Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Please note

  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing please do not comment here. It is 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


Turkey Beypazarı district Hırkatepe Village pump. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss • Edit • Watch



Allow WebP upload[edit]

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

June 29[edit]

Noob tries to change an image on a page... hilarity ensues[edit]

So this noob saw on a WMF wiki’s page an image the noob thought could be improved — it was a placeholder image, and the noob knew there was a better image in Commons. Then this noob clicked on the image, and eventually come to the file page of that placeholder image in Commons. There the noob in question edited the placeholder’s filepage and transcluded the better image — or tried to: Not with [[File:Example.jpg|thumb]] but with [[File:Http://|thumb]]… We all know what happens after this kind of edits: A mild wrist slap and a few pointers to the Help: name space — unless of course the said noob’s account name includes the string x005F x0028 x0057 x004D x0046; x0029;, in which case looks like nobody dares to do anything… -- Tuválkin 21:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

More info at diff. 1156230270, but only if you love octal. -- Tuválkin 21:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
That seems a bit snide... Its entirely understandable that a recent WMF hire, in a non-technical role, is not familiar with wikis. I don't particularly understand why the foundation doesn't give their new hires a crash course in MW. Notwithstanding that, its not like the foundation is going to bite your head off, if, seeing a confused staffer, someone gives her a polite note helping her accomplish whatever she's trying to do. Bawolff (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't suppose someone wants to actually link to the diff in question...? - dcljr (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the edit might have been in June, repaired in September. Revision of File:Wikimedia Foundation office camera shy 250px.png Delphi234 (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Lenin jacket with bullet holes[edit]

I took a photo of Nikolai Lenin's jacket with bullet holes when it was on display at the former Lenin Museum in Moscow. Can I upload it, or is it under somebody else's copyright? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, you should be able to upload it; if you took the photo, it would be classed as Own Work, unless the museum has their own rules... Any other thoughts? BarkingFish (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think a jacket can get a copyright anywhere, so it should be OK. Killing people or making bullet holes in it do not either. ;o) Regards, Yann (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way, "Nikolai Lenin" seems to be an old name confusion; I don't think he ever really went by that combination of names... AnonMoos (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

September 26[edit]

Unsigned bot[edit]

Hi, On the English Wikipedia, there is User:SineBot, which adds signature when users don't sign. I think it would be useful to have this here. It could work on every page, or only on some selected pages where new users often forget to sign (Help desk, etc.). Opinions? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

discussions on commons are not very crowded, I see no risk of edit conflict, it never occured to me in the past. for the same reason it takes some times before someone sees a missing signature and corrects it. For these reasons, I think the bot would work just fine. Let's start with some selected pages if we need to test it.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Yann: See Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/04#Signature bot on Commons. There seems to be consensus for running a signing bot on Commons, but the problem is that no bot is available. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of this discussion. I contacted the owner of SineBot. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@Yann: He edited enwp yesterday, but I don't see any replies on his talk page. Should I consider writing one myself? Or other bot writers? Al lot of users from the archive has gone inactive or left commons :/ --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: That may be great. Yann (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Bots/Requests/YiFeiBot (24) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Having done a significant amount of {{unsigned}} edits on Commons noticeboards, I have to say that SineBot (or a clone) would definitely be welcome here, even if only on COM:UDR. Revent (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Wax Cylinders in the Public Domain?[edit]

Are these 100+ year old wax cylinder recordings in the public domain? They are labeled as being cc-by nc 2.5, but I think based on Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., that they are actually Public Domain. Does anyone have any guidance here? Victorgrigas (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

As a counter-example, looking through, I notice one recording of Bohumir Kryl. He died in 1961, so I would guess the recording copyright would not have expired until after 2031, unless there is some rationale otherwise. -- (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
except he appears to be published in the US with Edison w:Blue Amberol Records [1] , not Edison-Bell, so pma would not apply. Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
True, however I believe there is no evidence that all recorded performances by Blue Amberol were in the U.S. It would be worth doing a bit more research on the artists and how agreements were made for the recordings and their rights. -- (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
well, the w:Edison Records article says produced in ?New Jersey, the london label w: Edison Bell was separate. no london bell recordings on the list. what kind of evidence would you like to see? Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 04:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
What we need for this to be a mass upload project, would be an extended rationale for PD to be laid out for the record on, say, a batch upload project page at COM:BATCH. This would avoid DRs or uncertainty in the years to come, as well as being a place to cross-link to any DRs that do get raised against specific recordings. That a recording was produced on the Blue Amberol Recordings label, does not mean that there can never be any artist rights outside of the USA for all the various performers and composers, or that some recordings were themselves made outside of the USA. :-) -- (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
the blue amberol label is a strong indication of first publication in the US before 1923. shouldn't be too hard to find a history book confirming that. you would be hard pressed to find a blue amberol recording first published in Europe, given the difficulty in analog reproduction. they instead exported cylinders. here is the finding aid for the foreign releases of cylinders [2] - library are however saying "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.5" [3]. Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 04:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Sound copyrights in the US are a mess. Prior to 1972, there were no federal copyrights on recordings, and they were not brought under federal copyright; they are covered by state copyright, perpetually in all cases I'm familiar with, and will be until 2067, when federal law will sunset those laws. There were some cylinders given to the US Government and released as PD, but otherwise virtually all audio recordings are under copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
right m:Wikilegal/Copyright Status of Sound Recordings Fixed Prior to February 15 1972 Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 04:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
but had the archives not put NC on them, then good to go right? we would be relying on them. maybe an email is in order. Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
We have a category of license templates related to audio. Please see Category:License tags for audio files. If the files fulfill conditions specified in those templates than they should be OK. --Jarekt (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

September 28[edit]

Public pianos at train stations[edit]

