Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

  Welcome   Community portal   Help desk
Upload help
  Village pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks 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 a waste of your time. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is just a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read the 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


 


Cast iron pump with handle dated 1875 in the form of a fluted column with Corinthian capital on a profiled, square stone base [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss • Edit • Watch



Oldies[edit]

Allow WebP upload[edit]

Moved to Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Allow WebP upload

June 29[edit]

Files without {{Information}}[edit]

Hi, I want to bring attention to a backlog not many of us are aware of. There are about 500,000 files without propoer {{Information}} template usage. 100,000 of these are non-self without a proper URL. We have been discussing how to deal with this problem in Wikimania and I wanted to bring attention to it. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 19:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no requirement to use it. -- (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
, I think {{Information}} or similar infobox templates are certainly needed at this point. Of all the millions of files on commons only 500K lack these templates. I am a bit confused, are you objecting the effort to fix this? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 02:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Any large change (I consider anything affecting over 100,000 pages to be large) should have a documented consensus, or existing guideline/policy itself supported by consensus, before we release Skynet to do the job for us. -- (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@: Yeah... That is why I posted this here. To engage such a discussion. :) I think skynet-phobia in these type of a task is fair and such concerns must be addressed in a satisfying manner.
We can either offer suggestion and let humans handle this task by hand or we can fix the more obvious problems with a bot and let the humans handle problems where bot does not have confidence.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 23:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@: So do you have a specific concern we can address? I'd rather not delay work on this issue unless anyone has a good reason to object. Objecting for the sake of objecting would be quite disruptive. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 16:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The specific concern is that nobody has made a specific proposal. A test run on 100 old files without any current templates and adding templates that have existing classes that enable future machine-readable data projects, as this appears to be the rationale to make the change at this time, would be useful to discuss, rather than open-ended hypothetical discussion about the concept which people are taking as a proposal. Thanks -- (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)This is an aspect of the WMF's meta:File metadata cleanup drive, in that the use of information (or artwork, photograph, etc) templates is needed to make the image data machine readable, and enable a later move to using some type of wikidata-like database for such information. Unfortunately, there are still some editors who will war about the conversion of 'their' file pages to such a format, in the lack of any actual Commons policy about the formatting of file pages. I think that, in order to efficiently move forward with this, such a policy (that, at the least, documents that there is a consensus for file pages to be converted to use such templates) needs to be created. A familiarity with at least the 'premise' of Commons:Machine-readable data is worthwhile, for background. Revent (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
@: Yes, there is indeed no 'requirement' to use such templates, but I think it should be made clear that their use is considered 'best practice', and that it is inappropriate to revert such a change to a file page on the basis of personal preference. Revent (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Only one template has been mentioned. As for the use of classes, any template can be adapted to meet the MRD principles without most users seeing any difference. We lack a visionary proposal and a commitment from the WMF to support its implementation. -- (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The error category being referred to (with the half-million files) is Category:Media missing infobox template... there are other 'infobox templates' (Artwork, Photograph, Book, Map, etc) that serve the same purpose. Most of the contents of that category are 'old' uploads (File:1 5 2 55.svg as a random example) that have rather broken file pages to begin with... they typically have a lack of a clear source, author or other required information. The problem I have seen is where people were reverting the conversion of such a page to use an infobox template on the grounds that it was useless.... while for a 'particular' file adding a template with 'unknown' fields might not be particularly helpful, doing it 'project wide' seems worthwhile if we are even going to move forward on improving the way we handle metadata. What I would propose is not that we 'require' uploaders to use such templates, but that we endorse the wholesale conversion of such pages to use those templates... even if done 'imperfectly', as long as we do not introduce actual 'errors' in the process it is a step forward. Revent (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Then please create the proposal. Once the community agrees a formal proposal for consistency of machine readable data, the WMF can decide whether it should implement anything to support it, or we an unpaid volunteer can just do it if they wish. -- (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
It is obvious that nobody would seriously disagree on the addition of an infobox template to each file page. --Leyo 12:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
It depends on the scope of the proposal. Some will want harmonization to a small number of templates, others will want standardization of fields. These are potentially areas of contention as our working practices vary and "best practice" as defined in different places can be contradictory. Note that supporting classes to make MRD possible need not rely on transcluding a template. -- (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Depends how? After information template is put in and generate a standardized machine readable output, you can restructure it to your hearts content as needed. The argument here seems to be keeping a mess or not which is not much of a discussion. If you have suggestions on improving how such tagging needs to be conducted, go for it. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 16:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
See above, there is no point in repeating it. -- (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
You could have saved everyone a LOT of time simply stating something like "I'd like to see a few test edits by the bot, please" you know. Just saying. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 12:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I find it baffling to see pushback (or wikilawyering) around such a super obvious common sense proposal. We are listing {{Information}} as a best practices example at Commons:First_steps/Quality_and_description. --Dschwen (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I am baffled too about the surreal detour the discussion took. Commons do not have many policies, for example we do not have policy about removing {{Information}} template from files but if someone have tried that he would have been blocked in no time. We also do not have policies about requiring them but if anybody is willing to spend their time fixing such files than the effort should be appreciated. But let's go back to とある白い猫 original point: Lack of the infobox template is hiding the fact that many files have unclear or questionable sources and lack permissions. For example: 1, 2, 3, or 4. I do not have any reasons to believe that any of those files were not released under stated license, but it might be hard to verify. --Jarekt (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

