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


Village pump and gaslight at a meeting place in the village of Amstetten, Germany. [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]

What to do with images with home-brewed licenses[edit]

I was helping User:RP88 lately with files in Category:Files with no machine-readable license, which we managed to shrink from 200k to just over 1k. Along the way we found many strange custom licenses which needed some work in order to be machine-readable.

We are a little stumped by 2 home-brewed licenses by User:Chriusha and User:Saffron Blaze: User:Chriusha/License and User:Saffron Blaze/license. Those licenses sound like generic CC-BY-SA with whole sentences lifted from by-sa/3.0 deed the only deviation from CC-BY-SA is the "Licensee may not use higher resolution versions of this work" restriction. I do not understand the meaning of this restriction: it sounds like conditions used by some users who distribute thumbnails of their images under some license and would like to use different license for full resolution images. However for all the files I check the image was distributed at the full camera resolution (I think) so "higher resolution versions of this work" does not exist. I asked both users if they would consider relicensing the images under some CC license, but so far did not hear back from them.

What shall we do with such files, those and the ones that might show up in the future? At the moment files using those 2 licenses are lacking machine-readable licenses and I do not think we should be adding machine-readable metadata to custom templates in user-namespace. Any ideas?--Jarekt (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should, as a matter of policy, permit Commons volunteers to contribute files of their own creation using custom-drafted unique-to-Commons licenses; we should ask them to select one or more of the many approved licenses. Part of the problem with these two custom licenses is that they're not based on the actual CC-BY-SA license terms with an added restriction on regarding larger files; their licenses are actually based on the "human-readable summary" of the CC-BY-SA license (CC says the summaries are "not a substitute for" the actual license). However, I suspect if a third-party wrote a license like CC-BY-SA with a "only this file" size restriction it would likely be accepted by the Commons community as meeting licensing policy. At the absolute minimum, custom licenses used by Commons media should have license templates in Template namespace, not User namespace. —RP88 (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Life sure would be easier if no images with homebrewed licenses existed... --Dschwen (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
"Licensee may not use higher resolution versions of this work" means that not all derivatives are allowed. Therefore not compatible with Commons license requirements. Whether a higher resolution version exists or not is not relevant. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
You can not create derivative image with higher image resolution than the original. You can resize it to larger size but that does not change the resolution, so I do not think it conflicts with derivative work requirement. But that is the problem with badly written licenses: they are ambiguous. --Jarekt (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The noted restriction means higher resolution images may be found in the web but those are not available under the license given for lower res variants. License sounds like a mix of attribution + share-alike part of CC. Not easy for re-users to identify how to correctly use the images. Non-standard, self-made licenses should not be permitted at Commons unless they are mixed with a standard license.--Denniss (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@Jarekt, the background of the cited "home-brewed" licenses is the mess which CC created by themselves, when in 2013 they suddenly came to the sort of conclusion that the term "work" (as used in the legal code of their licenses) may not refer to the image of the resolution which the licensor actually had released under the CC license, but to the image/photo itself, independent of resolution, which completely contradicted statements in their own FAQs about the same issue.[1] This mess is still unsolved, as it would require court decisions. There was some preliminary consensus among the participants in the 2013 and in later discussions, that on Commons we should voluntarily respect the presumed will of the licensor, instead of taking advantage of CC's home-grown legal loophole.
So, the cited "restriction" is a sort of self-defense against users who would not respect respect the will of the licensor. --Túrelio (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I am familiar with this dispute but I do not think it applies here since as far as I can tell the images licensed by those 2 licenses are distributed at the original camera resolution. They look sharp and the image size is similar to image sizes taken with the same camera. Which just adds to my confusion. --Jarekt (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Denniss for clarifying. Same pic on the web in higher resolution is what I meant. :-) Both licenses have to be adapted for that. Or better scrapped voluntarily, avoiding week-long discussions like the ones we had with the copyheart license. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Both User:Chriusha and User:Saffron Blaze are still active and I was hoping they would agree to relicense the images or be able to explain the rationale of their licenses. This would be the best solution to our problem. --Jarekt (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Although Saffron Blaze may choose to submit his images at their original resolution, that doesn't mean he can't reserve the right to not license a hypothetical 'original' image which may or may not exist. Obviously the stipulations about high resolutions exist as part of a template and may not apply properly to each and every file he uploads. It's simply a reservation of the right to not license any and all copies of the photo, only the one that was actually published under the license. I don't see the problem here. Yes, I understand that Creative Commons have stated that they believe a CC license applies to not only the one published under CC-BY-SA but also any hypothetical image that it was derived from, but I don't think they are the ultimate arbiter of truth, even if indeed they did create the license. Only a court will determine whether that actually stands up, legally. It wouldn't be the first time that a contract was written that was (at least partially) unenforceable. The way I see it, Saffron Blaze has chosen to clarify the terms that he believes exist under the CC license. I do the same on my image uploads. Not because I want to impose additional restrictions, but because I believe the Creative Commons are not clear enough. Even with my additional clarification on my image pages, I still continue to get a large number of re-users wishing to make sure they understand the license correctly. The fact is, it is not easy for laymen to understand. IMO, trying to clarify the existing terms of the license is not imposing additional terms. Diliff (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I just realised that I've misunderstood. I wasn't aware that Saffron had actually licensed the image under a 'custom' license instead of the Creative Commons license. I thought it was a clarification in addition to the CC license. It sounds like he's tried to be in keeping with the license but I can see how this is going to cause trouble, particularly in terms of keeping track of it and its legality. Diliff (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Diliff, one of the problems with the so-called home-made licence, is that it only deals with the resolution issue, and not with another image made from the same source raw file (i.e. the same negative). It's a half-backed attempt to make a point (as Saffron admits). Btw, there are important differences between a licence and a contract. With a contract, if the terms are unfair or unclear, the writer of the contract generally loses in court. But with a licence, you are completely relying on a good understanding of the rights granted -- and without it you fall back on copyright law. A licence does not impose a contract between the artist and the re-user. As CC make clear, anyone in any doubt that their license is appropriate should (a) get legal advice and (b) contact the copyright owner. This is why non-standard licences adapted from the deed (not the real licence text) of another licence are really bad news. -- Colin (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Diliff I remember the incident when Saffron created this license tag. It was based on the point that CC discourage calling a license as a CC license when any new term is added. I too think it is better to stick with a CC license and explain as you did unless it is proved otherwise in court. :) Jee 15:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can understand the argument for discouraging non-standard DIY licenses. But we can't neglect the "original issue" behind this "protest". Personally I'm a fan of "free-knowledge-culture". But, at the same time, I believe the decision to donate something from the heart of the contributor. We should not make benefit from the errors or omissions that happened consciously or accidentally in the underlying concept. It first happened in the license migration move. It must be "opt-in" than "opt-out". That may be the bold protest from many users, including some admins, against that move.
In the above quoted incident, I had contacted CC and they responded in a timely manner. They updated their FAQ to reflect this risk. But unfortunately this is a complicated matter as the basis of this confusion is what we are licensing. If it is the actual work which is eligible for a copyright, then there is no question like which version. But if individual versions are eligible for separate copyright, and it is possible to license an intermediate version without licensing the original, this "issue" kick in. This is not tested in court so far; so we or CC can't comment on. So reusers are under the risk if they find a higher resolution file from somewhere else to use with the license available here. Contributors are also under the risk, if they want to contribute still prefer to keep original.
We can't say something is from a camera's native resolution, especially about works of people like Saffron Blaze or Diliff. They are mostly made form several shots (exposure/focus bracketing, stitching, etc.). In such works, the originals are several files and if somebody access/hack their backup believing the free license is applicable to them too, I have no idea where it ends.
The time exceeded to clarify this point. If CC or GNU can't do it (out of interest or any other reason); I think Commons community can think about a home made "Wikimedia Commons Community License". Jee 02:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion here seems to assume there are a set of "official" licences that Commons accepts. But our Licensing policy makes no restriction, provided the licence meets the Definition of Free Cultural Works. If the community believes that using "official" licences is a requirement, we should seek to change policy. As for the "home-brewed licences" here, I have some doubt they meet the definition.
  • As noted, they are modifications of the CC deed. That deed explicitly states "This deed highlights only some of the key features and terms of the actual license. It is not a license and has no legal value. You should carefully review all of the terms and conditions of the actual license before using the licensed material". So if the CC deed is not a licence and has no legal value, why should these modifications of such be of any use to us.
  • The so-called licence is defined on a wiki in user-space, which is shifting-sand. Even if this text was a proper legal document (for example, if it was a personal modification of the full CC licence itself -- something that I'm sure is not legally permitted), it has no version number or publication date, making it hard to express what text was agreed to (a permanent link is a fairly obscure mechanism).
  • The world really does not need personal "share-alike" "licences". It is good that FAL, CC and GNU have worked together to seek compatibility in their licences. But these personal "licences" cannot be combined with other freely licensed material.
I sympathise with the problem where the CC (and all other well-known free licences) cover the work of art rather than a specific digital file. I see no reason why a file-based licence scheme is infeasible, combined with digital signatures, and a repository (such as Commons or another) that acted as a record of file-license association. But it really does require proper legal and commercial backing for it to get off the ground and be respected by a court.
I would be sympathetic with a proposal to change our licence policy to limit the number of free licenses that are permitted here. Either by naming approved licences, or at least ensuring they are well-known published licences that have been designed by a legal team. Our value as an image repository for free re-use is increased by making it simpler for re-users to be assured of their rights. However, the last time I tried that (to remove GFDL as a sole-licence option), people chanted "A free licence is a free licence", as though that meant anything useful, and I got the impression that quite a lot of people on Commons view this project like a stamp collection hobby whose purpose is merely to collect "permitted" images for the sake of it, and are thus opposed to anything that might restrict what is "permitted". A fair number of folk on Commons have no interest in participating in a "free content project" and see no purpose beyond illustrating Wikipedia (conveniently ignoring that Wikipedia is itself a free content project).
For previous discussions with Saffron, see Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 14#Your license may be applicable to your original work and Saffron's archived talk page (section You come back?). -- Colin (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Good question. A good example of a widely used license tag lacking good legal text is {{Attribution}}. During the Media Viewer scandal, we noticed that many people misunderstand this as an "attribution template" and used to specify attribution parameter with other license tags.
There are so many software related tags like {{BSD}}, {{Apache}} exist here. Some funny tags like WTFPL, Beerware too. Jee 11:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I too would be sympathetic to a proposal to change our licence policy to limit the number of free licenses that are permitted here. I don't think that anyone participating in this discussion is under the impression that there is an "official list" of Commons licenses. At best the list of licenses are those with license templates in Template namespace, and even then I wouldn't want to count on a recent addition as being acceptable to the Commons community. The closest we have to a set of "official" licenses that Commons accepts are those that by virtue of WMF's licensing policy are the pre-qualified licenses on the Definition of Free Cultural Works list. For example, GFDL is officially a free cultural work license. —RP88 (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
RP88, without wishing to re-open that can-of-worms, the GFDL is a perfectly good free culture licence for large software documents, and GPL is perfectly good for software programs, but GNU do not actually recommend either of these for images/video/audio -- they recommend CC instead. So the "definition" isn't imo an adequate description of a suitable licence for audio-visual media that Commons hosts. The "definition" website is of historical interest, but isn't maintained by the Commons community. -- Colin (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
See Definition "additional conditions in order for a work to be considered free: Availability of source data: Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions." So to call a photograph as "free" we need all RAW files too. :) Jee 13:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The "definition" doesn't require raw files: images can be manipulated and adapted from their JPG/PNG/TIFF. The same is not (generally) true of executable software. -- Colin (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Support changing Commons:Licensing to only allow the most popular licenses If the Commons community is ready to have a vote to disallow homebrew copyright licenses and only allow a limited few licenses, specifically those provided by Creative Commons and the GFDL, then I am ready to advocate for a change.
The advantages of homebrew licenses are ideological - promoting freedom of speech and personal expression. The disadvantages are practical - they might not be legally valid, they certainly would not be legally defended by Creative Commons/Gnu if challenged, they confuse people who would reuse files, and they harm the overall reputation of Wikimedia Commons at a time when we are seeking more institutional partnerships with archives that want Wikimedia Commons to be orderly and maintain quality. I would say more if someone made a proposal for change and brought this to a vote, or even if someone wanted to start drafting a proposal to introduce in the future. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I can understand that homebrew licenses might need to be regulated if there are indeed legal issues (other than misusing the name Creative Commons), but restricting licenses to simply the limited "Copyleft" Creative Commons and GFDL licenses is something I would personally be very uncomfortable with. CC-0 has no restrictions, and CC-BY is quite restrictive. There isn't a step between them that fulfils my need, which is why I dual license under Template:Beerware. Tom-L (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Bluerasberry -- "only allowing the most popular licenses" is a very different thing from cracking down on two or three unauthorized "homebrew" modifications of CC. I would strongly oppose the former (which would require deleting tens of thousands of files). AnonMoos (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
What about considering a proposal for future uploads? It can be something like "For all future uploads to Commons with Copyleft licenses, one license must be CC BY-SA or a compatible license. This is not applicable to Public domain works and Copyfree licensed works." This will not affect {{Attribution}}, {{Beerware}} etc. as they are Copyfree. This will eliminate GFDL only uploads too. I don't thing it is a problem as even FSF doesn't recommend GFDL for media files. Jee 05:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't recommend combining the anti-GFDL issue with wanting people to use official licences. They are different arguments, and despite the illogic of it, a lot of people voted to keep GFDL as a sole licence. Personally, I think most of them were not thinking straight, and I reckon practically nobody uses it now, but I have no stomach to re-open that one. I think Commons would probably not be happy to have just a few named licences, mainly because so many of us are unhappy with the current set in some way. One possible tactic is to define the minimum characteristic of a good copyleft licence. Such as:
  • Published on a non-editable website (i.e. not an open wiki like this)
  • A publication date and version.
  • Having a review process that led to publication that includes recognised community leaders and lawyers.
  • Recognised by the free culture community.
Other desirable characteristics may be:
  • Being compatible with CC, FAL and GFDL.
  • Imposing minimal overhead for use with audio-visual media.
Of the first of these, I don't think the free culture community would be keen on any new copyleft licence that wasn't compatible with the existing ones. The copyleft aspect only provides any freedom if one is free to mix with other licensed works. Of the second, that would rule-out GFDL (since it has ridiculous requirements for embedding a huge multi-page licence text alongside the work, and that is precisely why some people used to use it -- to stop their work being reused). I'm pessimistic, though, that Commons is mature enough to accept such a restriction that is in the interests of our re-users but not obviously in the interest of the image-collectors and Wikipedia-illustrators. -- Colin (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to dig deeply into the discussion here, but from my understanding, adding additional restricting terms to CC licenses while still calling them CC licenses is illegal, per Modifying the CC licenses. — Julian H. 19:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Julian, you are right that one can't have "CC + my own bits". The so-called licences that started this don't claim "CC" by are more-or-less a copy/paste of the CC deed. That in itself is