Piano de Paris-Gare de Lyon.jpg

In Europe there is a trend to place pianos in the main train stations for members of the public to play on. This is a big succes with the players being generaly of a high level. Could we create a category for this? and to take pictures and move files to the category?Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We have "Category:Street pianos" (see also "w:Street piano"), but maybe this category is better used for pianos that are situated in open-air venues. Perhaps the following category tree could be created:
  • Pianos in public spaces (parent categories: "Category:Pianos", "Category:Public space")
    • Pianos in airports, Pianos in hotel lobbies, Pianos in shopping malls, Pianos in train stations, Street pianos, etc.
      • Pianos in train stations in [XYZ country], etc.
SMUconlaw (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Well it should be "railway stations", not "train stations", but I'd be dubious as to whether we really need to disperse this category yet. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
"Category:Railway stations" is currently a redirect to "Category:Train stations" ... — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

snow/ice clearing in Lviv[edit]

Lviv stad 2004 09.jpg

I am scanning and uploading pictures of a wintry Lviv in 2004. How can a classify this vehicle? motorised cart? What is the name of the tool to break the ice? As the drainage was clogged up the snow and ice refroze every evening.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Smiley.toerist, zou dat een Crowbar (tool) kunnen zijn? Lotje (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
It is used as a long chisel (beitel) instead of a crowbar as in pulling out nails or opening boxes. Once it gets between the ice and the pavement, the ice mostly breaks of when its melting. (When its frozen solid on the pavementsurface its no use)Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
How about Category:Cargo motor trikes for the vehicle? --ghouston (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The tools would probably go in Ice chisels. I think the kind used for ice-fishing tend to have narrower blades than those designed for clearing pavement, but they’re essentially the same.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
✓ DoneSmiley.toerist (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I continued uploading pictures from my 2004 trip to Lviv. Could someone classify the electric locs in Category:Rail transport in Lviv? And fill in some street names from Category:March 2004 in Ukraine?Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Use an existing template or create a new one for UNESCO publication content?[edit]

Hi All

Would it be best to create a new one or use an existing template when importing publications (mainly reports and books) from UNESCO to Wikimedia Commons to capture all the metadata? Here are the fields they use:

  • Title
  • Added title
  • Series title
  • Series (vol/issue)
  • Other language series title
  • Authors
  • Corporate author
  • Imprint
  • Edition
  • Country
  • Year
  • Collation
  • Original language
  • Other languages
  • Other language title
  • Non-latin script title
  • Document code
  • General notes
  • Main descriptors
  • Secondary descriptors
  • Identifiers
  • Name of person as subject
  • Corporate body as subject
  • Meeting as subject
  • Meeting
  • Meeting session
  • Meeting place
  • Meeting date
  • UNESCO Library Location Documentation Centre call nr.
  • Documentation Centre languages
  • Internet address
  • Nature of contents
  • Document type
  • Catalog number
  • Form of document
  • Source code
  • URL
  • URL Notice

Here's an example, not all publications use all fields


John Cummings (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The best existing guidance is at Commons:Guide to batch uploading and checking previous examples of custom templates at Category:Data ingestion layout templates, with the GWT manual being useful. There are no hard community agreed best practices for precisely when to create a custom ingestion template, with some being fans of that workflow and others preferring to fall back on templates that (in years to come) might be easier to reverse engineer with Wikidata.
You could reframe your project and ask a different question by starting with a Wikidata import of your UNESCO data, then thinking about how to use that to populate image pages on Commons automatically.
As highlighted by others in the threads and email discussions you have created about this same project, mass importing raw documents to Wikimedia Commons may be out of scope and become controversial.
Taking the example document given above of over 300 pages:
  1. there is one photograph (the cover) where the photographer does not seem attributed, this would be more useful uploaded as a jpg for illustrative reuse
  2. there are some small icons in black and white, which appear too poor quality to be useful to extract
  3. there are a couple of charts, which might have educational use if extracted and given the context of their source data
  4. the rest of the document is pure text which could be made available on Wikisource in a more easily reusable format than the pdf given
  5. the document's license is given as all rights reserved within itself, and co-copyrighted with Akhtar Soomro (presumably a UNESCO employee at the time, but this is not stated). This is confusing when compared to the CC-BY-SA-3.0 as UNESDOC
-- (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@John Cummings: before you start uploading, how are these files in scope? The example you gave seems to be one cover photo and rest all text. Multichill (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
They're at least arguably material for Wikisource.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions, as Prosfilaes says, I think that all the publications will be useful for Wikisource, additionally many of the publications also include multimedia content so the content included will be useful for Wikipedia etc. I'll be running other trials shortly with other content that will be a more obvious fit for multiple Wikimedia projects. Cheers John Cummings (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
John, maybe you can get some stuff from the UNESCO photo library? Multichill (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Multichill, that is where came from, hopefully news soon. John Cummings (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Reimagining WMF grants report[edit]

Last month, we asked for community feedback on a proposal to change the structure of WMF grant programs. Thanks to the 200+ people who participated! A report on what we learned and changed based on this consultation is now available.

Come read about the findings and next steps as WMF’s Community Resources team begins to implement changes based on your feedback. Your questions and comments are welcome on the outcomes discussion page.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 16:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@I JethroBT (WMF): There is too much text, i fail to see how to request a grant for example (i don't need a grant, just curious). I also fail to see where to discuss existing grant request. Too much text, too less simple english. Sometimes less is moor. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: Yeah, I understand the report may seem a little lengthy. The outcomes report is on the long side for a few reasons. First, the changes are comprehensive across all of the WMF's grant programs (i.e. not just a single grant type), so some detail is needed to describe those changes. We made sure to describe the kinds of feedback that prompted these particular changes. We also reported on participants' attitudes about existing grants (e.g. on reporting, applying, etc.). I agree in the use of minimal text when possible, and as such, a summary of this report is available on the Wikimedia Foundation blog. As for info on grants and grant requests, those are available at m:Grants:Start, so feel free to check those out if you are curious! Thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

September 29[edit]

Commons featured cover images?[edit]

Since we have Category:Commons featured desktop backgrounds, is there any way to make a list of featured images in vertical orientation, say between 1.29 (US letter) and 1.5 (6" x 9") (with 1.414 being the international standard An ratio)? Maybe a little wider; 1.2 to 1.6 would get everything on File:Comparison book sizes.svg and File:GOST 5773-90 book sizes 1to1 scale.svg at first glance. It could be done as a bot run, but I'd be happy to see how to do it automatically, or just somebody make a list.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