So I will post sample edits today for your consumption. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 03:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@:, take a look at Special:Contributions/Dexbot. It has a few sample edits of the nature we discussed above. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 15:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

July 17[edit]

Deletion requests[edit]

Why is Commons:Deletion requests/2015/07 broken after July 13th? I tried to fix the problem, but obviously to no avail. --Magnus (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

There's only so many templates you can inline into a page. The DR page has broken that limit.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
That is a testament of how broken it is. :p -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 15:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Image rendering issues[edit]

File:The Residence of the Count of Wassenaar, Lord of Obdam, Kneuterdijk, The Hague.png
Today I uploaded above image, but it doesn't get rendered (on Commons) the way it is supposed to. The grayscale print either shows up too light or way too dark. Or the thumbnail gets rendered wrong. I tried re-uploading several times, whilst changing compression and even trying without any compression. The image has adjusted contrast, sharpness and made the image was desaturated. (with GIMP) Hopefully someone is willing to help me out ?
Regards, --OSeveno (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting. The image seems to be converted from palette to greyscale, and below 475 pixels, a gamma of 2.2 is applied. Or a gamma of 1, in some of the old versions that you exported as greyscale images. Compare this with this. Have you tried adding a colour profile (not exactly sure what the best practices are for greyscale images)? — Julian H. 17:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks like the same issue as Commons:Graphics village pump#PNG darkness at preview sizes. LX (talk, contribs) 17:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I tried a new file by adding a RGB profile, but no success. It's a pain. --OSeveno (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I suspect its a case where the resampling filter we use happens to give particularly bad results for that specific image. Bawolff (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, looks like for greyscale files, if the gAMA chunk is missing, image magick assumes the image should be treated as having a gamma of 1. Might be a bug in image magick somewhere in there. I tried setting the gamma to 2.2 for the file, using pngcrush, seemed to fix it. Bawolff (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Very interesting... Thanks for the help. Now if I only knew how to do this myself. (setting the gamma to 2.2) Can you please explain to me how I can do this ? Because I have other files with the same problem. Regards, --OSeveno (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I used a program called pngcrush, using the -g 45455 option. I believe when saving images with the GIMP, there's an option to save the gamma chunk. Hopefully soon we will work around the issue in mediawiki, and all the images will just work. Bawolff (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@OSeveno, Storkk: I submitted a work around for this issue, for review. How long it takes to get review can vary a lot, but once it gets reviewed, and then deployed (Less than a week after its reviewed), the issue will be fixed for all images on commons, and you won't have to do anything for any future images (old images would need a purge). 15:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Just discovered a 2000-day-old vandalism[edit]

Here. Who can do better? --Ricordisamoa 02:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This should get you a job offer from the Smithsonian. Clin --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Hedwig in Washington I had a list of several like that from ENWP. I found one a month ago or so that dates back to 2009. Its probably still there. Reguyla (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
There is a big patroll backlog, every help is needed. See COM:CVU :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Impressive, Reguyla! But you must provide evidence to compete ;-) --Ricordisamoa 07:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Next time I see one I'll let you know. I stopped bringing them to people's attention because rather than make the fix they accused me of being pointy, trying to edit by proxy, etc. On ENWP its better to have vandalism, backlogs, POV pushing, article ownership, abusive admins and trolling than to build an encyclopedia, edit articles and foster a collaborative environment. Reguyla (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

July 22[edit]

[Image donations] Three historic atlases (national library of the Netherlands)[edit]

Sample image from Atlas Van der Hagen

Earlier this week the national library of the Netherlands (KB) donated over 3100 images from 3 historic atlases (period 1690-1750) to Commons.

Each atlas has its own category

  • Category:Atlas van der Hagen (446 topographical drawings and prints from across the globe in various formats, beautifully colored and decorated with gold)
  • Category:Atlas Schoemaker (2579 topographical drawings, descriptions and prints of Dutch towns, villages and hamlets in the early 18th century.)
  • Category:Atlas Beudeker (133 images devoted to the northern and southern Netherlands.)

This was the first time the KB used the GLAMwiki-uploadtool, which can upload large numbers of images batchwise. This tools has been used by many GLAMs, including the Institute for Sound & Vision and the Peace Palace. So far more than 430.000 images have been donated worldwide using this tool.

The three atlases were digitized in the late ‘90s and put online on the Memory of the Netherlands website. This has been the source of the current donations.

