Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

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

Please note

  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons' core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read our 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


Old manual pump in Fetonte Place Crespino, province of Rovigo [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


May 09[edit] verdict[edit]

I'd like to revisit Commons:Village pump/Archive/2016/02#Huge problem with copyright on Mynewsdesk. As an active license reviewer, I've seen this site come up often, but I'll remind that license review is really an external license review (i.e., is the image available under the license it says it is) rather than a full DR-style copyright investigation about whether the uploader has the rights. To review the previous thread, is a site for marketers with a default upload license of cc-by-sa. On one hand, it's the job of the uploader to review what this means, and on the other, the site doesn't do an adequate job of warning uploaders that the default license allows commercial re-use. As a result, we get a ton of promo photos that the marketer does not own the copyright to relicense (being the marketer and not necessarily the copyright owner). I lean towards the recommendation that we should not accept files directly from the website while they default to cc-by-sa. I think it makes more sense to follow an item's source attribution and retrieve confirmation there. I find that I'm rarely able to find a cc-by-sa license at the origin site, hence my opinion in this discussion. At the very, very least, if we do not outright block the site, we need to have some sort of template to warn Commons users about how this site uses the license and what kind of discretion they should bring when doing their own license verification. See also Category:Mynewsdesk-related deletion requests. Pinging prior discussants: @Vätte, Revent, Josve05a, Denniss, Gunnex czar 15:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support As someone who is not deeply into DRs and license reviews, I have had the name mynewsdesk come up often enough to think that this makes sense. --Sebari (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I've had that template idea too. I've seen many photos uploaded to Commons from Mynewsdesk, that really should not be on Commons, and once upon a time, I myself uploaded some photos from Mynewsdesk because they were labeled with a CC-license. Those photos were later removed. -abbedabbtalk 16:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support per what Czar says. It is a problematic website that recurs often enough to warrant a more substantial policy/guidance. Green Giant (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Would it be useful to add an entry for Mynewsdesk on COM:Problematic sources or maybe even COM:Bad sources? --Gazebo (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support, but really they should all be deleted under the precautionary principal because their copyright status is unclear. I'll support this for now but MyNewsDesk has been a thorn for many years with several discussions, even this one back in 2012 when Axel Pettersson was making contact with them, but it appears he never made any progress. Back then several Sony images were deleted that were obvious copyright violations of obvious US copyright images. I think we should take a much stronger stance and delete them all unless they are verified as freely licenced, even those that have previously been nominated and kept. They should require an OTRS email but based on the many emails I sent to all the listed Sony reps back in 2012 and receiving no replies of any kind, we should become much stricter with this source. I estimate currently there are between 2800 and 3300 images from this source up from 125 four years ago. COM:Bad sources might be too strict right now but COM:Problematic sources would seem reasonable as not everything will carry a false licence. Ww2censor (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Revisiting my old mail thread with Mynewsdesk to see what happened with their promised change in January-February where they should alter the standard license and ask their costumers to go through previous uploads. Hoping for a fast reply from them. /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

aziz saadi[edit]

je suis voudrai ecrere dan wikipedia et fait des photo —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Facebook like thumb.png[edit]

Not sure what to do about this: File:Facebook like thumb.png has been the subject of three deletion requests, in October 2011, March 2012 and June 2012, all back when the image was a simple 16×15 pixel icon. In October 2012 the image was "improved" to a massive 2,000×1,713 pixel image by UserːLMFAO, with shading and a cuff button, retaining the same "The thumb graphic from the Facebook "like" button." description. It's unclear whether this was drawn freehand, or lifted from a higher-resolution corner of Facebook.