a copyright issue. I would think CC would be legally uncomfortable if people started creating their own licences using most of the their text -- mainly out of the risk of potential confusion. -- Colin (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Just a comment: CC is llegally comfortable with people using their text to create other licenses or anything else. "CC does not assert copyright in the text of its licenses, so you are permitted to modify the text as long as you do not use the CC marks to describe it." [2] --Pere prlpz (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I had assumed the licenses are just abbreviations linking to the complete CC license somewhere. My bad. Yes, CC is not happy about derivatives because the whole point of CC is to use the benefits of unified widespread licenses. After all, it's pretty much impossible to remix these images because no other content has the same or a compatible license. But in this case, I'm not sure CC can do anything about it. - - — Julian H. 07:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I think we should try to have better control over license templates used, but I also do not want to limit ourselves to only "most popular licenses" and definitely do not want to be deleting images because of this. I would like to:
  • have all the license templates in the template namespace not in the user-namespace
  • custom templates created for a single institution or user are OK as long as they include or are accompanied by a "official" license template.
  • license templates should not be transcluded into user-namespace templates and those transcluded into files. With such arrangement one can change image license without leaving any record in file history or showing up in watchlists.
  • I think we should create a flat category for all the "first generation" official license templates, witch do not transclude other license templates. All licenses in that category should have machine readable metadata.
  • We should have a page listing all the licenses in that category. COM:CT was such a page (I think). Than it would be easy to compare category and the list for discrepancies.
  • New licenses should go through an approval process or discussion in widely followed forum before they are added to the list.
--Jarekt (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Those proposals make sense. AnonMoos (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
License and Copyright templates/tags are different. So I think Commons:Licensing/Acceptable licenses is a better place than COM:CT. If you want to monitor Copyright tags too, then COM:CT is a good place for it.
"License templates should not be transcluded into user-namespace templates and those transcluded into files" will affect my uploads. I'm using custom tags for easier management of my uploads. Anyone can watch my templates which is easier than watching all my files. But I've no plan to oppose this proposal. If passed, I will prefer to add a generic license tag outside the information template using VFC. It may make my file pages looks more ugly; but I can live with it. :) Jee 06:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I personally did use my template to change the license, though I changed it to a less restrictive license, which I cannot imagine being problematic. Most, probably all, of the transclusions of that template are from after the license change, though. But yeah, I could do without it, I guess, since I don't add any special markup. Tom-L (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Support Jarekt's proposals. If homebrew licenses are in a user's space, then they could be deleted by user request anytime, which is not fair to Commons. I also requiring that all licenses be templates to track their history and development. From that, saying that all licenses have to be categorized as either first generation / standard or derivative and less legally scrutinized would be useful. The approval process is a great idea to definitively say that all licenses in Commons are Commons-compatible. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Just to make it clear: the templates that appear on image description pages are not "licences" but "licence tags": summaries of proper licences that are fully described in legal language elsewhere. That those full licence texts are permanent and version-controlled, and widely respected, is absolutely critical for copyleft licences. Let's not start pretending that the handful of sentences in the templates constitute a proper licence that our re-users could comfortably use -- no matter what Saffron or others may think. -- Colin (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Except for our "home-brewed" {{Attribution}} and some Copyleft tags like {{Nagi Attribution Share Alike}}. So Saffron's tag is just a generic Copyleft tag like the Nagi tag. So it can be considered as a valid tag if moved to template space. Saffron can easily mention his license in his Flickr profile or personal website (like Nagi did) if defining license in a wiki is the problem. (I'm not supporting/encouraging "home-brewed" licenses; but we need to maintain neutrality and uniformity in handling cases. It should not be an emotional move as in case of custom tags. As far as I know, the only reason for hate against custom tags is Fir's attempt to protest against forced migration of GFDL only to CC BY-SA. But it is just one incident. There are lot of people prefer custom tags to describe copyright terms better than our useless outdated tags; but still prefer to contribute a lot of free contents. I had made an attempt to improve our tags; but made no results. The reason is simple; most maintenance volunteers/wmf are in a greed to grab as much as content, have no respect to copyright holders. They (both wmf and some volunteers) prefer to bully our photographers too, whenever get a chance. No wonder if more photographers agree with Alex Wild.) Jee 03:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree that the CC interpretation of releasing a "work" to mean "releasing anything you made that is similar to but better than the work you released" is odd. I mean, I don't believe in copyright but apart from that I don't have an excuse for it; it seems like a legal Trojan horse more than anything. However, the question is whether this interpretation has managed to hold with the courts -- and if it has held with the courts, is that a feature of CC or a feature of how courts define any "work"? The question I have is whether the same legal arguments that created this issue would invalidate Saffron's restriction, or alternatively, whether they would invalidate his license altogether.
Anyway, the obvious solution is to have the WMF lawyers sit down and think hard over a license to match Saffron's intent. In theory this shouldn't be altogether incompatible with CC because if you splice in one piece from one of these to a CC image it's a different 'work' and the restriction becomes unnecessary ......... or so I would speculate vacuously. Wnt (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

August 14[edit]

Another Upload wizard annoyance: dates[edit]

A recent change to the upload wizard seems to require users to enter an exact, day-precise date. This is of no use for artworks dated to, say "1883" or ""before 1932", or any value including "circa". My workaround is to enter a random date and manually fix after upload; my worry is that novice editors will take the former step but not the latter. Where was this change discussed? Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I think Upload Wizard should provide some kind of a front-end for {{Other date}}, so I've created phab:T110028. --El Grafo (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, I was rather disappointed to find that the Upload Wizard no longer takes the full date and time from the EXIF data of photographs, only the date. Shouldn't the time be extracted if it is present? (I have filed a bug at Phabricator about this.) — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The time should be taken with caution. A lot of photographers dont pay attention to the precise time, certainly when they travel across timezones. Only when I came back from Taiwan did I notice a 6,5 hours time difference. Luckily there was one picture with a station clock.Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
It was due to concerns over time zones not being taken into account, and lack of consistency in how times were imported [3]. Bawolff (talk) 06:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, if that is the justification, then the date could be wrong too. The solution, in my view, is to give uploaders the option of whether to use the date and time in the EXIF data or not. — Cheers, JackLee talk 12:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Wherever I am in the world, my camera is set to UTC. Since there is no timezone parameter when uploading here, I've always assumed that to be correct. To repeat my unanswered question: Where was this change discussed? Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
yeah, wow, while i had liked the "improvement" support of wizard, this is an awful gated way of compelling data input, with an opaque gear bypass. need to help uploaders to input dates, not turn them away if they can't. time to go back to old uploader. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 14:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Like all changes to MediaWiki, it first appears here as a proposed change. While its a proposed change, you or anyone else can oppose the change by logging into gerrit (It uses accounts from, which is kind of annoying, but that's life) and marking the change as -1 and explaining why. Changes are not votes, whether or not anyone listens to you depends on how good you argue you point, however code reviewers (Generally people listed here + most WMF staff. Some extensions have additional reviewers) will take your point into consideration. Once a code reviewer has approved it (+2 it in gerrit speak), the change appears on the test commons site and it is listed in the merged section of gerrit [which is similar to Special:Recentchanges ], but you still have a couple days to object before it appears on real commons. Generally objections after +2 need to be argued more forcefully (Since instead of just convincing someone to not do something, you have to convince them to revert the change), but they will still be taken into account. Usually, all recent changes to MediaWiki and extensions are gathered up at around 18:00 UTC Tuesday, and deployed to and Then the following day, if there are no major problems they are put on commons (and other non-wikipedia sites). Of course, even after this fact you can object, as was done here (The change we're all talking about is scheduled to be reverted on sept 2)
In this particular case the patch was reviewed really quickly, but there was still 5 days between it being submitted and it appearing on commons for people to object. We know that most users won't want to be looking at gerrit all the time, and we do try to bring up controversial changes on wiki, but there are lots of changes happening, and we can't always predict what will be controversial. If you want to be apprised of every changes, you will have to be reading the gerrit site, just like if you want the option to object to every change on wiki, you have to read Special:Recentchanges (If you're only interested in only some types of changes, you can filter by project on gerrit, which is much like filtering by namespace on RC.). Bawolff (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
here's the problem with this process. where's the UX review? there is a marked lack of new user empathy or testing. talking among the choir, and then breaking stuff until people complain, is a real bad process. i thought we were going to improve our open source feedback, given the history. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 02:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
So what would you rather we do instead? I doubt any sort of usability review would have had an effect on this change, there wasn't really any change in how the user interacts with the website to actually measure, no new buttons, etc. But lets take a step back. Concretely, what sort of process would you like us to follow instead? Bawolff (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC) [edit: I just realized you were talking about the adding non-precise date issue, not the issue surrounding timezones in camera exif. I guess I'm following too many similar conversations at once. Your comment about usability review makes more sense now]
i dunno, better UX? better programming not coding? i know its tedious to newbie check all interface changes, or code changes, but this is the default process for all newbie uploaders. a little workshopping would go a long way. there seems to be a propensity to "solve problems" by coding, rather than system improvement. also for the exif, i understand it's problematic, but some data is better than none. it's invisible, maybe conscious-raising is in order; some faq's for the newbie to set their camera, i know some have asked for exif supression, maybe a setting. when you are building open tools for newbies, feedback is critical. saying come to our separate venue is inadequate. make a party out of it: "come celebrate our continuous improvement of upload wizard !" Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 12:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Where it's buried among items with titles like "Make onEchoGetDefaultNotifiedUsers hook use DB class" and "WIP de-centralize mustache js"? It's ludicrous to expect most editors - even most regulars - to be able to participate meaningfully in such an environment. Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
yes, i see there is some beginning of friendly feedback at m:VisualEditor & Talk:Reading/Strategy/Kickoff, so there could be be a button and a dashboard or wizard. i should think it would be standard procedure for continuous improvement. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 00:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

August 22[edit]

Image preload fails[edit]

In the last one or two weeks, preload function of the Special:Upload form fails. The preloading get stuck (loading of the file itself is OK). Maybe, some problem detection and warnings (duplicate, overwriting existing file etc.) can be also affected. Do you know about it? --ŠJů (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed this too. I filed a bug at the Phabricator. — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Same, also cannot add the copyright information. Banak (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
It was an accident while consolidating code related to spinners in order to reduce page load time. There's a patch pending review, and it should be fixed soon. (Banak: I'm not sure what you mean by not adding copyright info. That could potentially be a separate issue). Bawolff (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
This should be fixed now.
Yes check.svg Resolved
Bawolff (talk) 07:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

August 23[edit]

IC3 like trains[edit]

Category:IC3 shows that this type of train also exist outside of Denmark. I come acros Category:RENFE Class 594 also of Danisch origin (there is also a renovated version where the rubber is removed). How can al these train types be linked? Is there a common train builder? Could the Spanisch train be a version of the Danisch IC2? By the way I have added a lot of pictures from Ferrol. Some other picture from the Northwest corner of Spain wil be coming.Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

IC3 was created for Denmark and was also exported to Sweden (Category:Y2) and Israel (Category:IC3 in Israel). The concept with rubber front however was also used for the Danish IR4 and IC2, the Danish/Swedish Öresundståg and various Spanish and Belgian trains. So yes, the fronts comes from the same builder, ABB Scandia (now Bombardier Transportation Denmark), but not the rest of the trains. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Revert et attribution[edit]

Hi, I think in case a revert, MediaWiki doesn't attribute the file correctly. I.e. if I revert a file because of vandalism or any other reason, the file should be attributed to the original uploader, not to me. However it appears in my list of uploads, and as my own upload in the "File history". Do you think we could ask that to be fixed? Beside the risk of confusion for reusers, in some cases, I absolutely don't want that the file I revert is attributed to me (e.g. vandalism on a nudity image). Regards, Yann (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. I actually had this example case twice recently. --Sebari (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Not a big deal in most cases, but if you absolutely don't want that the file you revert is attributed to you, couldn't you just delete the page and restore the pre-vandalism edits? And if you're not an admin, couldn't you explain the situation at talk and then tag the image with {{speedy|See talk page}}? Obviously not an ideal situation, but until MediaWiki is improved, it would fix the immediate problem. Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

August 24[edit]

Multiple gauge trains in Spain[edit]

Train types in Spain are now categorized as either normal gauge or Spanish broad gauge trains. This can be confusing as some train types can change gauge and are found on both types of railway lines. Maybe useful to split into three categories: only broad gauge, only normal gauge or both gauges. By the way: Is the high speed line between Ourense and Santiago broad gauge? My train from Madrid didnt change gauge at Ourense.Smiley.toerist (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Three categories sounds reasonable. - Jmabel ! talk 05:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I created Category:Standard/broad gauge electric multiple units of Spain and split up Category:Electric multiple units of SpainSmiley.toerist (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Uploaded image not displaying?[edit]

Hi, I don't know if it is just me or not (although other wiki images are displaying fine). The following image is displaying just as a blue link: File:Cornwall County Division Insignia vector.svg. Any advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs)

OK for me. Yann (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Now it is displaying for me too! I don't know what occurred, but it seems to have sorted itself out.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Public domain?[edit]

[4] Are these public domain and what banners are needed if they're downloaded, please.Keith-264 (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Hard to say for certain, though I'd expect they are PD. Not sure what you mean by "banners": do you mean templates? In any case, the copyright question might better be asked at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 00:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

August 25[edit]


Please can somebody control the contributions of IP I have the impression that many of his contributions are imperfect, or not useful, or just vandalism. Thank you all, --DenghiùComm (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I had a look at the latest ten edits and can´t see any vandalism. To remove Interwiki links to Wikipedia articles where Wikidata provides the links to Wikipedia categories may be controversial but is not against the rules. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
What I have seen on other occasions is that interwiki links were removed for replacing them by the same by Wikidata, not to let nothing, or to replace 3 or 4 where before were 20. It's controversial? Strange: for me simply it's not useful. IMO it's better to leave something which is imperfect but useful, rather than delete useful things simply because they are out of date. Or we replace Interwikis thoroughly and completely, otherwise it is better to leave everything as it was before. This is my opinion. Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Specific objects (people, buildings and such) often have articles in many Wikipedias but only a few Wikipedias also have categories for them. So if you change the Interwiki link from article to category (and this is what happens if you use the Wikidata entry) you loose a lot of the Interwikis because they now point to the related categories instead of the related articles - this is why it´s "3 or 4 where before were 20". Personally, I consider this to be a negative effect and still use the manually inserted Interwiki links whenever I create a category for a specific object, thus overriding Wikidata and connecting the Commons category with the Wikipedia articles. But this is surely as controversial as doing it the other way. So I think what the IP does is not his fault but a consequence of the sad lack of a clear consensus and directions about interlinking categories at Commons. Please neither blame him (or me) nor call him a vandal :-) --Rudolph Buch (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I did not know these details. Thank you for your explanations and clarifications. Cheers, --DenghiùComm (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Have restored the wikipedia links on a number of Categories where the were deleted by IP In practice, it is good to have these links, wikidata is largely unknown and click(s) away, so why take the links out? Damaging, sort of vandalism. Regards, Hansmuller (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

August 26[edit]

Script errors on every page[edit]

Did somebody just make a configuration change of some kind? I'm getting a red "Script error: The module returned a value. It is supposed to return an export table." on almost every page on Commons (some pages with multiple errors). —RP88 (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Pages with script errors is expanding rapidly, 1500+ pages and growing. Pretty much any page that is edited now gets added to this category. —RP88 (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, whatever change was made has apparently been corrected — errors are gone and Category:Pages with script errors has stopped growing in size. Performing a null edit on the recently added files in Category:Pages with script errors removes them from the error category. —RP88 (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I imagine (based on timestamps), that the issue was fixed by [5]. Bawolff (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I just started using Cat-a-lot a few hours ago for the first time, and immediately I began noticing these errors. Good to know that they're not something I did wrongly :-) Nyttend (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Basque identity[edit]

I get confused with the Navarre province. As I understand it is part of the Basque Country, but not part of the Basque Autonomous Community. I created a subcategory: 2015 in rail transport in Navarre. However the Regions of Spain script does not work there. Is Navarre not a region of Spain? I did this because Pamplona pictures do not belong to 2015 in rail transport in the Basque Autonomous Community. Can someone help me?Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

In administrative terms, Navarre is not a part of the Basque Autonomous Community. Navarre is an Autonomous Community on its own, like La Rioja, Cantabria, Murcia, Asturias or Madrid.
Pamplona does not belong to the Basque Autonomous Community.
However many Navarrese people consider themselves Basque, while many others oppose that idea completely. I very much recommend you to read a variety of diferent sources to get to understand the situation in Navarre. B25es (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, both Basque Country and Spain are useful areas for categorisation, as many reliable sources use them. If regions of Spain scripts and templates don't work for a given Navarrese category, it's just a technical problem to be fixed.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist: ✓ Done The template {{Regions of Spain|prefix=:Category:2015 in rail transport in|suffix=}} works as far I can see. I think it didn't work because nobody had put it in the category page.--Pere prlpz (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion request + a general point[edit]

Please will someone resurrect File talk:DSC09873.JPG, which is referred to in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:DSC09873.JPG. Generally, populated talk pages like this should not be deleted. Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We don't need to keep such talk pages. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned talkpages will be deleted on sight. It is standard practice here on commons. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I've never before been refused access to a deleted discussion on any Wikipedia project. Is there some private information or derogatory information on that page, that would cause an admin to refuse such a request? Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Access is a different question to page undeletion. If there is something you want to check, or maybe paste a relevant part of elsewhere, then I suggest you ask a specific admin to email it to you. So long as it's not private information being posted by accident, or otherwise harmful to an individual, there shouldn't be a problem. -- (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
In the interests of openness, everyone, not just me and not just admins, should have access to discussions (subject to the caveats alluded to in my previous post, or blatant vandalism or spamming). Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
In this case, at least, I don't see any reason not to post the content publicly. Here it is:

Possible copyvio?