Uploading to Commons is just the start, in the next couple of weeks the KB will work on

  • Expanding WP-articles about the atlases themselves, the creators/collectors (Andries and Gerrit Schoemaker, Cornelis Pronk, Abraham de Haen, Dirk van der Hagen etc) in multiple language versions
  • Creating / expanding related Wikidata-items
  • Promotional activities outside the community

The KB would like to invite all Wikip/m/edians to reuse the images as widely as possible, which could include

  • Using them in WP-articles (duh)
  • Further (sub)categorization of the images. A subdivision into country/city/place names would make sense, see for instance this list of place names for Schoemaker. Unfortunately it was not possible to do automatic subcategorization via the GLAMwiki-upload tool.
  • Adding geo-coordinates

Including these 3 atlases the KB has now released 7 historic atlases, see this overview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlafJanssen (talk • contribs) 23 July 2015‎ (UTC12:04)

This file is corrupt. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Yann for pointig that out, I fixed it --OlafJanssen (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Very interesting. I checked a few files from Category:Atlas van der Hagen, and it seems that there are a lot of artifacts, e.g. File:Atlas Van der Hagen-KW1049B10 002-NOVISSIMA TOTIUS TERRARUM ORBIS TABULA -Wereldkaart in 2 hemisferen.jpeg, File:17th century map of London (W.Hollar).jpg, File:MontdeParnasse.jpg. What's the compression level used? File:Atlas Ortelius KB PPN369376781-002av-002br.jpg seems better. Also the license should be {{PD-Art-100}}, not {{PD-old-100}}. And there is no EXIF data for these files. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The images in Van der Hagen & Beudeker are direct copies the ones available on Memory of the Netherlands website. They indeed seem to be compressed quite a bit, not sure about the exact compression levels. Van der Hagen and Beudeker were digitized in the 90s, Ortelius only 2 years ago, that might might also play a role qualitywise ..--OlafJanssen (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
And also pls note that the files that do not start with "Atlas van der Hagen" were not part of the donation by the KB, they were already in the category before --OlafJanssen (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Project page? Image tag?[edit]

Hi folks,

I have a project in Wikieducator that utilizes most of the coyote skull images here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Canis_latrans_skulls

Here's the project: http://wikieducator.org/Digital_Coyote

Because the project is in Wikieducator and not in Commons, it appears from the Wikimedia Commons point of view that no pages link to the extensive collection of coyote skulls.

So 2 questions occur to me: 1. Should I make a project page here that briefly explains the usage and importance of the images. 2. Should I make a short and simple template that would add a short blurb to each image explaining the same?

These questions came up because 3 images were marked for deletion because of permissions issues that I'm working on resolving. I'd like to protect the images from deletion because the entire project is 100% dependent on the several hundred images stored here.

Cheers

Declan Dmccabe (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Declan, you could mark each individual image with {{published}} (on the image talk page). However, if there is a permission problem which can't be solved then neither page nor template will help - an image with no permission would be deleted even if used by Wikimedia wikis. The only certain way to protect wikieducator use would be to copy the images locally to wikieducator. MKFI (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Bots or bulk uploading of images from Flickr[edit]

Just for clarification this is not a licensing issue. My images are all licensed Creative Commons so I have no issues with them being used on Wiki* projects. Over the years pictures of mine have been added to the Commons and appeared on various pages on Wikipedia, normally added from Flickr.

I was a little surprised when I searched my name and saw that half of my Flickr archive has been uploaded to the Commons. Some of the images are things like family photos or pictures of my dog and the majority of them don't appear to be in use on any Wiki pages. What is the value in bulk uploading images like this? Are these bots or humans doing it? Again the images are Creative Commons so I don't care about copyright but I'm trying to understand why the bulk collection of my images is considered desirable or necessary. Especially the ones that -- from what I can tell -- don't have any use or purpose on Wikimedia sites.

I had originally posted this on Help Desk but was advised it might get a better response here.--Ajdelorenzo (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi! First of all: Thanks for licensing all these mostly interesting images as CC-BY-[SA] 2.0. I am pinging user @Bodhisattwa: for a feedback who mostly (if not all) transferred these files to Commons. Btw, did you lost you password (considering available user Ajdelorenzo)? Gunnex (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Gunnex, I think the question is: Why have files been uploaded, and why Commons is storing files, of this person's dog, and other images that are of personal interest. Just because someone puts images on Flickr with a license acceptable on Commons, does not mean every image there need to be plundered. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder Gunnex I logged in. Malcolm Schosha has it right I'm just trying to understand the value in mass storage of images that are already stored elsewhere on the web. I don't see this as being within the project scope of being educational nor are the images being used on other Wikimedia projects. Again, I don't particularly mind that they are on here but it's more a question of why.--Ajdelorenzo (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Being stored elsewhere on the web isn't relevant for whether they are in scope in Commons. Files elsewhere do disappear sometimes, e.g., people delete their Flickr accounts, or change the licensing. However I'm sure you are right that some files are transferred that have minimal educational use or where Commons already has plenty of equal quality material on the subject. It's up to individual Commons users what they transfer, although it's also up to individual Commons users which out-of-scope files to nominate for deletion. --ghouston (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, in fact Commons is carrying out hundreds (thousands?) of deletion requests monthly which are related to project scope and some files like File:Polar bear mittens (6568023325).jpg may fullfill this condition. On the other hand: If someone plans to create (in a enciclopedic manner) the still nonexisting wiki-entry for the en:Frostbite Music Festival (which is already red-linked in two related articles) and is looking spontaneously at Commons for appropriate illustrations --> voilà!: your photos! In other words: Commons is dancing the balancing act for offering files which may [theoretically] realistically useful for educational purposes. And as we are not talking about some random [social media] shots/selfies from self-advertising deep underground bands, user Bodhisattwa may have encountered in your photos some kind of educational potential, saying: Wow! Nice shots, nice to have in CC. Gunnex (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I'm guessing you know this, but just in case: you can change your licensing for individual photos you upload on Flickr. I'm a major contributor here on Commona, and my Flickr default is CC-BY-SA, but I usually upload my family photos as "all rights reserved" there; I figure if someone has a legitimate need for those, they can ask. - Jmabel ! talk 01:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
In any situation there are assumptions made about respect for personal space. There is an unspoken social agreement, and assumptions made, that the boundaries of personal space will not be violated [1]. Of course, if the license on Flickr allows it, then uploading it is legal. But that does not necessarily mean it is in all cases the right thing to do. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
If people want any of my images on here I fully support it and my licensing allows for it. I wouldn't want any of them deleted I'll leave it to the Commons to decide what is appropriate to the project scope. This conversation has helped me clarify what is happening and that it was not a bot. Thank you everyone for the replies. --Ajdelorenzo (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Authority control[edit]

I did a couple changes to Template:Authority control and also left a message about potentially doing some more if there is any interest. Both discussions are at Template talk:Authority control. Reguyla (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Authority control is waiting for a major rewrite in Lua the way en-wiki, pl-wiki and others did. We already have Module:Authority control but can not test most of the features yet since we are still waiting for "random access" feature on Wikidata. --Jarekt (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, well do we want to continue to wait until that happens or make what we have work in the meantime? Any idea how long it might take for "random access" to be approved? Reguyla (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

July 24[edit]

Proposal to create PNG thumbnails of static GIF images[edit]

The thumbnail of this gif is of really bad quality.
How a PNG thumb of this GIF would look like

There is a proposal at the Commons Village Pump requesting feedback about the thumbnails of static GIF images: It states that static GIF files should have their thumbnails created in PNG. The advantages of PNG over GIF would be visible especially with GIF images using an alpha channel. (compare the thumbnails on the side)

This change would affect all wikis, so if you support/oppose or want to give general feedback/concerns, please post them to the proposal page. Thank you. --McZusatz (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The two thumbnails on the right look exactly the same. --Dschwen (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Not here they don't. Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe if you are on a high-dpi display they would look similar. Bawolff (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Me using Win XP/Firefox(latest version) and the PNG thumbnail looks much better with antialiasing than GIF. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, the bug only affects GIFs with single-palette-color transparency (not "alpha channel"[sic]!), and PNG resizing has had problems with other types of images... AnonMoos (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


Help with images...[edit]

I don't know if this is the right place, but in any case I recently nominated Central Committee elected by the 16th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) for Featured List candidate on English WP. Anyhow, one user (Seattle) wrote

Could someone here help me with this? --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 07:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
One of you either uploaded one of the images in teh first place, active edit history on the image (i contacted you when the uploader was inactive; looked at edit history) or uploaded a new version of the image. Could any of you help? If not, aren't these images in danger of being deleted? --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
If they don't have an explanation for why they are free in both their source county and the US, they can be deleted, for sure. Fixing that would require information about the time and place of original publication and some expertise with the copyright laws of all relevant countries. For example, File:Globus-1935-05-Pavel-Postyshev-foto.jpg says it was published in a magazine in 1935, and claims that it's public domain in Russia and Ukraine, but who knows about the US? Other photos only give a date and don't say if it was the publication date or the date the photograph was taken. --ghouston (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
As I said on en.wp, everythng on the post stamps is free, see e.g. a recent discussion here (closed to the bottom).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Public domain in the source country doesn't imply that it's public domain in the US. Although that seems like something that Commons could consider making an exception for, like it does with FoP sculptures. If it's public domain in the source country, and nobody has tried to enforce copyright in other countries, then let it in. --ghouston (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

July 25[edit]

Longest file names?[edit]

I have noticed that the files with the longest names are the most likely to contain promotional material in the file names, winding garden-path descriptions, incoherent grammar, and other kinds of improper or inappropriate text. Is there a place where the files with the longest names are listed? If not, is someone able to generate such a list? I'm interested in seeing a list of, say, the 10,000 files with the longest titles, excluding redirects, to check for such issues. BD2412 T 19:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@BD2412: User:Fæ/Long filenames. If useful it could be scheduled to refresh regularly (truncated at 2,000 files due to mediawiki page length constraints). Note that non-ascii names take more bytes even though they display as fewer distinct characters. :-) -- (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that is perfect! BD2412 T 14:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, right off the bat I have noticed that about 1,800 of the files on this initial list (and doubtless many more) are autogenerated lines of borderline gibberish like File:ABS-5232.0-AustralianNationalAccounts-FinancialAccounts-FinancialAccountsSummaryConsolidatedPublicNonfinancialCorporationsGeneralGovernmentNonfinancialPubli-NetTransactions-ConsolidatedSubsectorLevel2-TotalFinancialAssets-Net--A3405570W.svg, which is apparently the directory address to get to the chart in question, plus part of the name of the chart (the chart itself is a graph of financial transactions by private corporations in Australia from about 1988 to 2015. If the entire group is like this, I'd find out which ones are in use and delete the rest. Without an internal key to explain the meaning of the numbers, the graph is largely useless. BD2412 T 03:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
It has a description that attempts to explain it, so I'm not sure that the lack of a key on the chart itself is grounds for deletion. Maybe the operator of the bot that has been uploading an updating these files (User:99of9) could come up with a better naming system? --ghouston (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no key on the charts themselves per remember to keep language-specific information in the caption if it's not too inconvenient so that they can easily be used in other language wikipedias. This was a deliberate choice. Of course you are welcome to make a version with labels if you wish. --99of9 (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
If you asked for this file to be renamed, what would you call it? --ghouston (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
There was discussion of the name format when the bot was approved. Short is not a crucial criteria for large complex sets. --99of9 (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Regarding deleting all the files that are not in use, I really think that would be counterproductive. Firstly they are a complete updated set of time series data put out by the Australia Bureau of Statistics. Secondly they are fairly well categorized by topic in Category:Statistics of Australia, and via their source indexes in Category:Images using data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This means that when we want time-sensitive data in a Wikipedia article on an Australian topic, it is fairly easy to get whichever chart we need, rather than generating it manually. (As an exercise: go to your national equivalent of w:Economy of Australia, and find out how out of date each graph is!) There are 317 graph uses to date, but there would be less than 10 if I had to create them individually. How many more can be productively used in Wikipedia? I'm not sure, I'd estimate a few hundred more. Do you want to delete them before we find their use? The ABS considers the data educational/useful enough to be worth collecting and publishing, so I presume someone somewhere has a use for many of them. --99of9 (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I see that these are updated regularly. However, we have plenty of series of files that have more coherent file names, avoiding what seem at first glance to be just strings of buzzwords. There must be some way to name these files more coherently. BD2412 T 03:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

July 26[edit]

FINAL big time problem ' TEN FILES; one letter off[edit]

Category:FLACSO,_Ecuador all ten in the category are off by a letter

The school is called FLACSO not as i have it spelled _Flasco,

thanks ǃǃǃǃǃǃǃǃ BD7772 David Adam Kess 25th July 2015 (UTC)



The Latin American Social Sciences Institute or Latin American School of Social Sciences (Spanish: Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales or FLACSO) is an inter-governmental autonomous organization for Latin America and the Caribbean dedicated to research, teaching and spreading of social sciences. It was created on April 17, 1957, following a UNESCO initiative at the Latin American Conference on Social Sciences in Rio de Janeiro. Its membership is open to Latin American and Caribbean countries that subscribe the FLACSO agreement. Current members include: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Cuba, Chile, Ecuador, Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Dominican Republic and Suriname.

  • As I said above, "please just use {{rename}} on the file page, instead of bringing the matter to the Village pump." - Jmabel ! talk 16:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    • In any case, these are now also done. BD2412 T 14:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Arabic calligraphy/Styles/Hijazi[edit]

I have just seen that we have Category:Arabic calligraphy/Styles/Hijazi. We don't usually have hierarchies in category names, but before I nominate it for renaming, I thought I should check in case there's a reason for it, or it's one of many. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Nope, not a good name, nominate the category for discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 16:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Women_of_Artas.jpg[edit]

Women_of_Artas

The photo 'Women of Artas' which was, I think, rightly attributed to my grandmother Grace Crowfoot, is dated 1944. This has got to be wrong, as by that date Grace Crowfoot was back at home in the UK - her period in Artas was in the 1930's. I think the confusion is because she published material on Artas in the UK (probably including the photo) in the 1940s; but the photo must date from about ten years earlier. This is a minor point, but what happened in Palestine in the 1940s does get people exercised for various reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.219.73.50 (talk • contribs)

  • I'll make an appropriate edit, but just so you know: in the future you can make an edit like this yourself, and leave an explanation on the file talk page. - Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I added a few cats, cropped it, and fixed something in the info box. -- Tuválkin 20:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Flow[edit]

Hello, if you are an user of some of the other Wikimedia projects, you may have noticed that a new discussion system called Flow is currently being deployed to replace the current one. It is still in beta and, while not yet ready for full scale deployment, it is currently possible to activate it on specific pages, provided that the project is okay with it as a global principle, and that the users of the page are ok too.

I think it would be a good idea that we authorize the following on Commons:

  • a user would be able to request the activation of Flow on their own talk page
  • we activate a it on a generic talk page like Commons:Flow where users can test if it suits them.

