Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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 Cork, Ireland [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

  • RFC on Hosting files for 3D models. ()
Template: View • Discuss • Edit • Watch



Oldies[edit]

Russavia related stuff[edit]

Illustration of drama at Western College for Women, 1933. Uploaded to Commons today, Russavia claimed to be uninvolved.

I know the whole Russavia topic is an open wound around here and I don't want to seem like I am grave-dancing here because I always liked the guy (I thought his prank on Jimbo was Epic personally) but I noticed a couple things related to him that I think might need some attention. First, there are a number of subpages under his username and since he is permabanned by the WMF and not likely to be returning anytime soon, I think it might be a good idea to browse those, clean them out and remove the subpages if they are no longer needed. Secondly, there are a couple categories directly associated to him. Of the ones I can find, Category:Files needing category checks (Russavia), Category:Files uploaded by Russavia (Eva Rinaldi), Category:Files uploaded by Russavia (cleanup). I was planning on fixing these cats myself but I do not nor will I be likely to get AWB rights here due to my standing on ENWP. I just wanted to mention these things so someone could address these issues. Reguyla (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

How about adding the subcategories to Category:Media needing categories and removing the notes from Russavia that he is still working on them? --ghouston (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The subpages are these ones? [1]. I have no idea why they were created, I'd say just leave them there. --ghouston (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I see no reason to stir things up, or a need to wipe Russavia from Commons. Seek your LOLs on something more productive. -- (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@:, I appreciate your loyalty to your friend but I am not attempting to seek LOL's on anyone so can you assume some good faith please. I have been the target of severe harrassment on Wiki myself so I know how it feels and I am also not trying to wipe him from commons and if he were merely blocked or banned by an arbcom or some block happy admin I wouldn't even touch them. But Russavia is in fact blocked permanently by the WMF, an extremely rare fate that I have never seen anyone return from. As such, I really do not see any point in keeping to do categories with his name in them. The same is true of his subpages. I'm not trying to be a jerk, it just isn't necessary and is potentially confusing. Reguyla (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Files that were uploaded by Russavia will always have been uploaded by Russavia. Nobody needs to be confused by that, and the actions recorded in the public logs should never be changed. -- (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree and that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that I don't think we need a category that says Category:Files needing category checks (Russavia) or Category:Files uploaded by Russavia (cleanup). Reguyla (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Both are populated. When project check/clean-up categories are empty, then they can be considered for deletion. I suggest you work on meaningfully checking the files rather than fomenting a debate about the name. -- (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Fae, please stop trying to turn this into a hurt feelings report about Russavia. It isn't and if you bothered to read the discussion I started at all rather than just scanning it fir keywords, which you clearly did not, you would see where I specifically said I think it might be a good idea to browse those, clean them out and remove the subpages if they are no longer needed. This applies to the Subpages and to the aforementioned categories. This isn't personal so please stop being so dramatic. Reguyla (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Meh, if there was never any drama here, it would be a very dull project. Doing the gardening would suddenly seem much more appealing. Classic smiley.svg -- (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Agree with (talk · contribs), the categories seem useful and helpful for tracking purposes. They are a valuable organization metric, and should be retained for the future. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
FWIW I sort of agree with Reguyla (although it's not a huge issue now the user is banned) but I think that the best way to deal with this is to categorise all the images that were uploaded but not properly categorised, then deprecate the categories. Out of interest, what is the difference between "Category:Images uploaded by X" and the list provided by Special:Uploads? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: I have always viewed the category to be more of an easy way to view uploads by a user because it not only provides a more condensed version of Special:Upload, but it lists them alphabetically (useful if you are looking for something that begins with a name). While I find it odd that there are essentially two categories that both state that Russavia uploaded those images (but only because one could be renamed, "Photographs by X"), that's probably a discussion for another venue, since some of his categories have thousands of images within them and would require some work to rename them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Yann (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

March 12[edit]

Creating a free and open source typeface[edit]

A proposed free and open source typeface.pdf

Hi, I know this isn’t the typical business of Commons, but I am currently designing a typeface and would like to release it as a free and open source font with help from the Commons community. I’ve written a rationale for this font project that you can read at File:A proposed free and open source typeface.pdf (use pdf reader; pdf may not display with Firefox pdf.js). Typefaces are resources much like the images and video that Commons currently produces, and expanding into font creation I believe is a logical expansion of its mission. Please take a moment to take a look at my proposal, and perhaps test my font which lives on GitHub!

It is critical that we do not ignore the importance of type in the development of libre ecosystems. Typography has always been a stubborn holdout in this regard, and to this day there remain few free high-quality comprehensive text typefaces. Free type is mainly concentrated in a handful of flagship “superfonts” that contain a staggering catalog of glyphs, but lack greatly in the quality of design and typographic styles and features seen in professional type. To my knowledge, there are currently just two great open source text families—Gentium, which is still incomplete, and Linux Libertine, in addition to a few corporate gifts such as Adobe Source Serif and Bitstream Charter. To help fill the gap, I present my own original type design and ask for the Wikimedia projects’ help in finishing and releasing my font to provide a quality free font choice…