What's your intention? That the images get used on book or magazine covers? Such an image is quite likely to be cropped and arranged such that a plain bit (e.g., sky) is located where the title/author or other text appears. The image doesn't even have to fill the cover space. I don't think the source-image aspect ratio is particularly important. -- Colin (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
But the image doesn't have to fill the space on a desktop background, either, and there's certainly an option to crop desktop backgrounds. Pretty much anything in the featured desktop backgrounds is going to be very hard to use to fill a full-page cover; File:1928 Model A Ford.jpg, for one example, can't be cropped to come close. I don't want to see the perfect to be the enemy of the good here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Batch uploader for inexperienced users: new tool project using Excel spreadsheets[edit]


Please take a look at this project by Yarl of a new tool for performing simple batch uploads - Batch uploader for small GLAM projects. This is meant as a tool for small-to-medium batch uploads by GLAM institutions, cultural centres and other parties who find the Upload Wizard too limited (it is not possible to provide adequate file descriptions, easily incorporate Artwork fields at the stage of upload...) and the GWT too complex. Please look at the proposal and feel free to comment. Thanks! --Marta Malina Moraczewska (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a very interesting project; I like especially the approach of gathering speadsheet-entered or -compiled data. I’m usually very sceptical, even suspicious, of such projects, but this one looks like a good thing: Well thought out and likely to improve the contents of Commons and the make the best of volonteers’ time. -- Tuválkin 23:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: we are waiting right now for community support and questions. If you like it or have some thoughts about it, feel free to leave a note on grant page. Cheers, Yarl 21:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

September 30[edit]

What to do with German Stamps?[edit]

We have several license templates related to German stamps:

and over 9 thousand files that use those templates. All of those templates are marked as "NOT in the public domain". We have Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review process which stalled about 3 years ago. We have m:Wikilegal/Copyright of Images in German Postage Stamps saying that "Copyright law is complex" and not much more.We also have plenty of discussions on the subject here, here or here. Is anybody still working on reviewing those files? and if not than what shall we do with all the files still left? A DR for 9k files seems a little drastic... --Jarekt (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I think that the stamps will have to be reviewed and nominated individually. Some of the {{PD-German Empire stamps}} files will qualify for {{PD-old-70}} because the stamp designer died long ago, some stamps reuse old artworks and some are {{PD-ineligible}}. I suggest keeping the templates for now until all stamps either have been deleted or retagged as something else. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Any stamp should be considered an official work on behalf of the state-owned post (BRD/DDR and earlier german post stamps). This changed in 1995 when it became a shareholder company so any stamp from 1995 or later should not be an official work. --Denniss (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review reveals that the 'official work' exception only applies to text but not to images, so it is irrelevant whether the post was part of a government or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
This court ruling is only applicacable to DPAG stamps, not to older stamps issued by Bundespost or older/other government agencies. --Denniss (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The court ruling is applicable to § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG, on which all of the templates are based: "the Landgericht Berlin decided that § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG only applies for literary works (Sprachwerke) and not for works of the visual arts (Werke der bildenden Kunst)" (quote from Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review). Furthermore, the ruling is also applicable to {{PD-GermanGov}}, which is also based on § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG. Since § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG only applies to literary works, none of the templates can be used for artworks. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

In the old days, stamp illustrations were "defaced" which then made them usable in publications. At first the defacement was a wide white line through the stamp, but generally now is just a black line through the denomination of the stamp. Collect (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

That's because the postal services don't like forged stamps. It's a non-copyright restriction. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

A mass deletion request for several thousand stamps is exactly what could've happened in 2012. Opting for an individual review process was a compromise between deleting and keeping files. As you might imagine, reviewing copyright for German stamps was and is done by a limited number of users. Therefore few stamps were reviewed in the last three years and the larger portion of unreviewed stamps remain. The stamps were uploaded by individual users, all assigning public domain status based on §5 of German copyright law. In the past we've seen a number of batch uploads with third parties (usually cultural institutions) assessing a certain copyright status for their uploads as well. No individual copyright assessment is done in both cases. In the case of batch uploads user reviews and error report systems allowed to identify some files didn't meet our copyright policies (e.g. they are not yet in the public domain) and had to be deleted in the process. The German stamps are different in that no single third party vouches for their copyright assessment, but a number of individual users did when they initially uploaded these files. The question is if we want to treat German stamps different than any batch upload when it comes to copyright assessment of individual files. A mass deletion request would result in a lot of false positives and is neither reasonable nor productive. My impression was that we came to this conclusion in 2012 already and therefore didn't follow through with this idea. Individual deletion requests for several thousand files would create an immense backlog and will occupy a lot of users for a long time. Moreover I think it's unlikely that these individual requests would get the attention they require, unless someone has a couple of experts on German stamps and copyright hidden somewhere. I can understand the urge to do something about this pile of unreviewed files. A modus vivendi could be to nominate smaller batches for deletion at a time. Say a couple of dozen individual deletion requests simultaneously. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

OK so lets go through "individual review process". I nominated files that failed the review for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Stamps in Category:German stamps review delete. We should probably have occasional mass deletion requests, for small (50-100) batches of files, so the process continues because it will have a super significant effect on them. --Jarekt (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
You should probably keep one of these pages Commons talk:Stamps/Public domain or perhaps better under the German section of Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Germany updated on progress, actions to be taken or decisions. I only happened to stumble across this discussion. It might also be useful to tell the German wiki as there may be some experts there who can assist and a good place to start, before commencing any deletion process, might be at de:Portal Diskussion:Philatelie for starters because it will have significant effect on them in particular. Ww2censor (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I left a note at Commons:Forum and Commons_talk:WikiProject_Public_Domain/German_stamps_review. I did not think of other places. Please advertise this discussion, if you can think of other forums. --Jarekt (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

October 01[edit]

Where could I find related slides?[edit]


