Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

  Welcome   Community portal   Help desk
Upload help
  Village pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Village pumps for other languages:

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

Welcome to the Village pump

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

Please note

  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing please do not comment here. It is a waste of your time. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is just a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read the FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page

Search archives


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

Template: View • Discuss • Edit • Watch



Conversion of still GIF images using color or transparency to PNG[edit]

So I have been running User:GifTagger for some time until it was blocked due to "Problem with the editing and the enforcement of an opinion without conversation with the relevant community" in January. I had to clean up the code and was too busy with other things that time anyway. Though, now I feel like getting a discussion up on this topic. I had some users on my talk page asking if I could fire the bot up again but I'd rather have any sort of feedback before getting blocked out of the blue again. --McZusatz (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to start the discussion, I will present what I think are the advantages of using PNG over GIF:

The thumbnail of this gif is useless as it only shows some random black pixels. Sadly it was used in two articles.
Much smoother thumb
  1. Better thumbnails
    C.f. thumb on the right; GIF thumbnails are often pixelated due to transparency (Only a single transparency index is supported). Also PNG thumbnails support 24-bit RGB in contrast to a maximum of 256 colors in GIF (thumbnail) files.
  2. Smaller size
    GIF files tend to be larger than PNG
  3. Easier editing/"Lossless" editing
    Someone may want to edit those files. Surely the editor prefers a 24-bit palette over the 8-bit GIF-palette without uploading a new PNG derivative file before or after his edit by fiddling with (partly) broken tools such as UpWiz or DerivativeFX. Also you can not apply most filters to indexed palettes which results in a lossy process: Palette -> 24 bit -> Apply filter -> another? Palette
    However, the conversion from GIF to PNG is lossless and also the transparency, if present, does not get lost. (PNG supports 8-bit transparency in contrast to GIF's 1-bit transparency.)

--McZusatz (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is to leave the GIFs as is and only update them on a needed basis. A large number of GIFs should be replaced by SVG (vector data) to begin with, so a extra PNG is unneeded in a large number of cases. Thumbnail point you made could be dealt with by generating PNG thumbnails with a anti-alias option instead of generating GIF thumbnails (i.e. similar to how we convert SVG to PNG for thumbnails/re-sizing). This is an issue that could be fixed through the wikimedia software end without having to re-upload a new version of every file. Offnfopt(talk) 22:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
@McZusatz: One rationale I find hard to understand is (for example at File:Enrico cialdini.png): "This GIF was problematic due to non-greyscale color table." Isn't it correct for a colour image to have a non-greyscale colour table⁇ I'm not sure which of your other rationales may also apply, but the filesize was bigger than that of File:Enrico cialdini.gif. I'm also a little concerned that (non-admins) lose the edit history of the deleted files, so it's harder to check the licensing etc. --99of9 (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
99of9 After reading your comment, I went ahead and ran a small test case of some of the files in the contrib list for the bot. I don't have access to see the pages for the deleted files, so I converted the PNG files to GIFs using the exact same indexed palette found in the PNG, so there is no loss or change in the image from the conversion I did. The original GIF file sizes may be different from mine depending on what options they used to save the files, I didn't do any special optimizations or tweaks to the files. The below table is the results of this small test case. You can see from the table that the claim of PNG having a smaller file size did not hold up to this test case. Also as I stated before, the bulk of these images are better served being converted to vector graphics due to the nature the pictures. Offnfopt(talk) 08:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
File GIF size (in bytes) PNG size (in bytes) Smaller file size PNGopt
File:Enis logo2.png 1,997 2,150 GIF
File:Enlarged lateral ventricles in schizophrenia.png 45,747 58,353 GIF 39.227
File:Enlarged spleen.png 10,106 10,960 GIF
File:Enlluita-logo.png 5,500 6,009 GIF
File:Enmascaramiento temporal.png 4,032 5,391 GIF
File:Enneagram - 2.png 30,934 31,843 GIF
File:Ennea triangle.png 1,139 2,161 GIF
File:Enrico cialdini.png 19,980 23,409 GIF 17.314
File:Enrin u0.png 13,577 20,241 GIF 11.227
File:Ensea-fonctions.png 7,854 7,815 PNG
I can agree Offnfopt and 99of9. The file size is only one point, as I mentioned to McZusatz before, the bot need a simple PNG optimizing function (I used the very fast PNGGauntlet). So I only vote for the bot if he has such functionaltiy. User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  09:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I replaced the poor PNG optimization with some better one in the meantime, so this should not be an issue any more. --McZusatz (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@99of9, Offnfopt: Your proposal to use PNG for thumbnails instead of GIF, indeed solves the issues that can be observed in GIF thubnails today. Nonetheless, I'd still prefer to have the source image in PNG as well to make it easier for users to upload an enhanced version without going through quantization of the color values. This quantization degrades an image slightly if the color values don't match the quantization levels. --McZusatz (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I want to add that I'm not against the bot per se, when I first posted I was in the mind set thinking the bot was going to leave the original GIF, so I was thinking it was going to cause a large number of duplicate files. But being that is not the case and letting the pros and cons rattle around in my head for a while, I'm warming up to the idea. Though I do worry about the bot encountering a file configuration it may not be able to handle and end up outputting a garbage PNG file and removing the original GIF. I wonder if the bot should generate a paged gallery log of files converted so others could keep an eye on the changes being made without having to scroll through the contrib log of the bot. I also support the good suggestion by Perhelion. Offnfopt(talk) 10:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
There is but I can also create a custom log page if you want me to. --McZusatz (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: If you have any issues with the Bot, please raise them. --McZusatz (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@McZusatz: My issue was that the bot was deleting images, not that it was running an image generator. The bot and this community should not be overriding how the communities have placed and are managing their inclusions. Commons is a central repository, not a determinator. If a community has and chooses to use a gif, then leave their image alone, and just do your conversion. If you wish to discuss with the communities about your bot and its actions then start an RFC and invite these communities to join the conversation. The means exists.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The "non-greyscale color table" bot comment is due to giving non-transparent greyscale GIFs lower priority for conversion (i.e. not to be replaced without a further round of discussion at a future date), because of the fact that PNG thumbnailing for many years was significantly worse at resizing opaque grayscale PNGs than GIF thumbnailing is at resizing opaque grayscale GIFs -- and also various developer comments which have led to suspicions that improving PNG resizing in this area is not a WMF priority, and in fact that the very belated partial progress which was finally made in such PNG resizing could actually be reversed if WMF developers choose to adopt image software with some nifty features in other areas. See the discussion at Commons:Bots/Requests/GifTagger... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I will again emphasise to administrators and bureaucrats that it is not the job of Commons to set the standard that the sister wikis use, nor to think that we impose componentry on these wikis, they are their own bosses. This is the central repository that is used by all the wikis to make the images available to all wikis. We determine that files are within copyright, and that the files are within scope. More than that should be taken up with the wikis where we asked for them to come and contribute not enforce our opinion from limited conversations, in limited corners of Wikimedia.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


Hey gang, this is Scott (Russavia). I have a request. If you look at, for example, File:Park Hyatt, Shanghai (3198569878).jpg you will see in the "Source": * Uploaded by [[User:russavia|russavia]]. I believe this is causing files that I have uploaded to be mis-attributed to "Russavia" instead of the actual author. An example is this. This is, unfortunately, a widespread occurrence, and harms the ability of re-users to easily credit works on Commons to their correct authors. Especially since "Russavia" appears in the "Use this file" links.

