Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:Village Pump)
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 ↓
Village pumps for other languages:

বাংলা | Alemannisch | العربية | asturianu | авар | Boarisch | bosanski | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 |  | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | मराठी | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | suomi | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | Zazaki | +/−

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


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

Template: View • Discuss • Edit • Watch


The problem with the Picture Challenge interface[edit]

I think this issue has been mentioned before , but I have to mention it again.
The voting and submission page for it is not good.

For the Submission page , what happens is that at times I get 'Section does not exist' error , at other times someone may mistakenly upload it to the Examples section. Here , a better interface based on POTY should be implemented instead.

For the voting page ,

  1. It is not straightforward and error-prone.
  2. Users easily tend to click the place where users have already voted.
  3. Why can't we just customize the POTY page for this Picture Challenge - it is much better in layout and usability. Users' comments can be seen at the end of the voting process when the results are declared.

Why is this not being fixed? --Leaderboard (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

That's probably because setting up something like this requires coding skills the people behind the Photo Challenge don't have, and the people who do have those skills have many other important things to do. But I'm not even sure if anyone has ever asked them directly → @Rillke: what's your opinion on this? Do you think it might be possible to re-use some of the POTY magic for the Photo Callenges? --El Grafo (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
To be frank, I was always under the assumption Photo Challenge and QI, VI and FP people liked the way they were running their contests and the people who run these contests must be happy with what they have; E.g. do they want a straightforward process, at all? While we continuously increased voting volume in POTY, I wouldn't say we increased real "participation". In fact the committee almost died this year, we had to postpone things, didn't manage to announce results properly; even though things were a lot easier for us compared to last years. If someone comes up with a good concept of how things in Photo Challenge could work (including making it easier for new photographers), I guess there will be someone willing to put a few lines together. A good concept would of course not only be something roughly described in 4 sentences but a complete draft including UI, flow, considerations about that, comparison with the old process, and ideas how to gradually implement it. If the final, desired state can be achieved in small steps it's more likely to be successful. -- Rillke(q?) 12:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I assumed that there weren't sufficient users who had enough skill/free-time/motivation to write a good "end-user-experience" for Photo Challenge. Running the POTY looks like an awful lot of work, even though it has a nicer UI. So that model doesn't really work for something run every month. But PC is too reliant on me running some programs on my PC to generate voting pages and calculate results -- that needs better automated and shared. If someone is interested in coding a better photo challenge (submission, voting, validation, results) then get in touch with me and we can figure out how to get there. I keep meaning to ask if WMF have any developer time to give to this. Photo Challenge isn't the only forum with problems here: QI review is an edit-conflict nightmare, and the presentation of Commons search results and category listings leaves an awful lot to be desired. Plenty areas to improve Commons if WMF want to spend some money or volunteers want a project.
In the meantime, there are probably some quick fixes that might help. -- Colin (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I think PC is a bit different from things like FPC etc. in that it actually seems to attract a comparatively high amount of "new" users and thus I think it could really benefit from a simpler, one-click interface for submitting and voting. One year ago it was basically just a let's see if people like this at all thing, so not too much energy was spent on building the technical backbone. I think by now PC has proven to be attractive and it's time to think about how to make it run more efficiently. I guess some combination of clever bots and templates could possibly do most of the stuff that currently runs on Colin's PC. The good thing is: unlike FPC etc. PC doesn't have any specialized bots yet that would crash a whole system because of small changes ;-) If you consider the last ~1.5 years as an alpha test, now we've got the chance to "do it right" straight from the beginning.
I'm not good with templates, bots and stuff like that, but if we can gather a small team of interested/skilled people, I'd be happy to share some ideas and work on a joint concept. --El Grafo (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Rillke: , I could probably formulate a UI design for this , but could I have a design copy of the POTY interface so that I could play a bit with it and try for a better design for the Picture Design? As for the coding part , I am no expert on it , with me knowing only VisualBasic and some HTML. Thanks.--Leaderboard (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Should we create a subpage for coordinating/discussing this? Something like Commons:Photo challenge/UI overhaul? --El Grafo (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan.
@Leaderboard: These are the things I learned first :) With copy you mean "live copy" that is actually running? Do you permit me to install it in your user namespace? -- Rillke(q?) 12:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@El Grafo: , Not a bad idea , but if such a method is used , prominent notices should be displayed so that more users can participate.
@Rillke: , Yes , I'm looking for the "live copy" that you are talking about. I'm fine with installing it on my user namespace. , but I am a little confused on how it would work on my userspace.--Leaderboard (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: Here we go: Your common.js contains the code loading the configuration and main program code. If you need to disable the application, just empty your common.js. If possible, please make changes to the configuration only. Configuration members will override any value sharing the same key in the main script, so it is also possilbe to re-implement functions. Feel free to adjust the style sheet as you desire. Start viewing the gallery for voting or viewing an individual voting page. I suggest ignoring the 2014/R2 and similar first and revisiting this after you completed a working process. Good luck. Any specific questions welcome. -- Rillke(q?) 15:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Rillke: , Thanks , I've done a little bit of changes to the interface(see my userpage , I've kept a log there).
However , I have a question here. I am able to see the votelist , which does not seem to be expected. Is the interface in the vote-only mode or is it in the mode designed for counting? .--Leaderboard (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The list of voters was also available during POTY. Votes are publicly recorded, like almost everything in this wiki. For counting, I had a different script that was verifying each single diff on the pages where vots are collected. I also see that you want to introduce a point system. This will be a little workload. background-image: url("//"); will most likely not work because this is the file description page and not the raw image which can be found on {{filepath:3.svg}} (// Using SVGs directly however, will render the application incompatible with older browsers, notably IE 8 which is still sitting on lots of Windows XP systems. -- Rillke(q?) 23:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Rillke: , When I replaced all instances of POTY with PC(with some additional minor changes) in the main JS file, the app broke. Can you tell why?(accessible in the history page)--Leaderboard (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You should definitely know what which change will cause, a simple find and replace operation is not really necessary here. The solution is: You have a problem you would like to "fix" (e.g. POTY appears somewhere in the text) and you address this issue specifically. Also some JavaScript debugging skills would be of help; for example, open your browser's JS console (Ctrl+ Shift+K; F12 on IE) and you'll see a pile of debugging messages created by the POTY script and thus you see where it errors-out. One thing that would for sure cause breaking it was replacing potyconfig with pcconfig while forgetting to adjust it here. -- Rillke(q?) 15:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Rillke/Leaderboard, can I suggest you post something to Commons talk:Photo challenge and perhaps create a sub-page of that project to work on design/changes. I assume these experiments aren't ready for May's voting/submission and are a work in progress or prototypes. Feel free to question any part of the current process/arrangement. Thanks for your help. -- Colin (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Error in metadata viewer?[edit]

Hi, in many of my latest uploads, I find that the display of the exif metadata of selected fields are wrong on the file page and deviate from what other tools tell me. I use Lightroom to edit metadata before exporting and have done so for some time without any problems of this kind, e.g., this file has displayed metadata as intended. One such example of wrong display is File:Sarcophagus of Louise of Great Brittain, Roskilde Cathedral, Denmark, 2015-03-31-4813.jpg (✓ fixed), where the Camera manufaturer, camera model and copyright holder fields as displayed are wrong. However, if I use Jeffrey Friedl's Exif Viewer on the same file, the EXIF looks correct and identical to the ones I have in Lightroom. I conclude that there must be some special cases of EXIF data, which the metadata viewer on Mediawiki does not render correctly. In my latest uploads the 'caption' field in the metadata has often included the "'" character, e.g., "...Frederick IX's Chapel...", but not always. Anyone understand what is going on?-- Slaunger (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Tracked. --McZusatz (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, McZusatz. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Slaunger: Its due to a bug in php's exif support (Its triggered in files where the values for the exif tags come before the list of tags contained in the file). Until the bug is fixed, one potential way to work around it using exiftool is the following command: exiftool -TagsFromFile input.jpg -all:all temp.mie; exiftool input.jpg -all=; exiftool -TagsFromFile temp.mie -all:all input.jpg. (Assuming input.jpg is the name of your image file). Bawolff (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bawolff: Thanks for the hint. Not immediately applicable for me as I am on a Windows system, but I managed to use your input to setup a process, which works for my OS.
It is described here.
It can probably be done much more elegantly, as I am not that familiar with making batch scripts for Windows, but here goes
1. I downloaded the Windows executable of ExifTool by Phil Harvey and unzipped it into a C:\Tools\ folder.
2. After unzipping, I have an executable file C:\Tools\exiftool-9.93\exiftool(-k).exe
3. In the file explorer, select the file name, press F2 and rename it exiftool.exe
4. Open a text editor, e.g. NotePad, and copy the following into a new file
C:\Tools\exiftool-9.93\exiftool.exe -TagsFromFile %1 -all:all temp.mie
C:\Tools\exiftool-9.93\exiftool %1 -all=
C:\Tools\exiftool-9.93\exiftool -TagsFromFile temp.mie -all:all %1
5. Save the file as, e.g., mwfixexif.bat on, e.g., your desktop
6. From a file explorer drag and drop individual files which has this problem onto the batch file on the desktop.
7. After running the script, the original "some file name".jpg is replaced by a new file of the same name, with EXIF data, which can be formatted correctly in mediawiki. The original file is kept as "some file name".jpg_original in the same folder.
I have used this procedure with success on this, this, and this, and will continue updating my other files, which have bad rendering of EXIF data in the mediawiki file page viewer.
There appears to be a correlation between this change I am experiencing and the emergence of a new LightRoom major version.
The batch file can probably be made much smarter. Feel free to improve it! -- Slaunger (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Filtering Category-views by license?[edit]


