Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
introduction
Help deskVillage pump
copyrightproposals
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


 

Thatched water pump at Aylsham, Norfolk [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


April 23[edit]

File:Enchiridion geistlicher Gesänge 28.jpg[edit]

and maybe more or even all files in Category:Enchiridion geistlicher Gesänge. The source's title is incorrect. It's not:

Enchiridion Oder eyn Handbuchlein, eynem yetzlichen Christen fast nutzlich bey sich zuhaben, zur stetter ubung unnd trachtung geystlicher gesenge, und Psalmen, Rechtschaffen unnd kunstlich vertheutscht. 1524 [books.google.com/books?id=5Ws9AAAAcAAJ]

but:

Eyn Enchiridion oder Handbüchlein. eynem ytzlichen Christen fast nutzlich bey sich zuhaben, zur stetter ubung unnd trachtung geystlicher gesenge und Psalmen, Rechtschaffen und kunstlich verteutscht. 1524 [cf. File:Enchiridion geistlicher Gesänge 01.jpg ]

w:en:Erfurt Enchiridion explains that there are two editions... -22:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.161.16.167 (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record, the reason that this post isn't archived is because the last comment (the one above me) was signed by User:SignBot and not the user itself, I'm adding this comment here so it could be properly archived, but as a subject unrelated to the above we should probably inform the operator of the bot that archives here that comments signed by SignBot are ignored so they could fix it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Just realised that this template exists, and since no-one else replied to it, I'm marking it as "resolved" to archive it more quickly. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

June 07[edit]

Block process[edit]

There appear to be some holes in the block process, as evidenced by the recent blocking of Rowan Forest. The issues are:

  • Premature blocking before understanding the nature of the issue.
  • Performing an indef block with a notice that provides no information about recourse.
  • Indep blocking the user's talk page and email acccess, so that they cannot even post an {{unblock}} request (mentioned at Appealing a block or send an email about this.

It would be helpful if Wikimedia could standardize the process across the board. Commons blocking is not the same process as English Wikipedia blocking, but the two sites are often frequented by the same editors. One key difference is the lack of a Commons Unblock Ticket Request System, while English Wikipedia does have one.

It would be helpful if the block notices provided information about recourse. And, be allowed to follow-up on commons, instead of sending an email which then could become a black hole and difficult to trace follow-up activity.

Blocks on Wikipedia can be accompanied by removal of talk page access, but built into the Wikipedia block templates is an automatic message if talk page access is denied, "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System."

Commons does not provide UTRS resolution. It would be consistent with policy allowing public access editing, to give a resolution recourse to that same public. Administrators make mistakes, and editors should have a recourse.

This was written by Maile66 and me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