Kelvinsong talk 15:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This font looks really lovely texts are convenient to read in it - thus I hope I can read Wikipedia articles in that font one day - including mathematical formulae of course. \frac{-4 \pm \sqrt{6^2-4 \times ac}}{2a} -- Rillke(q?) 23:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I love it, except for the crossbar in the capital A, which is very distracting to me. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I’m not sure exactly what you mean. It's right where crossbars on A’s usually go. Is it too high? too low?—Kelvinsong talk 02:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The crossbar in the A also looks messed up to me (using MacOS X). Kaldari (talk) 06:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I checked the PDF in Windows and iOS and fail to see any glitch of the capital A. Maybe a screen cap from MacOS would explain the issue better. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
You can see my problem in this screenshot. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that in the small f: phab:F97280 - installed the otf font files under Windows. -- Rillke(q?) 11:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
That is very strange, I have never seen it do that! It usually happens when there is a contradicting intersection, but shouldn’t be happening there considering both contours are clockwise—Kelvinsong talk 22:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kaldari Rillke & User:TheDJ, I’ve fused the A crossbar and the f crossbar & pushed updated font files to github. Pls download & check to see if the problem is still there on ur computers—Kelvinsong talk 22:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah looks like expected now. Although not that eye-catching the "t" glyph is also affected; interestingly only with smaller font sizes: phab:F99875 -- Rillke(q?) 13:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@Rillke Pictogram voting keep.svg FixedKelvinsong talk 22:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm no font expert, but your font looks elegant and classy. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks sm!!—Kelvinsong talk 02:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kelvinsong: Sounds like a great idea. I'm going to let the WMF designers know about it in case they want to contribute. One thing to keep in mind: The SIL Open Font License (which is one of the most popular free font licenses) covers use and distribution of the font as a whole, not the individual glyphs. If you want to make sure that your font is completely free (both the software and the design elements), I would suggest using a CC0 or CC-BY license (or dual-licensing with both CC and SIL licenses). Kaldari (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@User:Kaldari idk I was going to use GPL font license to avoid the whole Charter parallel design mess—Kelvinsong talk 22:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kelvinsong: GPL+FE works too. Don't be afraid to multi-license though :) Kaldari (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
This is a very nice font and well-designed. I hope I'll see this on Wikimedia projects at some point, and maybe even elsewhere on the web. Definitely my favorite custom serif font for paragraph texts. --GeorgeBarnick (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Very interesting and good-looking to my uneducated eye, but I guess that's up to the real font experts to judge (would it be possible to get feedback from a professional?). Just out of curiosity: What's wrong with Computer Modern/BlueSky/Latin Modern? --El Grafo (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
"It is critical that we do not ignore the importance of type in the development of libre ecosystems." YES! We discussed a lot about this topic and I'm personally very happy to see that you have stepped in so decidedly. Besides, I have seen several of your works without knowing that they came from the same designer. Congratulations for your skills, and thank you very much for your contributions.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@User:Kaldari & @User:GeorgeBarnick thank you sm for saying that!! ☺️
@User:El Grafo I’m not sure yet. All the major type designers communities went into strange decline in the past year but I’ll send some samples out. && I don’t want to get into a rant but Computer/Latin Modern is jsut a dreadfully designed font. It was not even created by a human; it was made by a computer with only a rudimentary sense of curve aesthetics. The italics are half-decent but unstandard & so hard to read for long stretches. It is a decorative font at best, and is very illegible for body text. If you want a didone font; use Didot or New caledonia. It also gives off an impression of laziness on the part of the author, and a tone of dreary technicality on the content. The only thing it does well is it works well with TeX (I heard, since I don’t use TeX).
@Qgil-WMF Thanks sm!! & any hint if this is something WMF will be taking a lasting interest in?—Kelvinsong talk 22:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kelvinsong:, Vibhabamba is UX designer at the WMF, and I recommend you to follow up with her. She has posted some advice below already.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Kelvinsong—Font type square.svg
I read about Google's w:Noto fonts recently (Noto = "No tofu") - that already has 98 fonts completed. Is that (code, main site, Apache licence) something that would be compatible with our needs, and your (fantastic, as always) efforts? I hope we can avoid competing standards and mass-duplication of labour, as well as getting the largest possible global installation-base. It might be ideal to collaborate on this existing effort? Quiddity (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Quiddity you are confusing fonts with apps. Fonts are in a way software. But they are not built nor used in the same way apps are. If I went out and built a new open source word processor, you might be justified in asking me why I didn’t just contribute to LibreOffice (though if u ask me, LibreOffice is a mess, not as bad as GIMP but approaching). That’s bc you only ever need one open source word processor & it’s better to have one really good Libreoffice than two lesser rival apps that do the same thing. But fonts are not apps. For one I cannot contribute to an existing font project in a meaningful way. I do not know who designed Noto (it seems to be credited to one “Google”) but only that designer can make more Noto glyphs. I, with my typographical experience can offer suggestions and critiques on his (or her) typeface & fix bugs. But I cannot directly contribute to it. Only Noto’s designer can design Noto Serif.
More importantly, diversity is a pro in type design, not a con. There is no such thing as “duplication of labor” or redundancy in type design, only lost potential. This is an extremely big issue & I could write a whole article about it. but anyway—specific reasons why it makes sense to create a new font:
  • I don’t really like Noto Serif : This might be a bit subjective, but personally I am not a fan of its design (largely lifted from Droid serif). Droid serif is at perfunctory glance a more polished interpretation of the “computer type” families. In essence gluing serifs onto sans fonts. Sometimes that works, some people like that, but to me it makes a font that’s uncomfortable to read. Don’t get me wrong. Droid serif is not a bad font—in fact it’s better than the professional fonts some of my textbooks are set in—just not my taste. It’s not exactly a design I am enthusiastic to contribute to, uk? ofc that could just be my own typographer’s bias
  • I couldn’t contribute to if I wanted to : basically see what I said before. Only Noto’s designer can design Noto Serif. I have done such a thing before, contributing IPA glyphs & stuff to existing fonts. You can get a decent grip on what the original designer meant but it’s difficult & basically what I would truly call wasted energy. —Kelvinsong talk 23:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It wouldn’t be “our own” : Typefaces, even libre ones, have “owners”. Usually this is the company or organization that uses it the most. Google “owns” Roboto; Mozilla (w Google) “owns” Open Sans; Apple “owns” Helvetica, and big surprise, Google “owns” Droid/Noto. It’s a hard concept to put into words, but you get what I mean. Fira, Gentium, and Libertine don’t have this problem. You can just kind of smell it.
  • Noto isn’t really free : No typeface is (or should be) free as in gratis, but you could argue that Google’s superfonts aren’t even free as in speech. They’re more like legally-irrevocable gifts that we are allowed to use at Google’s grace. && Google has a poor track record with its treatment of the type design craft & I’m reluctant to give my labor to them. && see [2]
  • We still need new fonts : Even if Google was the most angelic company in the world; even if Noto was the best designed font in the history of the planet; even if its designer’s vision of the typeface was magically transferred to my heart, we would still need more choice in type. We’re starting to reach saturation with Linux distributions. Fonts still have a long way to go. Feel free to google “why we need new fonts”, because every type designer on the planet has been asked this question at some point, and some have written extensively on it.
I hope this makes sense I didn’t want to spend too long writing a long explanation of this topic—Kelvinsong talk 23:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kelvinsong: That helps immensely, thank you for the details. This proposed project is intriguing, and I wish it great success.
(Ramble: I adore the vast diversity of typefaces, and have spent many an hour browsing typography blogs/libraries/articles, and learning some of the nuances of the basics [Foundry:Family:Face:Font! But I still mix them up like a philistine, all too often >.< ], but most of my online font-usage-knowledge is still from circa '98-'02, when kottke's silkscreen was all the rage, hence I have somewhat outdated views particularly regarding embedded webfonts! Again, best of wishes for this proposal. I look forward to this elegant and accessible work of science and art. :) Quiddity (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@User:Quiddity Thanks!! && btw a foundry is the font publisher (usually a company or artist collective; sometimes an individual). Family & face are the same thing; Font can either mean the same as Family or refer to a single instance of a family.—Kelvinsong talk 13:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kelvinsong: Hi! While I am taking a look at your typeface, it would be a good idea for you to submit it to Typographica. I could help connect you with Stephen Coles. Is there an email address where I can reach you? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vibhabamba (talk • contribs) 08:03, 19 March 2015‎ (UTC)
@User:Vibhabamba Yes, thank you! I just sent you a message —Kelvinsong talk 00:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Section break[edit]

Fontside old style figures.svg

Fun update: I programmed into the font the ability to insert old style figures into your documents even if the app you’re working in doesn’t support opentype, a possible fix for bugs like [3] on the font side. It’s on github now. Encapsulate figures you want to display that way with <onum></onum> tags, and the font will switch number styles without touching the underlying text data. To prevent unexpected behavior it also encourages you to type the closing </onum> tag. I suppose this could be extended to small capitals and superscripts—Kelvinsong talk 23:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kelvinsong: @Rillke: FYI, with the appropriate install and a bit of CSS, it's perfectly possible to read Wikipedia with this right now (... and it looks quite nice). See this screenshot. Just add body { font-family: "SWIFTDAY3"; } to your common.css after installing. Personally, I detest the 'typography refresh' fonts... doing this doesn't keep the 'fallback' for things like Hangul or Korean text from working, though it ofc has no effect on the rendering of math. Now you need to make a sans display font for it so section headers aren't still ugly. :P Revent (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I am indeed using it here at Commons since March, 16 for content texts but keeping navigational elements in sans-serif - it works very well for that and when I switch to another project I am usually missing it. Time to add it to my global CSS comes soon. -- Rillke(q?) 09:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Aww thank you sm for saying that! @Revent & @Rillke! && @Revent wow your wikipedia text is quite small, and I am surprised at how well my font is holding up at that size! I just need someone to see how it looks on mac/windows bc I am designing on Linux rn too… BTW if ur using the font locally, make sure you are updating from the Github repository every now and then bc I am improving the font almost daily :) . && also I really should think up a real name for the font before everyone starts calling it “SWIFTDAY3” lol—Kelvinsong talk 01:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I'm using Windows XP (SP3) and I can't use any Swiftday fonts downloaded from github... Windows Font installation says your (Swiftday3) otf files are damaged. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.)

@Kelvinsong: I'll give it a try on the iMac tomorrow, and give you another screenie of how it looks there. Revent (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

SC type square.svg

Another update—I added small capitals to the regular style of the font. Those without opentype apps can access them with “<sc></sc>” they’re on github now!—Kelvinsong talk 02:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Windows 7 screen shot

@Kelvinsong:: I realized that I should download the zip instead of "downloading" each file individually from your GitHub folder (never heard of this site) which doesn't work. But now I look at Swiftday3 in Windows Notepad and Wordpad, the same evenodd fill glitch (the previously reported capital A) pops up below 74 px font size. Regular: 4, 6, 8, 9, e, g, x, z (< all lower case); italic: 4, 6, 8, 9, A, H (<all capitals), f, t, x (< all lower case). All these glyphs appear normal at 75 px and onwards. When I make a sample SVG and load it in Firefox, the threshold of the evenodd fill glitch appears below 100 px. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That’s cos of overlapping contours in multistroke letters like X. released fonts should not have these overlaps but I keep them there because they are required for editing. Not sure how to fix that rn bc fontforge doesn’t have a good way to fuse strokes before export to otf—Kelvinsong talk 14:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Sameboat - 同舟 I relegated the overlaps to background layers please download and test again :) —Kelvinsong talk 21:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@ User:Kelvinsong: Regular "8" is still glitchy. Also all English glyphs clump together weirdly... -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Sameboat - 同舟 Strange. Looks like Windows is misinterpreting kerning pairs or something. U tried it with ur system language set to English? It is a latin font after all && maybe ur computer is trying to typset vertically or something—Kelvinsong talk 20:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
&& also I fixed the 8—Kelvinsong talk 21:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
There is no such issue with other English fonts like Arial and Times. And the options below is "western characters" which is the usual value for Latin glyphs. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

March 16[edit]

Commons talk:We miss you#Should the people doing the missing be listed for each entry?[edit]

I'll looking for people who are interested in having a discussion about the format of the Commons:We miss you page. If anyone is interested, please join in. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm personally wondering about the inclusion criteria, because I saw someone add Penyulap the other day, and I don't think anyone missed them. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
That someone was me, and another user endorsed the entry via "thanks". I think that we should work out what the page should display before we work on the inclusion criteria for new entries. Abd suggested that entries should be seconded. I like that idea, but that's a discussion for another time. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The page is untenable if it is necessary to establish consensus for inclusion. Hence "we miss you" could simply be interpreted to mean that more than one user misses the person, thus "we," and the first one as shown by an addition to the page, and the second, or more, as shown by listing additional users. If one person nominates, anyone may revert that, but then if another brings it back in, it should be accepted. Unless socking is shown, of course! The same person might have been seen as a PITA by nearly everyone else, might be blocked, banned, or excommunicated. Michael is correct that inclusion standards should be established, so that disruption is not caused by dispute over who is missed and who is not. The page should not become a debate. We can see a hint of this above, where clearly one person misses, and it was asserted as unlikely that anyone would miss that user. Obviously false, already known as such if anyone is paying attention. I don't know Pennylap from a HoleInTheWall, and don't need to. Let's keep it simple. --Abd (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

March 20[edit]

Can anyone use free licence for a lower resolution of his work but copyright the higher one?[edit]

The question is about a real scenario that came up during the firsts conversations with an institution that has thousands of photographs. They ask me that because they usually sell the higher resolution ones and restrict the usage for only one publication, etc. They are afraid that once they release the lower resolution photos, that would mean that anyone that come across the higher resolution ones, can act as if they are released as well. Any ideas, thoughts or links to similar questions would be highly apreciated.--Zeroth (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this last year. Eventually somebody asked the Creative Commons people, and their opinion was that the high and low resolution versions may represent the same work under copyright law, so that anybody could potentially apply the low resolution license to the high resolution version.[4] --ghouston (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
This was also more recently raised by me on the OTRS noticeboard, under "OTRS tickets for thumbnail versions of images" on 13 Feb 2015. The response was that anyone releasing images on a free licence should understand that if you release a lower resolution image, you have legally released all resolutions. Secondly that OTRS volunteers take no responsibility to advise an uploader/source donor of this fact, nor is there any expectation on them to do so. -- (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
See also this FAQ answer. The key thing is whether the different resolutions are considered the same "work of copyright" and this may vary from country to country. There is risk to both the licensor and licensee. If the low-resolution copy was created merely by clicking "Save As" and choosing a smaller resolution in the Lightroom/Photoshop dialog box, then it is extremely unlikely that any creative act would be considered. So the smaller copy would likely be considered the same Work of Copyright as their larger copy and the institution would not be able to prevent the larger image being used [Though they may place contractual restrictions on the individuals they give the larger copies to, but that is little help once the image escapes]. After all, MediaWiki resizes images all the time no credit is required to be given to anyone for that mechanical act. But there is also significant risk to potential licensees (re-users, uploaders to Commons) who think they can use/upload the larger file. Because given any two random files you find on the internet, you really don't know for sure what process led to their creation. The larger file may have undergone additional post-processing sufficient to be considered a creative act -- that's up to a judge to decide. Also, the larger file could have some meta data added in the EXIF such as a couple of paragraphs describing the image, which would be copyrightable itself. And the larger file might not even be from the same source image - but another taken at a slightly different time and perhaps different camera settings. There's even the risk they aren't by the same person!
Fae is right that we can't give legal advice. Pointing the institution at the CC FAQ pages would seem a helpful thing to do if they ask about it. If they are considering a large donation of images to Commons, then perhaps WMF Legal could give them specific advice.
One ongoing problem is that both CC and WMF heavily promoted for years, in official glossy literature, the idea that institutions and professional photographers/videographers could release small low-quality copies as CC but retain larger high-quality versions for their paying clients. That was stupid, but don't hold your breath waiting for an apology. If I recall the discussions correctly, many people on Commons were uncomfortable to take advantage of naivety shown by people who followed this advice, or who thought (like many did) that CC applied to the File and not the Work of Copyright. Therefore, there was a strong reluctance to accept/keep high-resolution files if they appeared to be "all rights reserved" and only a low-resolution file had an explicit CC licence. This was on both a ethical and possible-risk basis. -- Colin (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your answers.--Zeroth (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Yann (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Blurred child porn image[edit]

I uploaded one such image. It was taken originally from a public criminal trial document in Norway which in its physical form (as released by the courts) displays the images not blurred, however, the copy available online through Scribd.com has all applicable images thoroughly blurred. The file was deleted speedily by User:Reinhard Kraasch with the explanation "Out of project scope". I consequently requested undeletion. This was turned down by User:Steinsplitter with a new rationale: "we can't host blurred content as defined in U.S. Code Title 18 Section 2256 - included are retouched images. I have filed a report to the Wikimedia Foundation's legal team for further investigation if needed". Having read the referenced section of United States Code not being able to corroborate Steinsplitter's reading, I requested undeletion anew. This was again turned down by Steinsplitter who simply restated their previous position with no further comment. I should also note that I was threatened on my user talk page by same Steinsplitter that [n]ext time you will be blocked. It is unclear to me whether this threat pertains to an attempted re-upload of the deleted image or simply requesting a community inspection of the process surrounding this media upload. In the latter case I realize the present post may cause my expulsion from the project, however unsupported by rules and guidelines this would be by my assessment.