To make files easier for re-use, I would like to request that someone go through this, or ALL files uploaded by myself, and remove the above wiki-code from all those uploads. I am making this request using one of my normal IPs, and this request can be confirmed by checking with me on IRC if required. Thanks, 09:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I could look at this and maybe fire up user:YaCBot to do it. --McZusatz (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@McZusatz: Not that I'm going to edit a third of a million files myself, but I did verify this with him on IRC (he has a Freenode cloak), and it is a legitimate request. Probably a bit pointless to block the IP, though. Revent (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Lol, its not like WMF ever cared for Commons Wiki..they wouldn't even let Scott fix his own mistakes...--Stemoc 11:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks McZusatz if you could do that it would be great. Once it is completed for my uploads, I would seriously look at doing it for all uploads on Commons. It is a common problem and sincerely isn't limited to myself. 12:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 Running for your uploads and all others. --McZusatz (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you McZusatz. How long do you think this bot job will take? If you are doing them all, not limited to my uploads, I can only guess that there would be well over a million files to do this on? Cheers, 03:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
A couple of months at least, because I did not prioritize those flickr edits, yet. In total less than 1.5 years, though. --McZusatz (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

OTRS and other relevant issues but not directly related to this request[edit]

While not wanting to get involved in one of these battles, I've processed quite a few OTRS tickets in the last few weeks, and see a discouraging tendency of uploaders who think that the author field is the place to put the uploaders name. I get that we can't change the term to "photographer" because many images are not photographs, but I wish we could find a better approach.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Author is the correct name for that field and definitely not suitable for any other info like "uploader". But unfortunately some people think uploding files from some other place is the most prestigious work and consider themselves as #1 contributors here. Some tools also designed to add that nonsense (eg: Commons:derivativeFX). I had manually fixed that field in many uploads earlier. Designers need to be well educated about copyright matters. Jee 15:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Probably, adding an "uploader" field would make the system more understandable for those uploaders. If there are different "author" and "uploader" fieds it would be clear that author doesn't mean uploader.--Pere prlpz (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
But our system allows anyone to overwrite files. So we need Uploader 1, Uploader 2...Uploader N. Jee 15:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Uploaders should be advised that they are credited for their upload work in the file history, any OTRS volunteer must take care to have truly validated the correct attribution for the Author field and advised the uploader if there is doubt. I could create a bot to pull the upload account information out of the image history log and slap it into an {{information}} template, but that would be exceedingly pointless at it duplicates what can already be seen on a standard Commons image page. -- (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I just took a look at the upload wizard. After selecting the image, default is that the file is not your own work and there are two fields labeled source and authors. The second field has a small light gray question mark in paranteheses. If you hover over it, the text says The name of the person who took the photo, or painted the picture, drew the drawing, etc.
However, despite using this hundreds of times I had never noticed that text before. I suggest that many uploaders have never seen it. My guess is that the designers of this form were looking for a clean look and I'd like to respect that, but the fact is, many many submissions have that field filled in with the uploaders name.
What harm would occur if we spelled that out a bit more explicitly, for example:

Author(s) (The name of the person who took the photo, or painted the picture, drew the drawing, etc.)
If we did that we might want to do the same with source which is also misused. I understand this shouldn't be considered casually and perhaps I should make this a formal proposal, but it might be worth an experiment to see if it cuts down on the number of mis-filled out files.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


That makes complete sense to me. Anything we can do to make it clearer to the submitter and making it less onerous to cleanup would be an improvement I would think. Reguyla (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Without regard to any anger some people may feel for the individual making this suggestion, he or she is making an important point. When I use google's image search on my wiki-ID, "Geo Swan", while I find that some of the images credited to me on other sites are actually images I actually took myself, most of the wikimedia commons images that have been re-used by third parties that are credited to me are actually images I uploaded that were taken by someone else, and were in the public domain, or otherwise free.
So, third-party re-users tried their best to correctly honor the right to attribution and credit the individual who created the image, and found our distinction between authors and uploaders so confusing they incorrectly credited the uploader (me), not the "author". I suggest that any of you who try this will find the same thing, that like Russavia and myself, you will find you are incorrectly credited with more images for which you were simply the uploader than the credits to the images you took personally.
@Jkadavoor: wrote "Author is the correct name for that field and definitely not suitable for any other info like 'uploader'." Sorry, I disagee. The field that Jee thinks should be labeled "author" is best filled with the individual or organization which owned the intellectual property rights, if the IP rights were owned by someone other than the photographer. "Credit to" is another alternative. Whatever name we use for this field, we should render it in bold, and double or triple size, to make it harder for good faith third party users to be confused and credit the uploader, instead.
I just did a google image search on my wiki-ID. Of the images it tosses up, that I recognize, the first seven are false positives, image I merely uploaded, which, however good faith third parties incorrectly attributed to me.
FWIW I don't google myself because I am vain. I occasionally google myself so I can see if those hatemongers at wikipediareview are slandering me again.
Even though some people seem to continue to bear a grudge against Russavia, he or she has raised an important point here, and deserves a thank you. So Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I didn't fully understand your disagreement. If "copyright holder" is different from "author", it also need to be mentioned there with a prefix "copyright:". But "uploader" or somebody do minor edits which are not qualified for "derivative work" need not be mentioned there. Note that our generic template {{Information}} use "author"; but special templates like {{Specimen}} and {{Photograph}} use more specific words. "Author" can be changed to "Author/Copyright" if it is more easy to understand.
  • Media Viewer and many external sites like EOL is populating the attribution from "author" and "source" fields. So they should not be used for other purposes.
  • I remember that I made a proposal at VPC based on my experience. It attracted some response and LuisV (WMF) agreed with the need for improving our file pages. But after that, the proposal died without any action.
  • I suggest to improve the license tag and file page so that reusers can easily gather all attribution information like title, author/copyright, source, license (TASL) from a single point as boldly mentioned on top of the permission field. Jee 03:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Why an admin allow a banned user to edit here?[edit]

Help needed to classify old-timer automobiles[edit]

In Category:Hoek van Holland there is a series of pictures taken on 2010-05-16 of vintage cars. There must have been some event at that time. (or they where using the ferry)Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I changed some by looking up the plate, but I did a reverse search on one of the images and found this page de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Spurzem/Archiv/2010#einige_Autos... a lot of the same images, but they're lower quality than the ones you're going through. But you can get some of the car descriptions from that page. Offnfopt(talk) 22:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I made a new Category:Hoek van Holland (car park) to reduce the number of pictures in the :Category:Hoek van Holland.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

June 19[edit]

One multilingual file instead of many language files[edit]

Files starting with File:Flickr - DVIDSHUB -[edit]

"Rush" - illustrating how wide a range of images exist at this source.

I noticed a large number of files with names containing things like File:Flickr - DVIDSHUB - such as this one and I was wondering if this is necessary. Can these be renamed to just be the file name like Don’t Tread On Me, Afghan forces, Marines disrupt insurgent activity ahead of fighting season (Image 1 of 8).jpg (which still seems excessively long) with out the Flickr - DVIDSHUB - part or do we need to keep that to show the source or something? Reguyla (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

  • It's certainly not necessary, but it's also not prohibited, and generally we don't rename unless there is an active reason to do so. - Jmabel ! talk 01:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Ok thanks. I'll leave them be then. Reguyla (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Just letting @Matanya: know, if they are about. The naming is a bit unnecessary, but we often use filenames with batch upload identifiers. In this case a better practice would have been to include the Flickr photo ID or the DVIDS image number, but it is not worth the disruption to older images to do this retrospectively.
I'm responding here to highlight the fact that the DVIDS source has better data than the Flickrstream. The DVIDS source has information such as the VIRIN (military tracking number) and is clearly marked as public domain. Though the Flickrstream has a geo location, it is potentially misleading as this was not added by the camera and is unlikely to be better than the region description in the text or the DVIDS location field text. The Flickrstream has a serious disadvantage of using a CC-BY-SA licence rather than the unrestricted public domain that DVIDS makes clear.
If anyone is looking to have a mass upload of certain images from DVIDS, I am happy to consider any project where automatic filtering is possible and the upload is 1,000 or more images. One tricky aspect of recent DoD changes is that to download high resolution images from DVIDS you have to log in, so our standard uploading tools (like the GWT) cannot be applied.
P.S. If anyone has a passion for military matters, please take a look at Category:Images from DoD uploaded by Fæ and browse the category of images that need review. Of over 180,000 photographs batch uploaded to date, at least 13,000 can be improved by having someone check the categories by sight. -- (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Fae, I would certainly be willing to wade through some of those. I see a lot of only one category and those should be easy enough to improve with some additional ones. I also see a couple of maintenance categories there for Category:Images from DoD uploaded by Fæ (check needed) and Category:Images from DoD uploaded by Fæ (duplicate). On that first group what checks are needed and on the second if its a duplicate should I submit one for deletion? Reguyla (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The 'check needed' category is a slight hang over from my earlier attempts at auto-categorization (what I do now is very stable). A visual check of these is all that is needed, and removing the check category if the categorization looks sensible, or add/removing categories as you see fit.
The duplicate category has been created by searching for duplicate identity codes, though the files themselves are not 'digitally identical' as they often vary by EXIF data even if the visual image itself is identical. One of the duplicates should be marked with {{duplicate}} (more efficient than a deletion request), normally the one with the least complete data on the image page. -- (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Roger that thanks. I'll add that to my to do list as well and pick away at those. Reguyla (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks . points taken. matanya talk 20:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

June 23[edit]

License migration aftermath[edit]

As far as I know, the time window for migrating licenses from GFDL to Creative Commons closed on August 1st 2009 [1][2][3]. After that date, re-licensing was not possible anymore.

--El Grafo (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Or is it really just "must have been uploaded to Commons before August 1st 2009"? In that case forget about what I wrote above. --El Grafo (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Files in Category:License migration candidates can be re-licensed if they were "uploaded to Commons or to some other Wikimedia project before August 1, 2009" and many might have been transferred from other projects. --Jarekt (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
That's what it says on our pages, but if you actually read the GFDL 1.3, in the section about relicensing (section 11) it says:
The operator of an MMC [Massive Multiauthor Collaboration] Site may republish an MMC contained in the site under CC-BY-SA on the same site at any time before August 1, 2009
To me this reads like the given date refers to the time of republishing rather than time when the content was contained in the site. migrate to CC BY-SA by August 1st! sound like that as well. --El Grafo (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand the GFDL FAQ sounds more like the decision to relicense must have been made at that date (scroll down to section 11). That's all quite confusing to me. --El Grafo (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
That was my read as well of the GFDL 1.3 license and the GFDL FAQ: that the date August 1, 2009 is the deadline when the website has to decide if they want to be relicensing or not, instead of when individual images can be relicensed. I am also quite confused about it. --Jarekt (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested policy to ensure reproductions of public domain works stay public domain[edit]

Case study 1 - a public domain painting (the painter, Magistretti, having died in 1936) but with attribution requested for the low resolution faithful reproduction, retrospectively adding copyright claims to images of the work.

This thread is to test the water for a Commons policy (perhaps an amendment to COM:L) that files should have superfluous licences removed and where a strong license applies (such as public domain) this should override all other (weaker) license statements unless exceptional and well defined legal circumstances apply. Being able to refer to a Commons guideline will ensure that OTRS volunteers can provide clear advice up front to GLAMs and other institutions attempting to claim attribution, where they may well be surprised and disappointed should the attribution licence be removed by the Commons community if it has no legal basis.

Most Commons users believe that if an image is public domain in the USA (our Commons hosting country) and the source country where an image was created, then it must be public domain and no other license applies. However we have examples such as File:Artgate Fondazione Cariplo - Magistretti Emilio, Quasi aurora consurgens.jpg which has been contested, and as a result is considered public domain in the USA and source country, yet because there is a claim of an attribution requirement for the photographer through OTRS, the CC-BY-SA license has been repeatedly added. Essentially this boils down to worrying tacit support for vague claims of "sweat of the brow", even though there has never been a successful legal claim for a photograph or digital scan as a faithful reproduction of a public domain artwork anywhere.[4] Though the example given here is an attribution request (the legal term used is often "moral rights"), we have many examples where an institution has used sweat of the brow to claim a Non-Commercial restriction, if recognized the photographs would need to be deleted from Commons.

I would like to see Commons avoid any circumstances where we collaborate with retrospectively claiming rights over public domain works, until such a time as an institution or photographer has successfully pursued a sweat of the brow case in court, or applicable national copyright acts exist that explicitly recognize these cases. The WMF previously rejected take-down notices against Commons in these circumstances, refer to m:Wikilegal/Sweat of the brow.

Feedback, case studies, evidence and opinions welcome. Thanks -- (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I applaud Wikimedia Foundation's decision to apply US law related to 2D PD works to the whole world and not require us to research who was the person who digitized (scanned or photographed) each artwork, so we can figure out if he should have any copyrights or not. However the fact that we decided to accept images which might be considered copyrighted in some jurisdiction does not mean that people reusing our images need to make the same decision in their jurisdiction. If the person digitizing PD image asks to be attributed we can ignore their request (because US law allows us) or pass on their request for the reusers to decide which option they prefer. That is why we have Template:Licensed-PD-Art, see for example my changes to File:Artgate Fondazione Cariplo - Magistretti Emilio, Quasi aurora consurgens.jpg to see how to use it. This option is much more preferable to just piling on PD and CC licenses together with no explanation of what is what. One can also use {{Licensed-PD}} or {{Copyright information}} to organize license templates. --Jarekt (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree, regardless of the underpinning issue, it's a less confusing layout. Perhaps we should have a specific workflow laid out for these situations? Not only is it complex, but the guides we have available are not being maintained. For example the Italian law links at Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs have link rot, making it difficult to do more than read the interpretation someone wrote there, which may not match current legislation or be a poor interpretation. Compared to the many other demands on WMF funds, maintaining a current and substantial free international legal index with supporting workflow would be a great investment. -- (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
You may want to submit this to M:Grants:IdeaLab and post the link here so those that support it can endorse it. Offnfopt(talk) 18:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The changes made as a result of this discussion can be seen in the history. I think these changes are best - the work is marked as public domain and the Creative Commons attribution claim is kept because no one wishes to directly challenge it at this time. I am happy to leave the ambiguity for now and address the general problem by supporting increased education and development of templates and documentation on best practices. It might not be worth anyone's time to try to argue this out with individual uploaders when the long term solution is probably to prevent this kind of license application before it happens. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Bluerasberry, the CC attribution does not require challenging nor is it ambiguous. The file description as it now stands clearly says WMF believe the file to be PD in the US but outside of the US you may be better to rely on the CC licence when reusing. This is the best of both worlds as there is reduced legal risk for a reuser to adopt the CC licence rather than to guess that it might be PD in their country also (something that may not have been tested in any court). For artwork that has been scraped off of museum websites where the museum [contentiously] claim copyright of their photo, we can't offer a CC option and so really the image is only reliably free in the US. That may be ok for you, but wouldn't be for me (UK) to rely on if I wanted to use the image on some website or book published in the UK. We should therefore be grateful that those who photograph PD works offer it additionally under a free licence. Even better would be if they made a CC0 declaration for their photograph. I don't know if the template supports that combination: "The artwork is in the public domain and the photographer has also released their photo into the public domain should this be necessary in some jurisdictions". -- Colin (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Colin You mention the UK museum case so you must know that the outcome of en:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute was that the museum applied CC-ND-NC licenses to all of their content and the Wiki Commons community here omits their licenses and tagged everything here as public domain. Despite WMF speaking up in that case I think it is always the Wikimedia Community that makes the copyright evaluations here on Commons, so I think it is never correct to say that any template indicates "WMF believe the file to be PD in the US".
You raise the point that in some jurisdictions a PD declaration may not be valid in which case a CC license could be used. That might be so, but that is not what is happening in this case. In this case there is a dubious assertion of copyright over a work that is probably PD in every jurisdiction. Historically the Commons community has not entertained these kinds of claims. I see no one here defending this particular claim as extraordinary or in need of special licensing.
It could be worthwhile to review which countries grant copyright to photographers who make reproductions of public domain works. If reproductions of public domain works can be copyrighted then I am not aware of the Wiki Commons procedure for managing this. You are claiming that photographers in some places can have this right, correct? Is this so in the UK? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
For the UK, after many years there has never been a case taken to court where a faithful reproduction of a 2D public domain artwork has a claim of new copyright. All we have are published opinions of pundits and experts (not judges in cases) who have never tested their theories. People are often confused by discussion of non-faithful reproductions, or the quite different issue of publication rights.
Institutions in the UK are in fear of a case ever going to court, it being highly likely that this will prove that there can be no new property rights created in these circumstances. No institution's IP lawyer will ever give a direct answer on this, nor will they ever advise their institution to claim damages against a reuser or publisher, though they do issue take-down notices (which you can easily refuse); hence it has never happened. See sample letter.
TLDR: "Sweat of the brow" claims are endlessly propagated to create enough fear in re-users that they pay good money for reproductions of public domain works when they could just take the same stuff for free from, say, Wikimedia Commons. -- (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Bluerasberry the situation in the UK is unknown. It is believed that UK's law is in general more likely to recognise a new work of copyright than US law, but as Fae says, this has not been tested for a photograph of PD art. I agree there are political games going on, but the loser at present is anyone in UK wanting to use such an image. If, as a re-user, I just see a page saying "This is PD in the US" what does that tell me in the UK? As far as I may assume, it is still then under copyright all-rights-reserved in the rest of the world. There's no guidance to reassure me otherwise. I would, of course, much prefer if photographers explicitly waived any rights with CC0 on such images as it would be reassuring. Simply removing a disputed CC-ND-NC licence removes information and denies those capable of applying such a license the opportunity to do so without legal fear. I'd rather that we had a way of tagging such disputed licences as "Probably unnecessary, particularly in the US" or similar wording. In the case of the US, I believe the WMF has challenged PD art claims in court, hence my statement that is is more than just an anonymous "community" making this claim, but the Foundation stands by that assertion legally. The attitude of the community tends to be a mix of protesting action as Fae describes and a complacent "I'm all right Jack, it's hosted in the US". -- Colin (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
ColinI am not aware of the WMF ever going to court on this issue. I think that never happened.
In a lot of ways popular use interprets the law. The Wikimedia community has enough social standing and reputation to establish and propagate the precedent which determines how the law should be applied and the difference between right and wrong. There are years of comments and discussion here which are thoughtful and have included more educated and informed opinions that exist anywhere else. We have at least established where the law is weak and uncertain and taken action in the spaces where no one else has given sound guidance, which is the way that the practice of law develops to meet the needs of the public.
I see nothing wrong with the Wikimedia Commons community dictating to the courts of the world what is and is not in the public domain. It could happen that someone faces legal action as a result of using Wikimedia Commons public domain content, but if that happened, then I expect that the Wikimedia Foundation would finance the Wikimedia community in challenging that misuse of power especially if it was from a museum. Even now the National Portrait Gallery is writing new practice into law by thoughtfully condoning what they previously claimed was a theft of their content by the Wikimedia Commons community. The community here has talked things through and identified no legal objection anywhere. Based on the best available information that anyone in the world has been able to identify, we have the right to host the content that we host in accord with the rules which we have created for Wikimedia Commons. I would not be keen on this community developing restrictions for itself based on the imagined concerns from stakeholders who not here or anywhere else have spoken up about what we are doing here. We have actively solicited for external opinions for years and if anyone has objections they know they can take them here and be seriously considered. So far as I know, there is no institution in Britain that has voiced any objection to what happens on Commons. They all are aware of what we are doing and that we want their comments. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I stand corrected if the case didn't reach court. I know the WMF stood by user Derrick Coetzee in this case. That was, AFAIK, a US citizen with US hosted images. I don't share your view the the Wikimedia community has even 1p worth of legal value, I'm afraid. They may well be right, but I have rarely found, in my limited experience, that copyright law follows common sense. Imagine for example, the UK's Guardian Media Group published a book containing of an artwork taken from Commons and was then sued by the art gallery who employed photographer to take the image. I very much doubt that the WMF would get involved. Indeed, it could be financially reckless for WMF to get involved in a dispute between two other large corporations. And if the image had been uploaded and declared PD by someone called "Blue Rasberry" (no offence intended), and this was what the photo editor trusted, I would think that photo editor would be finding alternative employment. -- Colin (talk) 07:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Colin Cases rarely actually go through court - I think the Coetzee case is on hold until the museum's time has passed to make a decision. I know of two cases in which Wikimedia policy has forced a United States copyright clarification at the federal level - the monkey selfie issue and the issue of copyright of x-rays. Medical images and animal art is now public domain. The WMF does not need to get between conflicting parties and I would not suggest that it would, but it is nice when community members like Coetzee take action in disputed places and seek anyone who will challenge them. I work for Consumer Reports (US equivalent of your UK Which?) and my office, like practically all publishers, rather distrusts all Creative Commons content with any license. There are plenty of publishers who would never use museum photos from Wikipedia without explicit permission from the museums themselves. Still, I think Wikimedia Commons should continue to enforce its community practices and proceed as it has been. I see no reason to halt current practices, even while I understand that not everyone recognizes the legitimacy of what we do here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Bluerasberry, but that "Sorted in the US so just assume sorted for everyone" attitude persists. You claim "Medical images and animal art is now public domain.". Really? I don't recall the outcome of the x-ray debate was positive at all, and some images taken outside of the US got deleted (my assumption is that the only reason so many of our medical images haven't been largely wiped from Commons is that few users have the nerve to upset so many people). And I seem to recall weird copyright/neighbouring-rights laws in countries like Sweden, who may well take a different view about the Monkey selfie. It all defies logic and copyright is an extremely crude tool. -- Colin (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I acknowledge the "sorted in US" attitude. I know of no coordinated opposition to it or will to second guess it. Seeing the National Portrait Gallery fold makes me think that only a more professional and knowledgeable organization could attempt to challenge community practice here. Previously I would have thought that the National Portrait Gallery knew their business, but now I doubt them and I doubt every organization in the world less organized than they are. Probably that is almost every organization globally because an old British institution like that one should have extreme expertise in this space.
I suppose it could happen if that some country wanted to have non-US copyright policy, Wikimedia websites could have a filter that blocks content based on IP or user reported location. Maybe Swedish people should not be allowed to see monkey selfies. I would entertain all kinds of proposals for new restrictions but I would not champion them myself. It would only give more credibility to Wikimedia projects to encourage and invite challenges, and so far as I know, every stakeholder in the kind of content Wikimedia Commons hosts knows that they can bring their concerns here at any time. With the medical images - I suppose that must mean medical images created and published in the US. In the UK, your queen holds the copyright to all of your xrays because she gets copyright to content produced by hospitals. I hope she is enjoying them but I wish she would share. @QueenE: Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to discuss the morality, but here is a practical matter. As you know, , here in the UK a lot of GLAMs and universities are acting as if sweat of the brow is legitimate, as if the scans they own are new works with a new copyright date. This applies not just in their claiming copyright in scans, but in their paying commercial services for access to scans of old material. These include institutions who are very positive about Wikimedia and about sharing with us. If we take a hard line against them even applying very liberal licences to scans of PD content, that will unfortunately be seen as hostile to those institutions: the more than 100,000 files you have uploaded with the co-operation of Wellcome Images present one example. I reiterate that this is just a practical point and not an opinion about what the law or common practice should be. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
MartinPoulter, works photographed by photographers using CC0 probably should use {{Licensed-PD}}, which is much simpler. --Jarekt (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
In practice, the institutions I'm thinking of want to licence CC-BY rather than CC0, but I agree that using {{Licensed-PD}} or {{PD-Art}} to indicate a different intended licence is an elegant solution. I hope that practice will continue. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
To clarify the example, the Wellcome Library has never claimed "sweat of the brow", and has no problem with the licence being changed to public domain by volunteers where in our judgement this is accurate. The default attribution is a precaution as assessing 100,000 images would require more resources than necessary just to get the images into the public's hands. On Commons, we take care with metadata and sourcing information, as well as allowing nice credit templates, so it is unnecessary to create faux moral rights in order to achieve the same objective of traceability. -- (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Case study 2 - The Imperial War Museum has persisted with a claim of Non-Commercial use on this 1903 Wright Brothers photograph, will charge for copies and force a legal requirement to be credited. A higher resolution version is available from the Library of Congress, with no restrictions.
I didn't know that about Wellcome, and that's good news. Not all institutions are nearly as happy with public domain. Again, I'm trying to explain it the way some institutions will see it, not what I think is right. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The Imperial War Museum correspondence that you link to doesn't seem to me to be a case study of building good relations with a potential partner GLAM. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
There were more than 3 years of "building good relations" with backwards progress, I saw this from the inside as you know. It was only after the death of Aaron Swartz that I thought that life is far too short not to just take some meaningful affirmative action rather than playing at public relations and spin. I have personally created plenty of healthy and productive relationships from scratch with GLAMs and other institutions. The Wikimedia community's mission is to make human knowledge available for free. We should not let an organization that has let itself be run by commercial goal driven middle-management and transient politics, yet is funded by the nation as the nation's war archive, just continue to blatantly mislead the public with copyright claims they know are false,* and eternally withhold public knowledge from the public. In this case, they have subsequently chosen to deliberately make access worse, by finding ways to charge the public to access publicly owned assets that were previously free. I welcome this institution to write to me, if they believe I am misrepresenting the facts; I'm easy to find.
* 2.5 years after my complaint about the Wright Bros 1903 photograph and yet they still claim rights over it and will happily charge teachers to reproduce it. Not behaviour that Wikimedia should ever be seen to condone or facilitate. -- (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Reduced resolution images[edit]

@, MartinPoulter, Jarekt, Bluerasberry:, I see from the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute article that the NPG licensed 53,000 low-resolution images under CC BY-NC-ND. I do hope that in our discussions with galleries and museums, we make them aware that CC does not distinguish between low and high resolution versions of the same photograph. They consider them to be the same "work of copyright" to which the licence refers. I know the NC-ND clauses make that licence unsuitable for us, but do hope that the community and WMF are no longer promoting the idea that releasing low-resolution CC BY-SA images provides any legal protection that safeguards their ability to restrict high-resolution images to those who pay a fee. -- Colin (talk) 07:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes on board. Sharing low-resolution images while trying to withhold high-resolution images is no way for anyone to protect their high resolution content. I thought everyone here on Commons now agreed with this. I take the position that the National Portrait Gallery has mistaken understanding and ineffective practices. I do not recognize their asserted copyright on this content which the Wikimedia Commons community has asserted is in the public domain in the US and UK. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

IdeaLab - Improve SVG rasterer[edit]

I came across this the other day when I was looking through the M:Grants:IdeaLab.

If you support this idea there is a:

  • Endorse button - If you think it is a good idea and just want to show your support.
  • Join button - If you want to take a more active role in the project such as:
    • Project Manager
    • Developer
    • Community Organizer
    • Researcher
    • Advisor
    • Volunteer
  • Feedback button - If you have any type of feedback you'd like to submit regarding the idea.

Offnfopt(talk) 20:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

June 24[edit]

Question about category usage[edit]

I have been working with categories and I would like some guidance/clarification on the usage of a category. Some articles contain categories for Category:People by name, Category:Men by name, Category:Women by name or some combination of the three. Some articles have flat list version of these categories, often in addition too those previously mentioned. Such as Category:Men by name (flat list) or Category:Women by name (flat list). My question is, is there some standard in place as to when to place one over the other or both? My opinion is that we only need one, either X by name or X by name flat last (I would prefer the former over the latter personally) but not knowing the history of these cats I was curious what the rules are for their usage. Reguyla (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

All people categories should be in flat Category:People by name that is our main people category. I have never noticed Category:Men by name, Category:Women by name, Category:Men by name (flat list) or Category:Women by name (flat list) before, but they seem redundant. --Jarekt (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The category guidelines we have can be misleading. Trimming a file's categories to just a couple of super-specific categories will damage our project in the long term. Today, doing category intersections is overly complicated and beyond what can be expected of a new contributor. However, if we keep a balance between handy super-specific categories and generic categories with thousands of files (Category:Yellow flowers, Category:People by name, Category:Ethiopia) then in a couple of years time as well as searching out a useful category of images, even a new user could find, say, photographs of red-headed, 30 year old men, wearing sunglasses and with a bicycle because the WMF development team had done such a good job improving the mobile interface... :-)
Many volunteers disagree with my viewpoint on "bucket categories" and are busy 'diffusing' all images out of these top level categories, so perhaps the answer will be eventually implementing a system for "tags" where nobody cares that many thousands of files have the same tag, in addition to categories. It's been discussed here several times, so it may need someone with time to push forward a funded volunteer driven project to make this a reality. -- (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The flat list categories for men and women were created (and, I believe, populated) by the same person just this past February. You could ask that editor what he/she had in mind. You could also propose deletion of the flat list categories. If they didn't exist until this past February, they probably have little function. I also see that these categories are under discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/02/Category:Men by name (flat list). --Auntof6 (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I do agree that in some cases it might be useful for an all encompassing "People by name" category but I think generally combining those into smaller more digestible subcategories such as Male/Female, Men/Women by name categories is better. For what its worth, as I learn the site and edit more, I don't really like the assumption of Category:Living people equals Category:People by name either. As for images, I also think that there is a lot fo confusion about what categories should go on Images and Which ones should go on Categories and thats probably worth some discussion at some point too.Reguyla (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
"Living people" obviously doesn't equal "People by name", because the latter would include dead people. As for which categories go on files/images and which go on categories, any of these "by name" categories that we're discussing, whether flat or not, would only be on other categories. This is the kind of discussion we get into when people who aren't familiar with the category structure create categories just because they can. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
You say Category:Living people doesn't equal Category:People by name but that's exactly where it and several other unrelated categories redirect too. I'm also not sure if the unfamiliar with category structure was directed me, but I have admitted that I am still learning and asking questions of how it works is part of that learning process. :-)Reguyla (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Category:Living people redirects to Category:People, not Category:People by name. Apparently Commons doesn't need the distinction between living and dead. It actually makes sense that we wouldn't need it here: on Wikipedia they would need it because of policies concerning what can be said about living people. We don't have content that says things, so we wouldn't need it.
My comment wasn't specifically directed at you or any individual. It's just a fact that we get new editors who don't understand there's established structure, so they do things that have to be undone. I've done it myself, and I may inadvertently do it again in areas where I don't realize there's an established process. Since Wikimedia doesn't require training before people edit here, and since established structure isn't well documented anywhere, it's just a fact of life. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Flickr review EXIF orientation issue[edit]

I see quite a few images from Flickr not being passed by FlickreviewR 2 simply because, as with File:Outlaw Run.jpg, on Flickr the EXIF orientation is 3,648 x 2,048 while it displays as 2,048 × 3,648 here. I spoke to Zhuyifei1999 about this a while back (here). Any ideas on how the bot could be made to pass these without breaking the "Replacing image by its original image from Flickr" function? This affects hundreds of files per month that really don't require human attention and time. INeverCry 03:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Note the source is on gitweb on tool labs. The issue is caused by the size (both with and height, in order) to be not found in the available sizes return by the Flickr API. If I code it to adapt both "width, height" order and "height, width" order regardless of EXIF, it will succeed in review, but fail "Find the highest resolution image" in "Replacing image by its original image from Flickr". I don't know an easy way to make both functions work at the same time. Ideas? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @: @Steinsplitter: @Krd: @99of9: If any of you guys have time can you take a quick look at this? Also, why is it that only some Flickr images have this reversed EXIF orientation here, while most don't? INeverCry 20:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    I have taken an extremely brief look, but have not followed through the source code in detail. I suspect that as commons_size is an ordered pair, not resolution (i.e. (height, width), not height * width in pixels), that you are discovering that (h, w) != (w, h). Probably an idea to convert to using actual resolution as an integer for both Commons size and the array from Flickr. -- (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    I had a brief look as well, and I don't get why it is not possible to ignore the order of height, width in the three(?) affected methods. get_flickr_image(), upload_hires(), and can_upload(). This should be better than just compressing the dimensions down to the total number of pixels (=width*height). --McZusatz (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Something like swapping from array to a set? -- (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @: I don't think you would like it if the bot is thinking 2*6 image and 4*3 image the same. @McZusatz: Two problems with that: 1. I can't find an easy way to maintain the consistency of the order across several functions (without using some instance property or global variable) 2. How to fix line 326 & 327? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
if hires[0][0] * hires[0][1] > commons_size[0] * commons_size[1] :
 ? -- (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The only way to check (secure check) if the file is the same is looking at the sha1. If the file has been modified sha1 will change and the bot will fail. --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
That's the logic I used to code Panoramio review bot. In that case User:FlickreviewR/reviewed-notmatching would have no use at all, a lot of recoding would be necessary, and the performance would go lower. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Peer review and document improvement request[edit]

This is a Peer review request to seek broader input to improve page: meta:Help:Form I & Affidavit (Customised for relinquishment of copyright as per 'free cultural work' definition) an option available under (Indian) Copyright act 1957 rules.

Mahitgar (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Unexpected high for editors in May 2015[edit]

Newest Wikistats report for Commons shows an unexpected high number of new/active/very active editors for May 2015. Is there an easy explanation for this? (like there is for yearly peak in September, caused by Wiki Loves Monuments contests). Thx, Erik Zachte (WMF) (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Erik Zachte (WMF): Afaik, Commons:Wiki Loves Earth 2015 was in May. From the contents of Category:Images from Wiki Loves Earth 2015 I'd guess that this brought us about 200.000 uploads. --El Grafo (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, that must be it. Thanks! Erik Zachte (WMF) (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Uploaded djvu file cannot be used at Wikisource[edit]

Hi there! This file looks okay at Commons but cannot be used at Wikisource -- reported to be 0x0 pixels, pages are not displayed, pagelist tags at index page also fail. At the time of upload and index creation (an year ago) everything was okay. Is this a known problem? Is there a corresponding bug at Phabricator? Hinote (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I have never seen it before (others might have). I would search the Phabricator and if you do not see the issue reported than I would report it. You should also ask at some other big wikisource sites, since that might be a more likely place for people working with djvu files to find your message. --Jarekt (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jarekt:, could you please create a report at Phabricator, I'm a bit confused with it... We will keep the index page in our Wikisource in order to illustrate the issue. Hinote (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Just as a note, the issue happens at other wikis with this file, see English Wikipedia and English Wikisource, for example. Wierd. Revent (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I've also already tried to look at the file at the English Wikisource and noticed same misbehaviour. So this issue is really related to Commons, not to the Russian Wikisource. Hinote (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Well that's odd. I'm going to guess it has something to do with loading large OCR layer + caching... Bawolff (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the ticket in the Phabricator! Hinote (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