oh User talk:Rowan Forest ?? yeah it is disappointing that we should see behavior like that of INeverCry. (which is a good negative example). i leave it to the admins to reflect on a proper standard of practice, even when very very sure. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 22:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The point here isn't to relitagate the discussions that are taking place on the AN or the user's talk page, but to discuss putting in place better processes. If there is a better example, I am happy to update the example used. As INeverCry was globally banned as a sockpuppet after a vote, is that really a better example?CaroleHenson (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Added info about blocking email, too. It's underlined above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Seems to me like we could pretty easily set up something parallel. Anyone with a reason not to? - Jmabel ! talk 23:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Question. At English Wikipedia, the Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System takes the user to Labs English Wikipedia Unblock Ticket Request System. There is additionally the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team supervised by the OTRS team. What is the equivalent (if any) at Commons? Maile66 (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Commons has an "info" queue on OTRS that relatively few agents have access to. I would imagine that would be the equivalent but OTRS is neither equipped or used to handling unblock requests. That is not generally in our remit. --Majora (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
That's what Guanaco mentioned here, but I wouldn't have even considered that as an option. The block notices don't say anything about that email address, though, as far as I can tell. clpo13(talk)
Actually, unblock appeals here are so rare (usually editors who are blocked are driveby editors, similar to en.wp NOTTHERE editors, or just obvious socks - we are not even required to add templates to the talk pages of blocked users) that we do not have a special team handling appeals, and I am sure we need one. I guess adding the mail of the OTRS team to the standard template would suffice. And indeed we should have it in the policies that users except for obvious socks who already demonstrated misuse of their talk page should not have their talk age access and e-mail access revoked.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson: Slowking4 mentioned INeverCry's conduct as an administrator which was less than fortunate, for example they blocked A Richard Malcolm because he didn't know that donating images from his book was considered "spamming" and He had no way to appeal the block, Wikimedia Commons needs to create a UTRS and the aforementioned case is just one of the many examples we have thanks to INeverCry. The problem is that once you're blocked and you can't use your talk page or e-mail (which seems to be the de facto standard for relatively new accounts) then you have no way to appeal User:Fæ told me that the IRC is for that but judging from my own negative experiences with the IRC that's like telling people to never edit Commons again. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, Donald Trung, that helps me understand the issue better!CaroleHenson (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The only time I remove talk page access on a blocked user's talk page at English Wikipedia, is for misuse of the talk page itself.
  • If the block itself was for edits on the talk page
  • If the blocked editor uses the talk page to continue the editing that got them blocked
  • Personal attacks, either on the talk page or its edit summaries
  • Using the talk page for a forum
Talk page access is often removed by request of another editor. But there has to be a reason for removing the talk page access, not an automatic action to accompany a blocking. It does not show good faith on the part of the project to remove talk page access without cause. In fact, it is counter-productive to the project's goals of open access to editing. Maile66 (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
As an example, there is an LTA posting here (you can check my talk page history, typically they post death threats once per week, for already couple of months). I started with just blocking, but the first several socks continued to post same death threats on their talk page (all of the known socks of this LTA were eventually globally locked). Then I started to simultaneously block tese socks on sight, together with talk page access revocation and e-mail block, and I do not see anything wrong with this approach. I never revoke TPA immediately on my own initiative unless it is a LTA with a proven ability to misuse the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
i would not count on any behavioral change by admins here. they are always right. and when a storm breaks about an action where they are misunderstood, then they lay low for a time, and then resume their behavior, only somewhat chastened. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Much as I would not count on any behavioral change by a contributor who always criticizes and never praises. - Jmabel ! talk 16:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
i have plenty of praise for the deserving. you set the tone for discussion here; you should not be surprised it is a cesspool; but let's just close the discussion, since you are not prepared to do anything about it. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposals[edit]

FYI, I stared a few proposals to address these issues. Regards, --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

~1,000 high-res van Gogh images[edit]

https://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/search/collection?q=&artist=Vincent%20van%20Gogh&pagesize=105Justin (koavf)TCM 00:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I know, we as a community do not agree with this, but the museum states in its terms of use: "Images of the Van Gogh Museum collection up to and including A4 size in TIF format may be downloaded and distributed for non-commercial use [...]." Just be aware of this. --Jcornelius (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
These files sure look familiar......
Overview of paintings in their collection at Wikidata:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Collection/Van Gogh Museum. Multichill (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I guess there are 2 issues: (1) do we have an image and (2) is our image at least the same quality as the one from vangoghmuseum. We do not have good quality measures (other than featured or valued image) but resolution + size can often be a reasonable proxy. I wonder if vangoghmuseum has some images with better quality (resolution) than ours. --Jarekt (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Reminds me that I actually implemented finding better images based on size. I'll re-run the Van Gogh Museum import and see what it picks up.
You might like list of higher resolution image suggestions too. Here you see that Tiffs are messing up the system, still have to add a penalty to these. Multichill (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Consultation on the creation of a separate user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS[edit]

CC: @Perhelion, Dschwen, Krinkle, Ebrahim, Jarekt: (*) We are affected by this. Means we have to request this at COM:BN once setup is done. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I occasionally was helping fulfill edit requests, but I was only handling trivial ones as I do not speak CSS/JS. I hope we will have some people who are comfortable editing CSS/JS to fulfill that role. --Jarekt (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I was always thinking about that level of trust and access to MediaWiki interface something that is making technical creativity possible so am worried the change and don't like it to be honest. I hope after the change Commons bureaucrat reinstate the right we just had without a bureaucratic process! :) −ebrahimtalk 08:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Best approach to upload photos[edit]

