Commons:Village pump/Archive/2011/06

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


why was file deleted (and no notice)?

This file and its derivative were deleted.

File:Garter snake close up northern ontario canada.jpg

1. But there doesn't seem to have been a FFD process. Just someone deleted it. Of course we should not allow bad permission images, but aren't we supposed to have a discussion?

2. No notice was made and the image was being used in an EN WP Featured List. (So we screwed that up for a little while.

3. And the image actually had a chain of derivative images, but the deleter only went one down the chain and missed an image that was two derivatives removed...

P.s. My tone is meant to be half-curious (asking for an explanation), but am half-vexed already too. If we don't normally do FFDs for pretty non-controversial images (not like a nude picture of Obama's kids or something, it's just a snake), then shouldn't we host stuff on WP instead of Commons? I just don't get why there was no procedure followed...

TCO (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what an FFD process is. I'm not aware of any process called that here. The reason for deletion is available in the deletion log. The uploader was notified on their talk page and asked to provide whatever source or authorship information was missing. It seems they didn't, so it was deleted in accordance with Commons:Deletion policy#Missing legal information, albeit without waiting the full seven days. (I doubt it would have made a difference, though. The uploader seems to be long gone.) You're right in that File:Montage of four US state reptiles.jpg seems to be a derivative and should have been deleted at the same time to be consistent. Unfortunately, we can't have a discussion every time an uploader fails to provide all the required information – we currently have over 700 files in Category:Media without a source alone. LX (talk, contribs) 06:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Where was the deletion discussion? It seems like it just got deleted? And shouldn't the images derivatives be showing the notification that the AFD or FFD (or whatever Deletion Discussion is called here) is running? The log does not make sense actually. The image was cut for lacking info? But I thought the form would not even let you upload without filling the blanks. And we deleted the image for lacking some details filled in, rather than for thinking it noncompliant?

I'm just not getting it. On WP, there is a deletion discussion and when images are in there, you can see in all the articles that this is going on as there is a notice stuck on the picture. Since we are a collaborative project, just notifying the uploader makes no sense (especially if gone for a while...very normal for that to happen)...what about people who have made derivatives and used the image in articles? I mean that is the whole point of Commons (using images broadly on other projects). Just notifying uploaders is never going to work that well. Obviously we can't track every interested person down, but if the image at least shows a little note that it is in deletion discusions...than that will allow people to intervene. Heck, maybe it was saveable. TCO (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no deletion discussion in this case. Here at Commons, like at the English Wikipedia, there are several paths to potential deletion. They're listed at Commons:Deletion policy#General procedure. Only one of them (3: Regular deletion) involves discussion (simply called "deletion discussion" or "deletion request" here). In this case, procedure number 1 was used: Missing legal information. The file was tagged with {{no source since}} (cf. en:Template:Di-no source – which doesn't involve a deletion discussion either), and the uploader was asked to provide the required info. The upload form checks that some source info is entered, but an automated process can't determine whether the source is verifiable or just nonsense. You can see some files currently tagged as missing source information in Category:Media without a source as of 26 May 2011. For example, someone gave "Хрустальная Турандот" as the source (without any hint of who or what that might be), someone said they were the author of "Fotos livres da internet" (without giving a URL or explaining why finding a file on the Internet would make them the author), and someone uploaded a file which they described as "dsa" and which supposedly came from "ds". In these cases, there is nothing to discuss; the uploader just needs to enlighten us as to where the file came from. Unfortunately, Commons doesn't have the resources to manually add notifications on talk pages of the well over 600 Wikimedia projects that we serve for all of the hundreds of files that have to be deleted each day. A bot named CommonsNotificationBot is currently under trial at the English Wikipedia project to help with notifications, though. LX (talk, contribs) 15:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

And the log says "(Missing essential information such as license, permission or source)". That sounds like boilerplate, not like a specific issue. Like what the heck does "such as" mean in this context? Does it apply to the image in question? All 3 problems? What?TCO (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If the reasons are of the type "Missing essential information" there is not a public deletion request discussion, but only a uploader notification by a standard template, and if no reaction comes, an admin deletes the image after some time. But if the uploader missed the notification, he may file an undeletion request for discussion. --Havang(nl) (talk) 07:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Aff... I hate the way "missing source information" is handled here. I've seen many times valuable photos which were obviously from the uploader (at least to me), deleted without mercy due to lack of feedback. See this, for instance: Lots of nice photos of France were uploaded by "Julbert1980", with the author named as "Julien Bertrand". To me julbert and Julien Bertrand were obviously the same. Notwithstanding, all his photos were merciless deleted due to lack of feedback from the uploader, who apparently uploaded them and went away (and nothing in our rules requires that he stays around, really). When we start putting bureaucracy and technicalities before the objectives of his project, something is rotten here.--- Darwin Ahoy! 07:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
At the time I managed to save this photo: File:Fleu x4300-4500.JPG, which is still here. You can see how the matter was a mere technicality, and I was assured that it wouldn't be a problem. Two months later, however, all his photos were deleted, all but the one I savaged. Really a shame and a loss for the project.--- Darwin Ahoy! 07:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure, when communication with uploader is no longer possible, procedures sometimes turn short. But on the whole, admins caring about deleting files are doing a good job, and we cannot blame them for overlooking sometimes something. And there are procedures to correct their mistakes. May-be an admin should study this watchlist User talk:Julbert1980 and see what is possible? --Havang(nl) (talk) 08:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I've filled an undeletion request for those files, but it's really annoying all the time and energy wasted on this. I'm not blaming the administrators, I'm blaming the system. Planting a "Lack of source" mark should not imply deletion of files, in many cases the source is the uploader, but due to some mistake, especially when the uploader is a newbie, the correct fields don't get filled in. I've seen many cases where this happened, undoubtedly a lot of files got deleted for that reason, without necessity, harming the project and confusing or plainly casting away new users.--- Darwin Ahoy! 08:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A note should pop up ON THE PICTURE (in articles) that the image is going to be deleted. This should included derivative images. How can we use images from Commons if we don't even get a notice of files about to be deleted? There was a good chance, I would have stirred myself and hunted DOWN the uploader (who is NOT required to stay here) and gotten the proper permissions.

Plus the "reason" given for the deletion is just BOILERPLATE. It doesn't describe WHICH of the 3 problems were missing. Inserted comment - The template indicates 3 possible problems, based on the actual file description. Which of three applie(s) is visible on the file description, but that disappears by the deletion. The template when applied is not boilerplate but after the deletion it may give rise to that Boilerplate feeling. --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

How the heck can I use this database if the deletions are so capricious? Again, I don't mind it going deleted after a discussion and a chance for interested parties for a save (if warranted). But one person just deleting it, essentially without notice to downstream users (and remember that is the purpose of the project)? That blows! How can I write featured content?

And I don't mind a sudden deletion if this were some take-down notice or porn or something. But it's not. It's a picture of a snake and based on the discussion above, may have even just been cut for some extermely minor (and fixable) technicality. I want to know if the photo would have been deleted if it went through a discussion? Or is deletion without discussion easier (not just by skipping the discussion, but because the threshold for "keep" is raised?

I'm understanding why people on WP want local copies not Commons copies. At least you get a notice on the image and a deletion discussion when something is about to go bye-bye!

TCO (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree that projects where images are used should be notified, for example with a note on the talk page, so that everybody with the page on their watch list can have advance warning. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
If you want to hunt down the uploader (though I don't know how you would do that) and request undeletion, it's not too late to try. Yes, the deletion reason is a boilerplate. If you look at the uploader's talk page, you'll see that it was proper source or authorship information that was missing (as I've already mentioned). As I've also already mentioned, deletion of unsourced content without deletion discussion happens on Wikipedia too (en:Template:Di-no source). And missing required legal information is not a minor technicality. Commons aims to be a repository of verifiably free content. If we don't know where content comes from, we can't determine whether it's free. Therefore, we can't host content if we don't know where it comes from. If more people realised the importance of proper source and authorship information, there might be more time for discussions, notifications and custom deletion reasons instead of dealing with incomplete or just all out bad uploads. That seems unlikely, but hopefully CommonsNotificationBot will become more established, addressing the notification concerns. LX (talk, contribs) 18:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, since I can't see the page that is missing and since the reason was boilerplate (i.e. a waste, i.e not real hard info...kind of ironic that, given that this is what the upload is being criticized for! Clin), then how can I even decide if the image is saveable? Maybe it was not even a valid deletion, but no way for me to tell! I don't even know if the image was tagged as "own" or what? And notifying users who are long gone (as evidenced by the quick delete) seems like a poor way of actually notifying people using the image or wanting to save it. The whole thing seems like a run around the regular deletion request discussion. Why not do potentially unfree file as done at Wiki?TCO (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
And reading up on the usage of these tags, it seems like the original intention was for deleting things that actualy were missing the basic info. But now we are deleting (usually) for "incomplete" or really "disagree with" rationales. This sort of thing should be at a deletion request. TCO (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh..and that stuff about contacting someone and making a save was not a debate point. I've saved an image before (one I had nominated for deletion). And I've done a LOT of contact people and get permission uploads. (Check my record.) But this thing has me flummoxed. I have no way of knowing why the image was cut and if it was justified. TCO (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Have you tried asking the deleting admin for additional details? LX (talk, contribs) 18:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Just went to his talk page (after you wrote that) and asked for more detail on why deleted. Thanks.TCO (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I can understand not wanting to do a bunch of manual notifications (although there was a whole SET of snake images cut, and given they were NA snakes and EN WP is the biggest project, a manual note on the Amphibians and Reptiles project would have been helpful...and might well have resulted in a save (and remember a save benefits wiki). But even lacking that, if we just had something pop up like a notice ON THE PICTURE, then that would be reasonable notice. Or automate it so a note goes to talk pages of pages using the image.

And I'm very suspicious of deletions without a discussion. What was the rush? Maybe the stuff was fixable. And notifying some uploader from years ago is pathetic. That's like a Catch-22. They are not required to be here. And it is the COMMUNITY that uses the images.

TCO (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, they're not required to be here, but they are required to provide the necessary information during upload. If they don't, we may not be able to keep what they upload. Sometimes, unsourced stuff goes unnoticed for a long time. It's hard to keep up checking every new upload, but it's easy to find old ones that slipped through. Random example found in a few seconds searching for a nonsensical source value off the top of my head: File:Jennifersombrotto.jpg. Uploaded three months ago from an account with no other contributions on any Wikimedia project (remaining anyway; seems there were some on English Wikipedia). Source: "somewhere". Author: "someone". No license. No nothing. Should we keep that around just because we didn't catch it sooner and the uploader is gone? Is discussing it likely to help? 100 deletion discussions were started yesterday. 234 files were tagged as missing source, license or permission information (and thus scheduled for deletion after seven days – although the current backlog goes back more than five weeks). Should we discuss all of those? That's 2,500 files per week; 10,000 per month. Who's going to participate in all those discussions? Who's going to administrate all of them and make sure they get decided on? If you think having a discussion about each of these deletions is even remotely possible, you are gravely misjudging the relationship between the size of this operation and the volunteer manpower available. LX (talk, contribs) 18:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah good points. I'm not trying to kill the place with admin requirements that are unworkable. (Just to point out the real damage that happens to projects linking to Commons.) I've even considered if we should have pre-vetting before the images are allowed to be using for linking at other projects (places with articles). But I think the rush of getting stuff up and using it ASAP is something Wiki needs. So that would be even worse. The one point I would make is that in this case, we have an obvious example where I DID care about the image. It was in a Featured List (, which is kind of important, high quality, and a lot of work. And I already had done a save for a different image (the Alabama red-bellied turtle). And I put a LOT of work into trying to make sure all the images were properly licensed (catching several problems myself). There was a Texas lizard image which I got deleted (and again it screwed up my collage, so it was two images screwed up). And I had to work to get replacements off-Commons and all that.'s not like I'm one of these dunderheads that wants to use bad stuff. And I pretty much would try to save stuff. The big issues to me are (1) the lack of notice (need to FIX that, the whole point of Commons-WP relationship is for us to use your images! )) and then (2) the logged deletion not giving a real (like tell you what was actually wrong so you know something) rationale for the deletion to see if it was justified. TCO (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
LX, I have the uttermost respect for the voluntary work of the Commons admins, especially considering how boring, contentious and tiring that work can be. To me, it's much more interesting to devote the time on Commons to organize, enhance and add to the image database, so I'm very grateful to those who devote their time to fix the technical issues and smooth the path to the rest of us. However, in the case of deletions based in "missing source/permission, whatever", I've seen many cases of images which were marked, most certainly on good faith, due to some technical issue, on the hopes that the uploader would notice it, correct it and do not do the same error again. This would be perfectly fine, if those marks would not lead to deletion in the lack of feedback. An administrator working on that backlog can easily bypass a detailed examination of the marked file, and delete files which could be fixed with some boilerplate reason according to the mark. That's the shortcoming of that procedure.--- Darwin Ahoy! 19:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand TCO when he says that he would like to be noticed when an image is deleted. One way to know is that it disapears from the pages it appears in. The point of deleting material with copyright problems is to protect anyone who would reuse this picture. And only the person that produced the work can prove that he is the real owner of the picture. So, if you can't contact the author and there is doubt about the status of the picture, it is better to delete it to protect anyone who would reuse it. Hope this will help to understand. Have a nice day, Letartean (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  • TCO, I know it's too late for the file in question, but you may be glad to know at least English Wikipedia has a process in place now. en:User:CommonsNotificationBot was approved for usage in May and now places notices on articles when Commons images are tagged for deletion. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Can't upload files

The new "upload wizard" page won't load for me. This means I can't upload any files. I did manage to get the upload form to load properly once, I'm assuming the problem is that the opening graphic won't load for some reason. Gatoclass (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Old Commons:Upload is still available. There is also a new Gadget that will disable upload wizard. MKFI (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Reverting the sidebar links now. Kaldari (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it will take a little while for the message cache to clear. I've contacted ops about the issue as well. Kaldari (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Link is reverted to Commons:Upload now. Guess we'll have to leave it at that until the UploadWizard starts loading successfully again. Kaldari (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Upload Wizard is fixed. Changing links back... Kaldari (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've switched back to the old version for now. Gatoclass (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
The Upload Wizard should be faster now as well :) Kaldari (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Image not updating

I cropped an image a day or two ago, File:USS Adams C.jpg, and uploaded it as a replacement for the original image. The new image dimensions show that it is the cropped image, but the page is still displaying the old uncropped image. I have tried reloading the page, clearing the browser cache, and cold booting my PC, but the wrong image still keeps displaying. I've had this problem quite frequently before, but never for this length of time. Gatoclass (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It's happening with me as well: File:Kongresszentrum Dresden 2005.jpg. I've seen this behaviour happening for several days in the past (3 or 4), but it eventually started showing the correct image without interference at some point.--- Darwin Ahoy! 08:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
See #Bizarre image caching problem above. /Lokal_Profil 10:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, well I don't understand how to use the "&action=purge" fix, when I try appending that to the file name it just looks for a file which includes that string. But one of my other recent files is now showing the right image, so hopefully this one will also catch up soon. Gatoclass (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I've got the same problem with a few of my images. After uploading an updated version, I attempt to purge the thumbnail cache, but it doesn't work. (I use the purge fix by adding the purge gadget in my preferences). Still, the old thumbnail appears, even after a few days. It's not a new problem to me though - the same thing happened back in 2010 and if I recall also back in 2009. It seems this is a recurring problem. In the past it has usually sorted itself out after a few days. I hope the same happens again. Regards Green Lane (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: The "&action=purge" thing is no longer working for me either. /Lokal_Profil 10:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
As per Darwin's comment above, the thumbnails for the images I was working with are now fixed too - with no action from me. Green Lane (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see and add comments about this problem at → → #Bizarre image caching problem ← ← to keep this topic in one place/section. Thanks. --Saibo (Δ) 17:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Please let us know if this one continues. We noticed the thread and followed up with operations, and they tell us that they believe it is resolved. :) --Mdennis (WMF) (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! That situation was generating a lot of unnecessary reuploads of images, as users thought their files were not being uploaded and tried uploading them again, and again, and again, on the hopes of changing something.--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

May 31

Users should not be allowed to make defamatory rants and offensive remarks when they contribute to Wikimedia Commons

Browsing on Wikimedia Commons I found Users such as Madmax32 e.g. "face it honey, you're no supermodel..." (Merkin debacle) contribution, talk, comments are rants, defamatory rants, offensive remarks about others which is wrong of them and they're not supposed to offend others by ranting, offensive remarks, and defamatory rants are not allowed when referring to others as it is basically unlawful and offensive, according to Civil Law. Wikimedia Commons should not allow Users contribution privileges when they rant, offensive remarks, and defamatory rants about others. Users should not be allowed to attack other Users because that is deemed offensive. Users who attack others and go against the law offending others show they must be corrected for their offenses. They have a personal problem that stems from within themselves e.g. jeleousy, negativity, insecurity, criminal/offensive tendencies, tendency to break the law, causing them to offend others. Users should not be allowed to make defamatory rants and offensive remarks when they contribute to Wikimedia Commons. (AB 31/5/2011) -- 10:18, 31 May 2011

Hmm, User:Madmax32's last edit on Commons was in midth 2007! Personal attacks (or comments/edits perceived as PA) can be reported at COM:AN/U, but please in sort of real-time, not 4 years later. --Túrelio (talk) 11:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Users are not allowed such remarks, which unfortunately does not prevent such remarks. --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
To the point, Commons is not very explicit about what types of offensive remarks, personal attacks, incivility, etc. are prohibited. We don't have a civility policy or a personal attacks policy, and some people definitely seem to take advantage of that.[1] The only explicit policy I know of on Commons related to such issues is: "Accounts and IP addresses which are used primarily to create a hostile environment for another user may be blocked."[2] We do, however, seem to liberally link to English Wikipedia policy on these matters as if they applied here.[3] Perhaps it's time that we imported a couple of them to Commons? Kaldari (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, but not literally and not without a proper re-shake of the mechanisms. The "community" is different. First, the audience at commons is far more diverse than en-wiki. A lot of communication is not in English. There's less regular, well-known conflicts (were, in wikipedia, everyone knows which side is who), but many minor clashes. Second, the admin corps is very different: it seems that there are two hundred too many, but very few are actively engaged. In wikipedia, one may assume that all sysops follow the same policies (although in different ways), but not here. Should I trust sysops who come out from the cold once a month to pass judgements? etc, etc. Anyway, if calling others "assholes" is endorsed by sysops, I don't see where you could draw the civility line. NVO (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

June 1

Commons lacks images of the Eiffel Tower

The other day, we slightly improved the categorization of photographs of the Eiffel Tower. Commons is frequently thought to hold many images of the Eiffel Tower, but looking more closely into this, one notices that we seem host primarily:

There are many less iconic points of view that could easily do with more choice of available images:

Views from the Tour Eiffel seem to be primarily from the 2nd and 3rd platform.

So, if you come across additional images, feel free to add them to the relevant categories. --  Docu  at 06:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


I thought PD-ineligible logos does not need permission to be used. But the logo I uploaded was tagged as it is missing permission. Same person added that template to this (not mine) image too. Can anyone confirm that permission is not needed to upload PD-ineligible logos? I did many of them as I work at Graphic Lab. Thanks. Ufo karadagli (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the file is fine. {{PD-ineligible}} should be enough in this case. --Jarekt (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it was fine, thanks to Clindberg's reply on User talk:Good twins we now know. Ufo karadagli (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Counter? (resolved)

Hi, is there a way by which I can find out how many files I have uploaded? Thx. OAlexander (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there's any way to get a number given to you. But, you could count the results of what's in your gallery or upload log. --Rob (talk) 07:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Editcount shows image uploads [4], as will Yet Another Edit Counter [5]. Glamorous will also report files from a particular user, and shows file usage [6]. MKFI (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Thx colleagues. Highly appreciated. OAlexander (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Be aware that if someone reloads the image than it is no longer assigned to you by many tools. For example if someone removes a watermark, date watermark, rotates, crops or adjusts darkness or colors and than uploads under the same name than the image disappears from your "gallery" and shows up in theirs. I am not sure how different counters deal with it. --Jarekt (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I've been looking at some examples, and it's clear all except Yet Another count onlz the most recent uploaders. --—innotata 10:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)°°°°
I just make sure to put all my uploads in a user category. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

How to disable Upload wizard

I do not need any help uploading photos to the Commons, and the wizard is extremely unnecessary for me. I have tried clicking the "Go back to the old form" button, but it continues to take me back to the wizard each time I try to upload something (which requires me to have to wait for it to load, just to be able to click the "Go back to old form" button...) Is there any way to permanently disable this wizard, as it is not helpful to me whatsoever? Gage (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've checked that button and saved my preferences, but clicking on "Upload" in the side bar still brings up the wizard just as before. --Morn (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Did you bypass your cache ? Jean-Fred (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Summary error

I uploaded the following files by the commonist-0.4.27, as I use to do so, but the summary (description etc.) shows wrong information in browser, although every details are there, what was the wrong? I request please fix the errors by some one. Thanks.

Biswarup Ganguly (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

In the first one, there was a "{" missing (fix). This threw off the MediaWiki parser. The "}}" that should close {{en}} closed {{information}} instead. --  Docu  at 05:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I have fixed the errors as you shown me, thanks.
-- Biswarup Ganguly (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Why donate to Commons?

I'm giving a presentation to an audience tomorrow on "Contributing Images to Wikipedia" in Pune, Maharashtra, India. My last slide is titled - "Why do people donate contribute images to Wikimedia Commons"? For that I have listed the following:

  • Contribution is to society & mankind.
  • Lack of images from India. Vital for development of Indian society.
  • A tool which helps reduce the digital divide.
  • For fun, recognition and learning.
  • To participate and form part of a large global community.
  • To make a difference!

I'd appreciate feedback, links to resources, suggestions etc.

AshLin (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong question from the start. "Donate images"? This interpretation may be appropriate for professional photographers, painters, etc. - people who can make money with their images. A small minority. Even then, they donate to the world and not "to Wikimedia Commons". My very uneducated guess: wikipedia users (from India or any other place), upload (not donate) images to Wikimedia Commons because they can't do it directly on wikipedia(s). Wikipedias discourage uploads of free photographs, and when it happens, they move them to commons where these images are routinely deleted (but it's a whole different story). NVO (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I have replaced "donate" with "contribute". As far as the name of the lecture is concerned, (some) people recognise Wikipedia but not Commons or Wikimedia. I'm aware of the issues of uploading to Wikipedia and to Commons directly. I shall be explaining how to upload to Commons in the speech. This is a newbie general audience. Thanks for your feedback. AshLin (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
What about following key phrases
  • building a visual encyclopaedia of our world, it should include India
  • collecting basic material for interesting articles and research
  • preserving our history for the next generations
  • discovering links with other areas and countries (where are the Ghandi streets and monuments, links with Lakshmi Mittal)
  • team and society discovering and building
--Foroa (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Foroa, Great stuff, will use it verbatim (mostly). AshLin (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
You may want to point out that the picture of the year in 2009 was of India File:Sikh_pilgrim_at_the_Golden_Temple_(Harmandir_Sahib)_in_Amritsar,_India.jpg. The global community we have on commons is genuinely interested in a broad perspective on people, culture, geography, biodiversity, ... and India has a lot to bring to the table. --99of9 (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey AshLin! My suggestion for your great mission is to inform the potential uploaders that they must provide the most information possible about the files they are uploading, since good information usually makes much easier to decide (and explain) what is allowed and what is not, as well as in providing good clues for the proper categorization (and therefore, meaningful use) of the files. One of the biggest problems here are the files uploaded with scant information, which even if are correctly licensed may take years, if ever, to find their proper place in our shelves.
The global melting pot that Commons is, to me is most evident in the case of the Portuguese legacy in India - and the Indian legacy in Portugal. An Indian user may upload a photo of a strange coat of arms found in a street of Old Goa, and then a Portuguese user from the other side of the world may come to that folder by casualty and promptly identify it with a Portuguese family or noble men, both helping to write part of the history of the city and India, and both helping to write part of Portugal history as well. Similarly, Arab users may come in and help translate the arabesques in the stones photographed in some Spanish or Portuguese museum, or even on site. This is truly, truly writing History with our own hands - on the good sense of the word.--- Darwin Ahoy! 03:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem with image thumbnail

Ok, I have again problem with image thumbnail and I hope that somebody can help with this. Recently, I uploaded an modified version of this image: However, in some articles where this image is placed thumbnail still show the old image version and it remains there no matter how many time I would reload the page, reload image or clear browser cache. I checked this issue on another computer in my workplace and problem is same.

I made some experiments and seems that thumbnails are generating preview of old image only in certain thumbnail sizes (i.e. in 250px and 260px):

But, if thumbnail size is changed then new image version is shown:

So, what seems to be the problem here? Is there a way to make 250px and 260px thumbnails to generate preview of new image version instead of the old one? I can change manually thumbnail sizes in some articles where this image is placed, but there would be still problem with old thumbnail in this article. So, how this error could be fixed? PANONIAN (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see #Image not updating and other threads above, this is an old ongoing issue which is yet to be resolved, it seems.--- Darwin Ahoy! 23:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

File can not be opened

I wanted to categorize this file File:Hotel Exterior at Dusk - EXT 03.tif. But I can't open it. So I don't know if it is ok or has to be deleted or just change to jpg? Traumrune (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That is because the file is a .tif, if you click the link it will probably ask you to download it (at least that's what happens with me).--- Darwin Ahoy! 23:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Theres a JPG version too File:Hotel_Exterior_at_Dusk_-_EXT_03_high_res.jpg --Tony Wills (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

June 3

Need SVG file help (File:Flag of Rhode Island.svg)

I've tried making making some alterations to the flag, but for some reason the flag looks "fuzzy". It's true SVG, because I used the previous version of the file, just altering it, so idk why it's looking like this. Can someone help me? Fry1989 (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, the issue appears to have corrected itself. I can only guess it was a server issue. Fry1989 (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Users, Wikimedians, Wikipedians

We have Category:Users, Category:Wikimedians and Category:Wikipedians, and subcategories under them all. e.g. Category:Users in Australia, Category:Wikimedians in Australia and Category:Wikipedians in Australia.

"Wikimedians" and "Wikipedians" don't have descriptions, so they are slowly growing uncontrolled. I think I have just now created Category:Wikimedians in New South Wales & Category:Wikimedians in Queensland for the wrong reasons.

Should user classification be under "Users", and media about users be placed under "Wikimedians" (or "Wikipedians" for the poor folk who haven't found the joy of editing Commons)? John Vandenberg (chat) 07:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like redundancy worth eliminating. I think Wikimedians is the clearest all-encompassing term. --99of9 (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Note however, that most images are used for wikipedians in local wikis and this makes Category:Wikipedians the most used category, distinct from users and wikimedians. --Havang(nl) (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC).
No, save "wikimedians" for paid staffers only. "All-encompassing" things don't always work as intended. Many "wikimedians" are actually wikipedia users who don't associate themselves with commons at all. Such a user comes here to upload (because uploads directly to wikipedia are discouraged or outright disabled) ... "and like that... he is gone." NVO (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
WMF staff have their own category: Category:Wikimedia Foundation staff. "Wikimedians" refers to anyone in the meta:Wikimedia movement. I agree that we have users who are almost entirely WikiPedians, however I question the benefit of having "by location" category trees especially for them. They will have a "by location" category tree on their home wiki, and if we separate Wikipedians from Wikisourcerers, why not also separate English Wikipedians from Indonesian Wikipedians. Anyone who bothers to create a userpage on Commons and adds themselves to a category .. is one of us. ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 10:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Heads up: "private photos" deletions

It seems that the recent board resolutions paved the way to a tide of "delete: personal photo" and "delete: no permission from subject" requests, from established users and from single-purpose IPs. Deletion requests may need more eyes. NVO (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Bloody board giving us more work... -mattbuck (Talk) 10:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Strange comment. Where is the problem? Is it forbidden for IPs to work here???? --A.Ceta (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

  1. The problem: potential overload of deletion backlog. There was a time when backlog dragged for years. A few determined deletionados can easily throw commons back into 2008.
  2. As long as your IP cannot be realistically connected to your primary account, your primary account is safe. Just choose your targets wisely. Another bunch of IP deletions will, most likely, go unnoticed. NVO (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The resolution really didn't change policy from what I can see (it is regarding photos taken in private places), just maybe a reminder to enforce it a bit better, and also to better consider requests from pictured people. Looking through the DRs, I don't really see a rash of them. I see a few where the uploader requested deletion (may present legal issues in his own country) and a few from Burning Man where the subject requested deletion (quite reasonable I think, in that circumstance). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Licensing of Indonesian government works, banknotes

I've recently clarified the policy wording for Indonesian governmental works (Commons talk:Licensing#Proposed new wording for Indonesia) and am about to create some for Indonesian banknotes (Commons talk:Currency#Indonesia), but have gotten virtually no feedback, so any second opinions would be more than welcome. Jpatokal (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Bot to fetch Flickr GPS Data

We probably have many images from flickr without GPS Data either because the importing bot doesn't import the gps data or the data has been added afterwards. Would it be possible to program a bot to check all our Flickr images for GPS data on flickr and import them if they are not present? Amada44  talk to me 19:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct title for the category

What is the correct title to indicate the category in which to bring together and connect the car models derived (licensed and / or modified) from an original model and marketed under another brand ?


Is it correct to write [[Category:Fiat Topolino custom-built]] or [[:Category:Fiat Topolino derivative models]] or something else ?

Thank you all for your attention. --Ligabo (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  • This issue was discussed recently, right? My opinion is that there is no need to link such connections at all. It may cause more harm than good. Relationships may be complicated and controversial (who was first and who was second, what is licensed copy and what is copyvio, what is derived and what is "custom built" etc.) - they need solid reliable source. Commons is not prepared to handle these matters - it's what wikipedia articles are for. The most that I personally would allow is {{See also similar cars}} in the header of a category. NVO (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I have chest just what is the best definition in the English language to describe the cars derivatives. --Ligabo (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Not sure that the "parent" has to be in the category name, you just can add it to its parent/father category/design, especially if de basic name is selfstanding, such as Simca 5 or 6. --Foroa (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I understand: avoid putting unnecessary technical categories and continue to multiply the fundamental categories like Category:White coupes, Category:Brown minivans, Category:Pink SUVs, Category:Purple station wagons, Category:Green hatchbacks, Category:Orange fastbacks in Poland, ecc. This is a really clever and useful classification.
P.S.: In this picture I have included a description of a little complex [7]. Is it better to replace it with a more simple like "black and white photos"? Or I could add Category:Black and white photos of white rocket-powered land vehicles?
Thanks for your cooperation: Excellent and rousing!
Bye --Ligabo (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

possibly unfree file

File:Elektrolyzér.JPG is identical to the drawing on page 797 of Greenwood and Earnshaw's Chemistry of the Elements (2nd edition). Is there some gentle potentially unfree file process here on Commons or should I just nominate it for deletion, or converesely am I required to research the thing more (put notices up and all that)? Actually since I'm a civilian, will some admin just take it from here?

P.s. I would love to have a schematic of a Fl cell...but that thing is too close, I think, to the book drawing. Needs to be changed some or the like.

TCO (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion.TCO (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

June 4

Trademark and copyight question

Hypothetically, if a user creates a Superman logo derived from this public domain screencap, would the logo be deleted as a copyright/trademark violation (Superman being a copyrighted character)? My apologies if this is the wrong place to post, but I'm still unclear on the specifics of Commons' copyright policy in this situation. Buckybarnz (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Superman and it's logo is still copyrighted. Actually, that one frame might be copyrighted, when taken out of the context of the entire movie. There definetly is a trademark, but we don't really care about trademarks here. TheDJ (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
So, a logo derived from a public domain source would be deleted? What about a design derived from this screencap? The symbol doesn't resemble the modern version quite so closely. Buckybarnz (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Superman logo is PD-ineligible I would think. It's jut an "S" in a shield. The character is copyrighted but that is more a literary thing (you can't use the character in a story you write, stuff like that). It would almost certainly be a copyright (and trademark) violation to make a superman costume, as the the entire costume is probably enough for a copyright, being derivative of the copyrighted graphical depiction in the comics (but photos of someone wearing one should be fine). And yes, there is pretty strong trademark protection as well, but so long as our own usage does not violate the trademark, we are fine with it (see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions). At any rate, if you make the logo, it would not be a derivative work of that screenshot, since all the expression particular to that screenshot would not exist anymore -- it would just be a copy of the original logo. If that logo was copyrightable, yes it would be deleted, but not in this particular case, I don't think, because it's too simple. (And no, TheDJ, a frame from a PD movie is still PD.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Carl Lindberg. Does PD-ineligible also apply to other character logos, such as Batman, Green Lantern, Flash etc?Buckybarnz (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Not necessarily... letters and common symbols are not copyrightable, but it doesn't take much to get there. Threshold of originality has some guidance. Batman... I'd guess is probably copyrightable so I'd avoid it, the Flash... mmm... maybe not (just a lightning bolt on a circle), the Green Lantern... not sure what that is. Each logo would be evaluated on its own merits, and the fact that it appears in a PD photo or film is not really relevant. The logo is either always OK, or always a problem (until copyright expires anyways).
Related issues were discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Cartoons. I've never understood how, if a complete Max Fleischer 1940's Superman animated cartoon short is uncopyrighted (something which seems indisputable), a fragment or part of it can be copyrighted... However, if you trample on active trademarks, then you do so at your own risk, and I don't think we want the trademark-trampling image to be uploaded to Commons. AnonMoos (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Same legal theory where a photo may have a de minimis use of a copyrighted image, but if you crop out just that copyrighted image as a picture in its own right, that's no longer de minimis. - Jmabel ! talk 14:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to me to be a very suitable as an analogy -- the Superman/Clark Kent character is "on-screen" in a somewhat prominent way during the majority of the running time of each cartoon, so his presence in the cartoon cannot possibly be excused under any ordinary application of the theory of de minimis... AnonMoos (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The "character" copyright is more for literary works, and not for drawings or other visual works; that is often misconstrued. However, the appearance of that character in the comic books is a graphical work, so that is where derivative works become an issue. A photo (or film) of someone in costume is too far removed to be a derivative work of the comic drawing (there are cases of people being convicted under both copyright and trademark for making unauthorized costumes, however no cases at all about photos people wearing them, for good reason). However the fact that a photo is PD or whatever does not give someone a license to make a derivative work of something copyrightable which happens to be in the picture -- when they do that, the result is a direct derivative work of the original, not the photograph. Sort of like a sculpture with FOP -- the photo is OK but you can't make a derivative 3-D copy of the sculpture, even if you just use that photo. A movie which became PD can sometimes still be a derivative work of a still-copyrighted original book, or the contained music, and thus may not be able to be distributed even if the visual part itself became PD (though screenshots, which do not contain any elements derivative of an original book or music, should be OK). An animated feature gets more troublesome, since that is a straight-up drawing to begin with. I tend to think we should still be able to host screen grabs of cartoon videos which have fallen into the public domain, but again, if you make a drawing of the character using that screen grab as a guide, then you are really just making a derivative work of the original, copyrighted character drawing, not the specific expression in the screen grab. The fact that one particular cartoon becomes PD does not invalidate earlier copyrights, so that does get troublesome, as it does sort of limit derivative works. And it does become more possible to argue the drawing in the screen grab is a derivative itself of an original drawing (something you can't argue with a photo of a costume). And yes, all the trademarks are still valid as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Edited images

First, I want to apologize if I ask this question in the wrong place, but I honestly don't know any other place in which I can ask for such topics. Images like this are released into the public domain, as Argentine law 11.723, art. 34 (see Template:PD-AR-Photo) says, but were modified by the website, applying a watermark. Here's my question: can I modify the image, removing the description and the watermark, and upload it on Commons under the PD-AR-Photo license? Excuse my imperfect English :-) --Triple 8 (msg) 10:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

First, I'm having trouble seeing anything imperfect in your English. :-) If you can completely remove the watermark and description, I believe the resulting image would be in the public domain in Argentina (but IANAL). This would be true for images that originate in Argentina, not necessarily for images originating elsewhere. Also, an Argentine image can be free of copyright protection in Argentina but still be under copyright in the U.S. For instance, if an image was published in Argentina, and only Argentina, before 1978, but remained under copyright in Argentina as at 1 January 1996 (e.g. a photo taken and published in 1975), it would still be protected by U.S. copyright. See the Hirtle chart for details. --Avenue (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind answer, Avenue. I have just uploaded a file removing the description. I hope I did it correctly. --Triple 8 (msg) 13:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The image looks fine to me. It would be good to add a tag reflecting its US copyright situation as well, e.g. {{PD-1996}} (if the conditions outlined in that tag apply). --Avenue (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Using commons to host original documents

I nominated Commons:Deletion requests/File:Speaking Out About Organized Scientology.pdf for deletion initially because it was not used in any sister project, for a substantial time after upload. After deletion, the uploader suddenly found uses for it. I think the uploader is probably within at least the letter of the rules in wanting it kept. However, if so, the rules may need to be improved.

  • The document contains seriously negative claims about a specific living individual. Does Commons have a equivalent to the Biographies of Living Person policy of Wikipedia. What rules do we have for such documents? I'm not suggesting we can't have negative claims about people, but there has to be rules. For instance, do we insist the author be a reliable source, or that other sources back up what they say. Or, do we say the responsibility for this is entirely with the sister project that uses it.
  • Is something that's properly licensed (as this is) automatically protected from deletion, just because it's used somewhere. Can somebody protect such a document by finding a use on any of several sister projects?
  • What is the difference between a PDF and writing text in a page. If somebody made the same document as a regular page on Commons, with text and an embedded image, it would be removed (or turned into just a gallery with minimal text, and just the picture).

I'm sorry if this is an inappropriate venue for this. I think the issues go well beyond this one file. I think deleting (or not deleting) this one file by itself doesn't really solve any of the larger issues. --Rob (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - This is essentially forum-shopping by Thivierr (talk · contribs). He evidently does not like the content of the media, and wants this file deleted, and he is entitled to that opinion. But that is not a reason to diverge from the ongoing discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Speaking Out About Organized Scientology.pdf and attempt to push it over here as well. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
No, actually I tried to withdraw the nomination, after you gamed the system, by making the file "keepable" by suddenly finding four uses in two sister projects, which eliminated my rationale for deletion. You are entirely within the letter of the rules to ask to keep the file. So, I am here to question those rules, and also to question the gaming of those rules. The singular file is not a big deal. I wish to discuss the larger implications of all this. --Rob (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Would appreciate it if we could go back to discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Speaking Out About Organized Scientology.pdf, I will respectfully defer to community consensus there, as assessed by the closing admin. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
How we deal with textual content about living people is a huge issue, that we need to address. I don't care at all about David Miscavage. I do care deeply about the precedent this sets for all other potential targetted people. You've opened up and walked through a giant loop hole, that allows people to write whatever content they want to disparage a person, and use Commons as a vehicle to publish such *original* content. We have all the problems Wikipedia had prior to the Biographies of Living People policy. What I want is a coherent policy that protects us from harmful content. If such a policy means we keep the particular file you uploaded, than I am perfectly fine that. But, I want the file kept because it's proven useful and harmless; not because it passes a technicality of current rules. I'm not seeking guidelines for the purpose of banning this file. I'm saying the way you've kept this file has exposed a huge problem, that goes way beyond this one file. Also, there needs to be a discussion on whether it's acceptable for users to game the system in the manner you have done, by inventing uses in sister projects at the last minute to save something from deletion. --Rob (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh well, I tried to respond a bit more amiably in my subsequent post, and take things back to the deletion discussion, so discussions are not ongoing across multiple pages at the same time. Whatever happens, I will of course respectfully defer to the consensus of the community. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The BLP-problem is much greater than this particular file, where a person is accused of perjury already in the title of the document. Cirt is also uploading loads of anti-scientology video files. When such material is proposed for deletion, he/she will include it in some project. See for example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Interview Aaron Saxton part 1 of 7.ogv. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The result of that discussion was Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, diff. -- Cirt (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As long as it respects US laws I think I am find with hosting this kind of things on Commons but I do share the concern that many people will not be able to discriminate between encyclopedic content and documents from external sources (especially with an URL containing the word wikipedia ( Why not simply add a disclaimer like "this document is made available on Wikimedia Commons for documentary purposes. It does not imply that it respects Wikipedia's rules of neutrality or verifiability" ?--Zolo (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Zolo (talk · contribs), that was a good suggestion. ✓ Done, please see diff. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Bad idea. This sounds a bit like a disclaimer, which we normally avoid on a per-page basis, because there's a standard disclaimer. Commons (and really the WMF) doesn't endorse *anything* it hosts unless it explicitly says it does. So, if you go to individual items, and say we don't endorse this, that implies we do endorse the rest. For example, we host Nazi material, that we obviously don't endorse. But, we don't go to each page and say that. Instead, we just have a blanket statement. --Rob (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
This brings up another issue, which is we should really have something similar to Wikipedia:Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles to give guidancee, rather than having people doing adhoc warnings/disclaimers here and there. Rob (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I realize that it may bring up a some issues but to me this case is very different from nazi insignia. Under normal circumstances, nobody can seriously imagine that showing a nazi emblem in an article is a political statement or anything like that. The effect is totally different for a text that claims to be an insider account on a contemporary event. I don't know if it should be called a dislaimer, but in my mind, this kind of message is more akin in spirit to "The neutrality of this article is disputed". It is designed to inform readers that a particular file has been identified as potentially controversial. Of course when Wikipedia accuracy is disputed, there can be an internal discussion about it but Commons/Wikisource cannot always do that because it deals more with primary materials than with balanced syntheses.
So I think we should keep this kind of things for the same reason as we keep Wikipedia articles of disputed neutrality: let the reader make up his own mind until we have anyting better to offer (and if the text proves to be a heap of lies and causes a scandal, and the new thing we would have to offer would be the same document with a message informing the reader that it was a fraud)--Zolo (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes we keep them. The text itself could go on Wikisource, but we host any media (.pdf or .djvu) of any source documents they use. If it is not in scope of Wikisource and/or Wikibooks, then perhaps we shouldn't be hosting it, but otherwise yes we do host this kind of thing. And this does sound as though it would be in scope at Wikisource. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

COM:SCOPE already handles these issues in a nuanced way. We accept all manner of original material, and though of course much is photography and art, there is also a fair amount of largely textual content. The material must be "realistically useful for an educational purpose". This example, submitted by a notable opponent of Scientology, documents a major contemporary political controversy. There should be no doubt in our minds that this is educationally useful to the researcher, the student, and the casual shopper of fringe religions. Even if we took the debased view of education from recent decades, as being solely that which can make money, there should be little doubt that a review of such material might save people quite a lot.

The idea of a disclaimer is clearly the preferable alternative - this is somewhat the same situation as that of a television station running Whale Wars or similar shows (which periodically include accusations against living persons) which run a disclaimer that the content of the show does not reflect the opinions of the television station or network. It has been said that extra disclaimers are unnecessary, but let's make no mistake about it - if the choice is between censoring Commons source documents unless we, independently, can verify every claim, versus having a red blinking disclaimer in 180-point font that requires the user to sign seven contracts and play a short video game to reach the accept button, then the disclaimer is the better option. If people are afraid of lawsuits, that is not an unreasonable cowardice, but what isn't reasonable is internalizing that censorship, making it look like cutting out all this material is our idea, that it's "just the way that writing a free encyclopedia has to work", rather than clearly pointing the finger at the man with the gun. Wnt (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously we do not want Commons to become a convenient slander sewer for defamatory accusations against random people; however, David Miscavige is a public figure who has been involved in a long series of public controversies and lawsuits going back at least 20 years. So it's not necessarily out of line for Commons to host material related to such notable controversies and lawsuits (and this would not mean that Commons would have to take a formal position as to whether or not such material is 100% true in all aspects). That's why Commons has more of a "Personality rights" policy than a BLP policy... AnonMoos (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not hosting a Document like a court transcript, or similar document this alleges criminal allegations in the context of legal case or similar legitimate type of document. This is a document that alleges criminal acts that have never been investigated in any official context. I cant understand how we can host such a document that on our projects can not link to! This is an ethical situation here involving living person. ResidentAnthropologist (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Let's just say for the sake of argument say that this document is worthy of inclusion. We're still left with the issue of how do we determine a document like it (negative contentious claims about a living person) are deemed ok. Is it based on the author being a reliable source? How's that determined? Does the subject person have to be a public figure (as Misccavage is)? Does it have to be about an issue of public interest (which this is)? We should address in a formal guideline, or policy, how we determine what we keep. The Biographies of Living People policy at Wikipedia doesn't prohibit negative contentious statements against living people. And it shouldn't. But, what it does do is provide strict rules on how such claims can be made. We need something like that here (albeit with major differences). Commons has little in the way of rules on *text* like this. That's because we normally deal in media. If we have textual documents, they're usually scans, so they're not Google Searchable, and probably only read be people who are transcribing them. What I don't want to happen (but fear will) is that we'll have a length discussion about this one file, but than do nothing whatsoever to deal with similar but different cases in the future. --Rob (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
However, most of the "strict rules" which apply on Wikipedia don't exist in the same form on Commons. There's no "Undue weight" policy which applies to Commons media files, there's not really a sourcing requirement for media files (other than with respect to ascertaining copyright), and there's no "NPOV" requirement as such (though obvious malicious hoaxes, or images which try to present views which have no support from mainstream scholarship as being factual, can be deleted), and so on. I think the first filter should be to apply a policy which we do have, personality rights, so that the rantings of a random person against his ex-wife and his divorce attorney etc. etc. should be nuked on sight -- however, David Miscavige is in a completely different category... AnonMoos (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I fail to the See the difference between the existing Scenario and your hypothetical scenario.ResidentAnthropologist (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
We should use the same criterion to distinguish between "rantings of a random person" and useful source documents whether or not any living person is involved. If someone posts a multimedia file describing a physics theory, when do we include it? We include it when it illustrates a known scientific theory, because that's educational. We should also include it when the author is a notable crank, like w:Archimedes Plutonium, even though it is balderdash. We should only exclude it when there is no way to use the document to illustrate anything of encyclopedic value - such as a personal conspiracy theory, gripe, or political rant by a random person. In other words, when it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Wnt (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Having various media that may contain errors, is usually not a big deal, and not something we have to worry about. For example, if somebody uploads a map with mistakes, and there's a dispute about its usage in Wikipedia, it's safe to leave it while there's any potential for Wikipedia to use it, and we needn't get involved in evaluating it's reliability. For most images, any errors are a product of usage, more than the image. Text is different. For older historical documents about dead people, we're doing no extra harm by hosting them, even if they contain errors. Preserving older documents with errors is often desirable (as the document is a primary source that needs to be preserved). But, if somebody comes to Commons to post new original material, that's defamatory, against a living person, then there's a great deal of potential harm to the target, to the Foundation, and it's reputation. So, no we should not use the same criteria. When living people are involved, we have to be extra careful. Rob (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


I would like to refer the participants in this discussion to the Board's resolution on BLP. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps Commons:Living persons should be made into something that would have community approval and be consistent with the WMF Board's resolution of Living People. I'm tempted to edit it, but I appear to be at odds with several people, so hopefully other editors would take a look and contribute. --Rob (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  1. Note that this resolution "urges the global Wikimedia community". It is not worded as an edict.
  2. Note that "neutrality and verifiability" are fulfilled by Commons when something is what we say it is. It does not mean a ban on partisan information in any context.
  3. Note that "special care" might be taken by using a "not the views of Wikimedia Commons" disclaimer. It does not mean "wholesale deletion of all partisan material".
With policies like the PD-Art usage, it isn't difficult for anyone to accumulate a base of old public domain material. But Commons does and should do more by trying to collect also new public domain material. Commons already has set good examples by hosting the Guantanamo Bay abuse photographs, for example, which clearly were taken under unethical circumstances but now, for good or ill, are part of the public heritage of mankind. Equal determination is needed in the domain of text and multimedia.
The resolution also urges "new technical mechanisms to assess edits", and this we should take to heart: if something like this is forced on Commons, then every affected document must be replaced by a large "Censored" template, perhaps with a graphic of a river crab, which places them into Category:material censored by order of the WMF. Because throughout the world, once censorship is imposed, the fact that it has been imposed at all becomes the next battleground.
The saddest part is, if censorship is allowed to prevail here, this isn't even a one of a kind injustice. Wikimedia Commons would become just another free speech head on yet another Scientology pointy stick, taking its place among, open Usenet feeds, the ability to cancel messages, the freedom to parody DNS names, and a fair number of principles from Old Media that are harder to trace but just as fundamental. Wnt (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Material actually censored by the WMF ("office-actioned" or whatever) is completely invisible (see File:Excerpt from my watchlist March 8 2011.gif etc.), and certainly does not belong to categories in any way visible to ordinary users or site visitors. AnonMoos (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Whoa, let's back up. The screenshot you're showing is of material that's been revision deleted - not by the WMF, but by project administrators. When the WMF deletes stuff, we ALWAYS do two things: we post it on this page for Wikipedia or on the local village pump pages (you can read the archives here to see where we've done that) and we clearly state that it is OFFICE actioned. It's exceedingly rare. I can think of only a couple of instances that have impacted commons. Let's not confuse a community tool (and a community decision as to whether something this allowed) with a WMF tool and our transparency about where/why/who deleted it. We don't make content decisions at WMF; we only pull things down if they're in violation of copyright or a very very few other specific circumstances. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but it takes more than basic ordinary administrator privileges to produce a watchlist entry like that, and the person whose file was affected was left hanging for over 3 weeks with no indications as to who was messing with his image or what the exact reasons for this were, due to the convoluted murky labyrinthine internal bureaucratic maneuverings, as you can see for yourself at en:Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2011/March#free speech flag... AnonMoos (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
It really doesn't take more than administrator privileges. :) That's revision delete. That's all it is. It appears this was revision delete with suppression enabled, but that's how the revdel tool works. And the link you gave seems to make it fairly clear that it's a community action, not an OFFICE action. I'm here to say, officially, we received no demand to remove that from Sony. All DMCA take-down requests are publicly posted. This wasn't one. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, out-of-process "oversighting" was heavily involved (not mere use of ordinary administrative privileges), and I find it hard to believe that the WMF was not "in the loop" in some capacity, though the complete lack of any transparency makes it hard for ordinary mortals to know for sure. P.S. Don't double-indent your replies, because that quickly makes the discussion run off the edge of the screen... AnonMoos (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, the Board Resolution seems to have been written with encyclopedia articles in mind. This does not translate well to the Commons or Wikisource environment, where hosting non-neutral materials (pamphlets, political manifestos etc.) falls within scope. I think the Resolution could do with some tweaking in this regard. Perhaps the correct approach to address this present problem for Wikisource and Commons is from the point of view of notability: a document hosted here, especially one that makes allegations against living people, should have some significant notability already. It should not derive its notability from being hosted on Wikisource or Commons, or have its notability created by being hosted here. --JN466 17:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Commons has heretofore enjoyed a natural immunity from the notability disease. The interminable AfDs that attend many new Wikipedia articles are notably absent here. The only threshold used is the more reasonable "realistically useful for an educational purpose". We should be content that a notable opponent of Scientology is sharing his thoughts to the public domain. We shouldn't be asking him to go out, sign a copyright transfer, get published, get reported about in like-minded periodicals, then ask the publisher to please let him put the material up on Wikimedia Commons for the public good. Wnt (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems odd to disdain a notability disease and then mention a "notable opponent". This is not Blogger or LiveJournal for people, notable or otherwise, to post their opinion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
My point is that his notability should be more than enough for us to be satisfied. So long as the material has a realistic educational use, it is valuable to us. Wnt (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
There is an obvious contradiction between your appealing to the author's notability and rejecting the notability criterion. We should try to come up with some useful criteria for what self-published material we host. I'd suggest that notability of the document and/or author, as well as commentary on living persons contained in it, should be part of that. --JN466 11:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I think he means that notability can be one factor taken into account to determine whether educational scope requirements are met, but there's no absolute notability requirement which each and every image must satisfy (e.g. we can host a photo of a Polish wildlife observation tower, regardless of whether the tower is individually "notable" or not). AnonMoos (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you for images of the type you describe. However, here we are dealing with text and speech hosted at Commons; i.e. personal opinion stated in blogs, self-published pdf files, or YouTube videos. Do you think we need notability criteria -- or any other criteria -- to decide what we should host or not? For example, you could make a good-faith argument that YouTube videos or blog posts stating posters' personal opinion on the latest Lady Gaga song, an ex-spouse, the BP oil spill, the w: Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case, Scientology, or any controversial political candidate, could legitimately be used for a Wikiversity project on Internet culture, or free speech on the Internet. The downside is that we might become a vector for personal defamation and political campaigning. I don't see an easy answer here. These are hard questions, but they need looking at. --JN466 15:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
If the ex-spouse were to be mentioned in any identifying way, then that would fall afoul of the Personality rights policy, as discussed above. As for the rest, I don't know that we want to encourage random blogging (any more than random user-created works of pure art), but the Miscavige article isn't random blogging (it's the historical reminiscences of a former Scientology insider). AnonMoos (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely. And absent any definite legal concerns (IANAL), I think we can and should host it. But at present we seem to lack any criteria to distinguish what we want to host, and what not. Again, what you point out, like Wnt, is that the man is notable. Notability could be part of our criteria, both for opinion and original art.
On the other hand, notability is not always a requirement: we do legitimately host non-notable original art "in the style of", to serve as illustrations.
But perhaps notability (as well as legal considerations) should be a criterion where self-published statements make allegations about living people. --JN466 17:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Most of what needs to be excluded can be excluded by extending existing policies to cover text. So "Personality rights" means that the privacy of random non-notable individuals should not be violated, while the policy that purely-personal artworks of contemporary non-notable artists without direct usefulness should not be uploaded also means that we don't want the purely-personal textual ruminations of contemporary non-notable bloggers. The word "notable" appears in this description of these policies, but there's not in fact any requirement that each particular image or text file should be "notable" in itself... AnonMoos (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Personality rights redirects to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. There is nothing about text or speech in there. --JN466 14:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
That's why I said "extending"... AnonMoos (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay. However, we should not rely on extending principles, as it can always be contested whether or not the extension is legitimate. --JN466 01:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree. In theory and practice, at present anyone can freely license their blog posts or YouTube videos and upload them. And then create a Wikiversity project on blogs and YouTube videos relating to X. --JN466 11:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, we very much want blog posts and YouTube videos for Commons. What happens when you microwave a coconut, the calls of chickadees, a demonstration of coprophagia, the video from fringe protests. We want it all. There are a few types of mundane things that we'd rather not bother with: "snapshots of yourself and your friends" from parties, even if they're video or collections of text messages. Stuff that isn't realistically useful for an educational purpose. But such things are rarely controversial, because no one is interested in them. If people call for a policy against something, it's been noticed - and if it's been noticed, then it says something that hasn't been said here before. And that's educational.
Now notability does help in proving something is educational; but lack of notability does not mean something is not educational. We want text and multimedia when the author is notable. We want them when they are verifiable and the author is not notable, but the subject is notable. We want them when they are verifiable and neither author nor subject is notable, but the event is notable. And we even want them when they are merely realistic, and neither the author, subject, nor event is notable, but the interaction exemplifies some common event. (For example, what might happen when someone lands in Australia and requests political asylum) Wnt (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hosting a shit-eating video would likely fall foul of Miller and thus obscenity law, so I'm not sure we would want that (again, I am not a lawyer). As for "when they are verifiable and the author is not notable, but the subject is notable", that is the crux of the matter here. Would we host a YouTube video where an anonymous person alleges that a prominent politician stole money, has nazi sex orgies, or whatever, just because the video exists and someone uploaded it? That is the type of thing we need to think about. --JN466 01:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Frankly I think you underestimate what is required for a work to fall afoul of Miller. If it's being used in an encyclopedia article to illustrate a legitimate phenomenon, like coprophilia, it would likely be considered to have "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value". Dcoetzee (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of the case of a notable subject covered by an anon, the question is, as always: is the video realistically usable for an educational purpose? If some unknown person makes his personal allegations, but you can't follow up on them because there's no good source for them, then you can say, this is just some rant, not educational. Now by contrast I'd say a notable author could just rant on endlessly with no particular meaning and we should treasure his contribution anyway. But if someone has combed the literature, that's another story. This isn't like a Wikipedia article where there is one single consensus - if an author makes a comprehensive survey of existing literature from his point of view, however unusual, that can become a very educational document. Our decade is full of odd perspectives - Birthers, Republic of Texas, Falun Gong. If we can get source documents from these into the public domain, it gives the general public greater power to understand and evaluate them.
Now as for the whole Miller thing, all I can say is, if Encyclopedia Dramatica isn't afraid of it ( ) then why should Wikipedia be afraid to use it in legitimate education? I imagine the practice has various health consequences, and people who want to understand them should be able to view what these people actually do. Wnt (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I could argue in good faith that even anonymous Internet rants may have an educational purpose, for example as part of a study course on hate speech on the Internet. People do actually study these things, you know, it's a legitimate topic of academic research. The question is how we balance legitimate educational interests (including the possibility of their being gamed) against the BLP concerns (including the possibility that the practical use the material is actually put to is overwhelmingly not educational). I think we can philosophize about this till the cows come home; it's ultimately down to the board to define the guidelines as to libellous material and such. --JN466 23:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
That would mean that the rant would be raw research data, but not necessarily educationally useful in itself... AnonMoos (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
If I stick it on a Wikiversity page for a hate speech project, it is in use, thereby in scope, and must be kept by present policy. --JN466 22:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"YouTube offers CC-BY 3.0 license to uploaders"


This could be interesting, however they do not seem to offer CC-CY-SA (share-alike). Could that be a problem when reusing those videos from YouTube? Edokter (talk) — 16:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

CC-BY is less restrictive than CC-BY-SA, so no. Seems odd they wouldn't have other CC options though (including variants with NC and ND), but... maybe in time. Though maybe those interfere with their own usage too much ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The greater familiarity this will bring with regards to Creative Commons licensing can only be a good thing. It will also make processing YouTube-related OTRS tickets easier. – Adrignola talk 18:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
This is actually pretty huge since there are plans to implement support for WebM on Commons and all YouTube videos can be exported as WebM. Once that's in place well be able to start importing CC-by videos directly from YouTube. Kaldari (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Wow! this is _fantastic_. Thought they hopefully will offer cc-by-sa eventually too, so that (cc-by-sa) content moved from commons to youtube can be correctly licensed there. (the last time I checked the youtube TOS it violated CC-By-SA's requirements…) --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I imagine this is why YouTube isn't offering CC-by-sa. They have a pretty terrible TOS. Kaldari (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we can use videos licensed as CC-BY, if the license is correct. However, another problem that definitely will occur is "Youtube washing" as the newest form of "Flickr washing" resp. license laundering. Gestumblindi (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm very excited about this. While I hope they'll roll out more license options for those who want them, I personally hope CC-BY will remain the default indefinitely, as it will enable to kind of wide creative reuse that YouTube is known for. We're going to need a tool to facilitate importing them right away as soon as this goes live. I agree that we will have to look out for license laundering though. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Upload Wizard keeping files from being marked as uncategorised

For some time I've been suspecting that there was something fishy with the uncategorised media categories, since in the last days or weeks they have been quite manageable. Then I started finding a lot of uncategorised files not marked as such in the contributions of some users I was checking. Well, today I believe I've finally figured out what is happening. The new Upload Wizard adds the category Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard to uploaded files. For some reason, this seems to be keeping many files (but not all) from being added to the uncategorised media cats, and they end up lost in the sea of Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard. This file, for instance: File:-LEGNO SANTO-.jpg (which seems to be a copyvio, by the way) was uploaded in May 23, and never made it to the uncat media cats. There are probably thousands in that situation, which will certainly create a nasty backlog when this would be sorted out. Can someone please run a bot on Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard to add those files to the uncategorised media cats, while this bug is not resolved? --- Darwin Ahoy! 20:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought the 'uncategorized' bot ignored hidden maintenance catagories, by my count there are 36147 files in that wizards category, I hope some of them have real categories too!. Previous upload wizards just added a comment rather than a category to each file uploaded. Does the category actually have a long term use? --Tony Wills (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, looks like it only checks for only hidden categories when asked, Does Bot find all uncategorized images? --Tony Wills (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The strange thing is that at least some of them show up in the daily uncat media cats. The UW cat is in use since May, I believe, so it's not too late to mend things, but some bot should check it and add the {{uncategorised}} tag to the uncat files there, or else it will create a really nasty backlog in the future - Not to speak about the many copyvios which are passing unnoticed due to that.--- Darwin Ahoy! 05:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
User:Multichill has tweeked his bot, and will probably do a catchup run today. I expect there will be a few thousand more added to the uncategorized pile :-(. Perhaps we should start a little sub-project of people who are working on categorising these, and co-ordinate activities? --Tony Wills (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there are more than 4100 files there already, and the bot barely reached the H letter. And a whole sea of copyvios. :S
You can count me on for that project, categorizing new files is one of the things I like to do here.--- Darwin Ahoy! 20:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm doing a bit of catching up. I expect a total of 10-20K uncategorized files spread over Category:Media needing categories as of 4 June 2011 (5000) and Category:Media needing categories as of 5 June 2011 (5000 and counting). Multichill (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Good grief! It was worse than I expected, apparently it will be more than a third of the initial 36.000 image pool uploaded with UW, with loads of copyvios there, but it's better now than later. Many thanks for what you've done. Will the bot scan the cat regularly from now on, or do some other action that would prevent this from happening in the future?--- Darwin Ahoy! 10:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm running two bots now;
  1. Recheck the upload wizard category
  2. Mark all files with only hidden categories as uncategorized (query & result)
The first run is a one time catch up run. The bot is fixed now to catch any newly uploaded files so any newly uploaded files with the upload wizard which are uncategorized just get caught by the regular process.
The second run is one I do maybe twice a year. Haven't done it for quite some time so that might explain the number of files.
Multichill (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Good to know that it is fixed now. I'm finding very odd, however, that there are appearing there files of early December 2010 uploaded with UW, I thought it was a recent feature, but seems I've lost something when I was away last December.--- Darwin Ahoy! 11:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been keeping statistics at User:Multichill/Categorization stats. It's actually not that bad if you compare it with the total number of files. Multichill (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree, but compared to the 39,336 files uploaded with the wizard, it seems to be 1 of 4. Maybe we should rethink that part of the wizard. --  Docu  at 19:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Template bug

I'm no template expert, so I'll just state the problem, which I guess is probably related directly or indirectly to some incarnation of the idw template. When users have a File deletion warning template on their talk page (notifying them about a regular deletion request), if they click on one of the links at the bottom of the notice to get one of the translated versions of it, then the link to the deletion request page becomes broken and the users are instead sent there, which isn't exactly helpful. Could a template wizard look into that and hopefully fix it please ? -- Asclepias (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You'll need an administrator to fix it, because the template, the layout template and the translations are fully protected. Try the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. LX (talk, contribs) 19:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for volunteers: US National Archives residency and image donations

Child workers in Newberry, SC.jpg Chicago ghetto.jpg
John F. Kennedy, White House color photo portrait.jpg D-Day Statement to Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force - NARA - 186473.jpg
These should be higher quality!

A major part of my residency at the US National Archives will involve image donations to Commons. While it is great to be able to get new high-value collections like the Ansel Adams donation, the other approach I want to try is to target the individual images already used on Wikimedia projects and secure high-resolution versions and the original TIFFs. I don't think that type of donation has been undertaken in any kind of systematic way. I would like to ask for some help from the Commons community to help make this possible.

Specifically, there are a few tasks that would help make this more efficient and useful. Ideally, we would want to identify the images most in need to target first. This means some way of determining files which are heavily used or which have special historical or artistic merit. The latter can be done by selection, but the former may need someone with technical skills to work out. We would especially want to identify the images which are not already in high resolution (this is likely many or most), but TIFFs can be supplied for those that are.

The bigger issue is with identifying National Archives images in the first place. There are actually two separate problems here. First, all items from the National Archives should be using {{NARA-image}} with an ARC/National Archives Identifier. In order to track down the original and provide it, we need to be able to locate the catalog record. And, in any case, the link back to the catalog is also a quality issue for our projects; providing a trail back to where the original image is housed is how we can achieve verifiability for media, just like footnoting in articles, and ensure proper copyright status. To that end, I have created Category:National Archives and Records Administration media without an ARC Identifier based on taggings without the parameter specified, and it needs to be sorted through and images either deleted/relabeled as unsourced or mislabeled or, hopefully, associated with an identifier by keyword searching in the catalog.

Second is collecting all of the National Archives images which are either not using {{NARA-image}} or are at local projects. There are images like File:M26-pershing-naktong.gif, which properly cite an ARC Identifier but aren't tagged and categorized as National Archives' holdings. We might want to search the images with external links to or the presidential libraries' domains. And there are presumably tons more simply tagged as coming from the source federal agencies without any mention of the National Archives; these will be more difficult to identify, but any effort in that regard would also be beneficial.

I look forward to working on these issues with other Commons editors. It may be useful to create a project page to house the prioritized list of National Archives content on Commons and for organizing the other tasks. The more efficient this is, and the more of this legwork I can farm out to volunteers, the more time I can spend actually getting images up on Commons. Dominic (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This might be useful: TheDJ (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a cool project. I went through and found some of the missing ARC IDs. However, some of the images are taken from web pages and not ARC (they are often larger and cleaned up, though those images don't seem to get back to ARC, and the original images may not even be in ARC at all). There are also some images from presidential libraries; those aren't always in ARC either, though people just add the NARA-image tag anyways. Lastly, there often seem to be photos which individual researchers have scanned themselves (presumably doing their own research at NARA) and credit the National Archives as the source; all of those warship photos seem to fall into that category. Not sure what can be done about those. Also, some of the photos already have higher resolution versions on the project, which also may not have been migrated back to ARC (though some of them have been uploaded here). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we do need to come up with a way of representing media that is either not described at the item level in the catalog or not at all. We probably want to be able to link to a series record, or, alternatively, to use a local identifier where there is nothing to link to in ARC. And, indeed, if Commons has images that the National Archives has not digitized yet, we might even want to have them link to the Commons image in the "Online resources" field. Dominic (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I've done a few more, but the category is getting bigger ;-) Yeah, there are several types of cases involved when I can't find the source in ARC, which is similar what I went through when the PD-USGov-NARA tag was deprecated; I tried to find source information but many images were not that easy.
  • Images scanned by third parties, put on the web with a National Archives source, then copied over here because people figure they are PD. A common series are photographs of a lot of Navy ships; for example File:USS Ashland;10120107.jpg. I think a lot of those photos ended up on (no idea by what process), such as here, who documented the NAIL numbers (I think that's what those are) but that's all we have. I have never been able to find any of that stuff on ARC, and there are a lot of them.
  • Images from presidential libraries. They often make a lot of material available, and are technically part of the National Archives, but they often seem to have their own photo numbering system and do no provide ARC references (if that stuff is even in ARC at all; I think I remember seeing that not even half of NA's holdings are listed in ARC let alone digitized). File:Gulfwarroom.jpg is an example of a combo one -- the photo is available from the presidential library website in a lower resolution, but the image we have is larger, and appears to have been the result of a professor making their own website and probably doing their own work to get them online. File:A5235-5.jpg is a more conventional example.
  • Images from the other museums. One common one is the Holocaust museum; they have a number of images credited to the "National Archives" but I can't find any further info, such as File:Beiglböck 1.jpg. Or other places, like File:5th MA volunteers near Mill's Mill at Camp Wetherill, 1898.jpg, where the NA is listed as the "contributor" but I can't find anything else about it.
  • Images from the online exhibits that the National Archives does. These are often cropped and cleaned up from the original, but are not always listed in ARC, and often have a higher resolution than the ARC stuff even if they are digitized. For example, File:IndianTerritory.jpg. That one has a NAIL number, and the source says it is available in ARC, but I could not find it. Another example (one I uploaded) is File:1916 US President's Flag Exec Order 2390.jpg -- it would be nice to have a larger version of that, but there is no identifier number given at all, perhaps because it is part of an executive order.
  • Images from other resources the National Archives creates. File:MilAstroWngs.jpg claims it is from a 2002 medals and badges training guide made by the National Personnel Records Center (perhaps published as a PDF file?); I don't know where to begin to look for that one.
It's not clear to me if we should have the NARA-image tag in all these cases, but it would be good to figure out what to do. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleting in-use images without Deletion requests

I would like to draw your attention to the deletion of File:Genderschool2a.jpg. This was a legitimate upload from fr.Wikipedia and was in use on at least 7 different mainspace articles. Licensing, source and author information was clearly provided, and there is no reason to suspect copyright violation. According to the comment given in the deletion log (01:25, 5 June 2011), it was part of an August 2010 MDR. However, on closer examination, it appears that this is incorrect. The previously deleted image had a similar name (Genderschool2.jpg), but File:Gendershool2a is a different image. As far as I can see, no deletion request was posted on Gendershool2a. I'd like to ask if removing images without DRs or preliminary discussion is normal practice on Wikimedia Commons. Buckybarnz (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This file was part of a deletion request, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Midnight68. It is true that a deletion tag was never applied to this image, as one should have been, per standard batch deletion process. Moreover, considering that deletion arguments argued that the images were not in scope, I'd be skeptical about applying this argument to an in-use image like this one, unless it was added solely by the uploader to articles in which it wasn't particularly useful. The image is, obviously, not illegal. I recommend opening a request at Commons:Undeletion requests. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
A link provided by a certain administrator indicates there was offsite canvassing and vote-stacking in the original MDR. This kind of behavior is forbidden under Wikipedia policy; I was wondering if there is a similar policy here on Commons? Buckybarnz (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Common sense is not replaced by rules here, so: This kind of behavior is not allowed.
Just file an undeletion reqquest, you probably want to link to the delinker log (down for a moment because of toolserver maintenance). Multichill (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

June 6

Board resolutions

The Wikimedia Board of Trustees passed two resolutions:

Both relate to Wikimedia Commons and its community. Jean-Fred (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The controversial content one is phrased so abstractly that I'm not sure what the specific implications are (if any)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm more concerned with the drive to change rules "requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media". This is far from abstract. NVO (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Do I correctly understand that the issue about identifiable people is specifically about pictures taken in non-public situations? In particular, do I correctly understand that this would not require that I get explicit consent from (say) an author at a public book-signing, a speaker at an academic conference, or a film director presenting at a film festival? Because if it does require that I get such consent, I'll simply stop trying to take such pictures for Commons. Similar concerns for photographing a parade, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 06:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably need a lawyer to decipher what is meant :-). It perhaps depends upon what is meant by "strenghten" guidelines. But as I read it the current guidelines generally refer to pictures taken in private and the resolution is about enforcing that policy, not demanding consent where there is no expectation of privacy. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jmabel and Tony -- we did indeed intend for these resolutions to focus on people in non-public situations, yes -- much like the current guideline on the subject (some language in fact came from that guideline). If we are concerned about people's privacy, which we are, this is what makes sense. Basically, the current guideline is treated as a nice-to-have, optional idea. However, the Board believes this guideline is quite important and needs to be enforced and treated as policy -- that's what "strengthen" means. -- Phoebe (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC) (For folks who don't know me, I'm a member of the board and chair of the workgroup that developed these resolutions).
It could limit imports from Flickr and elsewhere on some topics. --  Docu  at 07:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
One thing it means is that you don't need to blur the dog's face, as was done in File:Kerkrade 2CV rechts.jpg! ... SFriendly.gif -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what the resolution is "urging" in the case of Flickr photographs. I mean, Commons has a whole system set up by which people have certified that a Flickr photo was actually online with a free license on a given day. As far as I understand, every single photo in that category that shows a person, they want scrapped. Because how do you know it was a public place, how do you know there was consent, when you had to get someone to certify it was available with a public license? So all the work that all those people did, tracking down and verifying that the photo was up with the right license on a given day, was actually un-work, actually counterproductive, if people follow this what is "urged"; their effort to show the content was free only proves it is banned.
Now by contrast, the proposed policy we ended up hammering out at Commons:Sexual content advised this requirement of permission for Flickr photos only for sexual content, narrowly defined, in future uploads. And even that was rejected by the community.
Which brings us to the meat of the matter: what exactly do these "urge" statements mean? If the community decides they're bunk, what can be expected to happen? I think if the WMF wants to force people to do crazy things they're going to have to word them as more than a suggestion. Wnt (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
It's only photos not taken in a public place which present people in a negative light which raise strong red flags (not "every Flickr photo"). AnonMoos (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Precisely. Photos showing people who are identifiable, non-public places, and let's use good judgment here: is it a photo that potentially violates someone's privacy? Are they in a potentially embarrassing situation; is there a possibility they didn't give consent to the photographer to take or distribute the photos? (So by definition, pictures of a professional model at a photoshoot wouldn't fall under this, but images of someone posing for a friend in a bedroom would). -- Phoebe (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, alright, consider the picture of the village pump above (File:Balga, February 2010, Women around the water pump.jpg), which comes from Flickr. Is that village pump a public place or a private place? Does anyone have a right to be there, or do you have to be allowed to come in by a tribal group or family which owns the surrounding land? Were all the individuals shown asked about the photo, or did one person in charge say go ahead and take pictures? How much does anyone here know about Burkina Faso? Wnt (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
With all respect, that's quite silly. The image description page File:Balga, February 2010, Women around the water pump.jpg says "village" (i.e. public), and there's nothing in the photograph that contradicts that (walls enclosing a private residence etc.); furthermore, there's nothing even vaguely derogatory going on in the photograph... AnonMoos (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I always had issues with wording of our Commons:Photographs of identifiable people guideline. I support common sense interpretation well expressed by AnonMoos above or examples in the guidelines. The problem is that it is unclear how to apply those principles, for example looking through Category:Writers from Russia I can not tell in most cases which picture was taken in "public place" or "private place" or which person is "public figure" and which one is not. Also I do not know how to tell photographs with consent from the one without. It is unclear in case of the example of image with consent: File:Larry Sanger.jpg and that is the only one I know about that has one. I think this guideline need section about HOW to give consent and we need some way of tracking images that have one, assuming we have more than the example one. --Jarekt (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI, here's the first takedown notice "following the recent Board resolution" from a public person in an apparently not quite public setting. NVO (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm nuts, but the resolutions made sense to me. They may not be loaded with specifics, but the basic principles seem clear. Powers (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The most concrete recommendation from the controversial content resolution is that we need to apply the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement of media. In other words, controversial media should only be presented within appropriate contexts. Kaldari (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Depends on what you consider controversial, but I've no doubt this will lead to restrictions on main page content, given your views: [8]. – Adrignola talk 19:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Not only the main page... A naked woman standing in front of an Hispano-Suiza (very common setting in garage-wall calendars) would raise concerns on categorizing the file under the Hispano-Suizas, no matter how excellent the image could be. :S --- Darwin Ahoy! 23:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Kind of like this category Category:People_using_vacuum_cleaners, then. --JN466 02:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
They're not even people... AnonMoos (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, they're people of course, but the principle of least surprise is most certainly violated. Shall we remove the cat from those images? --JN466 17:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
My mistake -- from the thumbnails they looked a lot more like awkward mannequins with unrealistic body proportions than anything resembling a real woman... AnonMoos (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the new MediaWiki feature that was also announced will remove it from the category (by hiding it). --  Docu  at 17:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmm.. I was under the impression that such feature would be something more along these lines. I hope it doesn't mess up with categorization here in Commons, or else it would be a real drag. In the case of Category:People_using_vacuum_cleaners, I believe the proper action would be to move it to Category:Topless women_using_vacuum_cleaners. That way there can be no surprise when looking at it.--- Darwin Ahoy! 19:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done.--JN466 21:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
This actually makes them stand out more than the new feature that would just hide them will. --  Docu  at 00:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The question is if it is appropriate to place them anywhere in Category:Vacuum cleaners. Per the principle of least astonishment they not belong to that category. They belong into a topic category for the artist and artwork. Only. Not to some pseudo-topic subcategory of vacuum cleaners. --Martin H. (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the initial question you ask, but I don't think "astonishment" tells you anything about the scope of Category:Vacuum cleaners. --  Docu  at 01:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
If the work of art deals with vacuum cleaners, I don't see why it shouldn't be a subcat of Category:Vacuum cleaners. Category:Vacuum cleaners in art would be better of course, if there are enough files to make such a category.--- Darwin Ahoy! 02:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I personally think the current approach of placing explicit images in a subcategory is an acceptable compromise. It does call needless attention to the works, but nobody is going to encounter images they weren't expecting, which is the main goal. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2

"The ivory tower opens its treasure chest"

The Economist has an interesting article that reveals some potential sources of high-quality PD-Art images. Powers (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2011/05#Yale releases 250K images. We should probably make a tag for that (wrapper for CC-BY, mostly to indicate the Yale source as well). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
See Commons:Batch uploading/Yale. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

What is "relevant" and "irrelevant" in our descriptions of images?

I've been uploading images of the Guantanamo captives recently made public via wikileaks. I've included in the image descriptions of those images a couple of sentences that explain the colors of the uniforms issued to those individuals. "Compliant" individuals are issued white or tan uniforms. "Non-compliant" individuals are issued orange uniforms.

Another individual has removed that portion of the comments from some of those images, with the single word edit summary "irrelevant". [9], [10]

I'd appreciate third party input on the relevance or lack thereof of the explanation of the significance of the color of the uniform.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Not an easy call. For these two images you mentioned, I would rather agree with not having that particular description, because there's little context to it (especially for ISN 255's image, as I can't tell if that's a white uniform or an undershirt). If there was any kind of wider image, especially some kind of group shot with different colours visible, it would wholeheartedly agree with having that phrasing in the description. I do, however, disagree with Iqinn's removal of the prisoner designations; there is no reason to not include both name and number. Huntster (t @ c) 09:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Non-compliant captives are issued orange t-shirts to match the rest of their orange uniforms. There are images of compliant captives interacting together. Non-compliant captives won't be in group shots -- they don't have the privileges to interact with other individuals. Geo Swan (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Gotcha. I don't know...more feedback would be useful. Huntster (t @ c) 03:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I think Category:Guantanamo captives' wearing orange uniforms demonstrate that the uniforms issued to non-compliant individuals include orange undershirts. Geo Swan (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
That should work fine, but make sure you provide some kind of description in the category so folks know what it is about. That would be a better place than in the image description. Huntster (t @ c) 21:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Cultural public data in France

Dear Commonists,

Several wikimedians from France raised an issue concerning the French local law. The "1978 law" (ie law 78-753 of 17 July 1978) is about use of public data. They are supposed to be available and freely re-usable except those produced by cultural institutions (article 11) which can impose their own's terms on it. And it concerns all that is produced by public institutions regardless of copyright issues.

That's why Wikimedia France signed a partnership with the BnF to re-use the scans of Gallica. We could use it without any consent considering copyright laws but not considering 1978 law.

The question is: "is a scan of a book/painting produced by a public library/museum a public data?". I'm not sure there is a legal precedent to let us know what a judge would think about it but most of the French wikipedians consider (maybe shyly) it is.

We would be glad to know what you think about it and if Commons should stop accepting scans from French museums/libraries/archives without their consent?

Remi Mathis (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This question arose in particular in the context of an in-progress batch upload of high-resolution digitizations of artwork by C2RMF, the Center for Research and Restoration of Museums of France. The first 6 of 22 are shown at Category:High-resolution images from C2RMF, and the remaining ones (including the famous Mona Lisa) are pending upload, if consensus is in favour of doing so. User:Jean-Frédéric left a note at my talk page concerned that these uploads may violate the 1978 law. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
These images seem to be covered directly by Commons policy that images of public domain 2-D artworks can be tagged with {{PD-Art}} "even where copyright might be asserted under local law in the source country" (quote from COM:PDART, bold in original). This policy had both a strong consensus and support from the Wikimedia Foundation, and I don't see why this particular local law should be an exception. We should probably add something to Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs#France to cover this situation, though. --Avenue (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
As said in the question, it doesn't even have to do with copyright. It's a freedom of information act. It's not necessary for us to add for every country a mention of every law that we don't have to care about. :) -- Asclepias (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Not necessary, but helpful, at least in the context of a list of warnings for local re-users. You're right, my quote wasn't the most relevant, since this isn't a copyright issue. A better quote: the WMF's position is "regardless of any local laws to the contrary". --Avenue (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a link to a more elaborate discussion about this question by those "several wikipedians who raised an issue"? I'd like to know what their concern was exactly. In the absence of more precision about the issue raised, my first impression is that there is not really a problem. That law is a Freedom of Information act. Like other laws of that type in other countries, it says that documents in the possession of government organisms can be accessed by the public, and the informations that can be found in those documents can be used, with some limitations and exceptions for the protection of informations of a personal or confidential nature, etc. Each school, research center, cultural organism, determines the conditions of use of the informations found in its documents. Does that restrict in any way the use of reproductions of public domain paintings? I don't think that is the purpose or effect of that law. Does anyone fear that confidential specifications of the next generation of the Navy's submarines are to be found on a reproduction of Mona Lisa? -- Asclepias (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
It was a discussion on the GLAM list of Wikimedia France, after the announcement by user:Jean-Frederic that Dcoetzee was uploading C2RMF paintings. You ask "Does that restrict in any way the use of reproductions of public domain paintings?". In fact yes: French museums use this law to have a kind of monopoly on the reproduction of the paintings they hold and sometimes even call it robbery (pillage) when people who haven't payed for it use it and make it available on the internet. Of course, we are against those behaviour and are discussing with the ministry of Culture but the law seems to be on their side... Remi Mathis (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there any decision by a court that would support their invocation of 78-753 about this or is it just a wild unsupported claim? If there is no court decision, it is an indication that it may not be serious. I'm sure you have looked into it in depth, while I have not, but their claim sounds like a mirepresentation of that freedom of information law (Loi 78-753) and an abusive attempt to ignore the French copyright act (Code de la propriété intellectuelle - CPI) and to attribute to themselves a copyright outside of the copyright act. The scope of the Loi 78-753 is the access to public administration's documents and the use of informations contained in those documents. The purpose of that law is to make those documents more accessible and to make those informations more freely usable than they would be otherwise, more accessible and free than if they were those of a private entity. The purpose of that law is certainly not to make less accessible and less usable the material that is into the public domain. Guides prepared for the public administration's websites by the Agence du patrimoine intellectuel de l'État (APIÉ) advise that any material that is into the public domain is freely reusable by the public. IMO, a public body cannot, not anymore than anybody else for that matter, impose restrictions on the use of a published photograhic reproduction of a public domain painting, unless that reproduction is copyrighted under the French copyright act (CPI). Is that reproduction copyrighted in France under the French copyright act or not? That is the real question. (The answer from the jurisprudence is not unanimous.) And the law to decide that sort of matter is the French copyright act, period. An attempt from a museum administrator to muddy the matter and intimidate people by invoking laws that are irrelevant to the matter, be it the freedom of information act, the highway traffic act or the bovine cattle act, sounds frivolous. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

How to categorise Category:Crumbles?

I put it in Category:Food, but it should be in a more precise category. Could you help me? --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 22:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do I get logged out more on Commons than on Wiki?

When I login on Wiki, it seems to keep my login for 30 days. But here, I have to frequently login. And I have a unified account. And I always check the 30 days remember thing when signing in here. But it does not work. Could we please figure out what Wiki does and fix it so it works here? We don't want them to be better than us. Also, is there some preference or the like that will help me? TCO (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Make sure that your browser accepts cookies. See this tutorial on how to enable cookies for your browser. mickit 15:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Nice help. I have IE and just turned first and third to accept cookies. I wasn't sure about session cookies (not addressed in your tutorial) so I left it unchecked. Should I check that also?TCO (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that isn't really necessary. At least when we are talking about your problem Face-wink.svg mickit 16:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Still not working. :( TCO (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Move To Notable Dogs

I'm asking to move Category:Famous dogs to Category:Notable dogs because Famous is subjective. 22:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

  • And notable isn't? In any case, I would think this is not something that needs to be discussed on the Village Pump, unless we're going to have a discussion of 'famous' in category names altogether. Maybe try Commons:Categories for discussion? - Jmabel ! talk 00:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Although it is a slightly different issue, you may want to look at Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/05/Category:Famous people. But I agree with Jmabel, "notable" is not much better than "famous". --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
It's déjà vu all over again... LX (talk, contribs) 21:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

June 7

Repeated removal of deletion nominations

I recently nominated File:Executive Government Council (Flag).JPG. File:Prince-au-Léogâne (FLAG).JPG, and Joél Celéstin Filsaime for deletion: these images appear to be being used in what appears to be a long-term promotional campaign on enwiki: see en:Prince Joél I of Léogâne, en:Prince Joél I, and many others. The deletion nominations are being repeatedly removed from these articles by IP editors: can someone please intervene? -- The Anome (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As long as the request sub-pages remain listed on the daily list, they can remove the delete tags as often as they want (of course, this is vandalism). The list will be processed by admins. -- RE rillke questions? 13:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. These are the sorts of problems we've been having at enwiki; indefatigable reversions and (in the case of enwiki) apparently endless recreation of the articles under different titles. -- The Anome (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Semi-protected all 3 for a week. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of Vlaams-Brabantse tafeldruif grape varieties

Hi, I'm working on an article of the Vlaams-Brabantse tafeldruif, an AOP protected grape variety from Belgium and I had to realize that there are absolutely no pictures of the grapes in the commons. Can anyone please help by uploading pictures of the following grapes: Leopold III, Baidor, Frankenthaler, Royal and Ribier? any pics of the glass houses, of the producers, of the grape festivals in Overijse, Hoeilaart are also v.m. appreciated. --Viktor (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You can check on Flickr what they have, it's usually a very good source of free pictures (so good that if I well recall we had at lest one Picture of the Year which was actually grabbed from Flickr). Panoramio and Picasa are also good alternatives, though it's not so easy to find free content there. You can also go to or google books and search for public domain publications with schemes and photos of those varieties, most probably you'll find something there as well.--- Darwin Ahoy! 13:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
BTW, if you find good quality pictures in Flickr which are not free, you can try to ask the owners for a free license for those pictures, so that they can be used in Wikipedia (though you perhaps should emphasize that the use would not be limited to Wikipedia). More than often this has proven to be a successfully approach.--- Darwin Ahoy! 13:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

move img?

Is it possible to move File:De Foucauld - Dictionnaire touareg–français, vol 1 p. 247.jpg to remove the en dash? AFAIK, dashes are discouraged in file names, and my formatting prog keeps wanting to 'correct' this. Also, in this case it's inconsistent, with the first being a hyphen. Kwamikagami (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Moved to File:De Foucauld - Dictionnaire touareg français, vol 1 p. 247.jpg, redirect created. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

June 9

Help with the Elections for Wikimedia Leadership

Template:Promote Board elections 2011

And if you don't like the recent board resolution, be sure to vote on someone not on the current board ;-)
(this of course also applies the other way around). Multichill (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Do I really have to vote there? Who has preselected this crew? -- RE rillke questions? 14:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Not sure - I guess they themselves. ;-) Read the questions to and answers from the candidates - they did help me much. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Multi-lingual category naming

I'm looking at Commons:Categories and I'm not seeing any advice on dealing with multiple languages (different names for the same thing in different languages). The issue is (i) choosing which language to use for the actual category name and (ii) how (or whether) to some redirect alternate languages to that category. As a concrete example, there is Category:Members of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences which is part of Category:Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Rd232 (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you see Commons:Categories#Category_names? And if there are two cats for the same thing they need to be merged, sure. And at the example you've cited: both are not the same thing. The Category:Members of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences is about members (which are People by association) and Category:Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften is about the whole thing - also the building(s). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Well obviously I grasped the difference between the categories; I used those as examples of two different approaches to the same topic. I did see "Category names should generally be in English (see Commons:Language policy). However there are exceptions." which is clear as mud in itself. