José de Ribera)
José de Ribera (San Andrés, José de Ribera)
Immaculate conception by Tiepolo (La Inmaculada Concepción, Gianbattista Tiepolo)
Self-portrait (Autorretrato, Alberto Durero)
Adam and Eve (Adán y Eva, Alberto Durero) (category link because we don't know which one they meant)
Las meninas (Las meninas, Diego Rodríguez de Silva y Velázquez)
La nevada o El invierno (La nevada o El Invierno, Francisco de Goya y Lucientes)
La maja desnuda (La maja desnuda, Francisco de Goya y Lucientes) (second category link because we don't know which image it is)
Peregrinación a la fuente de San Isidro (El Santo Oficio, Francisco de Goya y Lucientes)
Perro semihundido (Perro semihundido, Francisco de Goya y Lucientes) (third category link because we don't know which image it is)
Martirio de San Andrés (El martirio de san Andrés, Bartolomé Esteban Murillo)
Danae (Dánae recibiendo la lluvia de oro, Vecellio di Gregorio Tiziano) (4th category link)
Holy Family of the Lam (Sagrada Familia del Cordero, Rafael) (second version, also high-res)
Holy Family with Saints Raphael, Tobias e Jeronimo or the Virgin with a Fish (Sagrada Familia con Rafael, Tobías y San Jerónimo, o Virgen del pez, Rafael)
Christ Falls on the Way to Calvary (Caída en el camino del Calvario, Rafael (y taller))
The Garden of Earthly Delights (triptych) (El jardín de las Delicias, El Bosco) (second version, also high-res) 

-Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


  • Comment The Commons community has established that en:1080p or "full HD" is the lowest passable standard for images to pass community quality checks like Commons:Featured picture candidates. That standard is 1920 × 1080 or 2 megapixels. From the beginning of negotiations it seems that the museum is requesting that Wikimedia Commons reduce the level of quality to a level below the community's quality standard for viewing on contemporary devices. If they chose that level without knowing what resolution photo groups want then that seems strange, and if they chose that intentionally to be below current expected photo specs then I am not sure what that means. Can the matter be renegotiated to ask about beginning at Wikimedia Commons' minimal quality specs? If discussion begins below that standard of quality then I think the comments will go in a different way. I wonder if they made an arbitrary choice not knowing that full HD is a contemporary expectation, because there is still a huge distance between full HD and gigapixel. Images could be greatly lowered in resolution almost to the level they request and still pass quality review. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the usual Commons policies handle it. If they are copyrighted in their source country and there's no free license, then Commons:Licensing says they shouldn't be hosted at Commons. However any images (e.g., lower resolution versions) that Museo del Prado want to put in the public domain, ideally using CC0, should be hosted. --ghouston (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
    • No, that's not right. The usual Commons policy in this case is that "PD-Art" applies worldwide, regardless of local laws, and allows them to be hosted. In that case the usual thing would be to keep them unless there are uploaders facing potential legal risk in Spain who would like them deleted. A lawsuit in the USA would be useful for confirming Bridgeman (from the point of view of somebody who doesn't have to pay for legal defense). --ghouston (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Most of those images have relatively low resolution. The biggest is maybe File:The Garden of Earthly Delights by Bosch High Resolution.jpg at 30000 * 17078, which is about half a gigapixel. --ghouston (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Couple replies. First to Bluerasberry's comment, I think they would probably be willing to go up to 1920 x 1080. 1000 was offered as an example, but their comment about making it appropriate for viewing online along with Commons existing standard makes me think that 1920 x 1080 is something that we could reach as an agreement with them. For the latter part, I don't guarantee that we got every picture correct. They sent us a big list of names that I copied verbatim, and we tried our best to find links to all of them, but a bunch have many copies on Commons. The concern that the museum raised to us in their emails was specifically about the gigapixel issue though. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Jrogers (WMF), please do threading. -- Tuválkin 20:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Wait, wait — they just sent «a big list of names»? Names of what? Titles of paintings, or filenames? Apparently the former, in a show of (unsurprising) incompetence. Why are we here, then? How can a takedown be demanded if they cannot even pinpoint what they want taken down? -- Tuválkin 20:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Even if they did not provide us with links to the exact files they want removed (or downsized), we can still discuss the general questions here: What resolution does an image on Commons need to be in order for it to be useful? What value is there in hosting gigapixel-scale images on Commons? To what extent is it worth hosting lower-resolution images (or removing images entirely) in order to avoid litigation and improve Wikimedia’s relationships with important cultural institutions? --CRoslof (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
My guess would be to have a look at thez pictures in Category:Prado in Google Earth. Jean-Fred (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Just at a quick glance (the first image listed) there are likely to be other issues with these images, anyhow. File:Portrait of Philip II of Spain by Sofonisba Anguissola - 002.jpg was originally uploaded as part of the Yorck Project donation, overwritten with a retouched version, and then much later overwritten with a version from some other (unidentified) source. None of these later changes are reflected in the file page, which still attributes the Yorck donation. It's unclear if the current version is actually derived from the Google photography, though I gather from the comments above that the museum only identified works, and not specific files. Reventtalk 01:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the 2nd version is possibly derived from the first, and the 3rd looks like a different scan. They should be split into separate files. A source would be nice, but since PD-Art applies regardless of source, it doesn't seem like a reason to delete anything. --ghouston (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
i know what user:Dcoetzee will say: "what is good for the national portrait gallery is good for the prado." if they want to sell their high resolution, then to be safe it should stay off-line, with the low resolution as bait. we need a major museum image metadata cleanup. i see User:Multichill is doing it with wikidata. maybe they should talk to User:Kippelboy about online strategy, and interacting with wikimedia. if the images are under 10 MB i would not sweat it, and the larger ones are out already, it is now closing the barn door. they might want to withhold future higher resolution, if they want to maintain their control issues. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
That’s a fair position, but it’s also unlikely to help us make friends in the GLAM world. Creating these gigapixel images did require a significant amount of effort and resources. Other GLAM institutions may hesitate to make the same sort of investments in digitizing their collections or making those collections available online if it’s impossible for them to maintain any control over the digitized works (even for a short time). That doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t take a staunch position when it comes to PD-art images like these—we just need to be aware of the possible consequences. --CRoslof (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@CRoslof (WMF): It strikes me that the effort here was not actually expended by the museum anyhow... it was done by Google, by their team, with their equipment. When this images were originally released this was described by director of the Prado as "this project of Google Earth", and the announcement included the statement by the General Manager of Google Earth that "this project is a continuation of our endeavours to democratise access to information and culture". Did they mean this? Or is the access to these works only sufficiently 'democratic' if they maintain control of it, if they can 'brand' it? The article from New Atlas linked above, that includes the video, describes Google as having "become by default the gatekeeper of global information for this generation." I don't think access to our cultural legacy needs a gatekeeper. These works of art are the common property of all mankind.
There are many other major institutions, such as the Rijksmuseum and the Getty, that have truly opened their collections digitally, without it being paid as part of an exercise in corporate brand building, and I don't see that it has hurt them at all. I suspect, strongly, that this is far more about Google's interests than those of the Prado. Reventtalk 23:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Or maybe it's really about this. Reventtalk 23:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Humm, two main things concerns me, and they are in the same paragraph:

"'very good quality to be used on a screen and make possible to appreciate and study1 all the details of the paintings.' They also noted, if we agree to make a change, that they would be happy to provide the new files to replace the current ones2."
  • 1. For study, bigger is better, that's it; and our scope is related to education.
For that reason, do not make any sense to downsize this images. Plus, this is a 2D representation, and maybe in the future, this resolutions would be considerate average, and for that reason we request the max resolution possible... we need to understand the real reason behind this arguments, because if they want that we provide material for study, as they alligate, a giant image could be away better.
  • 2. This is a blackmail posture.
Accept that will not bring any good for the Movement, if they want to provide some images, great, but we do not need to remove any image in their favour. And this could open a gate to hell... creating a precedent of bad attitude can be very harmful for the Movement. Actually, we do not encourage downsizes, and accept this move is say "yes" to downsize, and it would open another gate, that could be an even deeper hell, as we already have a gigantic number of images downsized by the photographers in order to protect the max quality, limiting the usability of the images...

So Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, and the worst scenario it's to resize the images, however we still not accepting the blackmail doubtful proposal, and we say that downsize is not for us. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 18:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I would not agree to anything less than 5 MP. This is the resolution of low end cameras now. Ruslik (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, of course, and refuse to bow down to their blackmail. Even in those cases where actual pixels in our files come from the Prado site (and not merely depicting paintings that are hosted there with pixels from other sources), their photography work (the kind which is «mere sweat of the brow») is paid for by the government of Spain as part of their (Prado’s) mission to dissiminate culture; that photography work should not have its costs covered by the sale of pixels. On the contrary, inasmuch Wikimedia Commons does promote through its hosting and curation the collections held at the Prado, we are actively contributing to their ticketing revenue — if anything, Prado should instead thank Commons and offer to facilitate more uploadings.
Also, to a degree that’s maybe not much more, but surely not less, than the average for such national museums of powerful nations with a long history, a sizeable portion of Prado’s exhibits is war loot. I’m personally in favour of ignoring provenance and of keeping artworks and historical artifacts wherever they are safely in public display, but if the game is outlandish legal minutiæ, it can be played by all.
-- Tuválkin 20:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
We always defended {{PD-art}} so we should definitely do that now. Let's take the intro of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.: " Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality. Even though accurate reproductions might require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the key element to determine whether a work is |copyrightable under U.S. law is originality. "
That was back in 1999. In 15+ years the quality and resolution increased a lot, but still no originality in reproducing an image. Bring it on, Prado v. Wikimedia sounds like a good banner Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. Multichill (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Multichill. Unless we're going to surrender our position on PD-art in all cases, permitting images under PD-art only once the reproduction itself (not just the original work) is in the public domain locally, we have no reason to do anything here. Bridgeman v. Corel is only a district court ruling, not something that reached the Supreme Court or even an appeals court, but it has a great deal of w:persuasive precedent, and the chance that another US court would disagree is minimal; unless WMF Legal believes that we need to abandon PD-art for the sake of the survival of the WMF, we have no reason to listen. Let's not be rude, of course, but it's time for us politely to say no. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Agree with "bring it on". The Prado would be profoundly stupid to take any of these high educational value public domain images into court with thin claims of copyright and unproven 'sweat of the brow' argumentation. Not only would they lose the case, it would set a legal precedent for all institutions ensuring that they can never make legal threats of this type in the future. Shame on the middle management wonks within the Prado that can find nothing better to do with their well paid for time. With regard to "Spain has a 25-year ancillary copyright", that can be shot down in the first minute of a legal hearing by pointing out where and when the same artworks were previously published before the Prado started making their reproductions, consequently there can be no first publication rights. Note for WMF Legal, it's better to avoid paraphrasing fear mongering legal threats. If the Prado want to make legal threats, please publish the legal threat fully in the Prado's own words and the community can then tease out more from the original words such as associated legal phrasing and intent. -- (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Addendum with respect to ancillary copyright, the rejection appears simpler than I presumed as I was interpreting this as similar to other European publication rights. A bit more reading shows me that the 2014 Spanish ancillary copyright makes a presumption that the original works are copyrightable in themselves, without this nature partial or other reproductions in ancillary publications do not create new copyrights. The Prado would have to provide a clear explanation of their argument, with links to legal acts and existing case studies, as this looks awfully like pseudo-legal chaff in order to spread enough fear and doubt that unpaid volunteers like us will not touch their stuff. Thanks -- (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I also agree with the bring it on proposal. Public domain is essential to our vision as a movement, and we have consistently and proudly defended it over the last 15 years. Our standing for what we believe to be right is what distinguishes us from other educational charities and organisations, and unless we change our opinion about {{PD-art}}, we ought to refuse this request, even if it means legal action. Incidentally, this should be a good sign that we should increase our lobbying in favour of the public domain in the European Union so as to avoid such situations from occurring in the future. We know we are in the right, we will have the public on our side—I wonder how the Spanish people feel about being charged for access to works they have already paid for—so if it comes to it, we should stand our ground. As @Multichill rightly points out, Prado v. Wikimedia is going to look great as a headline. Also, if there are any Spanish residents who might be in legal jeopardy because of their actions as community members, we should ensure they get all the legal help we can provide them through our Defense of Contributors policy. And as a last point, I would like to thank @Jacob and the legal team for starting this discussion here; I think we all appreciate being consulted before any action is taken on behalf of our projects, and it makes a nice and welcome change from the past. odder (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep If we could not keep gigapixels images, we should not accept anything lower than high quality DSLR images, i.e. at least 24 Mpixels (6000 x 4000). This doesn't require stitching several images, and would therefore be acceptable under Bridgeman. Beside, would they accept volunteers with a high-end equipment to take pictures themselves? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Per odder's comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep but we should do courtesy deletions if the uploaders prefer to have the files deleted. (Someone else can always re-upload the files under their own name after a courtesy deletion of course.) Natuur12 (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I am neither, of course, a lawyer, nor your lawyer, but I think we should consider this from a slightly different perspective.
The position of the USCO, as stated in the Copyright Compendium (310.6 and 310.7), is that neither creative skill and experience; nor time, effort, and expense required, have any effect on the copyrightability of a work. This is not a new rule from Bridgeman, which the USCO does not even cite. Instead, they cite a 1976 case which states that 'physical skill' and 'special training' cannot create originality, and that case itself cites ruling going back to the 19th century, that 'slavish and mechanical reproduction cannot create an author'. They also cite Feist: Justice O'Connor said "copyright rewards originality, not effort" and that the idea that effort mattered was against the basic principles of copyright.
Bridgeman was not 'new law'.... that it why it is so persuasive. The very effort of reproduction that the Prado expects to be rewarded for, that they are so proud of, was an effort to slavishly and exactly reproduce every detail of these works, down to the last brushstroke. It was an attempt to avoid the very original expression that copyright is intended to encourage and protect, and instead to mechanically replicate the creativity embodied in these works to the highest degree that could possibly be managed. That attempt at 'slavish and mechanical reproduction' is exactly what copyright does not protect.
I truly believe that the Prado does not have a leg to stand on, under US law.
But what about Spanish law? The very section 128 mentioned in our policy, that grants a 25 year term, is about 'simple photographs', ones that 'do not have the nature of protected works' that grants the normal term. They can't have it both ways. If it's granted that their effort is so special and extraordinary that it somehow transcends a lack of originality and thus deserves copyright protection, then it's not simple. It seems as if it's hoped that we, and possibly some court, will miss this inherent contradiction, or that they can somehow pick and choose what they claim to be true depending on where they are standing.
I say no, emphatically, to removing any images of these works on the basis of what I believe are baseless legal threats. Neither the Prado, nor Google, created these masterpieces.... this art is the common property of all mankind. Copyright is intended to encourage human creativity by rewarding authors for their efforts, not to reward those who simply manage to later hoard away the only copy. We are required, sometimes, to remove works because of laws we think are stupid... we should not remove works simply on the basis of threats. Reventtalk 12:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for answer so late Slowking4. I am available in case talk to someone at the Museum is needed, so just tell me. --Rubén Ojeda (WMES) (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
If it takes taking to the barricades and starting an all-out war to defend the public domain, then so be it. But yes, as a general principle we should try to exhaust all other possibilities before going to court. And just as a suggestion, please try to avoid overstating the issue; a single court case will cost nowhere near to spending the whole of the budget that the Legal team have been allocated. odder (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Museums and Wikimedians are natural allies, and it’s unfortunate when we wind up in an adversarial position. In such cases, the legal team doesn’t hesitate to defend the public domain, as we have in the German Reiss Engelhorn Museum lawsuit. In this case, though, there is the possibility of avoiding a lawsuit and earning goodwill with an important cultural institution if we make some concessions regarding image resolution. The question we’re trying to answer is whether that trade-off is worth it. (The consensus so far seems to be “no”.) --CRoslof (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@CRoslof (WMF): Make that a resounding no. Josve05a (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
What did the museum offer as trade-off for downscaling such images? So far they don't seem to have offered anything. Could they perhaps upload high-res images of a large number of their pictures (specially those not on exhibition) in exchange for such courtesy downscaling? Platonides (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Platonides: It seems apparent from the above that what they offered in exchange was "we won't sue you." Meh. Reventtalk 23:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
we also do not know the internal politics of the institution. we try to work with the outreach staff to get some wins, to argue against their legal staff, who tend to have bought the IP bar's practice. if we do not play nice with others, then commons gets a bad reputation, then they lock the door, as we saw with the Finnish photo museum. you can be as pure as you want about licenses, and you may become a walled garden. but hey, more wiki'splaining for me, thanks all. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: I didn't consider “we won't sue you -based on a law apparently not tested in court- for storing some public domain images” to be "anything"… Specially not if we are consider this as a polite request by a natural ally requesting a courtesy downscaling. Platonides (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

"Museums and Wikimedians are natural allies" ehh... in a ideal word (not even wikimedias are allies...)... and for those saying that would accept 24 mpx, or 10... dudes, they are complaining about those, open up the list provided by them, there are some ~2'000 x ~2'000 pictures... probably they will provide a 2002 phone quality (1000 pixels) ... ¬¬

Anyway, Jacob, Charles, WMF talked directly with Google about it? As far we know, Google is who did the images, no? We can summary ignore Padro actually, because one of their allegation is violation of copyright based in the trouble to make giant pictures, and that the owner of those are images are the ones who took the pictures, and made all the process to deal with distortions... Google did it, based on the link that you provided.

The museum claimed that it contracted with Google and that, since Google worked with them under Spanish law, it agreed to display the images under a limited license that did not permit reuse. We have no reason to believe that's incorrect, and we're treating it assuming that if there is any kind of copyright applied to the pictures, it would be owned by the Prado. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Until now, I didn't understand why they are ... complaining about us have those images here, if anyone could access the same images in the Google Earth...

Talking about that, why we did not seat with Google and bring all this processes documented? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 08:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment File:The Garden of Earthly Delights by Bosch High Resolution.jpg is one of those files that I understand the request. That's incredible detail that took quite a bit of work to produce. Most of the other stuff, eight megapixels are barely starting to see the painting, and one megapixel is so low we can probably replace it with a scan from a book and come out ahead. As for internal politics, it's not worth folding on the merest hope that maybe we'll be able to do something in the future.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I want to address the Prado's motivation in this discussion. In all the emails that I've had with them, they have been very reasonable. I think they are coming at this from the perspective that they have rights in these pictures and believe that they should protect those rights. I'm sure that's done in order to help them make money, but I think they plan to use that money to help preserve the art and disseminate information about it, and I don't ascribe bad motives to them in this whole matter at all. Rather than demand removal, they've tried to compromise and instead asked us just to lower the quality of the pictures. The list including images that aren't in super high quality was likely due to unfamiliarity with Wikipedia leading them to pull every link that came up with "Prado" rather than a bad motive to remove more content than they intended. The point of this discussion though, is that regardless of the Prado's position, we want to get community input about what to do in response to that offer. We weren't sure if the Commons community would even want to host the high quality images in a situation where the laws of different countries might come to different conclusions. Now, it does seem like the conversation is a pretty strong keep, but I do want to make sure it's because the people participating think it's the right thing to take a strong stand for placing these kind of gigapixel images in the public domain and not just because it might appear that the Prado may not have done things right in this particular case. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

few here collaborate with GLAMs, so it is easy for them to tell them to "bring it on". this community approves of w:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, and w:Monkey selfie; and seeks to thrust bridgeman around the world. they have very little tolerance for the rear-guard revenue seeking (which is a delusion), or stewardship of the public domain. we need a wikimedian on the ground to collaborate, with some tactics to route around the adversive culture here. email is not good enough. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we do think that Bridgeman should be a principle world-round, and being stewards of the public domain ourselves, we're a little frustrated with groups who claim to be stewards of the public domain and who generally do so poorly.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I think if the issue is the gigapixel images, that the discussion has been miscentered, because the files pointed to were not generally gigapixel images.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hi all, this is Discasto. First of all some clarification:
    • Prado Museum possibly holds exploitation right over such pictures, but only for 25 years. That's so according to the article 128 of the Spanish Intellectual Property Act. It creates new exploitation rights over works (even if they're in the public domain) and therefore, according to the Spanish law, Prado Museum possibly holds such rights. Such statement is registered here but has been universally ignored until now.
    • On the other hand, I can't see any difference with regard to I wonder why the official position of the WMF in this case should be different from the w:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute.
    • Finally, if the community agrees to fulfill Prado's requirements, the same rule should apply to every equivalent picture and therefore, any picture from public domain works in Spain not actually taken by a person must be removed. Or I'm missing anything...
    • My €0.02 --Discasto talk 14:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The problem is, that, as soon as we implement a special deal with the Prado, we acknowledge that there is a protection-right covering 2D-redroductions. And that opens the gate to any body else, to claim rights on the hundreds and thousands of Reproduktions here on Commons, without offering anything in reward.
    • And this in includes the cases, where the WMF has already taken legal action (namely Reiss-Engelhorn) as well as...
    • the reproductions done by private Persons, that have never been tagged with anything but the PD-tag (that may not be sufficient anymore).
I'm afraid that this case may have consequenses, that are going far beyond this small deal with the Prado. // Martin K. (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, as long the Prado don't allow us (and others) to take pictures there, we need to get images of old art in different ways. We can talk about it, when the Prado stops sitting on their by the mankind borrowed (not owned) art. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per others above. Keeping these images strengthens our position on treating two dimensional reproductions of public domain works as public domain. Additionally, lawsuits in Spain and possibly the US would be useful to remove legal uncertainties for uploaders and reusers. Our past GLAM cooperations have shown that increased exposure of institutional content (through Commons, Wikipedia, etc.) lead to more visitors to their websites, sales through their online shops and effect other metrics that matter to institutions. An increasing number of applications like retina displays, print/web/game design, etc. require high resolution content. Last but not least hosting and disseminating high resolution content is a sustainable approach for the future (think of destroyed archives or inaccessible online services). Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Downsize until Reiss-Engelhorn Museum of the City of Mannheim v. Wikimedia Foundation appeal is complete - For those itching for a court case (ghouston, Multichill, , odder, Steinsplitter, Christoph Braun) there is already one in progress. Reiss-Engelhorn v. Wikimedia Foundation (which we lost the first round of) is basically identical to any court case that would come out of this situation. Both Spain and Germany have ancillary copyrights for sweat of the brow, so museums in those countries are free to claim copyright (25 years in Spain, 50 in Germany) over images they have digitized. It doesn't make sense for the WMF to waste money on 2 nearly identical court cases. Let's see what happens with the Reiss-Engelhorn appeal, and then go from there. We're playing a long game with limited resources and we need to choose our battles. Starting another court case on the exact same premise would be a waste of money, IMO. Also, there's a pretty good chance that Prado would win (at least within Spanish jurisdiction). Keep in mind this is a very different situation than the National Portrait Gallery threats. I would completely support entering into a court case within the UK, as the UK doesn't have ancillary copyrights, and we would actually be clearing up a grey area. Personally, I don't see any potential benefit for us entering into a case against Prado. Also, on the issue of clarifying Bridgeman, I strongly doubt Prado would be interested in suing within the US, as they would have very little chance of winning a case there (even if that means they can only enforce the decision within Spain). IANAL. Kaldari (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Nemo: The German law is here. The Spanish law is here. The wording of the two is very similar. Output from Google Translate:
Spanish law: "Whoever takes a photograph or other reproduction produced by a process analogous to that, when neither having the character of protected works in Book I, enjoy the exclusive right to authorize reproduction, distribution and public communication, on the same terms recognized this Act to the authors of photographic works. This right will last twenty-five years counted from 1st January following the date of completion of the photograph or reproduction year."
German law: "Photographs and products which are manufactured similar to photographs, are protected in application of the rules applicable to photographic works provisions of part 1. The right referred to in paragraph 1 shall belong to the light generator. The right referred to in paragraph 1 expires fifty years after the publication of the photograph or if its first permitted public communication took place earlier, publicly after this, however, already fifty years after the manufacturing, where the photograph within that period not published or legally has been reproduced. The period shall be calculated in accordance with § 69th."
They are both ancillary copyrights (or "related rights") specifically for photographs not otherwise protected under copyright. Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs#Germany seems to agree with this. It mentions that "purely mechanical reproductions" such as photocopying are not covered, but explains that photography with a camera is. It's my understanding that this is why we lost Reiss-Engelhorn v. Wikimedia Foundation. Perhaps Jrogers (WMF) could confirm. The situation with Prado seems identical as far as I can tell, except that their reproductions were even less mechanical (judging by the video). Kaldari (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The wording, as translated, doesn't seem similar at all to me, especially as one says that it's not copyright and the other says it is (to work around the 50 years limit per Berne convention, presumably): «when neither having the character of protected works in Book I» vs. «are protected in application of the rules applicable to photographic works provisions of part 1». Hence the jurisprudence. However the translation may be tricky; do you have some source for claiming the two provisions are very similar? Nemo 15:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Jane023 (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, especially Martin K., I wonder that after many years that many of those photos exist, they start their question. The number of files which might be inflicted too, is much bigger I guess.
And please and urgently read my new topic Commons:Village pump#Commons admin and oversighter @Rama: from France refusing Licensed-PD-Art-tag and insisting on her copyright for merely PD-Art photographs, dealing with the inverse case within commons--Oursana (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Deleting/downsizing a 7 megapixel PD-Art photo that anyone could take with a phone? Nonsense. Also, this is not a negotiation unless the Prado offers something. Other than keeping the photos as is, I only see two possibilities:
    • we organise an editathon/photathon inside the Prado to take our own photos of all the items, given photos are allowed (we could also use their own app for the 50 main ones: ), and upgrade the resolution for all photos;
    • Prado offers a content release of their own photos to increase our photo collection, e.g. offering at least 10 thousands images; Prado and Wikimedia (ideally WMES, if they're interested) decide together what resolution makes the effort worthwhile; the Commons community, convinced by the gain in coverage, allows such such photos to override existing ones even when there would be a resolution downgrade. outreach:GLAM/Case studies#Museums and galleries (in particular Tropenmuseum and Kelly 2013) can be used to convince them.
Hopefully Prado can show some commitment to the promotion of culture. If not, they'll need to be forced by the sovereign people. Nemo 07:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I suggest the WMF allows WMES to take a lead, perhaps offering some extra funding to cover basic expenses of volunteers. Based on my work in other large national organizations, this is what I would do to help the Prado, I would:
  1. first understand their published goals as an institution, work inside to understand how much revenue they make from these images and the costs of digitization, and understand which parts of the organization believe that they should lock-down the high resolution versions. I would look to gain an insight from staff within the Prado that we know support open knowledge goals, which may well turn out to be most of them.
  2. present a plan back to all interested staff that confirms the financial and legal facts, then goes on to suggest projects to increase the Prado's public impact and revenue by opening up their collections.
  3. find supporters outside the Prado, including the potential for project funding for a Prado open gallery project from EU sources, Arts grant bodies and the WMF and its sponsors. This may be as simple as helping to fund a more innovative digitization project through to funding for an in-house Open Knowledge advocate who can support internal education events on copyright and open knowledge programmes, as well as the (now classic) public engagement with edit-a-thons and external media promoting the Prado's collection.
So, the question for Prado should be, how much money do you believe you would lose by leaving the high resolution images on Commons, and would you like us to help you make back that money and increase the Prado's international profile? -- (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Renegotiate terms with the museum as described above by Nemo, inside a GLAM framework. --Marcok (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Engage + negotiate but keep, as Fæ and Nemo describe. Use Prado's interest in this case to engage at a few levels: local community members and global GLAM enthusiasts who have organized collaborations at this scale elsewhere. Agreed that Prado and WMES together can work out what resolution would make such an effort worthwhile. We might also clarify Commons policy on acceptable minimums in such contexts: what counts as 'low resolution' definitely changes with time; 24MP seems reasonable today. --SJ+ 13:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    Also, @CRoslof (WMF): wrote:

    Creating these gigapixel images did require a significant amount of effort and resources. Other GLAM institutions may hesitate to make the same sort of investments in digitizing their collections or making those collections available online if...

    Effective integration in WP almost always results in better visibility and publicity for the museums. We should make this clear in each interaction. (We should also have an estimate of how much it would cost to have our community generate such images, for friendlier collaborations. Many musuem digitization projects are supported entirely by grants; if we can do the digitization /and/ ensure PD availability to the whole world, our community would be an effective conduit for such work.) --SJ+ 13:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

August 10[edit]

August 12[edit]

Using description as title: Is it OK?[edit]

Entering both a description AND a title can sound redundant. And indeed, sometimes we see that one of them is just random characters. The problem is especially important on small devices where typing and copy-pasting words is difficult.

Idea for the Android app: How about requiring a description, and using it as a title (filename)? We can shorten it and make it unique if needed.

Reducing to a single field would allow users to spend their typing effort for a more meaningful result.

Thanks in advance for the feedback! Syced (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Syced: Using the description as file title isn't a good idea at all, see Commons:File naming. Is this the same app which has created a lot of problems (copyvios) in the past? --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
The proposed policy page you link to essentially says that a title should be "descriptive, chosen according to what the image displays or contents portray" and "accurate, especially where scientific names, proper nouns, dates, etc. are used". Fortunately enough, descriptions fit this criteria. As for your question: No, not the same. The vast copyvio scandal you are thinking of was caused by the mobile web upload wizard. Our app's copyvio rate is currently less than 5%, and we have plans to completely make copyvios a thing of the past, for instance by blocking beginners from uploading images without EXIF, etc. Cheers! Syced (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
As far as I have seen, the vast majority of the images submitted by the app appear to be legitimate. Also, AFAIK the past copyvio issue was caused by the web app (as in, the mobile version of the web upload wizard), not the Android app. Feedback noted re: the desc though, thanks! Misaochan (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@Syced: Description != file title. Please follow standard practices. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I understand this is your point of view, but there is no policy backing your claim. And in practice, many veteran-uploaded files naturally have the same title and description, and that does not make them bad, if descriptive enough. You recently uploaded a file with the same title and description, and you did the right thing, because if you already explained everything in the description, then what else would you say in the title? Furthermore, we are talking about a mobile app here: Typing is painfully slow while walking outside taking pictures, so we won't get people to enter more than 200 characters anyway. Splitting that typing effort between two redundant fields would only have negative consequences in terms of quality. Cheers! Syced (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The upload app that I am using allows me to upload multiple files, and copy the description and/or title from one to the rest. I can see the utility of designing a mobile app that allows you to copy the title to the description if you wish, and to modify one from the other as well. In general though I would not expect the title to be the same as the description. Sometimes I cut and paste the title to start the description, but tend to spell things out more in the description, using "United States" in the description, but "US" in the title, for example. Right now though most of my files are ones that get updated with new data, so I do not want the date in the title, but have to put it in the description, in order to properly show context. Delphi234 (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your input! Is there any drawback to using "United States" in the title as well, besides it being longer in wikicode? I agree that files that you update every once in a while (for instance yearly population charts) should have the year in the description but not in the title. In the special case of our mobile app, though, nobody has ever used it to upload such a chart: Only static pictures/videos/sounds have ever been uploaded. How about having by default a single "Description" field, plus the ability to add a shorter name if wanted? Cheers! Syced (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Another tool that always use the same title and description is the Panoramio upload bot, and nobody has ever complained about its titles being equal to its descriptions :-) Syced (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Pre-filling for mobile[edit]

The Android app's upload interface. It currently doesn't pre-fill the title with the original file name. How about having the title copied from the description initially (or perhaps the other way around)? The pre-filled field should remain editable before the user proceeds to upload.

In the Android app, title has been required while description is optional (phab:T47453). Developers (including me) of the app recently have seen that the way it asks for title and description may be confusing to the user - comments from the app users seem to indicate that. [3] We are trying to remove this confusion.

On mobile, there is less chance that the original file name is meaningful than on desktop - this is why the Android app, unlike UploadWizard, does not pre-fill the file name and ask the user to come up with a title when uploading. Both have to be entered from scratch, often with duplicated information, which does not seem like a use of the user's time. In fact, probably because of this, I have seen some do not bother to do that and end up entering a garbage text to the description, or a too short (highly ambiguous) title.

Seeing the problems above, I'm thinking of ways to pre-fill title/description, including:

  1. First ask the title and pre-fill the description with it. The description can then be enhanced.
  2. First ask the description and pre-fill the title with it. The title can then be edited.
  3. The user can choose to enter to one of the two fields first. The other will be pre-filled with the same text and can then be edited.

Either way, these manners of pre-filling seem like a sensible solution for mobile for not having the user to input the same thing twice. I don't believe encouraging to reuse texts will do harm, because our expectations on the two fields at least partially overlap. Consider the question "Please describe this picture. For example, what is depicted? What is it called? Where did you take this?". The answer would be acceptable as a Commons-style description. I believe in most cases it would be acceptable as a Commons-style file name, too, maybe after a slight modification. At least that is my reading of Commons:File naming and Commons:First steps/Quality and description.

I'm not saying it would ensure a perfect description and file name - although I believe it would would give the user a starting point better than what is currently provided. To be frank, getting a description in multiple languages, full of historical/scientific background, etc, from people on the go would be unrealistic, no matter what fancy graphical user interface we invent. We would have a better chance if we remind them saying "please add more descriptions to the file you uploaded yesterday" later, as suggested in phab:T47453. whym (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Showing the description field on top, and pre-filling the title field as they type, seems like a great compromise. Of course, this real-time automatic copying from description to title should cease whenever the user modifies the title field. Syced (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Another argument pro title:the wikidata flag needs it to show nicely--Oursana (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Pejorative categories[edit]

Raised this in February without a conclusive response, and have just chanced across the problem again: does placing a photo of a person into Category:Hipsters trigger COM:BLP#Defamation? "Hipster" is (at least according to Wikipedia's definition) often a pejorative term, and one which people typically don't self-identify as. --McGeddon (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

That whole category seems totally subjective to me. As such, I'd vote to Symbol delete vote.svg Delete it. --Sebari (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
It could potentially provide a useful selection of cartoons, related images, fictional characters, fancy-dress shots and people happy to self-identify with a pejorative for whatever reason, as seems to be the case for similar categories like Category:Chavs and Category:Rednecks. If there's consensus that there's a defamation issue here, perhaps a {{pejorative category}} reminder template across all such categories would be a good idea. --McGeddon (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Too subjective and problematic from a BLP point of view. Kaldari (talk) 01:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
With two delete !votes I've started an actual discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:Hipsters. --McGeddon (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Category for reparations[edit]

Marienbourg 1980 I.jpg
Do we have a category for reparations? As the roof of this railway coach.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
There are several files in Category:Repairs, though it doesn't seem to formally exist. Category:Restoration is quite large, though it seems to be for more formal, pompous acts then fixing up a roof so it doesn't leak. The word wikt:reparation means something different.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
There is Category:Repairing, which has various subcategories. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Category:Restoration of buildings ? --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Vehicle repair is the most usefull one.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Process Nazis[edit]

Gemini Giant on 66.jpg

Commons is obviously a useful resource for providing free media content for the various wikisites. But I'm concerned that valid material is being deleted because it hasn't jumped through the site process hoops. If a public domain image doesn't have the "correct" tag, does that mean that it must be deleted? This seems like both a good way to deny valid media to the wikisites fed by Commons, and to make it more difficult for contributors.

We don't need our contributors to be copyright experts, but it seems to me that if an image is genuinely in the public domain, but for whatever reason the contributor hasn't ticked all the boxes, it should not be removed. If we don't require contributors to have a full grounding of copyright law, then why require them to have a complete knowledge of this site's bureaucratic requirements?

What sparks my inquiry is a recent notice for deletion of an image I contributed some time ago. This well-known figure was installed in its current location at the Launching Pad restaurant on Route 66 in 1965, has no copyright notice displayed, and photography has always been encouraged by the owners. There must be millions of similar images taken over the years, and vast numbers are on the internet. According to the wording at Freedom of Panorama, there is a specific reference to artworks which reads

…any public artwork installed before 1978 without a copyright notice is also in the public domain (unless the copyright owner actively prevented anyone from copying or photographing the work until 1978).

What's more important, I ask? Actual real-world copyright law, or site-specific procedure? --Skyring (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

  • It seems pretty strong to call someone a "Nazi" for nominating an image for possible deletion where nothing on the file page gave any indication of why the artwork shown would be in the public domain. Nothing on the file page indicated the date of the sculpture, and clearly if such a sculpture had been made post-1978 and erected in the same spot it would not be public domain. You've now provided the relevant information, and presumably the image won't be deleted. What exactly else would you expect? - Jmabel ! talk 23:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
This isn't about any one image. It's about the wider question. Why delete public domain images simply because the uploaders didn't jump through all the bureaucratic hoops? We must be losing vast numbers of valid images through this process. --Skyring (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Probably so. And would be keeping vast numbers of invalid images by people not challenging things when in doubt. The precautionary principle says that between the two alternatives this is the way we go. One major reason is to minimize the chance that someone reuses a Commons image in good faith and ends up getting sued by someone who actually owns a copyright of which we were unaware. That really doesn't seem to me like it merits being called the activity of "Nazis". - Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
No, the Precautionary principle says - and I quote directly - "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." I think that to have a significant doubt about some of the images that are nominated for deletion you'd have to have so much doubt that just getting out of bed in the morning would be an existential crisis. This isn't about having significant doubt. This is about seeing an image that doesn't have a tag and just nominating it the f*uck for deletion. And before you know it, six million innocent images are nothing but bitdust. Significant doubt is something stronger than "well, maybe, I dunno", wouldn't you say? --Skyring (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
skyring, Commons is a small project with relatively small number of active users, and we just do not have the manpower to do the homework for all the files that people upload a file without proper license info. I agree that ideally anytime there is a file with problematic license info a team of experts will swoop in and fix it. I rescue many such files with simple issues, but there is too many of them that needs fixing and some of them might need a lot of work. So that task falls on the uploader. --Jarekt (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, why not modify the wording to reflect this? I've been referred a couple of times now to policy that I find doesn't reflect practice. From my point of view, it's people sending good files to the gas chambers without a real lot of thought. --Skyring (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Please stop referring to things and people as "Nazis" and "gas chambers". That is really disrespectful. Josve05a (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
You know what's disrespectful? It's thousands of well-meaning contributors uploading media files, thinking they are helping a good project, and then seeing their perfectly valid files deleted because we don't follow our own policies. --Skyring (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@Skyring: It would be great if you would help identifying the copyright status of all these 3D objects in our backlog, so they don't get deleted because their copyright status is unknown. We don't have enough manpower, but you can help to increase it. (And please note that some admins may consider argumentum ad Hitlerum as a blockable offence) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
You don't need to ping me, Zhuyifei1999. I'm watching, as indicated by my response times here. Ok. Lack of manpower a problem. Identifying status of "unknown" files a priority. I can see that. But that's exactly my complaint. Some users have chosen sending such files on their path to doom as a priority. So which is the priority, in your opinion? Saving files, or killing them? --Skyring (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
If we have images with unknown copyright status tagged as public domain, that makes our repository of PD images much less usable (every reuser would have to research the real copyright status). We should be clear about us needing information to be able to keep the images, and an admin should not delete a potentially valuable image that probably can be proved to be PD, or a file for which other admins are likely better equipped to make the judgement call. But if proving the PD status is difficult and the file not obviously especially valuable (and unlikely to be so for somebody else), then deleting is often the best thing to do. [And the ad Hitlerum thing could very well have caused me to ignore this thread.] --LPfi (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. That doesn't apply to the files that caught my eye and brought me here. None of them were tagged as PD. Nor was there any great difficulty in demonstrating the copyright status of the artworks shown in the images, all used in multiple wikiplaces, and thus presumably of some value. If there is "significant doubt" or it is "difficult" (to use your wording), LPfi, then fair enough, start the deletion discussion. But my problem is with users deleting images without much in the way of investigation. Some of the files I've uploaded represent difficult and expensive effort or a rare opportunity and I'm sure this applies to many uploaders. Just how many useful and valid files are we losing because some users are taking the easy way out? --Skyring (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll put it briefly... you are more than welcome (in fact, we would be grateful) if you were to decide to work on cleaning up some of the more than 120,000 files in Category:PD files for review, which is probably a small part of what should be in there. To keep up with what was 'actually' deleted so far this month, just between the 20 most active admins, would be over 28 hours a day for each of them if they spent a minute per file, and the vast majority would still be deleted as copyvios or useless crap. It is quite obvious exactly why COM:EVID is a Commons policy... if uploaders supply the needed information, the files won't need to go to DR. Most uploaders, it seems, even when they become aware through a deletion notice of a problem with their uploads, do not go back and fix the same problem on their others. (The Green Giant, for instance, now has an 'explanation', but is actually still not really properly tagged). Reventtalk 17:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
If it makes any difference, there is (and I could point at examples) a lot of 'potentially valuable and useful' material deleted from Commons because the uploader either never said where they obtained it or did not provide a license, and failed to respond when asked. There is also such material deleted as 'useless' simply because the uploader never told us what the hell it was, and failed to respond when asked. We accumulate massive amounts of material every day, we have to have processes in order to maintain some degree of sanity. Calling people Nazis does not help. Reventtalk 17:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Mmmm, I think you may have missed the point. Cheers. --Skyring (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
deleting images is a really poor way to get people to work your backlogs. yes Skyring commons is a morally bankrupt place, where people delete before collaborating. it is a snake-pit of individuals who place their solitary mastery of scripts, over the community health of an image repository. institutions upload to flickr rather than commons, and stop uploading using GLAMwiki toolset after being bitten. admins sock to delete images. language wikis keep images local only, because they do not trust commons to keep images. so it goes. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 20:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Rouge admins. I like it. --Skyring (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Then get lost. Seriously. Instead of posting shit like this, walk away. Shit like this makes it more stressful to work on Commons, it poisons the community. Why should I stress about community health when you're going to call me a snake for it, and support someone who is calling me a Nazi for it?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
You set a fine example, friend. --Skyring (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
"Shit like this makes it more stressful to work on Commons," absolutely not. your incompetent "adversive leadership" creates the Shit like this; you want to act like betacommand and russavia, you will be treated like betacommand and russavia. the reasonable people you may be able to drive off, but the unreasonable people will remain, and you will have a hell of your own creation, if you don't like it, stomp off like fastily. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 12:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, people who hang a website just to complain about how bad it is do make it more stressful. I am not an incompetent adversive leader for the simple and easily checked fact that I'm not a leader on Commons, I'm just an average regular non-admin. The fact that you spread personal abuse to random people who aren't even here is grossly inappropriate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The fact that the statue has no copyright notice is not verifiable from the image. There's no way to check that without physically checking the statue, which is way more than can be expected from anyone who doesn't live there. Have you actually done a 360 degree examination of the statue?--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
if you think "soup nazi" is actionable, go for it. i might even support some civility enforcement, but we both know you will be laughed at. it is not personal abuse, it is an accurate assessment of the toxic culture here. venting on VP about backlogs is a waste of time. rather, you must build a team elsewhere i.e. m:File_metadata_cleanup_drive it is perverse to delete three years after upload, with minimal collaboration. it drives away editors that might will have donated more content.
i tend to rely on SIRIS for "no notice" i.e. File:Kiepenkerl - Jeff Koons.JPG but even a physical examination may not be enough. deleting sculpture pics in use harms the wiki, and the legal risk is minimal - you have a greater chance of a DMCA takedown for FoP germany than a "no notice" less than 10% of sculpture in database have one. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
You could start civility enforcement by being civil. Yes, "your incompetent "adversive leadership"" is personal abuse. If you want to be a thief, shamelessly ripping off people's works because you don't think they'll respond legally and then adorning Wikipedia with stolen jewels, well, I stand against such criminal activity. I stand for Wikimedia being an example of legality in the copyright-infringing wastelands of the Internet.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