Hello everyone, allow me to firstly disclose that i work for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and i am currently in charge of helping the foundation embrace Wikipedia and other areas of Wikipedia. My first job is to update any photos about the foundation such as a new photo of the CEO. The current photo on the foundations page is an old photo and we want to upload a new more recent one. I was looking through the policy and protocols on how to and made sure to follow the correct steps but i have a few questions. Clearly any photo on the foundations website falls under copy right law which means Wikimedia commons will not allow it. So i did some searching on the FAQ sections and found an email template that i can give permission for these photos to be used. My question is, which approach would be best? emailing the admins of the wikimedia commons with the permission that allows the usage of the photos or can i, a RWJF, allow the free use of the imagines i upload? Any information would be greatly appreciated thank you DaP87 (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Most photos on Wikimedia Commons are copyrighted. However, they are also free-licensed, as described at COM:SCOPE#Must be freely licensed or public domain.
  • Does RWJF itself own the copyrights in question, or are they owned by the individual photographers? If the latter, this will get more complicated, because it will be the individual photographers' permission we will need.
  • Assuming RWJF itself owns the copyrights in question, then there are several ways to do this.
    • In all cases, you must first work out which license you want to use. I recommend {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. That allows you to specify a required attribution, and also is a "viral" license so that anyone who creates a derivative (e.g. a crop) must make their derivative available under the same license. (There's more to it, you may want to follow the link and read.)
    • From there on, there are three choices:
      1. RWJF can post the granting of this license on its own website, either where each photo is on the website or on a separate page. If the latter:
        • the page does not even have to be linked from elsewhere in RWJF's website.
        • the page should be clear about exactly what images are licensed.
        • we can make a specialized licensing template referencing that page (get hold of me and I can help). That can then be used when uploading the photos. (If the indication is on individual photos, then the source information itself covers this, and you could use just {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}.)
      2. Following the steps at COM:OTRS, RWJF can authorize you to upload on their behalf, as their agent in this matter; they should either state that you are authorized to upload their images under a specific license (again, I recommend {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}) or that you are trusted to choose appropriate licenses. We can then create a template specific to the resulting authorization.
      3. Following the steps at COM:OTRS, RWJF can authorize that specific photos (identified either by attaching thumbnails, giving URLs, or anything else unambiguous) are released under {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} (or whatever other appropriate license). You can then upload using {{OTRS pending}}.
- Jmabel ! talk 16:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
or they could upload to their flickr feed, make public with a creative commons license, not NC ND. https://www.flickr.com/photos/46576138@N08 https://www.flickr.com/photos/rwjf -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

July 13[edit]

Still-Existing White Background[edit]

Today, I went to http://www.malukuprov.go.id/index.php/selayang-pandang/2016-10-06-01-16-48, downloaded the huge provincial emblem from that page, removed the white background, and converted it into svg file with paint.net. After that, I uploaded the background-free emblem to Commons, which you can see here. I've checked the uploaded emblem and it doesn't have any background. But, when I put it on Wikipedia right here, the background still exist. What's wrong the file actually? Thank you. --Elbert Ziv Hitipeuw (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

It is a known bug. See phab:T198370. It is currently open and is being looked into. --Majora (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem occured since June 27 (after new release of MediaWiki), but no developers that solve this problem yet. Alqhaderi AliffianikoTalk 05:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

July 14[edit]

OSM[edit]

I have created File:LimassolZakakiMap.png using OpenStreeMap. I have only added the black line. Can anyone tell me that is that picture has a free license for commons? I want to create more of other areas and I have to be sure that I can upload them to commons. And please, can anyone correct the informations? I have added {{OpenStreetMap}} but I think with a wrong way. Xaris333 (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is alright. OpenStreetMap is freely licensed and can be used for your own maps. I have now edited the file page and corrected the template entries. De728631 (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Xaris333 (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

What questions concerning the strategy process do you have?[edit]

Hi!

I'm Tar Lócesilion, a Polish Wikipedia admin and a member of Wikimedia Polska. Last year, I worked for Wikimedia Foundation as a liaison between communities and the Movement Strategy core team. My task was to ensure that all online communities were aware of the movement-wide strategy discussion. This year, my task similar. Phase II of the strategy process was launched in April. Currently, future Working Groups members are being selected, and related pages on Meta-Wiki are being designed.

I’d like to learn, what questions concerning the strategy process would you like to be answered on the FAQ page? Please answer here, on my talk page, or on a dedicated talk page on Meta-Wiki. Thanks!

If you have any questions or concerns, please, do ask!

Thanks, SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Szymon, So many of us are dug deep onto trenches of the issues of the day, that it might be hard to think about multi-decade strategy. So one of the questions that should be answered would be why is thinking about long term strategy important, or why should we care? I think I can imagine some answers to those questions which are sufficient for me, but others might also wander. --Jarekt (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jarekt: brilliant! that's definitely a question that should be answered. Thank you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

July 15[edit]

The Caption Challange[edit]

Commons:Silly_things#Week_Ending_(Sunday_22nd_July_2018) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

"Low quality files"[edit]

@DCKH: This change seems to me like it has to be wrong on some level. Effectively, the file was moved from Category:Center pivot irrigation to a nonexistent Category:CPI low quality files. (1) I don't think a file should ever be moved from an existent category to a nonexistent one. (2) "CPI" is completely confusing. To me (and I think to most people) it means "Consumer Price Index", not "center pivot irrigation". (3) "Low quality" is an aesthetic judgement; I don't think the matter is clear in this case, but even if it is, that usually calls for a tag template, not complete removal from topical categories. Even if Category:CPI low quality files is made a subcat of Category:Center pivot irrigation, it seems to me tremendously subjective to pull out a subcat on the basis of someone finding an image to be "low quality"; I believe things like this are likely to do more to anger and alienate contributors than to help users. - Jmabel ! talk 18:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel, Taivo: {{wrong white balance}} - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I've lost my internet connection after starting this. I simply wasn't finished!--DCKH (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@DCKH: That quite sufficiently answers my first point. - Jmabel ! talk 21:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Looking at your source File:Aerial view of farms in Central Washington 01.jpg, were you shooting through clouds?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Not as such, but of course there is moisture in the air. If you've ever shot with a somewhat automated white balance in your camera from about 5-6 miles up, this is par for the course. Normally I either equalize, darken, or apply some similar process to such shots. - Jmabel ! talk 01:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
That particular shot is from nearly a decade ago, when I knew less than I know now about how best to post-process these. - Jmabel ! talk 01:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

July 16[edit]

PD-textlogo?[edit]

We added PD-textlogo to many Logos (for example this) and I thing the Wp-Logo is PD-textlogo too, because it only show ineligible things: an white puzzle, a ball and letters. If nobody disagree with me I will added this Template in three days. Please discuss this under File talk:Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg#PD-textlogo?. Habitator terrae (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-29[edit]

16:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

New Watchlist[edit]

For those that don't like the new Watchlist - Go to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist, Scroll to the bottom and tick " Hide the improved version of the Watchlist". –Davey2010Talk 18:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Start your 500px importing please[edit]

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2018/07#The 500px website will delete all its photos under Creative Commons license

@Okki, Donald Trung, Shizhao, Rodrigo.Argenton: and anyone else: please import whatever you like that is in scope and has a compatible license (Commons:Where is the license on various sites?#500px) from https://500px.com/. Let me now beforehand if you want to import more than 2000 pictures. If you can't import right now, dump links on Commons talk:500px licensing data. Note: I will NOT import anything for you, but tables can be made in advance. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  • @Alexis Jazz: believe me, I really wish that I could help with importing but as of today I can edit using the mobile editor again so I'll be uploading a lot of files 📁 that I wanted to upload 2 (two) weeks ago. Is there a way we could mass-archive all images to import later? Just look at when Google deleted all Panoramio images and Wikimedians saved a lot of them and many of them are now used in featured articles and can be found for educational purposes on this site to be used outside of Wikimedia projects, if I had the time I would've loved to help. Face-sad.svg --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: can you recruit others? Face-angel.svg - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I wish, Wikimedia Commons is heavily understaffed, there are literally millions of images from museums around the world released with a free license that could've easily been imported if Wikimedia Commons' community had the size of Wikipedia's, you could post it to village pumps like here or on other projects (I'm not allowed to post this on Wikipedia, you are and as these images are often very useful for articles I would advise you to), unfortunately almost every area of Wikinedia Commons is understaffed and having software 👩‍💻 similar to Flickr2Commons for these kinds of imports would be most preferred but unless a universal internet import tool would be written it's highly unlikely that we'll get many mass-importers at the level of to do these kinds of things. Face-sad.svg --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: Before you start uploading pictures, what is your plan for ensuring useful filenames, descriptions, and categorization for every single imported file, and for checking that every file is actually in scope and useful before import? Commons has hundreds of thousands of imported files from flickr, Panoramio, Unsplash, etc that are out of scope and/or lacking any information to make them searchable. That needs to be proactively prevented with any 500px import. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

July 17[edit]

Copyright law template[edit]

Hi. Can someone here help to update Indonesian copyright law? The discussion at Template talk:PD-IDGov#Outdated just don't go well. Note that the current law from 2014 replaced the old law from 2002. Thanks. Hddty. (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the 2014 Indonesian Law No. 28 concerning Copyright was discussed in the the talk, but it doesn't meet any concensus, and no one can edit the template because it is protected..... Alqhaderi AliffianikoTalk 13:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Link in red[edit]

For some reason I find all the links to the images in red, in the Watchlist, in the pages of category, discussion, etc, and I do not know why, I tried to disable all the accessories and purge the cache, but nothing changed. MONUMENTA Discusión 01:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@MONUMENTA: Have you tried different browsers, logging out, and using the old watchlist? Did your CSS or JS change recently?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Jeff G. ツ
The links to images appear in red besides the Watchlist, in the discussion pages, contributions ...
I have tried other browsers, removing all the changes in my pages css and .js and the links are still red
If I do not log in with my account, the problem does not occur. MONUMENTA Discusión 13:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@MONUMENTA: You may want to follow mw:How to report a bug.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you help us review images for Wiki Loves Monuments UK 2018?[edit]

Hi all

Wikimedia UK is supporting the annual Wiki Loves Monuments contest again this year, and I am looking for 20-25 volunteers to help review and filter the entries.

The contest finishes at the end of September, with reviewing and judging taking place immediately after that. We normally have several rounds of reviewing during October, enabling us to reduce the expected 10,000+ entries down to a long list of a few hundred from which the winners are selected by our panel of judges.

You'd need to be able to commit to a minimum of 5-8 hours online reviewing, spread out over the month of October. As reviewing is done online, volunteers can be based anywhere in the world and you don't need to have any UK connections. We’re not looking for expert photographers, but you should have a basic ability to be able to distinguish a good photograph from a poor or mediocre one. Training in the online reviewing software is available.

If you are able to help, or if you'd like more information, please let me know either here, on Wikipedia, or by email. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

  1. I am not a photographer, but I think I can weed out poor images. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Have emailed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

July 18[edit]

Fill with color issue[edit]

  1. I create a red shape with MS Paint.
  2. If I use Fill with color, all the shape change color.
  3. I upload the image to commons.
  4. I download the image from commons and open it with MS Paint.
  5. If I use Fill with color, not all the shape change color.

Why this happen? Is the same image...

Xaris333 (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

  • In what format was the file saved? - Jmabel ! talk 04:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • And how exactly did you download it? Are you certain you downloaded the original image file and not one of the scaled-down preview-images? Can you link an example file at commons? --El Grafo (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect but uncontested requests for deletion of files[edit]

I notice that some users request deletion of semi-anonymous works, even though the age of the work is over 70 years. Target of the deletion requests are pictures dating from World War II. Example of a motivation for such a deletion request: „It is not clear who the author of the picture is is, so we can't say if the picture is open for public domain (that's only the case if he/she died before 1948)” Whoever wrote this as a motivation isn't aware of the Wikimedia Commons policy for semi-anonymous works from the European Union. I would like to refer to Template:PD-anon-70-EU for an explanation on the Wikimedia Commons policy on this subject. Problem seems to be that no-one contests these deletion requests. An other big problem is that the requests are often not submitted properly. Some are without any user signature and/or without motivation. Consequence of filing an incomplete deletion request seems to be that the uploader doesn't receive an automatic notification on his/her User Talk page. And if you are not aware of a request for deletion of a file you uploaded, how can you contest it? And why are moderators honoring these incorrectly submitted deletion requests? --oSeveno (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Please note that there is a difference between this work was published anonymously and we don't know the author. Very common scenario:
  1. Somebody makes a scan of a photograph that was taken during WW2 (say, in 1945) and later published in a book. A proper attribution is actually available in the book, possibly right next to the image or possibly in a dedicated section at the beginning or end.
  2. That scan is put on a private website with some information about what is displayed and that this picture was taken in 1945. However, the person scanning the picture and running the website does not bother to name the photographer or their source (because they don't care or don't know better or rely on fair use or …).
  3. Somebody finds that picture on the private website, find it useful and uploads it to Commons claiming {{PD-anon-70-EU}} (or, most of the time actually just {{PD-Art}} without parameters, which then defaults to {{PD-old-70}} …) and lists the website as a source.
See the problem? --El Grafo (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, if you read the text of {{PD-anon-70-EU}} carefully, it is quite clear that this is not intended as a loophole for what you call "semi-anonymous" works of the type "we don't know the author but it looks pretty old so it must be free". --El Grafo (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Copyright / recent coins[edit]