Now, Steinsplitter mentioned in the first undeletion denial that "I have filed a report to the Wikimedia Foundation's legal team for further investigation if needed". Perhaps this is something that could have an additional bearing on the present request for clarification/discussion. __meco (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: perhaps a simple explanation would clear this up? I can imagine reasons as to why the image should be deleted, but this would be guesswork. Note that in some countries (including the one I am in right now), visiting a website and viewing images which the police consider to be child pornography (and their definitions are hard to understand) is a crime. This is a good incentive for me not to try to find the image even if legitimately published on a public website in other countries. -- (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Illegal_content - The file in question has been oversighted and can't be restored. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I think Steinsplitter is right here. This is either illegal or out of scope. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. It's part of what we rely on oversight for. -- (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/03/25/meet-the-editors-meco/ – We've known about Meco and his behavior since 2013: two years and we still haven't done anything about him! We shouldn't tolerate his presence here. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Uploading this is such an egregious lack of judgment, ethics and decency that it should be grounds for an immediate indefinite project wide ban on the uploader.--Maunus (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    • WMF has globally banned/locked this user--Stemoc 09:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
re I wasn't paying attention while this happened, but the archived AN conversation doesn't make any sense. If the image was "thoroughly blurred" and originated not merely legally but from an actual court publication, why would it be illegal? (Also, what was the point of posting it to begin with?) And it sounds like someone deleted a photo of an adult because he was 'involved with' child pornography, to keep it from being "used inadvertently" - say what? And what does British law have to do with anything, shouldn't we be talking American? I understand of course that WMF is serious about keeping illegal content off the servers, but this sounds like people are starting to believe in witchcraft. I feel like this case is supposed to set some sort of precedent, but ... what precedent? Wnt (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The WMF have taken responsibility by taking office action, so this now has nothing to do with volunteers. It makes logical sense to remove the Commons block at it only muddies the water. -- (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, given the (totally dissimilar) situation with Russavia who was WMF-locked recently for possibly political reasons [not child porn!] but who the community sympathizes with, I think it's important to retain a note of whether the community wants a given editor blocked even if they are WMF-locked also. I haven't gone diving into Wikipediocracy to see what all reasons people had for blocking Meco, but I just get appalled when every time people add 2 and 2 it comes out as 13 or 71 or 169. What was File:Mesol15.jpg and why was it considered so bad that Commons had to delete it as "out of scope" while it was being used in an article on the Italian Wikipedia? Wnt (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I've already explained the reason why it should be deleted, and I removed it from the Italian Wikipedia prior to the deletion, so it wasn't deleted "while it was being used" as you claim. No one at itwiki reverted me or complained about my actions. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
See Commons:Contact_us/Problems/en: Inappropriate images of children. It is advised community members stay away from such contents. Jee 12:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, here's the thing: I haven't seen the explanation why the image was inappropriate. I didn't see any dispute that it was blurred beyond recognition, and doesn't a court posting it mean that it is legally appropriate at least in the source country? (Admittedly that doesn't mean legal in the U.S.; but the criteria there should be established). We ought to be able to provide useful guidance to future editors about what the relevant issues are. Wnt (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know exact reasons; but it seems downloading such contents even for reviewing is not safe if you are living in USA. Fortunately I'm from other place. :) Jee 13:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand we have some bad laws, and indeed I did not rush to find the source and see how blurred it really is. But that's why I'm asking you and the others: was this a case where someone in the U.S. would say that this is child porn because it was not blurred enough? I find it hard to believe since Meco is the one who started the admin consideration, believing his content to be legitimate here, and above all because the deletion of that other image because nobody even claimed it was child porn, just that it was somehow "associated" with it (I don't know who was portrayed; was he someone who took such images?) Wnt (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes; that law seems bad indeed to force a deletion even if that image is of a monkey but with that file-name. :) Jee 13:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm removing "section resolved|1=Yann (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)}}" because it isn't usual procedure to archive old content because people want to talk about it. Wnt (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Suppression seems to be accepted behavior from some administrators. -- (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Again stupid comment by the same user. Wnt's comment was not signed, so I thought this thread was dead. Yann (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, sorry for assuming the worst. Commons has a nasty feel to it nowadays and I shouldn't make it worse. Wnt (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Yann, your recent hate campaign against me will be clear to anyone who bothers to look through what you have been writing about me, "stupid comment" now being typical of your tedious personal attacks verging on hostile trolling. The fact that you have been pre-emptively closing discussion on UNDEL and now on the VP is again obvious. You closed down this thread at 12:42 when the last signed comment was at 12:37. -- (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Fae, in case you didn't notice, YOU are attacking me. It was a mistake of me. I don't see the need for your paranoid post of a conspiracy to suppress discussion. Yann (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
But he attacked me first! This crap has to stop somewhere, let the most mature and responsible user stop, how about that? The closure and re-opening is actually off-topic here, it is just normal wiki process, any close may be reversed, in good faith, right? Will all agree on that? --Abd (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wnt: You ask, "Also, what was the point of posting it to begin with?" Meco claims to be "Halvor Raknes Johansen" on his Meta userpage, and that's the name that appeared on those court documents that Meco links to in his post above. I can only assume that Meco uploaded a photo from his own trial, especially given what we already know. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I've researched this. Meco complained about an "out of scope" deletion. This was not the page for that. Michaeldsuarez pointed to a Wikipediocracy page, which could be argued was a privacy policy violation, bringing in non-neutral off-wiki polemic aimed at the user, asserting it as fact, and he just repeated it. Michael also went cross wiki, going after this user: [5], which he cited above and nobody seems to have noticed the implications. That edit should probably have been oversighted, and much of what is here, the same. The community has never endorsed m:Child protection; enwiki has a policy, though, and Michaeldsuarez would be blocked there, were he not already blocked, for making an edit as he made on itwiki. So that edit then allowed deletion of a photo of the user's butt here, that had been in actual use. Terrible danger to children, I assume.
The "blurred" photo here was probably not illegal. Obviously, without seeing it, I can't be sure, but Meco came here in the belief that it was not illegal, and I suspect he'd know the law.
I've studied this issue for years, common opinion and actual law and legal practice are very different, and if Meco wants to create some educational resource using that image, he could have possibly done it on en.wikiversity. The community there monitors things like this, and won't allow illegal material, but will allow study of almost anything that could be studied in a university, which could include social, psychological, and legal issues around age of consent, etc. If anyone wants to do that, consult with me. Ethical guidelines must be developed, or it will all be too disruptive. This topic can turn normally sane users into reactive jellyfish.
I have seven children, and have been involved in counselling sex addicts, including persons charged with child molestation (who are often suicidal, and often were molested themselves), and I know much more than the usual person what is actually dangerous and what is not. I will act to protect my children and other children, but much "antipedophile" advocacy and action actually harms children.
Meco was globally banned by the WMF, 05:43, 24 March 2015. The WMF does not state reasons for WMF Global Bans, but there is an obvious one here, and in another case a similar reason is known. In the Meco case, the Wikipediocracy page shows allegations -- I'd call them "insinuations" -- and the WMF probably accepted those. In the other case, the user, known very well to Michaeldsuarez, was famous for off-wiki challenge to traditional norms, which was so unpopular that wikis that allowed him to edit were attacked by highly disruptive vigilantes, DOS attacks were threatened, violence was threatened.
Neither of these users violated the TOU globally. Rather, the bans would be issued under when the trust or safety of our users or employees is otherwise in danger or has been significantly compromised or threatened. So the argument would be that users who are children are threatened in some way, by allowing the user to edit? There is nothing in that about protecting readers, and, of course, much WMF content is inappropriate for children.
The claim of abuse or danger to children was false. Meco was not alleged to be using the wikis to groom children, etc. However, the community could change m:Child protection to include off-wiki advocacy (as with w:WP:Child protection) and then it is possible Meco could have been bannable, and the other user as well. However, what Wikipediocracy pointed to was not advocacy, at all.
Both the enwiki policy and the draft meta policy require handling these issues off-wiki. Meco was blocked on enwiki with no discussion, and an instruction to contact ArbCom before unblocking. That is how "child protection" blocks are handled there. There are Wikipediocracy users who, instead, attempt to expose "pedophiles," making it a crusade, and who have been indeffed on enwiki as a result.
One mystery remains for me: Meco called this image "blurred child porn." There was no child porn involved in his trial, per his comment quoted on Wikipedia, where he acknowledged that he had hosted child pornography in a private FTP site, and this would have been many years ago. It was not his interest. So where did this image come from?
Meco did not, there, make any statements of advocacy. On Wikipediocracy, Meco's comments are presented and the writer closes with:
I don’t think that there’s much more that needs to be said about this particular case. Meco has said it all for me. He continues to be an editor in good standing on the English-language Wikipedia. [Editor’s note: shortly after the publication of this article, Meco was blocked at Wikipedia.]
This is very common in cases like this. There is no sober analysis of what has been written. It is very clear that the writer is so horrified by what he has read that he cannot make sophisticated distinctions. I was banned on Wikipediocracy for pointing these things out, the users who do this "work" are popular there, because they are attacking Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community for allowing porn to be hosted, and Commons is a frequent target.
Meco, however, is not a pedophile, never was a pedophile, never advocated pedophilia, but hosted some illegal files on an FTP site, which technically made him a pornographer, he wasn't caught and convicted of that, and that all shut down almost twenty years ago. The WPO page cites a source, which then has a date: March 31, 2008. It looks like, there, he simply told the truth. There is no clue there that he is a pedophile, but anti-pedophile vigilantes often confuse w:hebephilia and w:ephebophilia with w:pedophilia. Ephebophilia is quite common, even normal. Obviously, acting upon ephebophilic urges can be very illegal, which varies from place to place. The 'philias, as well, refer to "primary or exclusive" sexual interest, which is an additional issue. Meco, 8 years ago, was discussing his sexuality from a decade earlier than that, and it's development. He does not address his current sexuality, beyond noting that he had generally lost sexual interest.
The kind of disclosure Meco made in that discussion that WPO cited is diagnostic of someone who has moved on, he shows detachment in it, i.e., "This is what happened." He does not justify what he did, nor does he dissolve in shame. Having seen a lot of people go through recovery from sexual addiction (and I don't know that he could have been described as a sexual addict at any point), he'd be one whom I would expect to not offend, to not break laws. From my point of view, though, he's better off not editing in a highly intolerant community that will condemn him for what he did twenty years earlier, that has no balance and no capacity for forgiveness. The WMF, my opinion, is setting itself up for lawsuit, for no particularly good purpose. Meco is unlikely to sue. This discussion may have been better off closed, but since it was re-opened, and since Michael repeated his claims here -- which were moot and useless for Commons purposes, I decided to address the structural problem, that Commons allows these kinds of accusations, and has not developed policy that would shut something like this down immediately.
Here is what should have been done. This topic should have been immediately closed. If that were missed, and accusations of pedophilia or the like were made, they should have been rev-del'd and the topic shut down, and users warned about making such claims on-wiki. If a user insisted on discussing this, the user should have been short-blocked. Any accusations of harm or risk for children should be handled off-wiki, through e-mail, not IRC. When a user here goes cross-wiki and yanks a file on a wiki where the user has no other edits, it is obviously gaming the system, to make the file "out of scope." The user should be warned, etc. Policy on this should be developed. We tend to keep sweeping these things under the carpet, hoping they will just go away. They won't. --Abd (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I was never a fan of the revdeling part of the en.wikipedia policy, and I have at times resorted to calling it a "pedophile protection provision" - though at the same time, they almost never actually use it (though they won't consider changing it) even when called out on the inconsistency. I also don't believe in that policy's idea of banning editors who self-identify as pedophiles (or "advocates") despite otherwise acting in a responsible manner, because I think it's simply deceptive to run a worldwide site full of anonymous editors while pretending that there are no such people here; it would be easier to watch people we know about than to wonder about those who stay hidden.
That said, I can see that the WMF would have been stinging after the Wikipediocracy "expose" and wouldn't need a big excuse to get rid of a person - though their discomfort shouldn't be a reason to act in that way. When the Terms and Conditions came out I had quite a few parts that I critiqued, even with some success, but I have to admit I never spotted an ambiguity in "Posting child pornography or any other content that violates applicable law concerning child pornography;" -- but looking at it now, I see that someone might be trying to make the first portion independent of the part about "violates applicable law". So they might be counting totally blurred out, legally sanitized child pornography nonetheless as child pornography. If so, I imagine that there will be some anime fans and even history buffs in for a bad day as they branch out to include various other material that Commons previously had discussed and determined to be legal, even notable artwork. In the end, Terms of Use only mean what the person interpreting them wants them to. What is frustrating about this for me politically is that Commons' long-term decision to host some pages that are definitely "legal child pornography" (I'm not talking about anything mentioned here), even throughout Sanger's well-publicized calls for FBI investigation which effectively confirms their legality, puts a hole in the censorship narrative. If challenged, a U.S. court should at least apply the Miller Test to such content, repudiating the notion that an arbitrary line can be drawn to close off constitutional considerations. And we should all know how in the UK right now, a system of BAE and/or Lockheed "black boxes" nominally set up for child porn censorship have been rapidly and readily repurposed to prohibit Britons from reading the opposing point of view in ongoing wars in the Middle East, so the merit of blockading this slippery slope should be clearer than ever before.
But even considering all that, I still don't understand User:Michaeldsuarez's 'logic' arguing for deletion of File:Mesol15.jpg. I haven't seen it, but obviously it's not child porn or someone would say so. I don't understand how the subject is supposed to be 'associated' with it, but how can that make any sense at all? Either it is or it ain't, no? Wnt (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
En.wiki arbitrators, shanghaied into a job they didn't want by the community that wrote the enwiki policy, are probably happy that the WMF took this over. I argued that the WMF should establish a child protection desk to handle the issues, either with an expert on board or available for consultation. I also suggested that they make their process clear, and, as well, for all global ban issues, that a community review process be created, that would be confidential, to allow private appeals, with trusted representatives from the communities on board.
Still, Michael's position is understandable. It comes from a common opinion that the world is full of child predators, dangerous, and that we must stamp out this evil. That danger was invisible when I was young. Yes, children were molested, and that this is now addressed is a great thing. However, it also turned into a witch hunt, and lives have been ruined, and an entire generation of children have been raised with the idea that they can never be alone. Michael obviously believes that Meco is a "pedophile," or he would not have written that it.wiki revert summary. From evidence I've seen, the image was of Meco, on a beach, nude, seen from behind. So if Meco is a "pedophile," the thinking would be, an image of him must be a very dangerous thing.
It is certainly not that children should not be protected! Rather, the witch hunt, the insane urgency that is developed, the willingness to violate normal free-speech protections, and the politics of it all, do not protect children, and they create an impression of a very dangerous world. In reality, the world is dangerous, all right, but lurking pedophiles is way down the list.
Michael's edit on it.wiki referred to a person whose real name is known, as Michael has pointed out. It was libelous (see the meta draft policy cited below). I'm not going to go into the legal theories here, but the WMF could also be held liable. A lawsuit is not likely, with each case, for practical reasons, but if these practices continue, sooner or later someone who is injured is going to take the matter to court. The WMF has deep pockets and could be included as a defendant if it were involved.
But this is Commons, not the Community Advice to the WMF Wiki. I'm suggesting we develop Commons policy for handling "child protection issues," which could protect children, and reduce on-wiki disruption over accusations. It could be like the draft meta policy, which does not refer to "off-wiki" advocacy, a slippery slope if I ever saw one. Meta has:
Reports of editors engaged in such conduct should be made to the WMF at: legal-reports@wikimedia.org
Email reports are preferred, as public comments suggesting a contributor is engaging in such conduct may be considered libel, or may involve unacceptable privacy issues for the editor or for a minor. Such comments can be removed by any editor, and may be deleted.
I have handled these matters on other wikis, where claims of "pedophile" were revision-deleted promptly, at my request (by email, of course!). The user was informed that they could report to the WMF. --Abd (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Portuguese Wikipedians[edit]