August 22[edit]

"C" - Private Collection[edit]

I sometime come across old photos with a warning that they are under copyright because they are part of a "private collection". In this particular case they are a few photographs taken in Somalia in 1885 by a named foreign traveler, and it is said they were added to his photo collection that same year.

Here the problem is compounded by the fact that Somalia doesn't have a recognizabled copyright legislation due to the civil war. Should I consider those photos off-limit for Commons? Thanks. --Lubiesque (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lubiesque: It really depends on where they were published, and if ever previously published. Old unpublished works, published posthumously, can have copyright protection in some cases (see, for example, publication right). Reventtalk 16:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Somali works are protected by the copyright Law No. 66 of 7 September 1977. Since the photos were taken by a foreign traveler, the copyright status of the photos will depend on where they were originally published, the date of publication and registration under the copyright Law No. 66 of 7 September 1977 (if originally published in Somali). If they were published in Somali prior to September 1977, the works must be registered under copyright Law No. 66 of 7 September 1977 within 12 months starting from 7 September 1977 to be copyright protected. If the works were not originally published in Somali, the copyright of these works will depend on the copyright law of that country and the publication date. For Somali persons, regardless of whether his work was created or published in the country or abroad, it is under Somali copyright law. In this case, if a Somali person published a work in the U.S for example, it means the works will be under the U.S copyright law and Somali copyright law. Wikicology (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal related to metacategories that don't specify a criterion in the metacat template[edit]

I've made a suggestion to track metacategories that don't have a criterion coded in the metacat template. Your comments are invited at Template talk:MetaCat#Metacats that don't include a criterion parameter. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Larger thumbnails[edit]

Hi, is there a way to get larger thumbnails in the category and search pages? My eyes have a natural unsharpness for which glasses don't help. I am involved in a project that involves visual scanning many thousands of thumbnails, so it's quite urgent.

I would like my thumbnails at least one and a half time larger, preferably with twice as many pixels (1.5 × 1.5 = 2.25). I can't find a way to achieve this. Using the browser zoom (Ctrl-mousewheel) helps a little bit, but gives just larger thumbnails with larger unsharpness. It's also cumbersome. Suggestions anyone? Thx a lot! — bertux 19:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

That feature request is only a little over 10 years old. I guess we'll have to be patient... LX (talk, contribs) 14:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Category slide show gadget may be of some help, but you need to click on it for every category. MKFI (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Add the following to Special:MyPage/common.js

$( function() {
 $( ".searchResultImage a.image img" ).each( function() { if ( this.width*3 < $(this).data( 'file-width' )) {this.srcset = ''; this.src = this.src.replace( /\d+(px-[^\/]*$)/, (this.width*3) +"$1" );this.width = this.width*1.5; this.height = this.height*1.5} } );
 $( '.mw-gallery-traditional li' ).each( function() { var $this = $(this), child = $this.children( 'div' ), child2 = child.children( 'div' ), img = child2.find( 'img' ); if ( img[0].width*3 < 'file-width' ) ) { $this.width( $this.width() * 1.5 ); child.width( child.width()*1.5 ); child2.width( child2.width()*1.5); img[0].srcset = ''; img[0].src = img[0].src.replace( /\d+(px-[^\/]*$)/, (img[0].width*3) + '$1' ); img[0].width *= 1.5; img[0].height *= 1.5;  } } );

This will increase the gallery and search thumb size on the page by 1.5 times. It will also switch the thumbns to high-dpi mode, which should make the browser zoom feature not make the thumbs blurry [Assuming you don't actually have a high-dpi display. if you have a high-dpi display, we'd want to increase the resolution even further to compensate for the larger number of real pixels even before zooming]. (Note: This may cause galleries on categories not to line up vertically, and also might not work on images that are very small). Hope that helps. Bawolff (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Bawolff, that does the trick! It need not work perfectly or all of the time, so I will be very happy with the result. Anyway I did not encounter the issues you mentioned. — bertux 09:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Forensic Art as "Work For Hire"[edit]

I uploaded some w:Forensic artwork from artist w:Karen T. Taylor after she gave her blessing to use the files. I requested that she would send an OTRS email and she informed me that the work she did was under the authority of the law enforcement department (as w:Work for Hire that she worked at in Texas at the time. She stated "With law enforcement agencies, the artwork enters the public domain."

She has also had work uploaded and cleared through OTRS in the past, such as File:Age progression sculpture by Karen T. Taylor of fugitive William Bradford Bishop at about age 77.jpg and several other images.

I hope that we can still keep the images that I added, which have been flagged for "missing permission" as Ms. Taylor has not sent the email yet. Thank you, Gourami Watcher (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Karen T. Taylor wasn't an employee of the law enforcement department. It seems she worked under a contract for services, which means, she is still the copyright holder of any works she produced in the course of her service, unless there is a contractual agreement to the contrary. Karen T. Taylor needs to send permission to our support team. Wikicology (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
When she published a book on forensic art, she had to credit the departments for the images that she created under their jurisdiction. Does this affect anything?Gourami Watcher (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Ownership of copyright can be transferred and the original copyright holder must agree in writing. In that case, I suspect there was a signed contract or written agreement between her and the department for the transfer. Wikicology (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

August 24[edit]


Europabushalte Oostende 1981.jpg

Looking at this image I remember that there used to be a Europabus network. I dont find a lot of information accept that this is mixed upp with Eurolines. I have updated en:Eurolines a bit with wat I found, but its confusing: Was Europabus rebranded into Eurolines? Could someone with bushistory knowledge clarify?Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The Danish railway magazine Jernbanen actually has a short article about Europabus in no. 3/2016. According to the article 11 West European railway companies founded a tourist bus co-operation named "Union Internationale des services routiers des Chemins de fer européens" (URF) in 1950. The name Europabus was used for marketing together with a common timetable, logo, and standards for the buses. The concept became quite succesfull with 119 lines in 1962, including 77 to popular tourist spots, 22 roundtrips and 20 to special resorts. In the following years the tourists however begun using travel company trains, private bus companies or their own cars. According to the article it ended after the oil crisis in 1973. How the later fit with your picture from 1981 I don't know, but perhaps it was just the Danish part which ended then. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I suspect that the connection tot the railway compagnies was stopped in 1973, but the Europabus operation was big business and continued under national Europabus concessions and where taken over by other compagnies. For example:

More information on the beginperiod is found in (very usefull source), and (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Unknown source[edit]

Hi! I noticed that within {{Information}} sometimes the field "source" contains only the word "unknown" (or synonyms). If the field is empty the page is categorized in Category:Images without source, but in this case the automatic categorization does not work. The questions are:

  1. Is there a legitimate use for "unknown" as source?
  2. How should be fixed? Should be blanked? Should be replaced with {{unknown}} or something else?
  3. What about the same problem with author or date fields?

Basilicofresco (msg) 12:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  • To the first question: It's not legitimate when uploading a file. But when a file has in fact been uploaded without a source and the uploader didn't fix it and a serious research by other users could not find the source but they concluded that the file is undoubtably free and in scope and should be kept as useful, then that can be an exception when it can be legitimate, to replace the yellow box that reads "please edit this file description" with something, without marking the file for deletion.
  • To the second question: There are some suggestions at the top of the category:Images without source. If, without the actual source, it's not possible to be certain that the file can be kept, the file can be nominated for deletion with "Subst:Nsd" or nominated for a deletion discussion for closer examination. If the file seems useful, a good first step, as always, is serious research to find relevant information. In the exceptional situation explained in question 1, the template "Unknown|source" can be used. If the page already contains relevant and credible information about why a precise source is not mentioned, of course this information should remain somewhere.
  • To the third question: It can be legitimate more often than unknown source. In some cases, it's possible to conclude that the author or the date are indeed unknown. Unfortunately, such mentions are too often used abusively just because the uploader didn't look well enough to find the information. As always, research is the key. If you conclude that the file should not be kept without more information about its authorship or about its date, you can nominate it for deletion. Or you can start a discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or here. If you conclude that the file can be kept and after research you are quite convinced that the author is actually unknown, not only to the uploader and to you, but to the world, you can use the template "Unknow|author". The mention unknown date can be used more liberally.
-- Asclepias (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
There are a lot of old postcard pictures without a known photografer. In the source I put as much detail about the postcard: publishing house etc. In the EU countries the EU anonymous license template is used. Most of the research work is done to determine the date. (It is nearly never mentioned in postcards) In practice most of these postcards editing houses used local photografers an did not keep any records. Some uploaders mistakenly upload this under own work.Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Although the date of a photograph might not be mentioned on the postcard, many postcards are in fact franked and this allows the contributor to write "Before xxxx" and hence conclude that certain postcards are out of copyright. Similarly, photographs of Queen Victoria are out of copyright (she died in 1901). Again it is legitimate to record the photographer as "unknown" if that is the case. To put things into context, before the Second World War it was common not to name contributors. This was the case on BBC news reports until the BBC realised that one fo their best defences against Nazi broadcasts purporting to be from the BBC was to name their announcers. Martinvl (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so the word "unknown" should not be removed without adeguate research. For this reason, as first step, we should properly tag and categorize the files with unknown/missing source or author. So I propose:

  • when the author or source field of {{Information}} is just the word "unknown" (or "not known", "desconocido", "sconosciuto", "dunno", "???", "n/a", etc.) we should replace with a bot the content of this field with {{unknown|author}} or {{unknown|source}}
  • when the author or source field is de facto empty (eg. "-", "—", "none", "&nbsp;", "<nowiki></nowiki>", "null", "empty", etc.) we should blank the content of this field in order to get the proper warning message and the Category:Media lacking author information or Category:Images without source.

What do you think? There are thousands of files in this state. –– Basilicofresco (msg) 14:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand you're trying to define edits that could be made by bot. It may be possible, although my comments may not help you much about that aspect because they are more about edits that should be made by users.
If the "unknown" template is thought of as only a language localization template, I suppose you can replace the word "unknown" or its equivalents with the template "unknown", without your action being interpreted as a confirmation of the "unknown" statement. Of course, it would be better to check if the statement "unknown" is justified and, if it is wrong, to replace it with something else.
In some cases, removing the "null" mentions and leaving the field blank, thus triggering the maintenance warning and category, may be right, if it looks like attention from users is required. However, there may be some cases where there's no better solution than a "null" mention.
The best solution in each case can still be different if it's about the source or the author. You did well by making this distinction in your original question. I probably tried to keep my first comment too short. Maybe it can help also if I add a few subjective comments.
  • About "author", my point was that a mention "unknown" should not be used or added without adequate research showing reasonable evidence that the author is truly unknown, in the legal sense, after consulting credible sources. The fact that the author is known or unknown can change the copyright status of the work. Determining that the author is unknown has legal meaning and consequences. The mention "unknown" can be removed if it looks like it merely means that the immediate source did not credit the author or did not have the information about the author and did not bother to look for this information.
  • If you think that the author is probably known but there is enough other information about the work to conclude that the work would still be in the public domain anyway (e.g. published in the U.S. before 1923 and other such situations) you can replace "unknown" with another wording that presents the actual situation more accurately. In such situations, after checking the source, I often choose to write something like "Not mentioned in the source". It's factual, it's all that can be said with the information from the source, it does not risk misleading people with a wrong "unknown author" statement, and it leaves open the possibility that the information can be found and added.
  • For example, this file is a file I uploaded in 2013. The source (a national archive in Canada) does not mention the author. But, because we know the date, we know that it is in the public domain and that it can be uploaded to Commons. In the "author" field, I wrote "Not mentioned in the source", which is a factual and accurate statement I can think of in such a case. Because from the context and the nature of the photograph, it can't be said that the author is unknown, and it is possible that the information exists somewhere. It is likely that the archivists at the source did not go out of their way to find the information. Archivists are quite good at documenting who collected the physical copy of the photograph, but not always good at documenting who the author is. Later, I happened to read a book with more information about this photo. Today, I added the information to the description page on Commons: [4]. (Some may say that we're not entirely sure if W.B. Edwards took the photo himself and thus the author might be "unknown", but Edwards was actually the main photographer for his studio, and the mention of his name with the word studio in the "author" field seems fair in this case.)
  • About "source": The immediate source is never unknown. A file does not miraculously appear on the uploader's computer by spontaneous generation. Personally, I do not feel comfortable to add "unknown" in the "source" field. I would rather add something like "Not mentioned by the uploader". But the option "source" exists as a parameter for the "unknown" template, so I guess it is legitimate if users want to use it in cases that can justify it.
-- Asclepias (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

August 25[edit]

Commons admin and oversighter @Rama: from France refusing Licensed-PD-Art-tag and insisting on her copyright for merely PD-Art photographs[edit]