Wikimedia Commons has become a fairly useful resource for "stock photos" other than just for usage on wikipedia projects etc., but when browsing the repository for images to be used in projects the mix of licensing schemes is a constant nuisance that makes it hard to find a usable set of images with compatible licenses.

Especially when selecting images to create a "collage" of various images, such as showing two or more similar looking species of animals side by side or some such, it is often necessary to use images that have the exact same license as the various Creative Commons licenses are not at all as compatible as one would think/like them to be (cannot combine a CC-BY-SA and a CC-NC-SA into one collage with CC-BY-NC-SA for example as the resulting license would be more restrictive than the originals). Mostly your best bet is to use either PD/CC0 only, or select one important/scarce image with a different license and select all others with the exact same license and/or PD/CC0 to assemble the rest.

So the question is: How do I filter a category view on wikimedia commons to give me things like "only PD images" or "only CC-BY" or some such? I'm aware of the search option "hastemplate:" as in Coccinella hastemplate:PD-layout, but it's really not comparable to "browsing" the categories with a filter set to something equivalent.

If the software doesn't support this, wouldn't that be a useful feature to add?

Cheers, Pudding4brains (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Intersecting content and license categories using FastCCI is the most "comfortable" method I know of; you are not the first or only only having (IMO rightly so) suggested to introduce such a filter to category pages.    FDMS  4    17:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that looks promising - will check it out. Thanks for the useful pointer! :o) Cheers, Pudding4brains (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
There’s also MediaWiki:Gadget-advanced-search.js: it allows filtering by license (though still a bit rough around the edges). -- Tuválkin 15:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

April 27[edit]



Do you know what's the status of {{PD-France}}? Even though there's a sign at the top of the page advising not to use it, as it is still being discussed, it is in use de facto in thousands of files. Can we remove the message from the top of the page? Thanks in advance, Ldorfman (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Right. There wasn't any discussion for the last 2 years, so I removed the warning. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Ldorfman (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
On the talk page it was mentioned that there is a large overlap with {{PD-old-70}} and {{Anonymous-EU}} → do we need this at all? Personally, I'm not a big fan of those "one of the following reasons" templates, as they tend to be a bit unspecific. --El Grafo (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I usually don't use this template, but there is at least one case where it could be useful: work for hire. The rules are different among European countries, and we have quite a lot of images from French agencies for which the current templates are not very suited. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

April 28[edit]

Image release on Facebook[edit]

Presumably this:

(public access, no Facebook account required) is acceptable? How should it be tagged? Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

With both licenses given. -- (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I meant in terms of noting that the licence have been verified at the source; as we do for Flickr. Andy Mabbett (talk) 06:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
A license reviewer can use {{LicenseReview}}, which allows for any source website. As we rarely batch import from Facebook, there is probably no need to create a specific template for it. -- (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
See comment on this facebook page (which is in public access), it's acceptable license CC-by-SA or
You can take the wider version (that can be zoomed)
Please do not refer publicly to the facebook page
Taken on april 2015
It is the source of the photo, you can check the owner on google
I don't want to open a wp account just for upload one photo, it's why I asked help
This photo is for pages about the french village of (at least for the french one)
Cheers 12:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
La vache!…
To best convey the original’s licensing we can have this:
{{License Review}}
-- Tuválkin 13:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and uploaded File:Vache@Ligardes.jpg, but the source (for both the image and the permission statement) had to be the mentioned facebook page. -- Tuválkin 13:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Issue with its licensing[edit]

Please note that "CC BY-SA" is not a license and we can't just "assume" under what license copyright holders intended to release their work.    FDMS  4    23:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this because the CC BY-SA version number was not expressed in the release statement? -- Tuválkin 23:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
   FDMS  4    nods. 20:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Fishing expedition (or milking, in the case of this photo), sorry, not helpful and pointy. The licencer refered to «CC-by-SA» on a given date (last week); it stands to reason that the current version of this license is implied (4.0).
There are problems with this latest version of CC licenses, or so I heard, and I’d probably agree with those calling shanennigans on it, but this kind of low-intensity, random boycotting is ineffective and deterimental to the project (will someone think of the cows!!). Lets (try to) fix the problems with CC licenses in the appropriate venue instead.
Just to keep this one covered, though, I’ll ask the author in fb which version he intended. -- Tuválkin 01:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if that's what you meant, but I can assure you that I'm not boycotting anything but supporting almost everything (excluding The List) coming from CC, and only transmitted what I've been told by other Commons users (including but not limited to those who were involved in the deletion of my transferral of this video) and in #creativecommons (back then still #cc).    FDMS  4    02:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
What I mean is that it is simply disingenuous not to assume that, in the absence of a version number, a clear and obvious attempt to refer to a CC license is rendered invalid, instead of assuming that the most recent version was implied.
You’re saying that everytime someone writes "CC by-sa" or "CC by" while neglecting to add a version number, that licensing is invalid and should be ignored by Commons. You need to bring that to a higher forum and stop using this one photo (or any individual case) as the testing ground for such a novel doctrine of licensing implementation.
-- Tuválkin 12:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm saying that this is how all such cases I've read about (not few) have been dealt with on Commons. Not going to search all VP archives for previous discussions as I wouldn't know what term to use, but I'm sure there have been some.    FDMS  4    16:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

April 30[edit]

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Flipperfoxfoxmike[edit]

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me.The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#Flipperfoxfoxmike Thank you! Jalexander--WMF 11:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Broad reaching precedent?[edit]

It seems to me that Commons:Deletion requests/Klingon costumes and props is raising issues that may affect many many other images so I'd like to invite a broad swath of the Commons community to give it some thought and share opinions. --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

May 01[edit]

Just wondering?[edit]

Why is .mp4,.wav,or .flv files not allowed on Wikimedia?Doorknob 747 (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

.wav is allowed. .mp4 is not allowed because MPEG-LA holds some patents on it, and in principle we want anyone who uses our files to be able to create a media player. (Actual situation with mp4 is kind of shades of grey and complicated. For example the debian project considers the patent threat for that format not really significant. Much of the concern surrounding mp4 is all the fear uncertainty and doubt surrounding it. Its hard to get a straight for sure answer what the situation really is, so better to err on the side of caution). Flv is basically the same as mp4 at its core. See Commons:Requests for comment/MP4 Video (this is a politically controversial issue. Be warned some people may disagree with my analysis). Bawolff (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Politician donating headshot through Twitter[edit]

A politician's Twitter account has offered to let us use their official headshot in this conversation. They ask if there is a form to fill out. Should I tell them to send something legalese to OTRS, or is a screenshot of the tweet good enough? --Arctic.gnome (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Arctic.gnome: A screenshot of the tweet would be good enough if it contained an explicit release under Commons-compatible terms (ideally a license), otherwise the (non-interactive) form available at COM:ET should be filled out. "Free to use" by itself is insufficient (modifications, …), not sure whether or not it is at all a legal possibility to release own works into the public domain in Canada.    FDMS  4    23:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

May 02[edit]

Stamps from Ciskei[edit]

The nominally independent state of Ciskei in South Africa lasted from 1981 to 1994. Are stamps issued by that state now in the public domain? Paul venter (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably not. The rights held by w:Ciskei were probably transfered in full to Eastern Cape province or possibly South Africa. The bureaucrats in Ciskei went on strike over concerns about their pensions; you can be sure that the state that took on those debts also took on the property that Ciskei owned. (Not to mention that it's possible that Ciskei didn't own all the copyrights; a lot of postal systems don't on many of their stamps.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Babel ca[edit]

There is a mysterious construction I don't understand: {{Babel ca}} redirects to Creator:Trencapins which links to 3 not existing templates. --Achim (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Should be fixed now, let me know if it isn't. It looks like it's been broken for years. - Jmabel ! talk 16:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Seems to work, thanks a lot. --Achim (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Need feedback for Wiki Loves Food photo contest[edit]

Hi, Wikimedians from India are conducting a photo contest called Wiki Loves Food. Currently, we are testing things through a pilot phase. Please have a look at the photos submitted so far. We will greatly appreciate feedback and participation from the global Commons Community in organizing this. Thanks. --Ravi (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Food\,in\,India\,\subset Food \Rightarrow Food \not\subseteq Food\,in\,India
Why do you call it Wiki Loves Food if only photographs related to food in India are considered valid submissions? -- Rillke(q?) 17:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rillke, we are discussing the name here.--Ravi (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Having trouble using uploaded file[edit]

I am having trouble using in any context, it just won't show up as if it doesn't exist(nor does it show up when searching for the title in commons search). Original title was in Greek so I requested a file move, yet even after the file move was completed to the current latin characters filename it is impossible to include it anywhere. Anybody has any idea why this may be? Thanks Gts-tg (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Follow up, it is possible to use the file via wiki code File:<filename> but not via VisualEditor or searching for the title in Commons search Gts-tg (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Please report this technical issue for which the site administration organization is likely in debt for to Phabricator (new task, projects VisualEditor, Commons, File management). Make sure to give detailed information how to reproduce the issue (step by step). -- Rillke(q?) 10:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Can't reproduce anymore – this doesn't appear to be unusual for very new files and would probably be a wontfix.    FDMS  4    16:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Its kind of unclear what the issue actually was. Are you saying there is a delay before newly created pages/images appear in the search feature, or something else? Bawolff (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

May 03[edit]

There are no pages or files in this category[edit]

Hello, I've mailed this link to some people and they get a "There are no pages or files in this category". What they see are the sub-categories, where again they don't see any pictures.

I've made a test on one of their computers and got the same result, even using the search function: Category:70 Joer Befreiung vum Faschismus, the error message came up.

Then I logged-in and I saw the pictures through Search:Category:70 Joer Befreiung vum Faschismus.

Logged-out, Search:Category:70 Joer Befreiung vum Faschismus - got the pictures.

Any idea what's going wrong? Some work-around for people w/o an account? Thank you! --Jwh (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess this is a caching issue with the varnish servers. Try ?action=purge, or tell us what happens if users who do not see it, append ?someRandomString to URL in the location bar after pressing Enter. -- Rillke(q?) 10:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
This is a long term issue that nobody has ever gotten around to doing anything about. Bawolff (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Last night I asked two people who had the problem to try with the "basic" URL first and only when it doesn't return pictures to append it with ?action=purge . Both came back to tell me that this time all worked fine with the "basic" URL. Now do you think it will be better that in the future I'll mail the URL's always with ?action=purge to avoid any trouble? Thanks again. --Jwh (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

?action=purge forces a cache clear. Its preferably not to use that in links, because then the cache would be ineffective (Also it requires a click through if not logged in). If you're concerned, it would probably be better to purge the page before you send a link, and then just send the normal link. Bawolff (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Bawolff, excuse my ignorance - what can or should I do "to purge the page" before mailing the link? --Jwh (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
If its a category page (other types of pages don't have this bug), and its not showing new entries for anon users, go to the link with ?action=purge on the end first (Which will make the changes show up to anons), and then send the normal link in the email. Sending a link with ?action=purge in it in an email will cause anon users to see a click-through page which is non-ideal. Bawolff (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Got it! Great! Thank you! --Jwh (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

May 04[edit]

Can I make a tab in my user account for My Gallery?[edit]

Earlier today, I clicked a link you provided in my discussion or talk area somewhere, and it opened a page called MY GALLERY, and showed my uploads to Commons. I don't know where I was in the global wiki areas, or how to open the gallery page again. I can't find anything about this in my searches. Could you explain how to do this? Or please, send me a link that will explain. I'd like to have a tab somewhere, that I can always click as needed. Is that possible? Thanks. Nettlepatch (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You are looking for the Uploads link in your personal bar or for COM:MyGallery. -- Rillke(q?) 00:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Lauren Cohan 2014 Comic Con (cropped).jpg and File:Lauren Cohan by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg[edit]