Should this be redescribed, renamed (if it's not the Facebook icon any more), reverted, or something else? --McGeddon (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The 2000px is a rendered raster of File:Botón Me gusta.svg... -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Which still raises the same question: File:Botón Me gusta.svg is described as "The thumb graphic from the Facebook "like" button.", authored by User:Enoc vt and it "may be protected as a trademark in some jurisdictions". Is it an actual Facebook graphic or just a representation of one? --McGeddon (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

WMF staff who do not understand licensing[edit]

I recently nominated a number of Wikipedia screenshots uploaded by a WMF staffer for deletion (DR). In response, JKatz (WMF) told me: You are correct that Nirzar and I were not aware that attribution requirements applied to screenshots of Wikipedia for use in discussing Wikipedia. Facepalm (yellow).svg This isn't a one-off: see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by KHammerstein (WMF). On the other hand, many WMF staff do use the proper attribution and license templates. Thoughts? Has this issue come up before? BethNaught (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This comment from Maggie Dennis is relevant. BethNaught (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi BethNaught. I looked into this a bit the other day. I see a bunch of failures on Commons' part. Looking at File:Link 2.png, for example:
  • it was uploaded in October 2014 and only now is anyone noticing and saying something;
  • the upload appropriately includes description text and licensing info (great!), but is still wrong because it's missing source information; and
  • the file name ("Link 2.png") should not have been allowed as it's much too generic (same with "Media-01.png" and others).
There are people, inside and outside of the Wikimedia Foundation, who regularly screw up uploading to Commons. Perhaps we should revisit making uploading to Commons less error-prone. I think focusing on a specific organization misses the larger point: it isn't "WMF staff who do not understand licensing", it's "most users who try to upload to Commons do not understand licensing". :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Your comments are all on point; my point was that the WMF should train their staff about licensing. Maggie Dennis says they are supposed to but the training process is not always well delivered. I was wondering if there had been issues on Commons previously about this. Given you have not mentioned any such, I will presume that no significant issues have heretofore come to wide attention.
As to making uploading to Commons less error-prone, I would welcome any ideas, but it's a well-known fact that many (most?) people don't read instructions and just try to upload the image as quickly as possible. You know this, I am sure. As far as I can think, the only option to ensure all Commons contributors understand essential licensing issues would be to force people to take a test, but that's not going to happen. BethNaught (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
It goes deeper: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DannyH (WMF). BethNaught (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
BethNaught, you made your point, nominating more files would be a bit too pointy. It would be better if you correct the files like Courcelles did. Multichill (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
But seriously, it's not my bloody job to fix what messes WMF staff have made. Neither is it yours, nor Courcelles'. I am aware of what Courcelles has done so far and I am both grateful and somewhat incredulous. Quite frankly, I will not take kindly to being told to fix the failures of the WMF, an organisation which promotes free knowledge, to abide by the basic attribution rights of the software and content contributors who make what it does possible. Besides, I just spent an hour looking for the problems. The time to fix them will be orders of magnitude more. Just no. BethNaught (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I too have been very frustrated by this issue in the past. However, I just got an email on my work account about how its important to properly license things when you upload to commons, so I believe that WMF is taking this issue seriously. Bawolff (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
You're right, BethNaught, it's not your bloody job to clean up after WMF staff. I can confirm that WMF has often done a poor job teaching staff how to attribute the content they upload to Commons, and (following Bawolff) that the Foundation is taking this issue seriously now that you have brought it to the right peoples' attention. Would it be possible to catalogue all the staff-uploaded images that are not correctly attributed in a single location, to help WMF coordinate our curation efforts? I realize that this is not your job either, so even suggestions on how to go about this are welcome and appreciated :) Thank you for bringing this up, and I humbly request your patience, on behalf of my WMF colleagues. This issue is being addressed and will be resolved. Best, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
@Jmorgan (WMF): Thank you for your response. I am glad to see that the problem is being taken seriously. I've had a think about this. The problem is that there's no way to know automatically whether an image (or video) has been correctly attributed and tagged. Even when a file is tagged with {{Wikimedia-screenshot}} it is not always correct: for example, this image is a screenshot of a Labs tool under the ISC license, not CC-BY-SA, GPL or GFDL, and the author is not attributed, so the {{Wikimedia-screenshot}} tag is not correct. Hence the important thing, in my opinion, is to find all the potentially affected files and put them in a tracking category (it can be a hidden category, no need for badges of shame). Since uploaded screenshots and user testing videos (also a problem) are not always categorised in Category:Wikimedia screenshots, I would suggest:
  1. Do a database query for all files uploaded by WMF staff accounts (better also include their personal accounts; for example, KHammerstein (WMF) also uploaded problematic work-related screenshots as Kaitymh, and of course the enforced separation of staff and volunteer accounts is still a relatively recent phenomenon)
  2. Use a tool like Cat-a-lot to easily remove files which are not screenshots or user testing videos, e.g. staff-produced graphs, slides for presentations, or event photographs
  3. Get someone who fully understands the issues (thinking staff, but Courcelles has contributed to fixing some files I already sent to DR) to go through the remaining files and check/fix them
Unfortuately I can't think of a more efficient way to ensure that all staff-uploaded files are in compliance. (I'll post again if I have a flash of inspiration.) The problem is that there will probably be thousands of potentially affected files. That said, if an organised and proper clean-up effort is underway, I'm sure we (and I) can all forbear, as a (ladies' and) gentlemen's agreement, from flooding DR and forcing the clean-up to happen faster than the WMF can cope with.
Care will have to be taken in one respect: once a list of files to be checked has been generated, files uploaded after that time will need to continue to be verified until sufficient training has been provided to all staff. So new uploads of screenshots etc. should be put in the tracking category unless they are by a person who has been shown to be competent in attributing and licensing the screenshots.
BethNaught (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
@BethNaught:. Would a query like this work? This one is only for the past 30 days (it's slightly easier to identify uploads using the recentchanges table), but I could probably retrieve historical data going back years as well. This query can be re-run on a regular basis, for spot-checking purposes. It would be more difficult to systematically identify files uploaded by staff using their volunteer accounts, as I'm not aware of any central index of Staff --> Volunteer accounts.
I could also generate sub-lists that show 1) staff uploads that have the {{Wikimedia-screenshot}} template, ones that don't, ones that are and are not categorized in Category:Wikimedia screenshots... any combination of those characteristics. Let me know what would be most helpful as a first pass, and I'll get started on it. Re: user testing videos, I've uploaded several in the past year (since I joined the design research team). Can you take a look at one of these and let me know what I need to add/change to bring it into compliance with Commons policies? I'll document that information on the Design Research portal on MediaWiki, so that we follow the practice going forward. When it comes to older videos (many of which are in Category:User_testing), I'm less sure of their provenance. I know the erstwhile Growth team contributed some, as did the Flow team (now Collaboration), IIRC. Some may actually go back as far as the Usability Initiative in 2010. I'm happy to help curate these too, so please let me know where to start! Thank you for your help, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@Jmorgan (WMF): I extended your query a bit. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of SQL so I can't really comment on your query, although Steinsplitter's widening of the WMF string searched for is important as some staff use "-WMF". As for how to properly document the user testing videos: actually, I think it's really important that others chime in on this issue. I'm not a copyright expert and I wouldn't really call myself a Commonist. I just know enough to notice there's a problem. I think you should definitely attribute MediaWiki. A strict reading of the licenses would mean you'd have to attribute every article and image shown in the video, but that doesn't account for possible de minimis exceptions. A brief low-resolution copy of one image is arguably de minimis with respect to a 20-minute video. Meanwhile, the user testing videos you uploaded are so blurry that the texts are illegible, so attributing the articles are not necessary (?) - but again, in videos where they are, you probably should? Like I said, I couldn't give you a confident answer. I'm sure some Commonists could give you better advice - or, though I am reticent to pile yet more work on the fantastic Maggie Dennis, she really knows her stuff and I would trust her understanding of the requirements. Sorry not to be so helpful about this. BethNaught (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