June 25[edit]

Fonts changed?[edit]

Is there some reason that the fonts have changed all of a sudden? I'm using the Monobook skin and my watchlist and my editing screen are totally differ from what they were yesterday. Did someone change something? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Anybody? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I use the default skin (i.e. Vector) so I couldn't tell you. But looking at Special:Version it shows "(d766c17) 13:46, 14 June 2015" for the MonoBook skin, so based on your post date and the date listed there, it doesn't appear that anything has changed. But I could be wrong and perhaps someone did some manual changes outside of the repository changes. Just to be on the safe side, are you sure you haven't accidentally changed your browser zoom level? It will change the font sizes.
If you haven't tried the Vector skin recently, you may want to give it a try and see if you like it, pretty nice IMO. Alternatively you can use one of the Custom CSS pages or the Stylish browser extension(available for Firefox and Chrome) to change the look of the site to you liking. Offnfopt(talk) 06:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, the browser zoom level seems to have been at least part of the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • User:Offnfopt, Vector is, as you say yourself, the default skin. That means that everybody gets to see it — be it in other people’s computers and in one’s own when we’re not logged on. You can be sure that people who use Monobook instead of Vector prefer if not because we don’t know about Vector, but because we do get to see it often and we still abhorr it. Besides, Vector was (more oe less) the first of a neverending cascade of UI debacles forced on us by the WMF — then Visual Editor, Media Viewer, typography “update”… Using Monobook is not only an option for a clean, compact design, but is it also raising a flag of defiance. -- Tuválkin 21:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Monobook skin, no changes for me, same as before. Firefox 38.0.5, Win 7/x64. MKFI (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Same here. -- Tuválkin 16:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

June 26[edit]

Template:Cite news broken[edit]

I am getting errors using Template:Cite news which appears to have been changed recently. The error message is Script error: No such module "citation/CS1". For an example, please see File:Vincent Price, railway architect, 1934.JPG. Does anyone know why this was changed? Kerry Raymond (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted a recent change by another editor. It seems he or she tried to copy the template from the English Wikipedia but didn't do so completely. — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Pinging @Evrik: --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I thought I could adapt this template for the commons. I can't seem to figure it out. Help would be appreciated. Evrik (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

June 27[edit]

Flickr stream with signatures[edit]

Hi, sorry for my english. I found an interesting gallery on Flickr, mainly of cars but also other issues, and Some models are not yet present on Commons. The photos are very nice, probably made by a professional photographer, are released under CC-BY-SA license and all have a signature hard to remove. I suppose it may be a business strategy for their publication on Commons or elsewhere and get greater visibility. My question is: could be a problem to upload them if I can't remove the signature (or if the deletion would cause to a unacceptable worsening of the picture)? Keep in mind that some photos from this gallery are already uploaded on Commons, with signature unaltered.--StefBiondo 08:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Stefanobiondo: If an image is compatibly licensed, it's fine if it has a watermark... we prefer un-watermarked versions, of course, but it's not prohibited to upload them with the watermark intact. If you are uploading from Flickr, it's really best (IMO, at least) to upload the original version directly using something like flickr2commons (so it will be license-reviewed) and then overwrite it soon afterward with your modified version. If you need a watermark removed, but can't manage it yourself, you can ask at COM:Graphic lab.
You might also want to look at COM:WATERMARK. Revent (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Tanks for the reply. In COM:WATERMARK i read that promotional watermaks are prohibited. You probably see the picture of the Bentley (all the watermarks in the pictures are similar): have i to consider these promotional watermarks or author watermarks?--StefBiondo 09:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
My interpretation of that has been that a watermark added by the owner of the image, even if plausibly intended to not only show ownership but to promote their work, is allowable, but that a watermark added by a third party (as is common with many image hosting sites that watermark even PD images they host) is not. This would be a (random) example of a promotional watermark. Revent (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
A couple of more examples, of watermarked PD images... I grabbed these from the 'request' queue of the Graphics Lab, where they are awaiting cleanup.
These are explicitly disallowed 'promotional' watermarks, though the existence such a watermark doesn't mean the image should be deleted, but that it should be flagged for repair or replaced with a clean version (since the images themselves are obviously fine). Revent (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Added a thread headline.    FDMS  4    13:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I uploaded a few: Category:Files from Falcon Photography Flickr stream. BTW, there are many files to be added in this cat. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Upload wizard & Flickr PD[edit]

Our upload wizard doesn't seem to recognise Flickr's new PD option: [5]. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how often the developers frequent here, you may want to fill a bug on phabricator. Offnfopt(talk) 13:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

June 28[edit]

Vote on whether to display a banner for EU visitors/editors concerning the Commons:Freedom of Panorama 2015[edit]

Concerning the Commons:Freedom of Panorama 2015 issue, there is a vote at Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama_2015/Proposed_messages#Vote_for_whether_to_implement_the_banner_or_not. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Pulled the plug on CategorizationBot & ErfgoedBot[edit]

I've been running these two bots for a while. Both still run on old pywikibot compat code that will break soon. I could invest time in updating these bots and I have been considering doing that for quite some time, but I realized I just don't have the motivation for it. Commons has become a toxic place dominated by a small group of very vocal users. These users don't seem to accept that Russavia is banned and to try to turn everything into "Commons community" vs "WMF" battle. I don't identify with that and I don't feel like investing time in a project where this behavior is acceptable. Multichill (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Multichill: I don't think that commons is a toxic place, there are a lot of volunteers doing very hard work (which never participating in AN discussion). I also fail to see a "Commons community" vs "WMF" battle. I am highly disappointed by your statement here and i think under this circumstances you should also step back your sysop bit. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I am rather surprised that someone feels Commons is a toxic environment but I can empathize because I feel the exact same way about the English Wikipedia. I understand not wanting to make the investment of time to recode the bots but I thank you for the effort you went through to do it this long. I have found in the past that taking a break often helps me feel differently about things and have found in the past that when I stopped doing something or "retired" I missed working on the project and came back. I also don't really see the "Commons community" vs "WMF" battle but I do see that the WMF periodically oversteps their authority and does things counter to what the community wants simply because they can and because its more convenient for them. Some members of both communities feel like they don't need the other when these projects cannot succeed without mutual cooperation between the communities and the WMF. IMO the Russavia case illustrates that disassociation. Most of the time the WMF won't help the projects when asked to do so but then when it wants to do something it does it, violating any previous statements it made to the contrary. Reguyla (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry to read this, Multichill; I was brought to this link by your post on the mailing list. What a shame that others had to make comments that entirely prove you right. Risker (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    Risker, you have contributed to Commons on 4 occasions this year, and uploaded a total of 4 images in the 8 years of your account history. A part of having open discussion on Commons is that we regularly see people parachute in who seem to enjoy stirring up drama, are highly vocal off-wiki or off-project (as I know you to be), and dictate to long term contributors that we are terrible people for devoting our unpaid volunteer time here for the benefit of open knowledge. Many of us hide out on IRC and discuss issues on closed channels rather than risking becoming target of these sorts of unpleasant types of griefing. If you want to do something positive for Commons, take part in one of our projects for a while, and use that experience to form a solid evidence-based opinion on how our community works and how it can improve. -- (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know, Fae. I do not normally participate here because of my earliest interactions in which I was treated rudely and (in at least one early case) in a manner worse than I've ever been treated on English Wikipedia, which ironically I consider to be a pretty unpleasant place for a lot of users - it's the one thing Reguyla and I will agree about. I'm not a photographer, and I'm not looking elsewhere on the internet for images or other media; this wouldn't ever be my home. I do, however, care a lot about developers, oddly enough. I do care when people who have built useful tools that help the entire Wikimedia community feel that they're no longer valued. I'm shocked that the first reaction to his post was "please hand in your sysop bit". I'd hope you be shocked too. Risker (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@Risker: I am disappointed by your comment :-(. Why you put oil in the fire? There might be some toxic users here, but there are also toxic users on enwp, dewp and other wikis. Calling a project "toxic" (putting all users under the same umbrella) is very immature. It is hurting to see Multichil, a commons admin, talking so bad about commons. I applicate his botwork and it is sad to see that he does not port his bots to core. If he really thinks that commons is so bad, he should probably step back his sysop bit or doing something to make commons better. But such "commons is toxic" posts are imho not helpful at all. It is not fair to call commons toxic. Commons is a wonderful place with a lot of hardworking users, and it is always a pleasure to work together with other users here on commons. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your work Multichill. @Risker: shame yourself for your attempt to start a flame war. --Denniss (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that; it was not my intention to start a flame war, which frankly I think started with the first post. I am actually quite shocked that the first two comments are defending the atmosphere that Multichill finds distressing instead of "sorry to see you're not happy here, would you be willing to share your code with another developer can look at making the necessary changes?" That's what I'd really hope to see. If the work these two bots have been doing is valued by the Commons community (and given they have made a combined 1.92 million edits, I suspect their work has been useful), I'd hope that the Commons community would focus (a) on trying to find a way to continue the work of the bots, for its sake and (b) simply express sorrow that a longstanding member of the community has chosen to leave, instead of asking for them to completely disassociate with the project. (Seriously, asking for his sysop bit?) Risker (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Emotionally colouring/escalating this thread by introducing words like "distress" and "shocked" does not help show your intention is to avoid creating drama. Could you confirm which email discussion you referenced that directed you here? It does not appear to be one of the open lists I am subscribed to. -- (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The mailing list is wikitech-L, which is a public list. Thread is "API BREAKING CHANGE: Default continuation mode for action=query will change at the end of this month". Risker (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify, my post was not intended to flame anything but to thank them for their participation, encourage them to take a break and continue and to empathize for their feelings because I know how it feels from my time on ENWP. I would like to see at least some of the work done by these bots done by someone if not Multichill but I hope they change their mind. I also find it somewhat ironic that they blame this community for not being nicer to the WMF and then mentions 2 issues with his bots that are the direct result of actions by the WMF (although I admit they are for the long term good of the projects). I am also glad that me and Risker have some common ground. Reguyla (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, for the record I see the link in this post this morning. I keep an eye on Labs-l but the tech list (and the IRC channel) is a bit too busy with so many different things I rarely try to follow them. -- (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@Multichill: thank you for your hard work. I completely agree with you and feeling much the same way, sadly it isn't a nice feeling to have when you've lost interest and motivation. Bidgee (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I know how you feel Maarten... It's really, really, demotivating. And yes, en.wp isn't too much better. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 19:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Depending on who you ask, myself included, ENWP is far worse than Commons. I will say though that things are getting better now that some of the historically problematic admins are getting to the Judge, Jury and Executioner (AKA , the Arbcom). So things are looking up there. Reguyla (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank God for this decision! Erfgoed bot will not be missed (by me, anyway).--Strainu (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Multichill: Do you have a source code repo for your bot's code and what is the main entry point. Is /data/project/catbot/readme.txt still up-to-date? Also, could you share what was set in cron? Thanks in advance. If it is on Tool labs, which free license did you choose for the source code? -- Rillke(q?) 20:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The cat script seems to be on labs and freely licensed (short test: seems broken). See grep -R "Please add categories to this image" /data/project/catbot/. On the other scripts i haven't seen a license :-(. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Replace pictures with watermark[edit]