20$00(r-GarciaOrta)1971.jpg
20$00(v-Goa)1971.jpg

If there is someone who can add a 20 Escudo bank note from 1971 showing Garcia d'Orta, it would be very helpful for me as I am working on. We do not seem to have this one on Commons.

Google Translation: (I hope this works) - Se há alguém que pode adicionar uma nota de 20 Escudo banco desde 1971 mostrando Garcia d'Orta, seria muito útil para mim como eu estou trabalhando em. Nós não parecem ter este em Commons.

Shyamal (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

There you go. However, the licensing of all images at Category:Banknotes of Portugal is a mess (including of these two I just added), probably as a result of Portugal not being listed in Commons:Currency. Maybe the whole needs to be deleted as copyright violation — I await experts’ input. -- Tuválkin 11:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Banknotes of Portugal. Gunnex (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
What a pity! I thought the rest of the images were standing on firm ground after it was replaced by the Euro. Shyamal (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Yann (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Problems uploading photographs from SpaceX which are available under a Wikipedia compatible licence[edit]

Hi all

I'm trying to upload images from SpaceX which are available on their official Flickr account under a WIkipedia compatible licence. The images were uploaded to Commons but then deleted (see discussion here), I then opened an undeletion request which has been refused and was told that the images would need to be uploaded again, however my attempts at uploading them are not working. Flickr2Commons doesn't work, it rejects uploading the files because they have previously been deleted, I have also tried the Commons Upload Wizard but it has rejected them because they have previously been deleted. Please can someone tell me how I can upload them? Bare in mind there are over 100.

Thanks very much

Mrjohncummings (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest anyone tempted read up on Russavia's case first. I was recently falsely accused of being Russavia's meatpuppet, so I would not touch these with a barge pole. The images are being used as a political beach-ball where established Commons policies, such as the deletion policies, appear to be ignored in order to prove a point. -- (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
It appears that User:Huntster manually restored all 105 images of by uploading them one by one - without using any "wizards" because apparently some control freaks in charge decided it would be good policy to prohibit people from re-uploading photos automatically if they've been deleted. Huntster's work is commendable, but at the rate things are going it sounds like we may need a new upload wizard - one written in Python to be easily run on users' PCs, intentionally designed not to be detectable as a bot, and distributed offsite. The existing architecture simply doesn't take into account that a file may be deleted not because it is a bad thing to have, but out of administrative pique. Wnt (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

March 22[edit]

Cat-a-lot[edit]

In Category:Ancient Roman bronzes in the Museo archeologico nazionale (Florence) I created the sub-cat of bronze statuettes. Using Cat-a-lot I could move only 15 files; all others are rejected, unrecognized ("they were skipped because the old category could not be found"). Momentary disservice as it happens every now and then? Apparently not. After four days still it do not work. I should move them one by one. I wonder and ask: what have these files differently than other that prevents the action? These files are uploaded by the same user, and opening them in edit I do not see anything strange or different between the two groups. It's possible that they have some hidden element or sign that blocks the passage? Thanks for your answer, or the solution of the problem. Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why Cat-a-lot doesn't work, but alternatively you may try it with VisualFileChange: go to Category:Ancient Roman bronzes in the Museo archeologico nazionale (Florence), then left-hand side toolbar "Perform batch task", choose "custom replace", select files you want to move, and replace [[Category:Ancient Roman bronzes in the Museo archeologico nazionale (Florence)]] by [[Category:Ancient Roman bronze statuettes in the Museo archeologico nazionale (Florence)]] in the source text. --A.Savin 10:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Now it has unblocket ! Now it works, it has succeeded. Wonderful ! Thank you so much at all for your advices and for the solution of the problem ! Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Just in case you are wondering whether there is or not ... paste the text in question into that tool. -- Rillke(q?) 21:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Buddhist art from/of Tibet[edit]

Hi, I'd like some input about these categories, and their subcategories. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Buddhist art of Tibet contains Category:Thangka from Tibet, but there is also Category:Mandala thangka from Tibet‎. All these seem not very logical... Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

In art categories of Italy we have this system, that for works of art that were created or found in Italy and are still located there we use "Category:Art in Italy"; for works of art that were created or found in Italy but now are preserved elsewhere we use "Category:Art from Italy" instead. The mother-cat is "Category:Art of Italy" that contains the two cats in / from, and then all other cats that have not a more accurate positioning (e.g. Coins, Artists, Italy in art, Music, Literature, etc.). I don't know if for Tibet there is a similar need to distinguish Tibetan art inside the country and Tibetan art located in other countries of the world (museums, collections, etc.). --DenghiùComm (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I would like to have more opinions here. Personally I think it doesn't matter much where is located the work of art. This is a secondary criteria, compared with content, style, age, etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Brianboru100[edit]

I've had a whole load of files marked for possible deletion by someone calle mattbuck and before I've had time to comment, the deletion debate has been closed. No reason for the possible deletion has been given. No indication of whether the possibility has been translated into a definite has been given either. I have an application that depends on the urls of these images. Not very friendly to a novice user who doesn't login every day and doesn't know how to follow any policy debates that are going on - just wants to share images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboru100 (talk • contribs)

@Brianboru100: Hi,
It seems that the deletion request is here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mattbuck's temporary category. The last part is not closed yet, so you can answer there. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@Brianboru100: The reason for the deletion is that these are photographs of 2D graphic works (such as murals) in the UK. Various countries have rules which we refer to as "freedom of panorama", which generally means that if an artwork is permanently in a public space then it cannot be copyrighted. Unfortunately the UK version does not apply to 2-dimensional "graphic works" such as murals. This means that whoever created the mural holds copyright, and so we cannot accept images which show it. It seems a bit silly, but legally it's no different than taking a photo of a photo in a magazine. You have made a mistake that many many other people have made over the years, myself included. Copyright law is a web of confusion, mostly counterintuitive, and freedom of panorama laws vary wildly from country to country. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

So why couldn't this explanation be included in the first place? Still not a friendly process. When are the deletions due? I need time to get the images mmoved and my app to point to the new urls.

March 23[edit]

MUTYALAPALEM-UPDATED FILE UPLOAD PROBLEMS -REG[edit]

DEAR SIR,

I UPLOADED A BROCHURE ABOUT MUTYALAPALEM VILLEAGE. AFTER THAT I DELETED THE SAME AND TRYING TO UPLOAD UPDATE FILE. BUT I AM UNABLE TO UPLOAD UPADTED FILE... REQUEST YOUR HELP TO UPLOAD THE NEW FILE.....

REGARDS A SWAMY NAIDU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naidu.a2014 (talk • contribs) 2015-03-23T03:44:10‎ (UTC)

Locate the key that looks like this
or like this
and press it once until the little light turns off.
  1. Please stop SCREAMING in our eyes.
  2. You didn't delete anything. Only administrators can delete content, and you're not an administrator.
  3. As noted on File:MUTYALAPALEM.pdf and File:Mutyalapalem 2 side brochure.pdf, they were deleted as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/File:MUTYALAPALEM.pdf and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mutyalapalem 2 side brochure.pdf.
  4. You should not recreate previously deleted content. If you can explain how this content fits within Commons' project scope, you can request undeletion.
LX (talk, contribs) 18:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
User:LX: I find this kind of snide response to be unwarranted. Caps Lock is not literal screaming; it doesn't damage your ears. I have no idea what kind of equipment the OP has. Are there old phones out there that can access Internet but can't do lowercase, or do it with too much trouble? Myself, I remember the days of the APPLE ][, so I can handle uppercase. Trust me, you can get used to it with just a little effort. Wnt (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Naidu.a2014: You can access your contributions by the "contributions" tab that should be at the top of the page by your username (at least for me... it can vary depending on settings, I think). In your case this is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Naidu.a2014 . You can click on each of the files you uploaded. Just under the section titled "File History" you can click on a link to "Upload a new version of this file". If you have further trouble let us know. Wnt (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
You may call my response snide if you like, but at least I addressed the actual question. The question was about a deleted brochure. That won't be listed in Special:Contributions/Naidu.a2014, but in Special:Log/Naidu.a2014, and you can't "Upload a new version of this file" for files that have been deleted. LX (talk, contribs) 07:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
User:LX: Alright, that's a good point! Wnt (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Renaming files[edit]

Can I ask to rename file:1971. V летняя спартакиада народов СССР. Борьба.jpg to the name "The Soviet Union 1971 CPA 4016 stamp (Greco-Roman wrestling) cancelled.jpg" for the following reasonː "To harmonize the file names of a set of images (so that only one part of all names differs)"? --Matsievsky (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Parts that form a whole is explained as "scans from the same book or large images that are divided into smaller portions due to Commons' upload size restriction" (emphasis mine); this is not the case with these stamps, they are not pages from a book, or parts of an image that fit together to show a single image. They are single, complete, discrete, entities and therefore not eligible for harmonisation (each can be understood by themselves and do not need others to be understood). You may disagree with my reasons to decline, but without a valid reason to rename the default position is to decline. ColonialGrid (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Matsievsky, §4 of COM:FR aims for generic filename schemas called up by templates. The mere contrastative use of these two filenames
, while helpful for human reading, doesn’t qualify. Lacking support for §4 what’s left is a request to rename a file to a new name that is, as ColonialGrid correctly analysed,
  • just «a bit better» (§1), as it includes the CPA number (this should be in the description, anyway, and maybe in categories, not necessarily in the filename — and not sufficiently, too!). It is also a bit worse, as it lacks mention of the 5th Summer Spartakiad, and spells out the country name too verbosely («The Soviet Union »« stamp», seriously, as opposed to trimmer and clearer «Soviet »« stamp»?)…
  • a replacement of Russian with English — clearly against that clause §2. Please note that even if this Soviet stamp image was filenamed in, say, Bengali, for any reason or no reason at all, changing it to Russian would still be against policy. In thsi case, moving it from the official language of the country the scanned object is an official document of — that’s twice a bad idea, regardless of the prestige Shakespeare’s Tongue may have in Mother Russia (I always observe with mirth how said prestige tends to be locally inversely proportional to actual command of English).
In terms of formal logic, one of the criteria being fulfilled would be enough for renaming, as they are disjunctive, but no criteria being fulfilled means no renaming per policy. -- Tuválkin 14:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Tuválkin, my purpose - not transition from Russian into English, it isn't necessary to impose me your desires. The bad knowledge of language logically doesn't attract a mistake in reasonings, and the good knowledge of language logically doesn't attract permissiveness. I transfer Soviet stamp image names to the certain standard reached as the result of the compromiseː "The Soviet Union (Year) CPA (Number) stamp (Short description)". --Matsievsky (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Use your standard for your own uploads, that’s cool, but do not try to impose it on other files — COM:FR forbids it very clearly. That’s all there is to the matter, really. -- Tuválkin 17:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank's, it is news to me. Please, specify the concrete quote, I didn't find your information. --Matsievsky (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I see. By the way the both files are versions of the same stamp, therefore, it is two parts of a single whole - a stamp in its versions. §4 perfectly works. --Matsievsky (talk) 09:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
No, you are wrong, they are not two parts of the one object, they are two versions of the same style of object, there is a difference. Think about is like pages in a street directory, each page is part of a single, whole map; individually they are without greater context, and should therefore be named in harmony. Please read the clause again in its entirety: "Second, files that form parts of a whole (such as scans from the same book or large images that are divided into smaller portions due to Commons' upload size restriction) should follow the same naming convention so that they appear together, in order, in categories and lists." This explicitly states that to be parts of a whole they must be smaller portions that fit together to make a larger image (as a jigsaw puzzle does). The case you have provided has no valid rational for renaming under the current rename guidelines at Commons:File renaming, in fact, they fall under the first sentence of clause four: "Just because images share a category or a subject does not mean that they are part of a set." They share a subject, but do not form a set under our definitions of being either pages in a book, or parts that combine to show a larger image. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Stamps can also be considered as part of the catalog of stamps, as its increased images. --Matsievsky (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Sure, they could, but in this context they aren't; you simply have to accept that your propsed rename isn't supported by policy. ColonialGrid (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
If it and so (what I doubt), change policy. --Matsievsky (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

March 24[edit]

New user edit-warring about a digitized audio clip from 1917[edit]

Could someone help out at File:Tamo Daleko.ogg (File_talk:Tamo Daleko.ogg)? I was unsuccessful in trying to explain why it couldn't be attributed to him only, just because he digitized the song and put it through some filtering and general audio cleanup. - Anonimski (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Anonimski: I left a long comment talking about the copyright issues. I also used one of my favorite underused templates, {{infosplit}}, to make it clear there are (at least potentially) two different copyright statuses involved. BTW, as I mentioned, pre-1972 sound recordings should use {{PD-US-record}}, not {{PD-US}}. Revent (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Flickr upload broken[edit]

Every time I try to use the "Share images from Flickr" option on the Upload Wizard, I get the message "Unknown error: 'permissiondenied'." This would be a great option in lieu of uploading manually, but it simply does not work. Conifer (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

That option should only be visible to administrators and license reviewers for now. It looks like someone broke something again. LX (talk, contribs) 07:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are other tools (Commons:Flickr files#Tools) that can upload from Flickr, such as the reasonably straightforward Flickr-2-Commons tool. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I used to have license reviewer permissions on my old account, User:David1217. However, when I got renamed on en.wp [6], I neglected to have the same rename here on Commons (I believe this was before global rename). Then when I created an SUL, it automatically made me this new account here, so now I have split accounts. Apparently I've had the right removed due to inactivity, but if there's some way to restore it on this account, I'd be very pleased, because it would make uploading much easier. Thanks, Conifer (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
It is more than 2 years since you last used the right and it was removed from your old account on 24 February, after notification, for this reason. You should raise a request formally on Commons:Requests_for_rights#Filemover. -- (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Commons:License review/requests is probably the place Fæ wanted to send you to. -- Rillke(q?) 20:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@Conifer: The license reviewer userright is irrelevant to uploading, as you are not allowed to review your own uploads (it does not make you 'exempt' from having them flagged for review). Revent (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I know that they still have to be reviewed; I meant that I could use the direct Flickr URL uploading instead of the manual method. Anyway, thanks to everyone for the help, since I'm now using Flickr2Commons, which works just as well. Conifer (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: We grant image reviewers the upload_by_url user right. With these rights, it is possible to transfer files from Flickr using Upload Wizard and issue uploads server side from several other sources. -- Rillke(q?) 23:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I was aware, but that slipped my mind when it came to the context of requesting the (group, not 'right', indeed), since it's not really the main 'purpose'. I was thinking he meant 'easier to upload from Flickr' in that sense, tho... my mistake. Revent (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Panoramio upload bot[edit]

Hi all, is there a way to order tasks to Panoramio Upload Bot? I asked its operator and didn't receive any answer... Thanks --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 23:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

First concrete bridge and Budapest metro line 1[edit]