That way, some voluntary testers would be able to get over any teething troubles that could arise with Flow, including the ones that could be specific to Commons, with minimal impact on users that are not eager to try it. What do you think of it? -Ash_Crow (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should go forward with this. A gradual introduction will be way better than suddenly switching all of commons because of some external deadline. Flow will come sooner or later and in my opinion it does have advantages over the current talk page system. More importantly it is a technological way forward (while flat wiki talk pages are pretty much a dead end). Please, let's allow per user talkpage opt-in and let's enable it on a few project wider talk pages. --Dschwen (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I predict this will have to be superprotected upon the said deadline as those horrible, horrible!, power users, those who dare to question that handheld devices are more than mere toys, opt out en masse from this shiny Visual Editor MediaViewer Flow thingy… (Anyway, where/how does one opt out?) -- Tuválkin 22:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Doubt it. For the simple reason, unlike media viewer, its not something you can opt out of with javascript, or super protect into continued existence. For that matter, you can't really personally opt out once a page is converted - In the same way as if you really liked hand written letters, you can't opt out of a telephone call, and still at the same time communicate with the people in the telephone call. Bawolff (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, agreed with Dschwen above. I have had several questions, but I didn't see the answers. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. If a page is moved to Flow, can it be moved back to plain wiki?
  2. What's the process for moving a page? Can it be done by local users (admins, bureaucrats, etc.) or is it done by developers only?
I can answer those questions -- I'm Danny, the product manager at WMF who's working on Flow. The feature's in active development, so there's no deadline or opt-out. We're at the "opt-in" stage right now -- deploying on a per-page basis on pages where people find it interesting and helpful, on wikis where the community is okay with people trying it out.
Right now, I can create a Flow board on any page, existing or not. If the page already has wikitext on it, then that page is automatically moved to an archive subpage -- e.g. the text on User_talk:ABC is moved to User_talk:ABC/Archive 1, and User_talk:ABC becomes a Flow board. There's a template on the Flow board that links to the archive wikitext page. (If there's already a subpage called /Archive 1, then it goes to the next free number.) There's no conversion between wikitext and Flow -- the original page just moves. If you want to switch back, then we just move the Flow board to an archive subpage, and move the original wikitext page back.
It's a totally unscaleable system -- I am actually the only person who has the user right to enable or move a Flow board. We're building an opt-in feature so that people will be able to switch their own user talk pages to Flow, on communities that are okay with it. While we're working on that, I'm happy to switch people's user talk by request. Let me know if you have other questions... DannyH (WMF) (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, if you'd like to be amongst the initial bunch of editors using Flow, at mediawiki.org or other specific wikis, please add your name to the list at mw:Flow/Request Flow on a page.
Following that process, if there's consensus in this discussion, then the team will enable Flow at a test page here, and then work with everyone here to determine necessary Flow features for further rollouts on the wiki. HTH. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it's very strange that pages have to be "converted" to a flow "board". Why can't I just embed a flow board on an existing page, with normal Wiki text before and after it? That sounds much more flexible and Wiki-like and would it would be much simpler to enable it on specific pages, without having to remove all existing content. The way it's implemented now is very disruptive. --Sebari (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, lets convert the talk page of the newly created Commons:Flow page then. Does this really need a consensus? We are not converting an existing page here, but just creating a new playground page to play with it. --Dschwen (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Postcards[edit]

I've opened a discussion here as to whether "Postcards of X" (where X is a location) should depict X or be produced in X (or even both); input welcome. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Photographs by Haraldbischoff[edit]

There has been recent discussion on email lists about legal actions defending moral rights, resulting from reuse of Commons photographs. Please feel free to add views or evidence to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Legal_action_resulting_from_photographs_by_Haraldbischoff and help decide if any action or change is needed. Thanks -- (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

July 27[edit]

Categories for Communautés d'agglomération / Agglomeration Communities[edit]

The category names for these are not standard: some use the English term and some use the French term. I just changed six of them so that all the ones under Category:Communautés d'agglomération in France by department would use the English term. I did this because 1) most of the ones there already used the English term and 2) the {{Departments of France}} template doesn't work if the subcategory names aren't consistent. (Maybe that template should be on the subcategories anyway, instead of the parent category.)

I see that the higher-level categories under Category:Communautés d'agglomération in France use the French term, as do all but two of the ones under Category:Communautés d'agglomération in France by region.

So the question is, which do we want? There is a general preference for category names to be in English, but there are exceptions. I see that English Wikipedia uses a mix, under en:Category:Agglomeration communities in France. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Easy way to find images with only one category?[edit]

Is there an easy way to find which images are present in only one single category (excluding hidden categories)? Specifically, I would like to find all images in Category:2015 Royal International Air Tattoo which have not yet been added to any aircraft categories. MKFI (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Gallery details gadget helps, but I would still like to have a query such as cat scan or similar. MKFI (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, an SQL query would be the first thing that comes to mind (with group by page_id and count(..)=1 --Dschwen (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/4545 Bawolff (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank your, that works nicely. I didn't know about Quarry. MKFI (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

July 28[edit]

Misdated images from The American journal of science[edit]

If you run the following search:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Identifier%3A+americanjourn&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=Search

You get over 500 images with names that begin with

File:The American journal of science (1880), such as
File:The American journal of science (1880) (18146271942).jpg
File:The American journal of science (1880) (18125035866).jpg

In numerous cases, these images are misdated. The actual date appears to be available from its Identifier.

For example:

File:The American journal of science (1880) (18146271942).jpg

has an Identifier of americanjourn3461893newh 1893

To verify this, find the illustration in context:

Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book

These files were downloaded by a Fae script. I suggest the files be re-downloaded

Thanks 68.165.77.209 01:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Why re-download rather than parse it out of the ID, which is always in the Source area? For that matter, for 500 or so images it might be quickest to go through by hand. - Jmabel ! talk 03:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Example book plate with generic title from IA batch upload project
Many of the journals are bound as a single book, so IA has taken the earliest as the first year of publication for the Flickr date. I can mass rename, I even have a housekeeping script to reuse from a past project, it may take a few days to get to it and I would like to ponder if it is worth querying the IA data at source rather than parsing the Flickr description.
PS while I think about a fix, readers may want to add User:Fæ/Project list/Internet Archive/improvement to their watchlists, for smart reuse suggestions. -- (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I suggested re-download assuming that that would be the easier approach since it was loaded by a Fae script. I defer to Fae as to the best fix, but I hope that something is done about this. The file names for this group of images are currently both generic and inaccurate; if there's a bulk fix for the images' date, we can over the long haul fix the other parts of the filenames via Rename or other approach.—68.165.77.111 10:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Housekeeping for dates might be automated, but as the only reliable metadata is at the book level, making more accurate filenames will probably have to remain a human and collegiate activity. Please be bold and propose new names, keeping the Flickr photo ID where appropriate for traceability. -- (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed rename of Flag of Jihad.svg to File:Flag of Taliban (reversed).svg[edit]

This filename currently suffers from a bit of original research and quite a bit of POV issues. Calling it Flag of Taliban (reversed).svg nullifies this problem by giving it a factual basis. Please comment on the talk page if you agree with this or not. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 15:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

July 29[edit]

Autozug[edit]

Hamburg Altona autozug I.jpg
I took some pictures of an unloading of an Autozug. What unusual type of car is this one?Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
That's a Nissan Cube. --Magnus (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Also known as brick. :D -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 14:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Meaningless numbers only categories[edit]

Someone is systematicaly placing all files of train type categories in number subcategories such as Category:186 119. I have great doubts as to the usefullnes as having an individual category for individual locomotives. These numbers have no meaning and can even change as the nummering is reordened by a takeover. It is not unchangable as the IMO number of ships. At least add some meaning independant of the headcategory. For this case: (NS loc 186 119)Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong with the principal of having a category for a single locomotive number, we also have categories for ships names as well as their IMO numbers and the names can and often do change over a hull's lifetime. I do however agree that the number should ideally be accompanied with some meaning as to what it refers to such as who owns the vehicle or what type it is. e.g. Category:British Rail Class 52 D1056 Western Sultan Oxyman (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with one category per locomotive. But unfortunately, the user removes useful categories. For example, many locos had been placed into Loco type of Operator categories, so you could lookup rolling stock by operator. This has been removed in the big recat effort. --Sebari (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Ditto, if the categories are named such that they are roughly intelligible. Numeric-only categories aren't, and I have warned this editor not to continue as s/he has been doing. Ideally, all these edits should be rolled back as they lose useful informatiom, and his categories mass-renamed or deleted. There used to be a "mass rollback" button for en:WP admins, but not here, unless anyone can tell me where this is? Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Pictures of some places in Spain needed![edit]

Hi! We're a group of Wikimedians mostly in Spain who are trying to improve the coverage of municipalities in Spain. We found that out of 8122 municipalities, 2239 did have no picture at all in Commons. Ashamed, we've been making our best. In fact we have taken or found photos from almost 200 municipalities, but more than 2000 unpictured places are still way too many.

What we need your help for is getting pictures of municipalities in Spain. You can find lists at Wikiproyecto:Ningún municipio español sin fotografía. The provinces that are in the worst condition are Salamanca, Zamora, Toledo and Guadalajara. Of course there are many pictures from their capitals, but, surprisingly, places just five kilometers from Salamanca or Zamora have no pictures in Commons.

Other provinces have many places to picture too.

So if any of you happens to be around Spain this summer, please upload pictures. It doesn't matter if the place is ugly, this is no beauty contest. It is that we don't have pics. Nobody in Wikimedia has the pics.

Thanks a lot!

B25es (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

For the record, there’s 631 images at or under Category:Unidentified locations in Spain. (Not to mention that among millions of uncategorized images, some are necessarily about a Spanish municipality.) Maybe that’s a good place to start? -- Tuválkin 00:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
We're trying there too, with little -but some- success. Thanks for the hint. B25es (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

New buttons and form controls in the watchlist[edit]

The new buttons and form controls take more space (more than 100px for me). Is it only me or do other users also have the feeling that especially the select (the dropdown) for the namespace selection is oversized and its entries have too much padding so usability is impaired on Desktop devices.