Are the images in Category:Coins of Bangladesh copyright violations? Jc86035 (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You need to dig into copyright law of Bangladesh. Commons:Currency doesn't contain information about Bangladesh. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Someone at Commons:Village pump/Copyright might have a better idea, you might ask there. - Jmabel ! talk 15:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Help with image source[edit]

This image File:Halfcrossstitch-revised.png which I copied from English Wikipedia has a "missing source" warning even though it's a derivative of an image already in Commons. What is the best way to correct this? - PKM (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I did some cleanup, but the license is still wrong, because it contradicts the license of the work from which it is derived. You can't put something in the public domain if it is derivative work from something that is not PD. - Jmabel ! talk 22:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I doubt that the changes by en:User:Ceola amount to anything copyrightable, but it would still be best to have that person grant a compatible license. Failing that, I think it would be OK to pick any or all of the licenses from the original work, since it was clearly Ceola's intent put his/her own modifications in the public domain. You might permalink this discussion and put that link in the talk page to explain the rationale. - Jmabel ! talk 22:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I've sent email to en:User:Ceola and asked him to join the discussion. - PKM (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

July 19[edit]

Sand Water disambiguation[edit]

Please all, help to invent suitable disambiguation for ca 10 lakes named "Sand Water". All of them are in Shetland. At least 4 of them have their photos on Commons already. Please join the discussion Category talk:Sand Water, Shetland. --ŠJů (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Videos with hardsubs[edit]

Is there currently any category tree for videos that have hardsubs on them. I was looking to categorise File:World Post Day 2014 message (Arabic).ogv, it is in English with Arabic subtitles. This time I used Category:Arabic language, but I think it's way too imprecise. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Linking to Commons categories[edit]

Hi, anybody hanging around who is able to confirm that linking to commons categories like this user keeps doing, is not the correct way? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Technically it's fine. Whether you want to link to Commons categories in a description or Wikipedia articles is a matter to discuss, there is no rule against either way, it just depends on where you want to send the reader. -- (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Evrik (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Lotje (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@Lotje, Evrik, : My opinion (and IMHO prevalent consensual usage) is that description texts should link preferably to Wikipedia articles (if such one doesn't exist in the corresponding language, a link to the Commons category is the second choice), while Commons disambiguation category-pages should link to Commons categories as items of the disambiguation. Many things on Commons are given not by written rules but by consensual usage and common sense – but implacable long-standing discrepancies or not much sensitive co-workers can also occur, regrettably. The dilemma above is not fatal, also the "worse" choice is acceptable, however it is not gracious to wrestle for it by edit wars. --ŠJů (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd say that linking within {{en}} or other language templates should be to something specific to that language, and thus can be to a wikipedia article, but outside of such templates wikipedia should be a fall back, and I would try to link (and expect a link that others put to go to) either Commons or Wikidata (if no Commons page/category is present), because they are language neutral. In other words, unless a person states something about their language abilities, do not make that presumption. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 02:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@ŠJů: @Gone Postal: very much appreciate your comments. Thank you! Lotje (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Outside of this case, due to the highly varied nature of our collections and their potential applications, it is more beneficial to avoid strong rules for the format of category pages. There are conventions for how categories for cities, regions, periods in history and animal species are laid out, including multilingual interwiki links, but if enthusiasts for vintage blue and white ceramics want to create special templates and indexes, it is better for the improvement of this project to avoid bureaucratic policies or guidelines becoming a barrier to smart presentation of the information.
One of the potential difficult discussions we may have about wikidata populated infoboxes in categories, is how this forces a standard style on all categories, regardless of the nature of their contents. -- (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

July 20[edit]

Collective works[edit]

This 4 June 1927 page holds work by Maurice Levaillant (1883–1961).