May 22[edit]

What License #2?[edit]

Hi, I have upload file:Toulouse cassini 1815.tif, what licence applied ? Map is PD, but there is an OSM overlay. --Rulhe (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion request[edit]

I nominated my file for deletion, but the request was denied. Does Wikimedia have the rights to own my file after i upload it? Does Wikimedia have the rights to keep it even if i am the author and i want it to be deleted? - Avatar9n (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The CC-licence is irrevocable. --Magnus (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Convenience link: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mosin-nagant ecomare.JPG. And, as Magnus said, "I no longer want it to be shared" is not a valid reason for deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 16:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikimedia doesn't own your file, but you granted Wikimedia (and anyone else) a permanent license to use it, and cannot simply revoke that. - Jmabel ! talk 00:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Avatar9n Poké95 12:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Can i change the licences of my files? If so, is there a licence which prohibits others from having a copy of it (or from sharing it)? I know those who already have it can keep it. - Avatar9n (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

As two other editors have told you, you cannot revoke the license you have granted for the file once it has been unloaded. You cannot control or prevent anyone from using it (including downloading and redistributing it themselves) within the limits of that license. You can cease distributing it yourself, or only continue distributing it under some other commercial or restrictive license. But again, you explicitly made an non-revokable license when you uploaded it. DMacks (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh i see. I should have thought twice before uploading the file, before i changed my mind after three years. I understand that this site is for sharing free media and i understand your efforts to provide it to the world. Unfortunately i didn't know this back then, and i found the revert you made insolent. While i agree that this site serves for the common good, the fact that the authors have no rights over their work really disappointed me. It looks like this site has turned into a tool for self aggrandizement for some people. All these may be the reason why many people didn't and will not choose this site, including me. Thank you for your help. - Avatar9n (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Avatar9n Poké95 11:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious: Commons is a repository of media available to be freely used. If you don't want material freely used, don't put it here. The least free licenses we accept are things like CC-By-SA, which require attribution and which require that any derivatives must also be similarly licensed. - Jmabel ! talk 13:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

May 23[edit]

Categories for people by year[edit]

I noticed several of this kind of category being created recently (for example, Category:Felicia Day by year and Category:Wil Wheaton by year). (I didn't check them all, but those two were both created by User:IagoQnsi.) It seems to me that this type of category isn't needed for everyone. I think they're most useful when there is a fairly large number of photos of the person for each of several years (see, for example, Category:Bill Clinton by year), and even then not every photo of the person needs to be in a subcategory of these. If there aren't that many, these categories just make it harder to find general photos. I think several of the recent ones don't have that many, and I'd discourage creating these just because we can. Comments? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I certainly wouldn't consider such as scheme on anyone for whom we had less than 50 photos; conversely at about 500 photos, this becomes almost compulsory. I believe the examples given are in between, so I'm neutral on these. - Jmabel ! talk 14:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks, User:Jmabel. I was looking for input on both the recent ones and in these in general, so your input is still helpful. For you, would it matter how many files were in the subcategories? For example, what if among 50 images, 40 of them were for one year and the rest were each for separate years? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
      • It would probably be really useful to have an easy way to spot the few that were from another time, and these categories would help. For example, consider Category:Mariide, still small enough to eyeball, no reason to break it down. Imagine if we had a ton of photos from this year; it might be very useful to easily spot that one other photo we have of her is from 40 years ago. Though if there were a bunch of them each from one different year, as in your example, it wouldn't work so well. But consider Category:Solstice Cyclists (content of subcats a bit NSFW, just happened to come to mind; NSFW won't arise if you don't click through to the subcats). It seems to me that it's as useful to be able to spot the years for which we have only one or two photos as to see that there is one for which we have 483. - Jmabel ! talk 22:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Hey Auntof6, thanks for the comment. I agree that breaking down into yearly categories doesn't make sense for small categories, and to that end, I've reverted a couple of instances where I did that that seem silly in hindsight. For Wil Wheaton and especially for Felicia Day, however, I think there are enough photos to justify needing to break into categories. I think the solution to make it easier to find general photos is to make excellent galleries for these people. To that end, I plan to work on the Wil Wheaton and Felicia Day galleries some time today or tomorrow. Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @IagoQnsi: Good idea, this is a case where some hand-curation would help a lot. - Jmabel ! talk 22:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Why not categorise by decade? This might be a good solution for middling-sized categories... Mabalu (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • In case there is need for more support, I also don't think it makes sense to sub-categorize people by year unless there is a large mass of photos. In general, I think all categories should be sub-categorized by decade before they are sub-categorized by year. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Spanish speaking linguistic map[edit]

Hello! For a couple of days,, I have a discussion on this linguistic map Hablantes nativos de español en Europa. I would like to have a neutral point of view on this disagreement. What is the best source map to use and also what are the colors of the legend (neutrality) has to be used ? So If you want to give us your opinion on the subject, you're welcome. Smiley.svg Thank you --Zorion (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I've written some remarks on the linked talk page, which is probably where this discussion should stay. - Jmabel ! talk 22:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-21[edit]

18:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

May 25[edit]

Template:Information consistent?[edit]

My question is, is it okay to replace all parameters there by default to lowercase (like here and uppercase on the other hand here)? As mentioned under Capitalization silliness, there is a completely inconsistency in this issue. Was there any discussion to made a recommendation to this? If not I would get one. The uppercase (with mixed lowercase "other_versions") parameter seems mainly from the old (actual exist) UploadForm. The other main point is the inconsistency with the Upload Wizard, which uses consistent lowercase. What do you mean? mentionable User: Perhelion 18:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  • As far as I know, it is case-insensitive. The discussion you are pointing to is from 8 years ago. Have you run across situations where case matters in this template? - Jmabel ! talk 19:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • As it is indicated in the template documentation Template:Information allows arguments with upper or lower case and with either spaces or underscored in 2 word arguments. The format used by Upload Wizard should be the preferred one but we do not want people or bots "correcting" this "issue" unless they are fixing some other issues. --Jarekt (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

May 27[edit]

Category:farm teams[edit]

I know it is difficult to gear a multilingual platform, and I am not an expert in the field but I think that this discussion with User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken needs more input. Here is the thread: User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken#Farm_teams

I created the cat as a reorganization of d:Q31532, this item clearly relates to a concept that is present in all sports. I was looking for some nice pictures for the local pages, therefore I though it was a good thing to provide every user a good selection creating a specific cat here.

If you look on some dictionaries the Englsih term is mainly (but not specifically) for baseball in US and Canada, but in other languages that concept is to all the sports. So I think that in a multilingual platform that redirect is not correct. You decide.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I live in China so I don't have access to google and i can't sample the web very well but here is some examples where the word is used outside baseball in the English language here, here, here. I hope it helps.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The expression "farm team" is a distinctly American one, i.e. a team where players are "grown" for the big leagues, and in that context used only in regard to baseball. There are no "farm teams" in American football, NBA basketball, NHL hockey or MLS soccer. College football teams are not "farm teams". The myriad hockey leagues in Canada are not - at least to my knowledge - composed of "farm teams". As far as I know, "farm team" originated as a baseball term, and remains as such. Players on farm teams are professionals, as they are paid, but are not at the top of their profession: they are either just starting out, or are in-between. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
use with basketball. Also keep in mind that when i came back to the cat I wanted to add translation in other languages, where it is clear it is not just about baseball. here an example in German for hockey.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, you certainly do seem correct that the expression is used outside of baseball. On the other hand, what purpose exactly does a category "Farm teams" serve? On the other hand, what purpose exactly does a category "Farm teams" serve, unless it is broken down by sport and country? And a reference would be required for everything put into the category, to be certain that in that sport in that country the expression "Farm team" is used. Seems like a lot of hassle for very little profit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Of course it will be broken down by sport and country, but first you create the cat, than you create the subcats. I go step by step, just in case there are issues (and I was right, I guess). Also, this is a multilingual platform, there are languages where the expression (or the "equivalent" translation) is used for one sport and not another one is which is not very common. it would be the first time someone use extensive references to set up a commons cat (also please show me how you are supposed put a reference required for everything put into the category here on commons, I am really curious). I do see a lot of complication but mainly because you kinda want it, not because it improves commons. A lot of hassle for very little profit is for sure imposing a limited view that contradicts the general structure of the item and the content of the local articles instead of just accept a natural evolution of the categories. Still, if I wanted an image of a farm team or related to a farm team in the broader sense which is more perceived probably outside the majority of US anglophones, I would look for it through the category here on commons. There is really nothing more than that. that's why I was here in the first place. And I did what I do in these cases, I create the cat if it is not there and I was going to improve it. It mainly needs good sense: I cannot even imagine more sources than the one already here.
BTW, I am practical. I am not an expert in sport and if it takes so much time to fix something wrong (your redirect), i cannot image what would require to do things right :D. I am still quite confused, so there is no point in spending so much energy for a cat like dozens of other ones when i can simply do those. Someone else will fix the redirect.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't quite understand why you are making such a big deal about this. I made a mistake, I'm sorry, but undoing it means going to Category:Farm teams and deleting the redirects. I just did that and it took all of 15 seconds, if that. You could have done it instead of wasting your and my time telling us how practical you are. I'm not going to populate your category, because I don't think you did it right, and you don't have a category structure set up for it yet. I did put Category:Minor League Baseball teams into it, since by definition they are all farm teams. Any other teams added to it should be done to the proper sub-category. I don't see much use for the cat, but that's really not my concern -- there are a lot of categories on Commons that I think are fairly useless. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Geotagging: Open street map- overlays and right click[edit]