Budapešť 0104.jpg
depicts a footbridge over an metro line. My guide told me this was the first bridge build with concrete in the world. This metroline construction was finished in 1896. Could a date be found for the bridge. On the en:Line 1 (Budapest Metro) I could not find any mention of the new aligment (straither line and underground) by the renovation in the 1970s?Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I also uploaded an excursion with the old metro car: File:Museum metro line 1 Budapest 01.JPG to File:Museum metro line 1 Budapest 04.JPG.Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

March 25[edit]

File:Cholula_Hot_Sauce.jpg[edit]

Are personal photos taken of commercial products located on shelves in grocery stores OK to upload to Commons? I checked the archives and find quite a few threads about Coke bottles/cans which say that the images are OK because the logo is no longer copyrighted and because of the simple design of the bottle/can. COM:PACKAGING, however, seems to say that if the packaging of the product contains a printed design then it cannot be uploaded to Commons. Would that reasoning be applicable to this picture of these hot sauce bottles? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Unless the picture of the woman is in the public domain (e.g. it's very old), File:Cholula_Hot_Sauce.jpg is derivative work of a copyrighted work, and we should not have this image on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 04:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jmabel. What do you think is the best course of action. Tag it for speedy deletion per "Apparent copyright violation" or nominate it for deletion per COM:DR? -Marchjuly (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Either. No big deal which. - Jmabel ! talk 16:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Here's another photo which has been uploaded but does not seem to satisfy the criteria of COM:PACKAGING - Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The Sriracha one is almost entirely text and simple shapes. The two tiny peppers on that are probably a small enough portion of the image to be de minimis. - Jmabel ! talk 04:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Understood. This image then does satisfy the exceptions of "COM:PACKAGING". Thanks for clarifying. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Files from the San Diego Museum of Art to be checked[edit]

Hi, Experts in Japanese and Chinese art needed. ;o) Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Type of metal?[edit]

10 Ariary 1999 mint side.jpg

Is my guess that this is a cupronickel coin correct?Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coins_of_Madagascar says it's stainless steel. If so, it's led a very hard life to get that banged up. Revent (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
There are very few coins in circulation so the few in use get a lot of use even with such a marginal value because people are very poor. As a tourist you get spend millions of Arials on consumptions, fees and souvenirs, but practicaly nothing in hard currency terms. This is in lots of banknotes wich everybody folds in bundels of ten. Only on the last days did I see any coins.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Are there any other Septagonal coins? I had to create a new category.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist: en:Fifty pence (British coin). Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
OK:But these UK cannot be uploaded on the Commons.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

March 27[edit]

Ingrown trees[edit]

Ingrown tree close to Budafok kocsiszin tram depot (1).JPG
I encountered this unusual tree + pole combination in Budapest. (also File:Ingrown tree close to Budafok kocsiszin tram depot (2).JPG and File:Ingrown tree close to Budafok kocsiszin tram depot (3).JPG. Can the tree species be determined?Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Not from that image; we'd need to see leaves and, ideally, flowers and/or fruit. Then try Category:Unidentified trees in Hungary. Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
On reflection, the green bark suggests a dogwood, Cornus species. Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
No need for leaves etc. (though that would certainly make it easier). If you can make some good close-ups of the buds, someone with access to the right literature could probably identify it quite easily. From what I can see, it looks like it might have differently shaped buds for flowers and sprouts, which would fit the Cornus theory. --El Grafo (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


Category suggestions, please[edit]

How to categorise
ESP-25c1938.jpg

Suggestions, please, on a set of categories for images like those shown here. Something like:

and the same for black backgrounds, then a set of subcategoies, like, Coins on..., Buttons on..., etc.

I want to exclude images of objects on white tablecloths, etc. Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

How about discs for the first? It already contains all kinds of coins among others, therefore it doesn't help for your second example, but maybe you could create a new sub-category of discsI missed your point background, sorry. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons talk:We miss you#Should the people doing the missing be listed for each entry.3F 2[edit]

We have more or less finished discussing the structure and format of the page and have now moved onto discussing principles regarding how new entries will be handled, including their removal. We haven't created a solid proposal yet. We're still throwing around ideas and discussing them, and I like to hear from others. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Review request [derivative work?][edit]

Hi. I'd like to request if you could assist me in determining if the following images are considered as derivative works?

If yes, i can then proceed with the deletion. Thanks. Ali Fazal (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Most of these are fine to be on Commons per {{PD-text}} and COM:FOP. Josve05a (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

March 28[edit]

Possibility? Viewing images in sub-categories at the same time as viewing parent categories[edit]

In a discussion on EN an editor argued that one should be able to "make an option to view all the images of a category and all its sub-categories at one time." - To expand on that I can see how it can be difficult to view every single one of the subcategories at the same time, but one can pick and choose by "expanding" or "collapsing" the subcategories.

Is there a system being developed that is like this?

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Such a system could be problematic if for instance there is a loop in the category tree. I don't know of such an item, but it is possible to create lists of images in categories and subcategories using AWB or catscan. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there are some loops, but it wouldn't be that hard for the JavaScript to check for loops (and for two or more paths down to the same subcat) and fail to open any category twice on the same page. - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is working on it, but I think that having categories returns results in BFS order would be both feasible (mostly. Worst case of hundreds of empty sub-categories would perhaps have to be excluded), and give results more in tune with expectations than the current system of only the current category. Bawolff (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
FastCCI can make a list of images from subcategories. --ghouston (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Link within langauge text and Valenciennes region[edit]

I try to add the map link [7] but this doesnt work while in Category:Trams in the Valenciennes region the link works. I am proposing the create the Category (Buses in the Valenciennes region). The Tranvilles public transport network is much wider than Valenciennes city. Unfortunatly there is no wel defined area. The department Nord is to large and the Arrondissement de Valenciennes is to small, as there are some communities served wich are outside the arrondisement. We dont do much with the arrondissement in the Commons anyway.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed with 1= for the 1st and only parameter, your external link contained a critical = in its ?name=value query part. The same trick also often helps with {{tlx|template|param1|3=foo=bar}} etc. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

30,000 New York crime scenes[edit]

I hope someone is looking into this. [8] Jim.henderson (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Amazing pictures, but I am not about the copyright. These were presumably never published, so are still probably under copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I hope you don't mean the ones from the 1920s-1930s. The photo of the 1935 New York book-burning is indeed disturbing... I hope we can do better than that. Wnt (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

March 29[edit]

Help, please, re categorizing North America, South America, the Americas[edit]

I noticed that North America and South America had disappeared from many continent categories, and "the Americas" had appeared as a continent in their place. Templates were also changed to follow this method. My understanding is that North and South America are continents, and "the Americas", if anything, is a region (similar to Eurasia). After doing some work to change some of this back, I noticed that a lot of these changes seemed to have been made by the same user, User:Verdy p. I left a message here on his/her talk page, asking that he/she not make such changes. The user left a lengthy reply. Not all the reply is clear, such as the talk about axes (plural of axis, not axe), but I believe the upshot is that he/she disagrees, sees a great need to continue, and plans to do more.

So I'd appreciate input/clarification from the community as to which is right. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

English is not my native languages so excuse if I use "axis" as a plural.
And I have said thgat only a few major topics need to reconciliate other axis than just North/South (there are at least 4 major regions in the Americas, plus 2 with Nature topics and sometimes they need cross-references, but not below the political level of countries and dependencies). And this is NOT for a lot of topics.
Also the term "continent" taken strictly is geological (and geologically, Americas are not divided exactly like in political, natural, historical, and cultural topics). It's impossible to decide just one North/South division for every topic.
I have not removed any one of the North/South categories they are still all there even if there are a few others using also Latin and Caribbean.
Also don't make false assumptions: the Caribbean is NOT just in North America (I've seen false categorisations such as sorting files about Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago, and the Guianas (sometimes also Colombia) besing sorted incorrectly "North America". This is even more important for historical and natural topics. verdy_p (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)