There seems to be a lack of a clear Wikimedia position on en:Collective works. These are publications like newspapers, magazines or encyclopedias where the publisher assembles and publishes as a whole the work of several authors. In most jurisdictions the authors retain copyright over their own contributions, which they may publish separately, but the publisher has rights over the work as a whole and may publish fresh editions without needing the consent of all the authors.

Typically the copyright in the collective work expires 70 years after publication, and the work may then be reproduced as a whole without violating copyright. An author's contribution may not be published outside the original context of the collective work without permission of the author. Courts have decided that a publisher may display an accurate reproduction of a magazine on a website, with the original layout, advertisements etc., but may not display the articles in a different format, with a new layout, ads etc. without the permission of the authors

The position of the Bibliotheque nationale de France is typical. They consider a newspaper to be a collective work that enters the public domain on 1 January of the year after the 70th anniversary of publication. In 2005 they launched a massive digitization program focused on the national daily press for works published up to 1944, with the results made publicly available on their Galica website. Authorities in other countries have taken a similar position and provide digitized images of out-of-copyright collective works in which the individual contributions may still protected by copyright.

There may be two reasons why Commons should not accept page images of collective works:

  1. The image shows just one page, rather than the work as a whole, so the contributions are not shown in the full context of the original collective work. Typically the sites that present digitized copies of collective works present the work as a whole, including all pages.
  2. We prefer to avoid restrictions on use of media, but publishing an image cropped out of a page like the Le Figaro example to the right could violate copyright even if the page image is out of copyright.

The first objection, if valid, could be handled if Commons published images of all the pages in the collective work chained together. The second is perhaps more relevant. Either way, clear position statement would be useful. Wikimedia Commons has many examples of pages from collective works where the authors have not all been dead for 70 years. Should we

A. Delete all page images from collective works that may contain copyrighted content, and publish a guideline clarifying our position? or
B. Tag these pages with a template warning of the restrictions on use of pages from collective works, and publish a guideline clarifying our position?

Aymatth2 (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments (collective works)[edit]