On the one hand, I need a Linux or Mac command line in order to contribute to MediaWiki's code base (and run the tests properly and having copy&paste available), on the other hand desktop usability is impaired with this change. -- Rillke(q?) 20:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with that. Smaller buttons and dropdown would better. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought I opted out of these ridonkulous style changes when I selected the Monobook skin. These cosmetic changes look horribly out of place in anything but Vector. Since they've obviously not been tested with other skins, why not just leave the other skins alone? LX (talk, contribs) 22:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The techies again seem to live in their own world, testing only their environment (skin) and not the others. Lost of space wasted for nothing (plain empty). --Denniss (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
If one wanted to get rid of inconvenient users who use outdated stuff like something without touch device, this would be the right strategy -- wear them down until they give up. -- Rillke(q?) 23:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
«If»…? -- Tuválkin 00:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I can assure you I tested this in MonoBook (c.f. phab:T99256#1486494), and it intentionally looks different in MonoBook and Vector - the styles in Vector clash much worse than the theme that is applied to MonoBook right now. It's not perfect, which is why we have bugs like T100300 to improve it. Legoktm (talk) 02:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow, so the clashing pastel coloured Duplo look is intentional! How many user complaints have there been about the "Mark all pages as visited" button not being green enough and the "Go" button not being blue enough? Why is so much time spent on nonsensical fiddling with things that aren't broken? There are so many other things that should have "drop everything else until it's fixed" priority: the Upload Wizard that never works, the lack of a derivative works upload process, the weird insistence on converting perfectly fine SVGs to PNGs with a severely crippled utility, category contents watch listing, and category move functionality... to name a few. LX (talk, contribs) 14:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I like nice and big buttons. This enhances usability quite a bit. --Sebari (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Ugh, ugly, too big, eeew. If some users want big buttons then make a new "Lego/Mickey Mouse" skin. A key buzzword for website design used to be "real estate", which was always at a premium; is this old fashioned in the tablet age? If there is research that shows users demand these buttons, then it is easy enough to have them pop up on demand rather than wasting a big chunk of everyone's watch-list screen. -- (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
phab:T107311 is tracking making the forms less spacy. Legoktm (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh good, I see the forced side-scrolling to get to the [Go] button on small monitors has already been mentioned there. Really, who thought that was a good idea? DMacks (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I dropped this into my monobook.css:

.oo-ui-buttonElement-framed.oo-ui-flaggedElement-constructive > .oo-ui-buttonElement-button {
   border: 1px solid #c9c9c9;
   background: #eee linear-gradient(to bottom, #fff 0%, #ddd 100%) repeat scroll 0% 0%;
}
.oo-ui-buttonElement-framed.oo-ui-flaggedElement-progressive > .oo-ui-buttonElement-button {
   border: 1px solid #c9c9c9;
   background: #eee linear-gradient(to bottom, #fff 0%, #ddd 100%) repeat scroll 0% 0%;
}
.oo-ui-buttonElement-framed > .oo-ui-buttonElement-button {
   padding: 0 0.4em;
}

It makes things a bit less hysterical. LX (talk, contribs) 14:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, LX. For what it's worth, I agree with the general sentiments expressed above by Rillke, LX and Fæ. Storkk (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

July 30[edit]

Ex post facto attribution on enwp imports[edit]

I have seen on several occasions an image that is uploaded to both enwp and Commons but wasn't transferred with a tool or bot. So the Commons attribution is not verifiable because there's no "original upload log" or any of the usual bot specifics of the license. If I go to correct this, it looks like I'm on my own to make a few manual edits. (Yes, if it's the same uploader/author, not a big deal, but I'm talking about other editors who import others' work manually.) Is there a tool or bot that can add the enwp "original upload" attribution info and fix the licensing details after the Commons import (ex post facto)? I haven't seen a document from either site on how to deal with these situations. – czar 04:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Found my answer: toollabs:magog/fileinfo.php generates the text just like I wanted. Help me circulate this tool so more people can see it? – czar 06:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Display problems[edit]

Can someone tell why this file is not displaying properly? File:US monthly wind capacity factor.svg
US monthly wind capacity factor.svg
It displays properly in http://tools.wmflabs.org/svgcheck/index.php Delphi234 (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


Same problem with this.
US Monthly Wind Generated Electricity.svg
It looks like this problem has been here for a month now. Delphi234 (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
On my machine the original SVG files render just fine. It looks like some sort of bug with the server-side process that produces PNG thumbnails from the original SVG files. —RP88 (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't say what's wrong but I can say that it also looks wrong when thumbnailed by the default currently installed version of rsvg on Toollabs. You can check this with User talk:Rillke/SVGedit.js (edit SVG, then preview). Perhaps it's due to 16:13 ori: depooled Precise image scalers (mw1159 / mw1160)to see if 2c9518ed78 helped. and we are running a new version of rsvg now? -- Rillke(q?) 07:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure how it displayed some time ago, but my first bet would have been some conflicting font-sizes in the uploaded files style id. Alexpl (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
These are all from the Template:SVG Chart and while it does not use any of the fonts we use, other files created from it do not have this problem. I see only 2 out of 127 that are affected. It does appear to be a change in how we do the rendering. Perhaps that can be fixed? Delphi234 (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Theater programs[edit]

Is there any category for theater programs? I see we have a Category:Concert programs, but its only parent is Category:Concerts. Also, it has a subcategory Category:Recital programs, but based on its current content that's a useless catch-all. I would think there would be a general Category:Event programs or some such, and that it would also have subcategories for programs for sporting events as well. - Jmabel ! talk 17:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • By the way, this is the file that prompted the question. - Jmabel ! talk 17:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)