When I find a PD-art -photo tagged with a cc-by license I change it to {{Licensed-PD-art}}. But now User:Rama reverted with the comment (You have no right to add or remove licences. Image taken and published in France, which grants copyrights for photographs of paintings.) I am deeply upset about the tone and missing knowledge of this Admin and Oversighter, which really endangers our PD-Art Policy. Everything was explained in my license tagging, especially see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#When should the PD-Art tag not be used?--Oursana (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you consider Rama's reversion disruptive and decided to report them here or you actually want to know the correct license? Wikicology (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The image in question was taken and published in France. France grants copyrights for reproductions of 2D artwork, I am thus entitled to claim copyright and release the image under a licence of my choosing. I find Oursana's unilateral editing of licences applied by other people reckless in the absolute (this is a legally binding matter; you should be really, really sure of what you are doing, possibly ask people before, and certainly listen to them afterward), and I am uncertain that they are even aware of the French legal situation. Rama (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
PS: I'll explain the entire reasoning plainly:
  • the WMF etc. consider that such claims are moot and refuses to honour them. I am aware of that fact.
  • the statement in question entails that when a museum publishes a 2D reproduction and claims copyright on it, we basically tell them something rude, take the image and publish it as Public Domain.
  • this is completely different from the case of a Commonist publishing the image under a Free licence on the project: in this case, we have the image, it is freely usable under a Free licence. I would understand reservations if the licences in question were in practical terms limiting usage (such as when you publish under GFDL only), but this is not the case here, I use a Cc-by-sa.
  • There are in fact excellent reasons we would like to do so: if you consider copyright as moot, you can simply disregard the licence; if you do not, you use the Cc-by-sa with minimal hassle; if you are one of these museums claiming copyright on things and using the image, you are confronted by the consequences of your own actions. This is a militant stance.
  • There are no reasons why we would enforce Licensed-PD-art in these cases:
    • it does not improve usability over a Free licence
    • it changes nothing to the PD status of the image
    • it can be badly done, coming out as dickish, or removing some of the Free licences while keeping others for no discernable reason (like Oursana did, replacing the Cc-by-sa with the PD tag but keeping the CeCILL: what does that mean?)
TL;DR: we should not force PD tags on our own 2D reproductions because they are implicit, and doing so makes use weaker against copyright-claiming institutions. Rama (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think these two cases are completely different; on the contrary, I think they are quite similar. By placing a CC BY-SA tag on the picture, as visible in this diff, you are effectively claming copyright over a picture of a two-dimensional work of art, with little or no creativity on your part, falling under Bridgeman. This is exactly the same thing that the Prado museum are doing, only in your case you agree to release your work under a free culture licence, in this case the CC BY-SA, requiring that your authorship of the photograph be acknowledged, a link to CC BY-SA be provided and any derivative works be licenced under CC BY-SA — none of which is required if the work is in the public domain. That French law allows copyright on faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works of art is a mistake that severely restricts the public domain, and we should be lobbying against it — but then who are we to tell others what to do when we're doing the exact same thing? P.S. Please kindly avoid bringing @Rama's oversight-ship on this project in this discussion, as it has absolutely nothing to do with his decisions on how to licence his works. odder (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
One aspect of the issue is indeed that it is the same thing; but from this perspective, absence of PD templates is no hindrance. In fact not only do we import files from outside that lack this template, but we disregard and treat with contempt notices that explicitly forbid us to do so.
In my idea, this is lobbying against the law: we are telling others that they are free to use our images in any case, but that if they do so without abiding with Free licences they are de facto supporting our argument. Since they very hardly ever do this forces them to confront the hypocrisy of their position. It is basically trolling them.
Incidentally, I will not oppose PD templates put on images in such cases if somebody feels they absolutely have to, but please do that properly: one should do not touch the licences of authors, ever. Rama (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Rama for those not aware (like me), which french law are you referencing that grants these rights? Offnfopt(talk) 17:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The law is the "Code de la propriété intellectuelle" [5], but the question is one of jurisprudance: what constitutes an original work (sufficient input to generate copyright); on this, the reference is Guide pratique du droit d'auteur by Anne-Laure Stérin. Rama (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Commons policy is Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Why do we allow the PD-Art tag to be used for photographs from any country?, and that is the same where Commons:Village pump#Image change request from the Prado Museum - Request for community input is about--Oursana (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
lol, edit warring over metadata. waiting for User:Rama to sue somebody for not abiding by SA. (i can imagine the wiki'splaining before the judge. but "as it has absolutely nothing to do with his decisions on how to licence his works." - it has everything to do with it, ideology run amuck in one area tends to undermine credibility in another. only a functionary could edit war to prove a point without getting taken to User problems. here's a compromise - how about PD-art-CC-by-SA ? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 20:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Bonjour Rama, Ça va être un peu long. Si c'est TL, tu peux lire seulement l'introduction, où se trouve déjà l'idée essentielle, puis sauter directement à la fin.
I don't see a major problem. The template Licensed-PD-Art is made exactly to respect the copyright claim and the licenses of the photographer, while at the same time also respecting the policy of Wikimedia and of Commons and providing the relevant information about the copyright status of the original artwork. This clarification is also to the advantage of the photographer, because it explains and justifies why the photographer could make and publish his/her own reproduction. I will address separately your paragraphs in order:
  • 1. You say "the WMF etc. consider that such claims are moot and refuses to honour them." -- Commons can't speak for the WMF (whose recent moves and switches from one declaration to the other may have been a bit hard to follow), but that is not how Commons understands and presents the position of the WMF, that is not what Commons says, and that is not what the template says. Commons informs its readers that the WMF's understanding of the legal situation in the United States is that reproductions of PD artworks are in the public domain in the United States. And that people in other countries must instead check what the legal situation is in the countries in question about this subject.
  • 2. "the statement in question entails that when a museum publishes a 2D reproduction and claims copyright on it, we basically tell them something rude, take the image and publish it as Public Domain." -- If "we" means Commons, it's not what Commons does. That is what some individual users occasionally do, on Commons or on other projects, just as users occasionally do many other things that are not in line with the policies of Commons. For example, individual users on de.wikipedia made provocations there by claiming that reproductions were PD in Germany, whereas Commons warns its users that photographic reproductions are likely under copyright in Germany. I agree that the WMF's replies to REM-Mannheim were unnecessarily "rude", in that the WMF's replies were mostly beside the point and they sounded closed-minded compared with the limited expectations of REM, who basically complained that some of their files were presented on de.wikipedia as being PD in Germany without caveat. Expectations of REM which, interestingly, could have been partly met by ensuring that the tag Licensed-PD-Art was actually used prominently with their files on Commons and maybe made even more obvious. The attitude of the WMF with REM can be discussed, but it is not Commons and it is not a reason against the use of the template. Quite the opposite actually.
  • 3. "this is completely different from the case of a Commonist publishing the image under a Free licence on the project" -- The basic situation is identical, be it a reproduction made by an external source or made by a Commons contributor. There is a reproduction on which the photographer claims a copyright. There was a discussion a few years ago, where the question was if Commons should forbid its users from claiming a copyright on such reproductions. The rationale was that users are free to do what they want outside Commons, but when they contribute to Commons, they are expected to accept the principles of Wikimedia. For example, outside Commons users can publish their own works with non-free licenses, but those works are not accepted on Commons. They would not meet the mission and principles of Wikimedia. Given that the WMF advocates that copyrights on reproductions of PD works should not exist, some users believe that allowing Commons users to upload their files with such claims might look inconsistent and would make more difficult to convince outside sources to not make such claims when Commons allows its own users to make them. That discussion did not decide anything, and the situation remains that the practice, by some contributors, of claiming copyrights on their reproductions of PD works is allowed, although it is frowned upon by some other users.
  • 4. "There are in fact excellent reasons [...]". -- All the goals you mention in this paragraph are reached by the use of the template. They are only made explicit, and there are links to other resources, instead of being implicit and of being reserved to a few people.
  • 5-a. "it does not improve usability over a Free licence" -- It makes usability clear. For example, in the case of the file linked in the question, people in the United States can know that they can make a derivative work without necessarily offering their own additional work under the same license.
  • 5-b. "it changes nothing to the PD status of the image" -- It makes clear that the artwork is in the PD and for what reason it is, and it makes clear that the reproduction is not in the PD in some countries.
  • 5-c. "[...] removing some of the Free licences while keeping others for no discernable reason (like Oursana did [...]" -- Oursana left both licenses, although not at the same place on the page. The reason would be that they did not use the best syntax in this particular case. IMO, a better syntax in this case would be {{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923|rawphotolicense={{self|CeCILL|Cc-by-sa-2.0-fr}}}} (By the way, is there a reason why you prefer to copy separately the wording of the template "Self" instead of transcluding that template?).
The template Licensed-PD-Art does this:
  • I) It provides a place to insert the information about why (and if and where) the original artwork is considered to be in the public domain. This is information that Commons normally requires for all uploads that claim to be using something from the PD. Be it a PD photograph, a derivative of a PD image, a free-licensed photo of a PD 3-D work, or, as in this case, a free-licensed photo of a PD 2-D work. It justifies that the file is not a copyright violation. It allows readers and potential reusers to better know what they are dealing with, and to evaluate if they can use it or not. It would not be prudent to rely on the notion that "it is implicit". It may seem obvious to an uploader that a particular work he used is in the PD, but it's not obvious for all works on Commons and not to everybody. Depending on each case, the PD reason may not necessarily need to be stated with templates. I suppose it could be stated differently. Still, when templates exist, they can be useful. For photographs of 3-D works, the templates Art Photo or Licensed-PD can be useful to help the reader distinguish the status of the PD artwork from the status of the photograph. For photographs of 2-D works, one of the advantages of the template Licensed-PD-Art is similar.
  • II) It provides a place to insert the licensing information by the photographer about the image.
  • III) It warns potential reusers that although the reproduction is believed to be in the public domain in the United States, it is not so in some other countries (which means that in those cases it should be used with the license). It also provides links to resources for reusers who want to find more information.
  • IV) It formats all the above information in a box and orders it in logical order so it is more easily readable and understandable. The standardized format also allows readers to compare more easily the statuses of different files since thing are presented the same way, instead of having to find what is where in the different pages.
It is a matter of clarity. There's no reason to leave ambiguity or conceal information. Clarity is good for everybody. However, I could see two reasons why a user might refuse to use the template. One is if the user thinks that there is something too poorly written in the template. Then the user should still try to convey the information in other words. The other reason is if the user disagrees with the notion that reproductions of PD works are in the public domain in the United States. I think it can be useful to format the information into the template. I agree that if a user really refuses the template after explanation, templates like this are not an obligation. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hmmm; I've to agree with Odder and Asclepias. Further there is a lot of mistakes in Rama's arguments. 1. "this is completely different from the case of a Commonist publishing the image under a Free licence on the project." I had seen similar arguments earlier in many places like talks about attribution etc. No; Commons treats Wikimedians and other copyright holders in equal weights. There is no special preferences. We don't expect more credits when our works are used off-wiki than how they are used in wiki. I know many people disagree with me; but this is a mere fact. 2. "Licensed-PD-art does not improve usability over a Free licence." The licenses Rama used (CC BY SA- 2.0-fr, CeCILL) are much stricter license compared to PD/CC 0. So there is indeed a limitation. (There may not be a difference if the re-user is from France.) The edit by Oursana was not perfect as Asclepias. But it looks to me just because he don't know how to mention two licenses (CC BY SA- 2.0-fr and CeCILL) in Licensed-PD-Art. Jee 06:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks @Odder, @Asclepias and @e. Contributing for a GLAM project I learned to know this license, which is seldom used here on commons. I simply did not check, that the tl is not possible with two licenses. What about using the tl twice: {{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923|CC BY SA- 2.0-fr}}+{{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923|CeCILL}}.
My “changing"of the licensed is backed by Commons policy Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#When should the PD-Art tag not be used? And as Asclepius puts it clearly the template in question does not deny or affect Rama's licensing, it just brings commons legal point of view, which is not adventurous at all into perspective which Rama's licensing neglects. I do not and never blamed Rama for his wrong licensing, neglecting that commons is not simply a french project and if one is uploading in an international project one has also to consider main jurisdictions. But I blame Rama for two things: first as Admin she should know and respect commons licensing policy and especially not offend other users especially visable in the edit-summary, whose action is expressively covered by commons policy. One should never offend other users, especially not when they are right. By using her lic tags she is pretending to have more rights in an merely two dimensional reproduction photo than she has in most jurisdictions concerning this project. And commons policy and my intention working for open knowledge is not to mislead other users as Rama's licensing obviously does. And even in France, Germany, Spain etc. Rama's point of view is disputable with good chances at all.--Oursana (talk)--Oursana (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry I did not read the whole discussion above, but I would have replaced the license in that file with {{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923|rawphotolicense={{CeCILL}}{{Cc-by-sa-2.0-fr}}}}. --Jarekt (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
A slightly different variation is suggested above at paragraph 5-c, but yes, the comment was a bit long and it can be missed. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have edited the file page to use {{Art photo}}, which clearly separates the copyright status of the depicted work from that of the photograph. Hopefully this makes people happier. @Rama: @Asclepias: @Oursana: Reventtalk 16:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Revent, that template is for 3D arts. A photograph of 2D art can't claim such copyright. Jee 17:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: {{Art photo}} itself doesn't make any copyright claim, and while it's normally used for 3D works, there's no reason to not use it here... all it does is separate the information into two different sections, and I didn't 'change' any of the claims made, deliberately. {{Art photo}} actually 'uses' {{Artwork}}, which is what was previously on the page, for information about the depicted work. People can still argue about if Rama's license is valid... it's just now more clearly separated. Reventtalk 17:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Images taken in museums by Commons Photographers should always be dually licenced. A license depicting the status of the artwork and a licence for the photography taken. What strikes me more, is the fact that Rama chooses to crop his image out of its frame. What a waste of effort! We are cropping images of scanned artwork out of their frames, because there is indeed a separate copyright issue inbetween the 2-D artwork of the painting and the 3-D artwork of the frame. That is the reason why for instance I go into museums to get the "whole picture" and make it available to the world on a CC-license. Because I believe the frame is an integral part of the artwork, because it shows how the artwork was to be presented to the viewer. So please Rama, I urge you. If you make the effort to go into museums to take photos, bring back the whole image. Because than you have also produced something, that you can genuienly lay a license claim to, that nobody will contest. --Wuselig (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Which one was first[edit]

Which was first, this or this one. --Jos1950 (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Exif data on says April 17, 2006, but it was only uploaded to wikipedia in 2007, so probably the external image was first. Bawolff (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The older revision even has a copyright notice: 2006 Playa Coco (possibly 2008, it's hard to read). Looks like an obvious copyright violation to me. --rimshottalk 18:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I noticed something but do not have the knowledge. Someone with knowledge will detect this and take action. Thanks --Jos1950 (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Train coach body in harbour - upload ok?[edit]

Hi. I happened to take a picture of some train coaches (all the same type) in Barcelona which were ready to be shipped (or were shipped to Barcelona?) - I can't tell you what type of train coach this is (searched now for about an hour through the images here without success). The image was taken by me from a tourist boat (Golondrina). Is it ok to upload the image? (Would it be ok to upload a part of the image temporarily for finding out the type and legal belongings?) Greetings, -- 07:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

after some more image viewing: the images could show possibly the coach bodies of the Talgo AVRIL -- 08:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I can't think of any problem with uploading such a picture. What do you see as a possible issue? - Jmabel ! talk 15:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
something like Community design issues and that the coach bodies were only temporarily exposed to public ... -- 09:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


I uploaded a new version of "File:En-us-aristocracy.ogg" as the original pronunciation was incorrect (the stress should be on the third, not the second, syllable). However, despite reloading the page several times, only the old recording can be played. What's wrong? — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Sounded right to me. Caching problem? - Jmabel ! talk 15:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Do you hear a woman or a man? If you hear a woman, then it's the old recording. That's what I'm still hearing. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Definitely a male voice; I'm pretty sure you have a caching issue on your end. - Jmabel ! talk 22:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Hmmm, it's been a day and I'm still hearing the old file. Any idea what I can do to clear the cache? Ctrl-F5 and adding "?purge=true" to the URL don't seem to have an effect. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
          • No, but you can probably verify that it is a caching issue by accessing with a different browser or a different machine. - Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

BTW it seems to me, it would have been sufficient to revert to the first file version. — Speravir_Talk – 22:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I had no idea that file contained the correct pronunciation as I can't seem to hear any file other than the one uploaded on 9 September 2007. However, I tried what Jmabel suggested and used Google Chrome to access the page; this time I was able to hear all the files properly. I therefore reverted the file to the oldest version. I still don't know how to clear the Mozilla Firefox cache, though. — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

August 26[edit]

Creator red text[edit]

At Creator:Osborne Theomun Olsen the occupation appears in red text because the occupation does not appear in Template:Occupation/en, can someone add it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. Wikicology (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikicology, you actually didn’t – or did not solve it the way Richard intended. By the way: “decorator” already existed in the occupation list, cf. in Special:Diff/204889749/204899332 the line below the deleted one. Richard, if you are still keen on using china decorator, you should request this (and perhaps also porcelain decorator) in Template talk:Occupation/en, and do not forget the magic string {{editrequest}}. — Speravir_Talk – 22:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I think 'porcelain artist' is a better description, but, yes, just make an edit request on the talk page. Reventtalk 17:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
It is too much work to find an admin to add a new occupation to the locked list, so I will find something similar. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, Richard, but this is not true. See the requests on the linked talk page or in its archive. — Speravir_Talk – 17:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright reviewers needed for 991 British military medical and wartime photographs up for deletion[edit]

Example - Portrait in chalks of General George James Guthrie, founder of the Royal Westminster Ophthalmic Hospital; dated 1863.