Looking at File:Wikimania 2015 - Edward Zalta.webm, I would be interested to have the corresponding slides. Do we have them somewhere? If no, any idea how to get in touch with the lecturer or any relevant person and ask to upload it? --Psychoslave (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Zalta is Senior Research Scholar at the Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) at Stanford University. I suggest you contact him there. - Jmabel ! talk 15:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your answer. Could you be kind enough to give me email or a a link which provide a contact? --Psychoslave (talk) 09:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Scan of a book cover released in 1929[edit]

Hi - someone may be kind enough to recommend a license tag for a scan of a French cooking book released in 1929. -- MaxxL - talk 12:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You have to presume it's all rights reserved, unless you know a bit more about the author(s) and how old they are or when they died. -- (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
That's all we know: "E. Sant'Angelo remains an enigma (it is not known their dates of birth and death), but we enjoy flipping through the pages 1280 - 1.3kg, weighed - its Cookbook." -- MaxxL - talk 12:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
It could depend on the nature of the cover - if it's just the title of the book and the name of the author in a standard typographic font, then it's probably not copyrightable (certainly not under United States law). If there's an illustration on the cover, it could depend on the status of the illustration author (not necessarily the same as the cookbook author). AnonMoos (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Second choice would be this cover without any grafics. -- MaxxL - talk 12:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Such a cover would be {{PD-ineligible}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot -- MaxxL - talk 13:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Category Marian Marion Dickerman[edit]

Hello. Earlier today I moved a category from Marion Dickerman to Marian Dickerman, since virtually all of the NARA image file descriptions had her first name spelled in that way. I've since determined (via Blanche Wiesen Cook's biography of Eleanor Roosevelt) that her first name is correctly spelled with an O rather than an A. I'm unable to move the category back, and rather than muck things up any further I'm here asking that someone do that. The correct name is Marion Dickerman. I'll clean up the category names on the image files after the move back, of course. Thank you. — WFinch (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Done, but this was simply a bunch of file edits; I can't think what here you might not have been able to do. What were you prevented from doing? - Jmabel ! talk 22:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I was trying to move the category a second time, from the Marian Dickerman back to Marion Dickerman, and after submitting it I got a red alert notice telling me I didn't have the authority. I was a little puzzled since I've moved things over redirects on Wikipedia, but this was a first for me at Commons so I didn't want to push it. I'll use more caution when reading NARA file names and descriptions, I promise. Thanks for your help. — WFinch (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I didn't use any "category move" as such, just edited the relevant files. I did use VisualFileChange, which I recommend, despite it having some quirks. - Jmabel ! talk 19:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The name of Ahmet Ertegun's family was spelled "Ertrogren" by some photographer or record-keeper working for the federal government in the 1940s... SFriendly.gif -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

October 02[edit]

Why do 6% of all Commons images get uploaded with no text?[edit]

I have been making a fuss about finding that 0.3% of my uploads have been created with no text pages since the weekend, due to a apparent unknown WMF operational glitch (phabricator:T113878). However, on investigating the numbers more widely for how often images are uploaded to the project with no initial description, I was completely astonished to find over 1/20 images starts out with a blank page. The numbers have been hovering at 5% to 7% over the last two years:

Count of images uploaded with blank text pages since 2014
| Empty | Total  | Ratio | Date    |
| 16815 | 274167 | 6.13% | 2014-01 |
| 16724 | 280361 | 5.97% | 2014-02 |
| 23763 | 330847 | 7.18% | 2014-03 |
| 21041 | 347804 | 6.05% | 2014-04 |
| 31505 | 400109 | 7.87% | 2014-05 |
| 23422 | 330580 | 7.09% | 2014-06 |
| 26597 | 501389 | 5.30% | 2014-07 |
| 20937 | 461944 | 4.53% | 2014-08 |
| 31159 | 556161 | 5.60% | 2014-09 |
| 38821 | 502623 | 7.72% | 2014-10 |
| 19844 | 340082 | 5.84% | 2014-11 |
| 18789 | 347873 | 5.40% | 2014-12 |
| 15593 | 317435 | 4.91% | 2015-01 |
| 16583 | 326198 | 5.08% | 2015-02 |
| 24271 | 400304 | 6.06% | 2015-03 |
| 25536 | 373784 | 6.83% | 2015-04 |
| 31919 | 522749 | 6.11% | 2015-05 |
| 21764 | 430148 | 5.06% | 2015-06 |
| 25758 | 522582 | 4.93% | 2015-07 |
| 38971 | 589282 | 6.61% | 2015-08 |
| 47666 | 867802 | 5.49% | 2015-09 |

Can anyone work out why so many uploads start out blank, and if there might be ways of decreasing this number, on the presumption that a significant proportion of these must create work for volunteers to repair them? I'm half expecting to discover that one of our popular upload tools does its uploads in a weirdly unexpected way. Thanks -- (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not good; thanks for digging it up, . Could these files (almost 1 million!) be tagged with a mantainance category, at least? Or is it so bad that there’s not even a filepage to add the category to?
(Which upload tool is causing this? My guess is it is one which was not developed by a volonteer…) -- Tuválkin 09:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll dig into it a little more, however keep in mind that just because a file gets uploaded with no text, does not mean it stays that way. The numbers above just state how the file was at first upload. It could be that a lot of these have image text pages created by their upload tool within seconds of the image having been uploaded, rather than at the same time. I think that when we transfer images cross-wiki this might happen, it's something to piece together... As for images with blank text pages longer term, they do get flagged by bot and will end up at Category:Media without a license or a similar maintenance category, probably within the first half day. -- (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh man, I don't think I considered this in my script. Description-page-less files like File:Stealth_Building-005.jpg was uploaded in May. And there's 28 more such files. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Ah, that paints the matter in merrier hues indeed. It’s still eminently fixable, though. -- Tuválkin 11:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Damn those bot-writers, break out the pitchforks and torches! :-) -- (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
btw, currently, there appears to only be 7 non-fixed images:
MariaDB [commonswiki_p]> select page_title from page where page_len = 0 and page_namespace=6\G
*************************** 1. row ***************************
page_title: Juvenile_Instructor_(1917)_(14770065071).jpg
*************************** 2. row ***************************
page_title: Cairanne_Coteaux_et_Fourchette_Pièce_de_boeuf_et_gratin_dauphinois.JPG
*************************** 3. row ***************************
page_title: The_story_of_Cairo_(1906)_(14781887512).jpg
*************************** 4. row ***************************
page_title: U_and_I_(1993)_(14581926457).jpg
*************************** 5. row ***************************
page_title: La_vie_hors_de_chez_soi_(comédie_de_notre_temps)_l'hiver,_le_printemps,_l'été,_l'automne;_études_au_crayon_et_à_la_plume_(1876)_(14742708586).jpg
*************************** 6. row ***************************
page_title: The_three_presidencies_of_India-_a_history_of_the_rise_and_progress_of_the_British_Indian_possessions,_from_the_earliest_records_to_the_present_time._With_an_account_of_their_government,_religion,_(14761483354).jpg
*************************** 7. row ***************************
page_title: Transactions_and_proceedings_and_report_of_the_Philosophical_Society_of_Adelaide,_South_Australia_(1911)_(14577883817).jpg

: how did you calculate your numbers above. Do you include images that were eventually deleted (probably significant if they're uploaded blank). Are you counting revdeleted initial revisions as "blank"? My calculation for September 2015 (admittedly not including things that were eventually deleted - tried select count(*) from revision inner join page on rev_page = page_id where rev_parent_id = 0 and rev_sha1 = 'phoiac9h4m842xq45sp7s6u21eteeq1' and rev_timestamp > '20150900000000' and page_namespace = 6;) only had 279 blank images (and 898692 total images = 0.03% blank) being uploaded that month, which is two orders of magnitude less than your count. Bawolff (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I used the image table and checked for img_description = "". This will just report pages that still exist, should include renamed files without worrying about redirect pages and will count pages that were later fixed but originally blank. I don't think it would count deletions, that would be the fa table.
BTW, checking for page len as zero is a bit pants, as there are bots that rush around slapping a category or template on those, quickly making them non zero. In fact I double check my fixes so that I count any (of my uploads) under 400 chrs as being equivalent to blank. -- (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
While many tools make img_description and the initial page text be the same, there are many that don't (UploadWizard being a prime example where img_description is almost always "Uploaded by UploadWizard"). Its entirely possible for img_description to be blank, and the page text to have text (e.g. File:Stadtparkhafen_(Hamburg-Winterhude).Treppe.22022.ajb.jpg). Your query would also come up with cases where someone did a re-upload with a blank summary.
If instead of using the sha1 for empty string, I use rev_len < 400 for initial revision of page in File namespace, I get 148,062 results for September. But I suspect that there are lots of legit image desc pages that come in under 400 bytes.
As for deletions - I don't really know an easy way to count those (due to limits on tool labs), but it would make the numbers more interesting. Bawolff (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the 400 chr limit, that's just true for my upload projects. I'd guesstimate that any image with a text page shorter than 80 chrs is 99% likely to be a bad page... prove me wrong. :-) With a bit of smart analysis I think something might pop out of this that would help our volunteers that enjoy maintaining blank pages. -- (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bawolff: Playing with the numbers makes Selenium user (talk · contribs) pop out as a mass uploader of mostly empty pages. Shouldn't this WMF official test account (along with any others) have either a bot name or use the now agreed WMF suffix used on role accounts (there is no specific named operator)? -- (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't even realize we were (still) doing selenium testing on the live site. Personally I'm not sure how much I like have tests that make actual writes on a live site, although I guess the bot isn't getting in anyone's way if it has gone so unnoticed. Maybe it would be nice if that bot deleted the images it made after its done uploading them. As for (WMF) prefix - I kind of feel like that is supposed to be for people who are doing things as part of their job, that doesn't seem to quite fit the definition of a testing bot. But it would be nice to clarify its role. Personally, I'd like the name Selenium user (WMF QA bot) (talk · contribs), and yeah there should be a contact person on the bots user page. Pinging @ZFilipin (WMF), MarkTraceur (WMF): in case they have any thoughts. Bawolff (talk)
To fit rather better with past practice, see m:WMF Advanced Permissions, something like Selenium QA bot (WMF) might be more the thing. I'm vaguely thinking of others in the future using global regex searches for "official" accounts, or indeed to uncover redundant accounts to retire or to pop any special rights off. -- (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts on creating files with very short or minimal text pages[edit]

Just looking at page length to find patterns, I think that a search for underpinning issues would have to be more complex. The following list for uploaders of images with the shortest image text pages, probably tell us little apart from these accounts are doing more unusual things with image creation.

I guess it does show that the team creating Category:Picture Upload by WarriorSoft-Team (8a jhon mario) need some advice on batch categorization (the majority of red cats are unlikely to ever be created), at some point we should probably think about whether information hiding within templates like File:Pauly-Wissowa III,1, 0155.jpg or File:趮-bigseal.svg is a good thing or not, for example they make it much harder to discover the images using the normal search engine. -- (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Users with more than 10 uploads in September 2015, with page length < 100
User Total
8a jhon mario (talk · contribs) 25
File Upload Bot (S8w4) (talk · contribs) 37
Fry1989 (talk · contribs) 13
Micheletb (talk · contribs) 54
Selenium user (talk · contribs) 131

Flickr importing in UploadWizard no longer limited to 50 images[edit]

The Flickr importing in UploadWizard used to be limited to 50 images. Now it's limited to 500 images (which is actually a limitation imposed by Flickr, not by UploadWizard). If you would like the ability to import Flickr images via the UploadWizard, please apply for the right at Commons:License review/requests. Kaldari (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Wikimedia Commons Welcome marking new page creations as minor edits[edit]

I thought the ability to create new pages and at the same time classify your edit as "minor" has been disabled on MediaWiki, as there is no checkbox to do so. However, apparently the welcoming bot is able to create new pages and mark them as minor edits, which shouldn't be happening. Could someone please fix the welcoming bot to not do so? Gparyani (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any problems for welcoming bot to have creations as minor. Besides, it's a MediaWiki extension working on the servers, so what it can do is not limited to what checkboxes we can see or what api options there is. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
This was raised as an issue on enwiki, and it was even agreed on the Phabricator that new page creations should never be marked as minor edits. The Phabricator ticket raising this issue first covered all tickets, but the only fix that was ever released by WMF was the UI fix. (I do believe that an API fix was deployed later, to fix a related issue with a tool there on enwiki. I can't find the links at the moment, but trust me.) Gparyani (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The change for API not allowed to create pages on minor edit is [4]. Extensions are allowed to do what they want in terms of making edits and are not bound by requirements of the interfaces exposed to users (Which is the entire point of an extension). In this particular case, I think these page creations are legitimately minor, so this makes sense. However, if community doesn't want them to be minor, it can request that the config option $wgNewUserMinorEdit be changed (Just like any other config option). Bawolff (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Marking them as minor (which only really affects watchlists and recent changes patrolling) seems harmless, TBH. The 'welcoming' behavior is rather strictly defined. Revent (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Any API to get Commons categories that are near a particular latitude/longitude?[edit]

I have a coordinate, and I want to know what categories are nearby.

For instance, for 40.7576,-73.9857 I would get [[Category:Times Square]] and probably [[Category:Broadway]] and a few others nearby.

Is there an API that gives this?

If not, is there a way to get the same via several APIs calls? 50% of false positives is OK. Using third-party APIs is OK.

A problem is that {{Object location|40.75773|-73.985708}}-type tags are not widely used, many place-related categories lack it, so a trick could to serach for nearby pictures and then take the categories of these pictures, any better idea?

Thanks a lot! Syced (talk) 05:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

So, it looks like most cats don't have coords on them, and those that do don't show up on list=geosearch for some reason. Two main approaches I see:

Hope that helps. Bawolff (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The President Delivers a Statement on the Shooting in Oregon[edit]

I was unable to upload a larger, higher quality file.

If anyone can upload the highest quality file available to that file page (or to another separate file page with the WEBM extension), that would be most appreciated.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done. Better quality file now at File:The President Delivers a Statement on the Shooting in Oregon.webm. -- Cirt (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking for a tool for finding files in a category on commons without descriptions in specific languages[edit]

Hi all

Is there a tool available to find files in a category on Commons that do not include a description in a certain language? It would be very helpful indeed if the user could also input another language they can also speak to help them translate.


John Cummings (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You could use catscan2 and check for template inclusion. For example[6]=1&templates_no=en&ext_image_data=1&file_usage_data=1&doit=1 shows all files in Category:Ships which do not include {{en}} and are thus missing english translations. Obviously this depends on that the file description uses language templates. MKFI (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi MKFI, thanks very much, this is really helpful, all files will have a specific UNESCO template so this will work great. It would be very helpful to have a way of filtering by which languages are present as well but this is more than enough to get started.
Thanks again
John Cummings (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
John, check the included templates field in catscan2 for filtering already present languages. You can filter them by including language templates in "has all these templates" field. The following will find all files which have german descriptions present but do not have english descriptions:[6]=1&templates_yes=de&templates_no=en&ext_image_data=1&file_usage_data=1&doit=1. You can enter multiple templates to filter several languages. MKFI (talk) 10:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi MKFI, wonderful, thanks very much. John Cummings (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

enforcing proper category names using AbuseFilter?[edit]

Generally category names should be in English (though there may be exceptions), but new users aren't always aware to this policy and may categorize new files using local names. In some cases, where the local name is using non-latin alphabet (Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese etc), it can be easily detected automatically using AbuseFilter. I'm suggesting to use AbuseFilter to detect such assignment to categories with non English names, and show the user notice (which is OK to ignore) before saving such edit. Eran (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Two types of a colon[edit]

In last days, I have a problem with a colon. When I write a colon using keyboard, it is interpreted as a different character (with triangle dots) than the standard colon (with square dots) and doesn't work as a prefix marker. As i noticed, that is not only my problem; see CategoryːEdward Donovan, CategoryːVenom, CategoryːPrague. What is that problem caused by? Formerly I had not this problem. --ŠJů (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

That is a U+02D0 MODIFIER LETTER TRIANGULAR COLON (Most commonly used in writing IPA). Most likely you either switched keyboard layouts, or changed input method option. There's an input method option on wiki (The letter language icon in top right of the page -> little keyboard icon in the pop-up window). Check to see if that's set, but I think its more likely the setting in your Operating system, which varries how to set with different OS. Bawolff (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I switched the input settings in the pop-up window by mistake. It's an unpleasant trap. --ŠJů (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. I think this is confusing enough to warrant a bug - phab:T114529. Bawolff (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

October 03[edit]

NewsBank logo - Public domain as pretty basic ?[edit]

Logo of company NewsBank.

Can this logo be uploaded locally here to Commons under {{PD-ineligible}} ?

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably yes, as {{pd-text}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, uploaded locally as File:Newsbanklogo.png. -- Cirt (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Illustration guidelines[edit]

Could someone kindly direct me to a page with guidelines for original artwork/illustrations? Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure there is really a set of guidelines beyond COM:SCOPE, but if you have any specific questions, feel free to ask. - Jmabel ! talk 09:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to easily track use of your uploads?[edit]

Just wondering - I know that on Wikipedia you get notified when a page you've created has been linked to from another page. Is there something similar on here to let you know when an image you've uploaded has been used in another Wiki? Apologies if this has been asked before, I did a few searches but didn't have much luck due to lots of hits for "tracking images" etc... Mabalu (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

There used to be WikiSense, but if you access that website now there is a message stating "The WikiSense project has been discontinued. It was based on a very old version of MediaWiki, and very much entangled with the Toolserver environment. A migration of the old code seems unpractical, and a complete rewrite of all tools would take a lot of effort. Please check on the ToolLabs overview page if an alternative tool exists for your need. If you would like a WikiSense tool to be re-created, try the Community Wishlist process (or the Technische Wunschliste on the German Wikipedia)." I don't know if there is a replacement tool yet. — Cheers, JackLee talk 12:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
See also GLAMorous. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Having echo notifications for this type of thing was waiting on cross-wiki echo notifications (mw:Requests_for_comment/Cross-wiki_notifications). I believe that's being worked on now, and that the multimedia team will work on echo notification for file usage sometime after that's done. See phab:T77154. Bawolff (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Try Commons:MyGallery. If you click on the red question mark it will be replaced with the number of usages. BethNaught (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
If you just want a single image, see also Special:GlobalUsage. Bawolff (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Spires is a subcategory of roofs[edit]

Hi, I am new here on Commons, but I am wondering is it normal, that this image is in the category of category:Roofs? The-city-not-present (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing at this, I´ve put it into Category:The Bugaboos. Sadly, many category pages at Commons lack descriptions to define what belongs in the cat, so such mistakes are common. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

October 04[edit]

Project Apollo Archive on Flickr[edit]

About 10.000 photos of Apollo 17 mission is uploaded to Flickr: under CC0 (public domain) licence. --Rlevente (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Those 10.000 photos are of the Apollo missions 8 to 17 Clin0x010C ~talk~ 22:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Public Domain Mark isn't {{cc-pd}} or {{cc-0}}, please use {{PD-USGov-NASA}} to tag these images. Thanks --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Public Domain Mark is {{Flickr-public domain mark}}, but according to Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#New_NASA_moon_stuff_on_Flickr, not all the images are from the NASA. Thibaut120094 (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Evangelical Cathedral, Sibiu[edit]

I found a number of pictures representing the Evangelical Cathedral in Sibiu (Romania) which had a wrong name - Biserica evanghelica din Turnisor and a wrong monument code (12065). I changed the code in the description (12078) and moved the pictures in the right category, but they should also be renamed accordingly. And maybe I did not find all of them... pls check! Hkoala (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Just look at the two churches: Category:Biserica evanghelică din Turnişor and Category:Evangelical Cathedral, Sibiu - they are obviously different! --Hkoala (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


Is it OK to use Snipping Tools to snip part of a picture on the Internet, and upload the snip onto Wikimedia Commons? --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

In general no. --Magnus (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of older license version[edit]

@SilkTork: Is this correct? I always have tried to make it clear when I previously granted an older license version elsewhere, but I can certainly stop doing that. - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Third party interjecting... while you as the copyright holder are perfectly able to grant permission to use a work under multiple licenses, just showing a single license instead of both isn't technically 'wrong' (you did license it under the 3.0 version as well). Since the crop is 'technically' a derivative work (though a non-creative one that creates no new copyright), and the 2.0 license allows licensing of derivatives under later versions of the same license, I don't think it's really an issue to only show the later version of the license on the file page. At the same time, I personally would not have done so (I would have kept both, if I was making the crop). To more address what I think you were asking, though, as the copyright holder you are in no way required to indicate all licenses under which you have released a work when uploading it, you just need to indicate an 'allowable' one when you upload it here. All Creative Commons licenses are 'nonexclusive', and don't prohibit multi-licensing. Revent (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
In the few situations in which I've uploaded a derivative work of a dual CCBYSA30/GFDL work (example), I've always marked my upload as CCBYSA30 only (the GFDL being such a burden to use properly), so I don't see anything wrong with distributing this DW under only one license. Since this clearly isn't a case of someone attempting to revoke the free license or trying to get us to delete it for lack of a license, I don't see a problem with un-marking it with CCBYSA20. Nyttend (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't really even looking to that aspect that he also cropped the photo: I was more looking to the original, underlying work, which is licensed under cc-by-sa-2.0 on Flickr. I gather you are saying that when I copy my own works over from Flickr, there is no reason to indicate cc-by-sa-2.0 if I am also offering cc-by-sa-3.0. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

File renaming[edit]

@Marcus Cyron: @Донор:: Renamed on the basis of criterion 2, how on earth is File:Griffith Observatory 03.jpg considered a "meaningless" filename? (Not that I want it switched back, but people should not rename files just because the name is not perfectly to their taste.) - Jmabel ! talk 17:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I must confess, I did not lokked at the cause here, because it was a set of files and the others were nominated because of the series criterien. That made sense for me. I think, the requester only used the false number as he wrote the request. Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
False number? It was one of a numbered series of photos of the same subject, a perfectly common practice. - Jmabel ! talk 02:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
iMO, at least, the 'default' should be to not rename files, unless there is a specific compelling reason, instead of renaming them on request. As long as the existing name is 'valid', leave it alone. 'Series' of numbered images with missing members are not uncommon... since the numbered 'order' of images is usually irrelevant, IMO there is no real reason to rename files purely on that basis. Leaving them along (filename integrity) should be the default setting. Revent (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Revent: my view exactly. I usually won't even rename for misspellings unless they are in proper nouns. - Jmabel ! talk 17:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Voting for determining featured pictures[edit]

So at Commons, consensus is not needed for featured pictures unlike when it is needed for featured articles at Wikipedia because articles and pictures are entirely different? 22:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

October 05[edit]

Adding Wikidata ID to Template:Creator possible[edit]

Hey all. I've been looking at maintenance categories and I noticed that Category:Creator template possible is pretty large. I have a bot from some batch uploading work that creates Creator templates from Wikidata entries. I'm think about modifying Template:Creator possible to allow a user to specify a Wikidata ID when they add that template. Pages tagged this way would appear in a different category, and a bot could go through that category and automatically create those templates from Wikidata. Any thoughts or objections about this? BMacZero (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

A slightly related question: does anyone know if we're going to get support for linking Creators directly to Wikidata any time soon? That would be a much better system, but I feel like that feature is not a high priority. BMacZero (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that would be much better. The "arbitrary access" feature needed for this has already been deployed on several other wikis – does anybody know the status of this regarding Commons? Last thing I remember was "it's coming soon". --El Grafo (talk) 10:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, "it's coming soon" was the last I heard about it too. I think it is a great idea to replace Template:Creator possible with creator templates written based on wikidata. Wikidata have d:Template:Creator/wrapper which can create very good Creator template based on wikidata. See d:User:Jarekt/a. The output is not ideal yet but probably can be fixed. It would also be great to come up with some way of adding those new creator templates to the home categories and files. --Jarekt (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Ha, I wish I'd known about that before I wrote all the code to generate those Creators. I also think it's a good idea to have a bot tackle Category:Author matching Creator template, Creator template not used‎ and its siblings. I think a most of those categories could probably be cleared out automatically by looking for the matching Creator template in the file's parent categories. BMacZero (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Years ago I had some python code to do exactly that, but do not remember what happen to it. --Jarekt (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

50000+ probably empty galleries[edit]

Here is a list of probably empty galleries, which may meet COM:CSD#GA1. Note false positives exist.--GZWDer (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I clicked a random link and ended up at Gérard serée, which had nine images until they were all deleted as copyvios. I wonder if the same is true of many other empty galleries? Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I created Military units of Warsaw Uprising which is a page without any images. Such pages might have other useful content. --Jarekt (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
That looks like it would fall under GA1 speedy, but obviously it would be unhelpful; let me ask at the CSD talk page about making an exception for navigational pages like this one. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:PD-old-100 and US copyrights[edit]

What US license should be used for PD-old-100 files?

Lately I was working on unifying language of PD-old templates. We have ~25 of them and originally they all used almost the same English phrase, which was then translated independently into other languages. Two years ago I created Template:PD-old-text which is used to provide a single license phrase (""This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus xxxx years or less..."") translated to as many languages as possible (Please verify or add you language) and used in many templates. As User:RP88 pointed out, the problem arouse with template:PD-old-100, since the old template used phrase ""This work is in the public domain in the United States, and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years or less"" which also claims that the work is PD in the US (without saying why), and the new template does not.

So the question is how to fix it? We could add standard "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States." warning asking people to add US license, but what is the US license tags for files like "Mona Lisa"? Majority of them where either published and should use {{PD-1923}} or unpublished and we should use {{PD-US-unpublished}}, but the definition of publication is quite uncleared to me when applied to old artworks which are majority of {{PD-old-100}}. Any ideas about the best course of action? --Jarekt (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, your recent change to the text of {{PD-old-100}} changed it from a "PD in US + PD in source country" to just a "PD in source country" tag. For reasons related to the "PD-old" tag on en.WP, PD-old-100 has been a "both" tag since its creation, despite this not being entirely consistent with the other PD-old-X tags or the details of U.S. copyright law. I think the general idea was "this is really old, it's almost certainly {{PD-US}} due to expiration or failure to comply with copyright formalities". In my option, we should either change the wording back to the original wording and simply embrace the ambiguity, or, if it is going to remain in its new "source country" form, it should definitely have a warning asking people to add a US license just like {{PD-old-80}}, {{PD-old-75}}, etc. all do. I lean towards the latter, i.e. adding a note asking for a U.S. tag just like all of the other PD-old-X tags, particularly if we acknowledge that there are hundreds of thousands of files on Commons with a PD-old-100 (or a related tag like {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}}) and the lack of a specific U.S. tag for these PD-old-100 files, while not preferred, isn't in of itself reason for deletion. By the way, with regards to the Mona Lisa, it is definitely {{PD-old-100-1923}}, it is easy to find examples of pre-1923 publication. For example, a photographic reproduction of Mona Lisa appears in the February, 1914 issue of "The Century" in the article "The Two 'Mona Lisas'" by Walter Littlefield. —RP88 (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
One problem is that {{PD-old-100}} does not automatically imply {{PD-US}} as posthumously published works may be copyrighted in the United States even if the author died more than 100 years ago. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
You are, of course, correct, I think it is well established that merely because an author has been dead for 100 years is not enough to guarantee a work is PD in the U.S. (a famous example being John Adams' letter to Nathan Webb), it's just very likely. This is why I called the old text inconsistent with U.S. copyright law and keeping the old text would necessarily require us to "embrace the ambigutity". This is also why I lean towards keeping Jarekts new text with a note asking for a U.S. tag just like all of the other PD-old-X tags, so long as we all agree that this won't, in of itself, be sufficient reason for the 100,000+ files with just a PD-old-100 tag to suddenly be eligible for deletion. Basically I think the intention behind the old "PD-old-100" tag was a strange mix of "this work is PD in the U.S. (but I won't tell you why)" as well as "PD in all p.m.a+100 or less countries."; I don't think the original PD-old-100 text ever intended to suggest the U.S. was one of the "p.m.a+100 or less countries". —RP88 (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
My problem is with how to pick US license for PD-old-100 artworks, and let's work with Mona Lisa as an example. I am positive that the painting itself is PD in the US, but why? So I look at Commons:Hirtle chart and I have to decide if Mona Lisa was published according to US definition. It seems like if work was displayed "at a place open to the public", like Louvre than it was "published", but also other definitions of the word might apply. According to en:Mona Lisa the painting was on display in Louvre since 1797, so we can change {{PD-old-100}} to {{PD-old-100-1923}}. My guess is that is the process we would be asking to apply to other PD-old-100 artworks. We probably should create some help page about it with some examples, as a lot of it is quite counter intuitive. --Jarekt (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The definition of publication you link to is from the 1976 Copyright Act; under that act (i.e. after January 1, 1978) the public display of a work of art is not publication. See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US for both pre-1978 and post-1978 rules for picking the correct U.S. copyright tag for public art. —RP88 (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyright transfer agreements[edit]

For the last several days, I've been helping a musician who desires to upload images from his own website; he's just sent OTRS an email confirming his identity as the owner of the website, although it's not yet been confirmed by an OTRS volunteer. This being done, we should accept anything from his website (after all, we accept anything by photographer Jerry Avenaim uploaded by User:Jerry Avenaim, since the user's identity as the photographer has been authenticated). He says that he owns the rights to a group of photos that depict him, and I'm waiting to hear back from him as to whether they're works for hire (the musician has a bunch of employees) or whether they're ordinary professional images by some studio. If it's the latter, and if he says that they signed a formal transfer agreement, what process do we follow? Do we accept such a statement on its face (just as we accept a statement that others were works for hire, since authentication proves that he's the owner of the company), or do we ask for some sort of additional evidence/proof? Of course, this all assumes that the OTRS authentication checks out; if not, of course they need to be trashed. All the images in question appear at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mlaucke, if you want more information. Nyttend (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)