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep and tag if it is unclear. The restriction is similar to stamps (which I upload reasonably often). In many countries stamps can be in public domain, but you are not allowed to crop out a part of the stamp. Take a look at File:Stamp-russia2000-rukavishnikov-nikulin-block.png, if you were to crop out the image of the monument, it would definitely not be in public domain. You must retain the original layout keeping the country, the price, and the year. Yes, the copyright laws are very messy (and intentionally so) and on this issue there seems to be no explicit commons policy yet. But on the issue of stamps the argument seems to be exactly the same and it seems that the community's opinion is to respect such "non-croppable" public domain works. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 02:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Doesn't that technically mean that you are not free to modify the stamp however you want? which would defeat the purpose of being in the "public domain", I honestly have trouble understanding how something as a whole is freely licensed but something in part isn't. I understand laws such as Commons:De minimis, but if every part of an image is unfree except for the image as a whole, then how is it "free"? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-German stamps.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jeff G.: I am sorry, I think that you have linked the wrong DR or something, because that one isn't relevant to the discussion... or I am completely missing something. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 03:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Gone Postal: These collective works and Russian stamps prohibit cropping just like German stamps, and are therefore not free enough for the same reasons.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Ok, so German stamps discussion had nothing to do with this. I will assume it was just a mistaken reading of something there on your part. As for your argument it definitely goes against such things as COM:DM, COM:Stamps, and probably other long established community opinions. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 03:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Maybe the Figaro page is a poor example. It went out of copyright in France on 1 January 1998. Not sure about the USA. Assume for the sake of argument it is out of copyright in France and the USA as a collective work, but contains images that are still copyrighted as stand-alone works. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
This went out of copyright in France in 1985. Before 1996, the copyright term was 50 years + war extension (8 years). So it is free of URAA.
Under French law, it is called a collective work if individual authors can't be named. So for all content which the authors are not mentioned, the publication date matters. Otherwise, it is from the author's date of death.
The article "Victor Hugo « avant sa naissance »" is by Maurice Levaillant (1883-1961), so it is not in the public domain in France. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
are you asserting that byline authors are not "work for hire"? were they not paid for their work? will you now presume that noone was paid, because you are not? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Work for hire" is not simply a matter of whether you get paid (although that is one requirement). Most freelancers are not doing "work for hire": the publisher effectively licenses the right to use the work (often with very specific limitations), but there is no transfer of copyright. Offhand, the only times I've ever done photography on a "work for hire" basis have been when I was taking photos to accompany a commissioned article I was writing for a magazine, and even then I can come up with examples where they didn't have that stipulation & all they wanted were (for example) a one-year exclusive. - Jmabel ! talk 20:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Revista CRÓNICA 13-12-1931 Fermín Galán y A. Garcia Hernández fusilados.jpg. To make it short: Under Spanish law, IMHO if you can individualize authors, it is not a obra colectiva. For example, an old periodical with its contributors named "in bulk" in the first page (or an encyclopedia) is a obra colectiva. A newspaper page with articles (or pictures) signed by "John Frankson" and "Frank Johnson" at each article's footer is not. strakhov (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
A few points.
  • In most countries a collective work is something like a newspaper, magazine or encyclopedia where the publisher pulls together contributions from a number of authors into the overall work.
  • It is usually not relevant whether a contributor to a collective work is named. They still retain the rights to their contribution. But the publisher has rights to the collective work as a whole: it is not jointly owned by all the people who contributed to it.
  • There is nothing in any country's law that says a newspaper is not a collective work if it prints bylines. Why would any newspaper print bylines if that were so? Who would own the rights to print a new edition of a newspaper if it were not a collective work?
  • A "work for hire" in the USA refers to a work made by an employee as a routine part of their job, such as an article written by a newspaper reporter. Other jurisdictions often do not have the concept. The reporter or photographer retains rights to their story or picture, but obviously not to the whole newspaper.
Aymatth2 (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If we delete these files because you can not crop them as you like, then we probably also have to delete every single file tagged with {{De minimis}}. --El Grafo (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Question, do the individual authors still retain their copyright © or is it transferred to the institution that publishes it? Unrelated but similar question, who legally owns the copyright © of Mickey Mouse? Walt Disney, the (dead) person or Walt Disney, the company? I know that some creators contractually transfer copyright © to their employers. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
As a rule the individual authors retain the rights to their contributions, and can reproduce their contributions in, for example, an anthology of their work. They do not have rights to the collective work as a whole, which is owned by the publisher. The collective work generally goes out of copyright after 70 years. In the USA a work for hire, created by an employee as part of their job, is owned exclusively by the publisher. If Mickey Mouse is a work for hire, it is owned by The Walt Disney Co.. If not, the artist(s) who created the character own it, but a collective work that uses it such as the film Fantasia (1940) is owned by The Walt Disney Co.. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for free image removal on Kallima inachus[edit]

Hello Wikimedia Commons. I need the removal of this image from the page, since I downloaded a similar and more centralized image. I apologize for the technical detail. Mário NET (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  • @Mário NET: If you go to the bottom of the page of the image, you can see "Upload a new version" link. You can just click and follow instructions. Thanks for improving uploads. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 12:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Do You consider File:Kallima inachus darker illustration.jpg as a better duplicate of Kallima inachus (dry season form).jpg? --ŠJů (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I added a {{duplicate}} template with a link to this discussion there. --ŠJů (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's my fault, I'd like the removal of this image. I hope it is not a big problem that I have caused. The illustration "(dry season form)" is bigger and darker, this one I think should stay. But it is not my last decision. Mário NET (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Just a question about edit here[edit]

Hello everyone from this page. I wonder if I could inform in some chat about what I want to edit or import to the page so that this content can be discussed before my action can cause damage. It is only to discuss if this can be allowed to avoid work by others. Mário NET (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mário NET:, well you could try your luck at one of the Wikimedia Commons Internet Relay Chat channels. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Travel diary from the Rivonia Trial[edit]

editors should be aware that there was a big announcement of a Mandela diaries donation at Wikimania. how you dispose of your copyright concerns will have a high visibility in this case. see also [5] [6] -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

July 21[edit]