I have raised Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Wellcome DR request for RAMC on behalf of the Wellcome Library against 991 images I uploaded in 2014. The copyright stated at the source has been corrected to CC-BY-NC-ND, but many of these photographs could be kept on Commons, so long as we have a stated copyright rationale based on age or subject, which confirms it to be copyright ineligible or public domain by age.

Help would be appreciated in chipping away at these historical value images, by volunteers with an understanding of UK copyright so we can make a determination of which must be deleted from Commons. It would be a mammoth task for one pair of eyes!

Keep in mind that the original project was a release of 100,000 interesting historical medical images from the Wellcome Library. With such large public releases with our most friendly GLAM partners, some later corrections are almost inevitable; so nice comments in the DR please as the Wellcome remain an important future partner for Commons and open knowledge. :-) -- (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Holy crap, Fae. Yeah, that's going to take a while. Reventtalk 17:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

August 27[edit]

Adding location information to NARA images[edit]

I'd like to add location image to some NARA images. For example,,_Nevada._-_NARA_-_519575.tif is almost certainly located at 39.683669568 -119.273023572. I've identified the locations for two other images from that set as well. If it would be useful, I could fairly easy identify the location of a number of these images.

The issue is that the NARA image says "The metadata on this page was imported directly from NARA's catalog record; additional descriptive text may be added by Wikimedians to the template below with the "Description=" parameter, but please do not modify the other fields."

On one hand, having the location data for old photos would be useful for things like Google Earth.

On the other hand, this is original research on my part using Google Earth, though I am an author about a book north of the Truckee River, so I may be considered an expert by some.

Is adding location data permitted to these files? Cxbrx (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason that the files are marked this way is to allow for future housekeeping and bot datamining of the collection. If you add the coord data in a very standard way (by adding {{Location}}), this probably will be okay, as I would expect future automation to be able to cope with extra standard templates. It may be that a future refresh of metadata from NARA would overwrite your changes, but again I find it unlikely that a bot task would be quite this "mindless" and not take account of intervening edit history. If something like this happens, you can contact the bot operator and discuss how to fix it so we don't lose any value-added edits like yours. My comments are as someone who has mass uploaded from NARA and helped with some past automation of housekeeping on the collection. -- (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Bus, tram or snow mobile?[edit]

Bus, tram or snow mobile?

Should this thing be categorized as bus, tram, snow mobile or something else? It seems to get electrical power from overhead lines. MKFI (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Dresdner Haide-Bahn? (Which is a subcategory of Category:Trolleybuses). -- Asclepias (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
That's it, thank you. MKFI (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Excessively specific categories?[edit]


I notice that @ComputerHotline: has created a number of equipment-specific categories such as:-

Even though those appear to be being used quite accurately (and the images they contain are of good quality), my personal feeling is that they're incredibly over-specific and over-complicated.

I've nothing against accurate and complete categorisation- in fact, I'm strongly in favour of it, provided that it's useful- but (IMHO) this level of detail and specificity does strike me as excessive and unwieldy and (were it to be applied consistently across Commons) completely unworkable.

Any thoughts?

Ubcule (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Categories like these does not make sense to me and I think they are not in line with our selectivity principle. If I may ask, does it mean if I take images of churches with Nikon D300 and images of mosques with the same camera, I can place the images on Category:Churches simply because they were taken with the same camera? Wikicology (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
While for example Category:Photographs with polarization filter or Category:Taken through ND400 filters could be useful and therefore make sense, Category:Taken with Nikon D300 and Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM + Hoya ND1000 filter + Hoya PRO1 Digital Circular Polarisation filters is absolutely pointless. There is no realistic use for this information, but most of all it makes no sense to group together these images because the sum of these properties does not give any additional meaning to these images. IMHO these kind of categories should stop at "Category:Taken with camera and lens" and "Category:Taken through type of filter" wihout any further ramification about the brand of the filter (pointless) or the combination of camera+lens+filter+tripod+hood+picture_style+postprocessing etc. If Category:Photographs with polarization filter will become too crowded, than we can use subcategories that make sense relative to the parent category. I mean for example:
Basilicofresco (msg) 15:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@Basilicofresco: From that, I assume that you could be okay with (e.g.) Category:Hoya filters and Category:ND filters but not Category:Hoya ND filters?
Even that (IMHO) might be justified for the more specialised filters (e.g. diffraction effects) that were specific to one manufacturer, but Category:Hoya ND1000 filter is already getting too overcategorised for my taste and that doesn't even come close to the examples I gave above...! Ubcule (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@Wikicology: ; If it's not a church, I would assume that it can't go in Category:Churches. While I disagree with the category structure under discussion, I don't see that following its rationale would lead to the conclusion you describe.
I'm not entirely sure that the "selectivity principle" is being violated either (though I'm not entirely clear on that that means even after reading the link provided).
However, it *does* appear to violate the "simplicity principle". Ubcule (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree: it could be ok with more specialised filters but the problem here is that an image taken with a Kenko ND1000 filter does not look enough different from an image taken with an Hoya ND1000 filter. Moreover to be honest Category:Taken through ND4 filters probably does not require Category:ND4 filter because do not exist pictures of actual ND4 filters. That category tree is a maze for no reason, we have to simplify it. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 17:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree entirely that it needs simplified. While we might be debating a few metres' difference in where one draws the line, I think we're both in agreement that this specific case is quite clearly several miles over the wrong side of it regardless! Ubcule (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I think will be better to not use such details until we'll have local Wikidata. Then equipment property could be used to enumerate all gear. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
We don't even need Wikidata to get round the problem that this is a (misguided) solution for.
We simply need an improved (and more advanced) search facility so that a user can perform an "AND" search on the several categories that each embody one of the desired attributes (e.g. the category covering neutral density filters, the category covering that specific camera model, etc.)
There are, of course, cases where it makes sense to combine attributes, such as Category:Churches in Russia. But cases like that are generally obvious when we consider how overstuffed the parent category would be without them, and/or what suggests itself as being useful in the context of the subject.
Ubcule (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ubcule: Such searches are currently possible, actually, using the "incategory" filter of the search engine. Take a look at mediawikiwiki:Help:CirrusSearch. Reventtalk 17:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Also mentioned at Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2016/08/Category:Taken_with_Nikon_D300_and_Sigma_10-20mm_F4-5.6_EX_DC_HSM_+_Hoya_ND1000_filter_+_Hoya_PRO1_Digital_Circular_Polarisation_filters in order to generate further discussion and feedback. Ubcule (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

image of banknotes[edit]

It is allowed to place an image from the bills of this file on Commons? --Jos1950 (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

When you have questions about currency consult Commons:Currency first. According to that page, you can not upload the images. Offnfopt(talk) 16:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know Commons:Currency, thanks. --Jos1950 (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

August 28[edit]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard[edit]

Hi. Since this CFD is regarding one of the most populated categories on Commons, I am cross posting here for wider reach. Rehman 13:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Automatically categorise images from EXIF?[edit]

Is it a future possibility to automatically categorise images based on their EXIF data? I'm a little bored of manually filling out "Taken with Canon EOS 6D" etc. when I upload files, yet I appreciate being able to go to, say, "Category:Taken with Canon EOS 6D" and look at others' images taken with that camera. Automatically populating these camera, lens, exposure etc. categories would also make them a lot more complete. Thanks -- Thennicke (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Thennicke: User:BotAdventures does this task, but does not normally add files to well-populated categories. Reventtalk 17:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Creator:László Josef Willinger[edit]

How do I edit the categories? I added the Wikidata, so now no need to be in the category for "no wikidata". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Convenience link Creator:László Josef Willinger - Jmabel ! talk 00:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm confused. I don't see P1472 at wikidata:Q550579. I see the Commons Category (P373). Not sure if I'm the one missing something here or Richard is, so I'm not taking any action until that's clarified. - Jmabel ! talk 00:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed I added Commons Creator page (P1472) to wikidata:Q550579. I am working on a way to do it for all the files in Category:Creator templates with Wikidata link: item missing P1472. --Jarekt (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

August 29[edit]

What to trust in bot upload[edit]

I'm wondering whether there is any reason to believe File:StateLibQld 1 170571 Shandon (ship).jpg belongs in Category:Ships of Australia? It appears to be the same ship as File:British three-masted bark SHANDON at anchor, Washington, ca 1900 (HESTER 829).jpeg, which is described as "British" in an archive that looks to me to be pretty well curated. I suspect that the attribution of country in the former was just because the bot that uploaded it was uploading from an Australian archive. - Jmabel ! talk 04:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Further: I'm pretty sure both are the Shandon built at Glasgow in 1883, as depicted at and - Jmabel ! talk 04:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Mass bot uploads should have {{check categories}} template in my opinion. MKFI (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Set camera date and time[edit]

I created a {{Set camera date and time}} template which i missed. However, I'm not familiar enough with English as well as with programming. Please improve and translate the template if you can and want. --ŠJů (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-35[edit]

15:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


When I [request that someone] move a file, a nice long overview of reasons for moving files comes up, which includes this note:

"A file like "File:Taiwaneese Tiaoyutai islands map.png" would be acceptable on Commons, even though it is not neutrally titled (see here)."

So, files can describe some islands somewhere as pertaining to Taiwan, fine by me... but shouldn't "Taiwaneese" be spelled "Taiwanese"? Based on how very few times it's used in Google Books (and based on how many of the books that use that spelling also use "Taiwanese", suggesting the less-frequent occurrences of "-eese" are typos), "-eese" seems to be a misspelling rather than an alternative spelling. Template:File renaming reasons seems to be the source of the text. -sche (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It should be changed, of course. You can ask at Commons:Administrator noticeboard. Ruslik (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Subjects by backgrounds[edit]

Hi everyone. I've realized there is no homogeneous choice in the "by background" categories. For instance within Category:Animals by background we can find categories "with xxx background" and categories "on xxx background". Wouldn't it be a good idea to choose only one expression ? And which one to choose ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

August 30[edit]