I'm not sure why there is a need for two separate files of the essentially the same image. The former ("Lauren Cohan 2014 Comic Con (cropped)") was uploaded back in July 2014 by Lady Lotus and is a cropped version of File:Lauren Cohan 2014 Comic Con.jpg also uploaded by Lady Lotus. Both of these files were taken from the Flickr account of Gage Skidmore and proper attribution is given to Skidmore on each file's Commons' page. "File:Lauren Cohan by Greg Skidmore 2.jpg" seems to have been uploaded by Skidmore himself (Gage) on May 4, 2015. Attribution is given in the name of the file, but for the most part everything else appears the same. I'm not sure why a new file needed to be uploaded and the name and licensing of the exsting one couldn't have simply been edited accordingly.

Also, I have a question about the naming of files. Commons:File naming simply says that names should be "descriptive, chosen according to what the image displays or contents portray" and "accurate, especially where scientific names, proper nouns, dates, etc. are used". Is it acceptable to include the name of the person who took the photo in the file name, especially when said person is being properly attributed on the file's description page? The same editor has been doing something similar for all of the images they have recently uploaded to Commons. They have been asked about this on their user talk by Ellin Beltz but no reply has yet been given. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be two of the same files. If they are the same exact file and the only difference is the Gage used "own work" instead of linking to the Flickr file, then it should be removed as a duplicate. There are also these files:
File:Jessica Alba SDCC 2014.jpg (uploaded on July 2014 by Stemoc)
File:Jessica Alba by Gage Skidmore.jpg (uploaded on April 2015 by Gage)
File:Bill Hader, 2013 San Diego Comic Con-cropped-2.jpg (uploaded on 24 July 2013 by Carniolus)
File:Bill Hader by Gage Skidmore.jpg (uploaded on 26 July 2013 by Gage)
Lady Lotus (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee elections 2015[edit]

Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Voting has begun for eligible voters in the 2015 elections for the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) and FDC Ombudsperson. Questions and discussion with the candidates for the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) and FDC Ombudsperson will continue during the voting. Nominations for the Board of Trustees will be accepted until 23:59 UTC May 5.

The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions on the committee being filled.

The FDC Ombudsperson receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled.

The voting phase lasts from 00:00 UTC May 3 to 23:59 UTC May 10. Click here to vote. Questions and discussion with the candidates will continue during that time. Click here to ask the FDC candidates a question. Click here to ask the FDC Ombudsperson candidates a question. More information on the candidates and the elections can be found on the 2015 FDC election page, the 2015 FDC Ombudsperson election page, and the 2015 Board election page on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Volunteer Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 03:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help

May 05[edit]

Requesting help for additional PD templates[edit]


I just uploaded a bilingual book File:Marathiproverbs00manwgoog.djvu of one author Rev. Alfred Manwaring published in 1899. On close look as per my understanding Applicable law is either UK Copyright_Act_1842 and/or Indian copyright act 1847; in either case Copyright is life of the author plus 7 years. So logically copyright period is over and the book is in public domain. I have added India PD template along with above note.

I could not locate apropriate UK PD template which will take care of PD as per UK Copyright_Act_1842 Please some one help me in adding apropriate additional PD templates as per commons requirements.

Thanks and Regards Mahitgar (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The Copyright Act of 1842 is now moot. The Copyright Act in play right now for the UK says that life+70 applies. When did Rev. Alfred Manwaring die? All I can find is that he was connected with the Church Missionary Society in 1879, and he could have lived 65 years beyond that point, to where it would be copyrighted in the UK right now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
It's recorded he left for home in 1908, but he still could have lived another 40 years beyond that.
The version you uploaded is pretty bad; I suggest uploading the PDF which is much more readable and starting with that. If necessary, it can be uploaded directly to en.Wikisource, which accepts all files that are public domain in the US, that is published before 1923.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Getting translations from Wikidata[edit]

Is there currently an effort to enable use of Wikidata to get translations, and if yes, where can I follow the progress and/or help? Thanks --Reinhard Müller (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)