The tagline "5th September 2005 to 25th November 2005" is ambiguous; does it refer to the period this sculpture was installed at Canary Wharf?

If so then this picture is a copyright violation (albeit an unwitting good-faith one), as in this case this was a temporary installation so FoP does not apply. -- 14:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The above dates do indeed refer to the time this sculpture was installed at Canary Wharf, as part of an exhibition called Sophie Ryder: The Minotaur, Hare and Other Animals (one of a series of exhibitions collectively called "Sculpture in the Workplace"). It is thus indeed a derivative work and copyvio, as FoP applies only to permanent installations, which this is not.
A pity, as this is an attractive and potentially useful picture. -- Korax1214 10:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[END copied content]

i've seen a propensity of deleting deletion discussions, rather than link to image talk page. the community needs to rethink this. deleting discussion history certainly looks bad; if an image was deleted, you need a process trail for uploaders to follow; and how would anyone learn from past history, where there is none? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 15:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a good point. Perhaps Andy would like to raise it on Commons talk:Deletion requests, suggesting good practices for where potentially useful discussion and information should go when the related image page is due for deletion? Note that the vast majority of deleted images will have no created discussion page. -- (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I copied the content of the talk page to the DR for reference: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:DSC09873.JPG. Yann (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Can't upload over a bad svg[edit]

Over at en:Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop, I yesterday asked for someone to upload a new map on top of File:Adams County Washington Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Washtucna Highlighted.svg, which was corrupt. After the mapmaking person reported an error, I deleted the corrupt image, and everything went fine, but the error report surprised and confused me. I quote it: I can't upload the file with the correct "Washtucna" name, because such a file already exists (and is unusable, because it contains invalid SVG). And I can't replace the current invalid "Washtucna" file, when I try I get the message "Please modify the file description below and try again", but there is no "description" field to modify. Can anyone understand why uploading over the bad image didn't work? Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

PS, at the time of attempted upload, the corrupt file's description page was as follows:

|Description=This map shows the [[:en:Municipality|incorporated]] and unincorporated areas in [[:en:Adams County, Washington|Adams County]], [[:en:Washington|Washington]], highlighting [[:w:Washtucna, Washington|Washtucna]] in red.  It was created with a custom script with US Census Bureau data and modified with Inkscape.
|Source=My own work, based on public domain information.  Based on similar map concepts by [[:en:User:Ixnayonthetimmay|Ixnayonthetimmay]]
|Date=26 Oct 2007
[[Category:Maps of Adams County, Washington]]

Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I is not possible to upload invalid svg files. The old file was from 2007 (this is explaining a lot). But it shouldn't be a problem to re upload a valid one. You can try to report it at phabricator:, but i am not sure if this will help. The problem is hard to reproduce now because you deleted the file. All database entry has been likely overwritten. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Usually the "Please modify the file description below and try again" error (Which from a ux prespective is pretty horrid), is paired with a second error message, explaining what the real issue is. Usually that error message is only a warning, and you can click ignore to it, and upload the file anyways. Hard to know for certain though without seeing the issue myself. Bawolff (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

August 27[edit]

Location on the North Spanisch coast[edit]

I took a train all the way from Ferrol to Oviedo. Most stations and names I can place. For the other pictures I have to use the timing.

The route of the train is on google maps.

Thanks, Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

La Concha de Artedo, a beach near Lamuño in Asturias, seen from La Magdalena train station. Very easy to find in Google Earth with railroad layer activated. --Sitacuisses (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Camera location 43° 33′ 34.61″ N, 6° 11′ 05.13″ W  337.5° View this and other nearby images on: OpenStreetMap - Google Earth info

New type of train in France[edit]

Bordeaux Saint Jean in de steigers III.JPG
I havent seen this type before. New category? Other examples are File:Dax station 2015 II.jpg and File:Dax station 2015 III.jpg.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks like Category:Alstom Régiolis. --Sitacuisses (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree, only there is a totaly different number series: 51519 and 51525 do not connect with the 83500 and 84500 series. And I cant find a 51xxxx serie. Only SNCF Class Z 5100 but thats old.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The Régiolis train presented to the press in Bordeaux in 2013 had a 515.. number as well: [6] --Sitacuisses (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
According to fr:Régiolis, the 515 numbers are electric only, the 835 and 845 are "bi-mode" (electro-diesel). --Sitacuisses (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Created Category:SNCF Class Z 51500. Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - A Group Of Ants[edit]

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

Affected file(s):

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#A Group Of Ants Thank you! Jalexander--WMF 19:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

August 28[edit]

Fotoğraf yüklerken.[edit]

Fotoğraf yüklerken şöyle bir yazı var. Düzenlenmesi lazım. Kolay gelsin. --KediÇobanıİleti 09:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Kırmızı ile işaretli yazı.

m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Tobias Conradi[edit]

Per m:Global bans, I am notifying the project of this proposal. Everyone is welcome to go and voice their opinion of the proposal and about the user in general.--GZWDer (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Gender of musicians[edit]

I see that someone is diffusing Category:Drummers from the United States into Category:Male drummers from the United States and Category:Female drummers from the United States. Is that really desirable? What does gender really have to do with being a drummer? It seems to me that the effect is to "ghettoize" the female drummers, who are the minority. - Jmabel ! talk 16:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @KurodaSho: - Jmabel ! talk 16:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you for raising a question. "Someone" seems me. I have no special idea about this matter but if you think so why not suggest the abolishment for these gender-related category. (I'm sorry if I miss the point...) Regards, KurodaSho (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • In the case of people in general, it looks like we give each person Category:People by name in addition to one of Category:Men by name or Category:Women by name. This seems helpful since the gender is useful distinguishing information, but in many cases someone who's browsing will just want to see a full list with no regard to gender. That does raise this question: would we really want to add these two extra categories for every single category of the form Category:[Occupation] from [Country]"? Much nicer if we could just find the intersection of Category:Drummers from the United States and Category:Women by name when searching... BMacZero (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe this is a discussion we should have, but looking at Special:Prefixindex/Category:Female and Special:Prefixindex/Category:Male, it kind of feels like this train has left the station quite some time ago. What is a bit concerning from a gender neutrality perspective is that male often seems to be the implied default; there's no Category:Male politicians of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) to match Category:Female politicians of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) or Category:Male guards in Nazi concentration camps to match Category:Female guards in Nazi concentration camps (to pick some oddly specific random categories at random). LX (talk, contribs) 18:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article about w:Female guards in Nazi concentration camps says that under one tenth of the guards in Nazi concentration camps were female. Being purely historical, there is no chance that will change or that we are reinforcing current trends; we're reflecting the reality that male was the default for the guards in a Nazi concentration camp.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

August 29[edit]

tool to review uploads in a grid[edit]

I saw someone mention it online and it got me thinking; there used to be a tool that you could click on to see all your image uploads in a grid that also showed how many other language Wikis were using it and other stats on the image, all in an easy to read format. That was pretty cool. Is it gone? Why? If so, any way to resurrect it? Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Commons:MyGallery is a great tool (and as such ignored by the powers that rule us, unlike the crap not-so-great stuff they keep pushing):
Have fun! -- Tuválkin 13:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh Thank you!! You have made my wiki-Month, maybe my wiki-Year! That is a tool I've missed subconsciously for so long. Thank you for bringing it back into my life. Have a great day, cheers, Nesnad (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a nice tool, but it seems to show only about 2500 uploads.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Template does not work[edit]

Hello.This template is not working.Please fix it.thanks --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Could someone look into the uploads from User:Arbiben[edit]

I'm positive User:Arbiben does not hold the rights to the pictures they uploaded. Large disparity in quality- some look professional, some are copyrighted and others are hard shots to get. I could go and nominate each one for deletion, but I know there's someway to nominate them together. However, I don't know how to do this. So I wanted to bring this blatant violation to someone else's attention. Xochiztli (talk) 09:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Right. Deleted or DRs created. Yann (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Mantainance template transcluding only 2 of 4 images from i18n content subtemplates[edit]

There’s a problem with {{DistortedAspectRatio}}. While the subtemplates with the text in several languages show 2 examples of 2 images each:

, when transcluded directly the right-side example is gone:

Any ideas on how to fix this? -- Tuválkin 21:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason is because there are two templates {{DistortedAspectRatio/layout}} and {{DistordedAspectRatio/layout}} (DistortedApectRatio versus DistordedApectRatio).
I fixed {{DistortedAspectRatio}}, but did not cleanup the (unused) duplicates. HenkvD (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Help with template {{Photo challenge watchlist notice}}[edit]

as we will be running three challenges this month (one of them for two months), I tried to add further parameters to the template {{Photo challenge watchlist notice}} - but I don't know enough about templates to make it work. Can anybody help?
The parameters I'd like to use can be found here (the third theme 100 years later (September-October) is the one I can't add to the template...).
Best wishes, --Anna reg (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

August 30[edit]

Misplaced file[edit]

Tren 213 de los ferrocarriles de la generalitat de catalunya.jpg
This picture was miscategorized in a Line 1 station of the Barcelona metro. But wich station of metroline 7 is this? By the way we need to give to rename the picture to something meaningful.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Not sure about the station, but the filename "Trn213dlfgc.jpg" means "Tren 213 de los ferrocarriles de la generalitat de catalunya". -- Tuválkin 10:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Meanwhile, User:Lotje renamed this file as "Tren 213 de los ferrocarriles de la generalitat de catalunya.jpg", going against COM:FR and even altering the text (not a link!) in my reply above, which is also against the guidelines. But do not worry, User:Lotje: When a short and usable filename is changed to a multi-line monstrosity with whitespace in it and likely to be mangled by reusers, it is as if COM:FR meant that changing filenames willy-nilly is a good thing. -- Tuválkin 12:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Trena feve donostia zorroaga amara.jpg

This Flicker image certainly has the wrong date 19?? and has nothing to do with Donostia city itself but the between Hendaya and Donostia (if I read the text correctly).Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Fundraising banner or Wiki Loves Monuments banner?[edit]

Hi, Just FYI (for users which are not reading mailing lists), because commons is involved in WLM: meta:Requests for comment/Fundraising banner or Wiki Loves Monuments banner --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

August 31[edit]