We support Open Street Map- there is a cross over between volunteering on WP and OSM- so it should be our tool of choice for geotagging. I help a lot of very talented newbies who have limited computer skills- so my direction of travel is that technically we should strive to make common tasks easy, so our new volunteers can immediately start to contribute.

An OSM of Leicester courtesy of the WMflabs. This is a wonderful tool- but it lacks one facility, that I hope someone will add- when you right click the menu lacks the Where am I? link to give you a geotag.

It I select an image, and go to the file description and click on the lat/long link (not the Open street map link) then select Open street map- I get This Open Streen Map without the helpful roundels but with the Where am I? tool.

Yes I had noticed that one was a php file on our server and the second is an index file in a directory on there server but the task is to add a few geotags not do a http appreciatioin course.

There are many things we could do to improve this.

  • improve the wording- View this and other nearby images on: OpenStreetMap is too similar to the link on the Geohack page which is OpenStreetMap. Then again, if you are on the Geohack page- there could be an adjacent link to map with roundels
  • Modify the map with roundels to allow a What links here overlay in the same way that we already have the zoom bar. This is my preferred option.
  • On that page, when you hover over the roundel, a thumbnail appears- clicking on the thumbnail links to the commons file. This thumbnail could have a caption with a geotag link that called the other Open Streen Map

I am sure this is harder to describe than it is to do. Or, possibly it is so important that it has already been done but not adequately documented.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

May 28[edit]

VOA PD Review[edit]

Hi all, I was not here for a long time but I have seen these discussions and changes to the VOA template. Today I checked the BBG website which is the parent organization of VOA and it is stated that all of their original products are in public domain

All original text, audio and video material produced exclusively by VOA and OCB is in the public domain. However, the Content, including VOA and OCB content, may contain video, audio, images, graphics, and other copyrighted material that is licensed for use in the Networks’ programming only. This material is not in the public domain and may not be copied, redistributed, sold, or published without the express permission of the copyright owner.

how can I change the template to reflect this?--Pouyana (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Pictures of surgeries in progress[edit]

There are some on Commons, but not many. I'm thinking that I could snap some pictures during some surgical procedures (in the OR, or outside it).

However, two questions here. The first has to do with the scope of the project; do in depth surgical procedures fall under it? For example pictures that detail the steps of a certain procedure?

The second has to do with ownership. Obviously the taker of the pictures owns the rights. But unlike a conscious person, the anesthetized patient didn't give explicit consent to have pictures taken of them (but the pictures still shouldn't contain identifying items. The picture would be of the abdomen, for example, focused on the site of the procedure, and the face shouldn't be visible). I don't know if this is a medical ethics issue more than copyright (but images of surgeries, diseases, procedures, etc are routinely used for educational purposes in medical schools and hospitals among doctors). Would any guidelines be broken in this case? --Hexafluoride (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Such pictures would be within scope, but you should have a clear release from the patient (typically from after the pictures were taken) in order to upload them here. Typically you'd send that release to COM:OTRS and would also tag the pictures with {{personality rights}}. Someone may have more to add to that. - Jmabel ! talk 23:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I've followed the {{personality rights}} template, and finally reached COM:Patient images. Now per that article, OTRS can't be used because it violates doctor-patient confidentiality. The essay isn't definitive, it presents the current legal statuses and challenges in the UK & US. It seems like pictures of non-identifiable organs or samples are exempt from consent in general (such as pictures from a laparoscopy). The issue is still tangled. I'd like more input on this. --Hexafluoride (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

May 29[edit]


There seems to be a discrepancy between the Commons {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} template and Enwiki's en:Template:Non-free Philippines government. According to Enwiki's template, Philippine governmental works do not allow commercial reuse and therefore fail the free use licensing required for Commons. So I had a look though the Act that authorized government free use. On page 80, section 176, it says However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit. That seems to match what Enwiki has and therefore Philippine governmental works do not fall under free use as they cannot be used commercially without prior approval (kinda like CC-BY-NC). So does that mean works licensed under that template do not actually qualify for use on Commons? Or am I reading that wrong? --Majora (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

This issue has been brought up twice before and has been considered to be acceptable for Commons. MKFI (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Finnish civil war images available[edit]

Vapriikki museum has released a set of photos related to the Finnish civil war in Tampere under CC-BY. Miraceti (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Dispite the mentioned CC-BY license all images from Finnish civil war should qualify for {{PD-Finland50}}. MKFI (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

May 30[edit]

Numerical sorting in categories[edit]

Hi, this has been mentioned in a few other places, but I thought I'd mention it again just to be on the safe side: the community tasked the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team with fixing numerical sorting in categories. For Commons, this is relevant for files names. For example, this means 9 comes before 11, because 9 has a higher numerical value than 11, as opposed to the current order, where 11 comes before 9, because 1 has a lower value than 9. I can't come up with any reason why this would cause problems on Commons, but am I missing something? /Johan (WMF) (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

  • "9 has a higher numerical value than 11"? - Jmabel ! talk 03:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't have a higher numerical value, but page names (including file names, categories, etc.) are sorted in alphabetical order, and in alphabetical order "9" comes after "1", no matter what characters follow them. Of course, I'm just talking about Arabic numerals here. I don't know how it works for other ways of writing numerals. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • My point exactly. Either "numerical" is the wrong word here, or the statement is exactly backward. - Jmabel ! talk 04:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Page names are currently sorted in strictly alphabetical order. For example: 1, 99, 100 will sort as "1, 100, 99". The request from the community was to enable numeric sorting, so that the same pages would sort as "1, 99, 100" instead. You can go to and turn on numeric sorting in the settings to try this out. Is there any reason that Commons would want to opt out of this? Kaldari (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
It's much better to use key sorting rather than forcing a special sort by filename. If anyone is desperate for "99" < "100" they should probably use "000099...", "000100..." as the keys for those files. As an example, File:747 400 barleescovi.svg and File:NY-747 3.jpg would need keys for the sorting to make any sense, not a numerical sort. I can imagine that this feature will encourage numbers at the start of filenames, rather than a more useful naming scheme. The number of files where numerical sorting would be useful or relevant must be a *miniscule* proportion of the 33 million files hosted.
This looks like a solution looking for a problem, please avoid doing that without solid statistical evidence that it is a realistic help for *this project*, rather than because it's useful on the English Wikipedia (which is what the example in the tickets I've seen are all based on). -- (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)