Dear users, some years ago I uploaded some pictures with my signature on the lower right corner. Now, for a matter of privacy I do not want this to be shown. I have just uploaded a new version of each file, without watermark, so, can someone (administrators?) please delete the older versions? For each picture of the following list there are two versions with watermark (the first upload and the second one which is the not interlaced version). Thanks a lot for everyone who will help me. Andrea Here you can find the pictures: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlock20 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 28 June 2015‎ (UTC)

✓ Done to nine files, between myself and another admin. Harlock20, you might want to check that this was all of them, and you should be aware that your name might still be visible in the information page histories in some cases (if you used it for the original 'author' statement). That is itself fixable, if needed, by further revision deletion, but would be less 'simple' since it would also affect edits made in the interim by other users. Revent (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I noticed that I forgot to do it for one file. I will do it soon and I will inform you for the removal.


Hi, does anyone know, what type of Chinese this is? I am migrating Help:Namespaces to be used with the new translation tool and this chinese help page needs to be moved to be able to do that. I already moved Help:名字空間 to Help:Namespaces/zh, but as I'm not capable of reading Chinese I can't even see a difference in those two chinese help pages. Can anyone help? Thanks a lot, XenonX3 (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I think Help:名字空間 is Traditional Chinese (zh-hant) and Help:名称空间 is Simplified Chinese (zh-hans). Ping Jianhui67 ? Regards, Thibaut120094 (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah Thibaut120094 is correct. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 00:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Allow WebP upload[edit]

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

June 29[edit]

Category:Charlatan University - Real university?[edit]

May someone please check if Category:Charlatan University is real? Somebody categorized a bunch of Shanghai schools as "Category:Charlatan University" but I can't find a university with that name WhisperToMe (talk) 05:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Apparently, no. See en:Fortress Besieged, specifically the last paragraph. It's idiomatic, and POV. Revent (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm agree with User:Revent, "Charlatan University" in Chinese is same with the "diploma mills" in English, the all schools under this category are diploma mills in Shanghai--Fayhoo (talk) 06:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: @Fayhoo: So Revent was correct in what it meant. However he also pointed out "It's idiomatic, and POV." I don't think the category is suitable. If some agency or a newspaper accused these institutions of being "Charlatan Universities" that should be covered in their Wikipedia articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I don't think the category should exist, as it's scope is not defined by any objective standard. Even the definition of particular universities as members of this 'set' by a secondary source is still a matter of opinion, not objective fact. Revent (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

"taken with..."-Categories in the Categories of the camera manufacturers leads to heavy miscategorization[edit]

Hi, I see a problem concerning many categories below the Category:Photographs by camera manufacturer.
An instance: A ship in Taiwan file is Taken with Leica V-Lux 4, and therefore in the Category:Wetzlar, a town in Germany.


2013 we had a discussion in the german Commons-forum and User:H-stt told me to remove the meta categories from the Camera categories, but over the years this was reverted and so did User:Ghouston on 27th of June with all the "taken with Leica"-Categories, although I inserted the {{Cat see also}}-Template in all categories.

I know, it's a problem in principle and so I wanted to hear your opinion about a solution. I won't act as an editwarrior, but I must admit that I am very unsatisfied with this situation. Kind regards, --Emha (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I still believe that the appropriate solution is to delete each and every "taken with"-cat. They mess up the category system and destroy valuable search functions. A more gentle solution would be to keep those cats but remove their top-cats from the cat branch of the camera-cats. That is because these cats categorize images, not cameras, which is why they must not be in the camera-cats. --h-stt !? 11:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a misunderstanding of the category system. The relationship between a parent category and its subcategories is not necessarily "is a type of" or "located at". Thus a picture of a Leica camera is not necessarily taken in Wetzlar. Maybe the camera was made there, or maybe not. The pictures taken by the Leica cameras are then one more step removed. This happens throughout the category system. For example, what does File:Gravity escapement.gif have to do with Category:St Albans Cathedral? It's actually in a subcategory via Category:Burials at Saint Albans Cathedral, Hertfordshire and Category:Edmund Beckett Denison. --ghouston (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
That's actually a huge problem: We currently have no means to define the kind of relation between a (sub-) category and it's mother-category. The result is a chaotic network that next to impossible to grasp for any search function. COM:Structured data, though aimed at meta data other than content description in it's initial phase, could provide us with the necessary tools to define different types of relationships. --El Grafo (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) That's a general problem of our category system. There are numerous other examples that do not include "taken with" categories – I remember pictures of tennis matches showing up in the Category:Aviation subtree because they took place in a stadium that was named after someone who was related to someone who was a pilot (or similar). Movin the "taken with" categories to a separate subtree wouldn't solve the issue. We'd have to dissect the whole category system into single branches of "by location", "by author/manufacturer/…", "by date/time/period", "by color", "by taxon/type/series…", "by ID", etc. and use a search function that is capable to do proper intersections. I'd say it's impossible to do a conversion like that on the fly, but conversion to COM:Structured data looks like the way to do it. Then we could finally get rid of stupid constructions like Category:Women by country by century by occupation as well. --El Grafo (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about the conflict. Yes, there are really multiple categorisation schemes that are independent, such as subjects, dates and locations. Combining them into ad-hoc intersection categories gives weird things like the ones I mentioned at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2013/10#Category_madness_in_Hong_Kong. --ghouston (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Ghouston, have you ever read Commons:Categories? The branch Category:Image sources is different from the Category:Topics, the how was the image made is not the same as what does the image show.
To stay at the given instance: This page lists all new files uploaded in the Category:Mittelhessen (including Category:Wetzlar). It doesn't work anymore if a ship in Taiwan is listed there.
Please don't argue with other miscategorized files, I know that there are many, but I seek a solution for the given ones. Regards, --Emha (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, image sources are where the images were taken from, and it seems a bit different to how images were made. Perhaps you could argue that "hidden" categories are only for maintenance and shouldn't be part of the Topics category tree. However there's no policy for that, and hidden categories like Category:People by name fit into the topical tree without any problem. It's also logical that the "taken with" categories are associated with the cameras they refer to. My example of the Gravity escapement image was not to demonstrate miscategorization but to suggest that the category system varies in how categories are related to their subcategories. --ghouston (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know anything about User:OgreBot/gallery. Perhaps there is some way (or should be some way) of excluding particular subcategories. I don't think you'd want anything in Category:Leica included. --ghouston (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: Commons:Categories#Major categories mentions Category:Image sources as a root category, which is wrong: it's a sub-category of the root categories Category:Media types and Category:Media by source. I'll change Commons:Categories#Major categories to reflect reality (put Category:Media by source in the place of Category:Image sources). Doesn't have to do anything with this discussion, just noting it here to avoid confusion. --El Grafo (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) User:Ghouston, the technical source of the named images is the camera, what else?
It doesn't make sense of dealing with the symptoms if the cause isn't removed.
Sure I want the Leica-Category and her content in this category, it's a company based in Wetzlar with a rich history including all the cameras that are produced here, but not the images of the cameras, because they are from elsewhere... Regards, --Emha (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
But then what about similar things like Category:Photographs by lens or Category:Photographs by film? "source" doesn't really make sense there and it doesn't really fit the description at Commons:Categories. If anything, I'd rather have a new root category for stuff like that. --El Grafo (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The cause is varying relationships between categories and their subcategories, so that the relationship of a category with its grandparent etc., categories is unclear. A big part of it in this case is caused by putting the whole Leica company under Wetzlar. The relationship is "based in", I suppose meaning that its head office is located there. However Leica now makes at least some of its cameras in China [6] and it has shops and offices in other countries [7]. --ghouston (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there are several root categories or entry points. But I don't think it's possible to separate them entirely. Simple example: Category:Photographs is in the root categories
--El Grafo (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
What is deeply troubling here is these two things:
  1. that we have an admin who not only doesn’t understand the underlying approach of our categorization scheme, but also comes to the Village Pump making a spectacle of it and demanding a “solution”, and
  2. that we have another admin who comes to the Village Pump to promote what would amount to vandalism were it perpetrated by an IP user («the appropriate solution is to delete each and every "taken with"-cat»).
-- Tuválkin 19:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Tuvalkin: This is not the Administrators' noticeboard and not an admin-relevant cause. This is the village pump and I am not talking as an admin, but as a normal user like you.
I would be pleased if it would be possible to you not arguing personally but along the facts. And yes, I have a problem with the situation and would be glad if we could find a solution for this. If all the other users would have told me, that this is only my problem, that's okay for me, too. But as you can read, that's not the case. Regards, --Emha (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Laying aside the obvious matter that not all category relations are is-a relations, I still have a problem with some of this "taken with" stuff. For example,,_1954.jpg&curid=30755448&diff=164488000&oldid=149609367, as discussed in part at User_talk:BotAdventures#Scanner.... It seems pretty silly to say that a 1954 photo was "taken with" an Epson scanner. - Jmabel ! talk 19:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, that should obviously be something like Photographs digitized with … and separate from photographs taken using a scanner as a camera … --El Grafo (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
You can digitize books, digitize photos, and image/digitize 3D objects with either a camera or a scanner. I'm not sure that creating separate categories for all these possibilities for every type of device is a good idea. I think there should be device categories (which will later be converted to Wikidata-like properties if Structured data ever happens) which can be assigned automatically from Exif in many cases. A single file can potentially have more than one device, e.g., the original camera, the scanner, or software that processes it (e.g., for enhancements or processing raw camera images), although sometimes only one can found in Exif. Any other information, e.g., that it's a book digitization, or a photo of a 3D object made by a scanner, can be added separately instead of creating intersections with the device type. --ghouston (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Q: Portrait photo with written permission[edit]

At the Dutch Wikipedia is an article about WW2 resistance fighter nl:Gerrit Willem Kastein, who was executed in February 1942. After trying to find a suitable portait photo (CC license or PD), which I couldn find, I contacted the author of the biography about Mr. Kastein. I asked specifically if he could release a portrait photo for use under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license for use on Wikipedia. He graciously send me a picture I may use as such. I assume I first need to submit the e-mail correspondence somewhere at Commons Wikimedia, but do not know how or where. It's saved in my GMAIL inbox and it is written in the Dutch language. What to do now ? Regards, --OSeveno (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi OSeveno, look at COM:OTRS. We need the permission by the author of the photo, not the author of the biography. The release must be for all purposes, not only Wikipedia/Commons. Regards, --Emha (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Emha, I guess I first need additional information. Regards, --OSeveno (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:PD-NL-Gov/en depreciated or not ?[edit]

At Template talk:PD-NL-Gov/en is a 'kept' tag, while at Commons:Copyright_tags#Non-U.S._works under Netherlands it says it is depreciated. On Template:PD-NL-Gov/en it says: Images using the PD-NL-Gov tag need to be relicensed or deleted, as appropriate. To me it appears that if after a deletion request discussion it is decided it is 'kept', this would mean the template isn't depreciated. Do I understand this correctly ? Regards, --OSeveno (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@OSeveno: They are not the same.. a template can be 'deprecated' (meaning it's no longer intended to be used) but 'kept' (because it has an unwieldy number of existing uses that need to be fixed, and deletion of the template would remove the ability to track them). In the case of this particular template, it was actually deleted after the original discussion, but then recreated later that same day as a 'deprecated' template, presumably after it was pointed out that it was in use. The 'kept' is misleading. As it stands now, the template is not intended to be used (but is linked quite a few times from old discussion). No files use it, and none should. Revent (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
(as a further note) The 'kept' on the talk page was added by a bot, when it noticed that the (recreated) page still existed after the discussion was closed. Revent (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

GlobalReplace - Please update your version[edit]

All previous versions of Commons:GlobalReplace will likely break in two days due to the missing rawcontinue parameter when calling the API. Please refer to the Help page to update your version.

Beside the above fix, the new version comes with some improvements like

  • Log all replacements on a user subpage
  • Sign up is done before running this tool for the first time
  • Check for a new version at start up

Don't forget to report any bugs to the GitHub repository. --McZusatz (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

June 30[edit]


The Commons logo in the corner is blurry. Crisper versions are available.

SVG PNG PNG used in the corner

The PNG version of the logo also has other issues: a bump right where the outer ring turns into the arrow, and variable spacing b/t the arrow tips and the red circle. But the fuzziness is most noticeable. Is the simplest solution just replacing it with a crisper PNG? --SJ+ 06:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It is suggested to use the .svg logo, not the png. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

eBay upload script wanted[edit]

1909 postcard

From time to time, I find out-of-copyright images, such as old postcards, on eBay. There's one above. It would be handy to have a tool or script that will do the upload, capturing the appropriate metadata, like we have for Flickr. Does anyone know of one? Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. eBay has their own API, however as users can upload many photographs of objects, auction entries may be for multiple items and most sections of the auction page can be used in varied custom fashions by the seller, I think useful automation is a bit of a nightmare. Were I designing a tool, I would provide a webform, harvest details and then let the user fill in the blanks or correct details (like selecting which image is the relevant one to upload from a drop-list). All in all, it's a weak scenario compared to Flickr, where the API is explicitly returning fields about an image you want to upload, not information about what it may represent, tangential events, or as part of a group object.
P.S. Flickr upload tools are a bit of a hazard for mass uploads, however I'm reading your request as a tool for item by item uploads, not mass uploads. -- (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes; item by item. A pre-filled form would be fine - anything that removes a step or two from the drudgery. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Tool for changing the descriptions of multiple images[edit]

Hello, is there by any chance a tool, similar to cat-a-lot, with which I can change the description of multiple images at once? That would be very helpful for Wiki Loves Earth, because sometimes there are 10 different images from the same place. Thanks in advance, --Лорд Бъмбъри (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC).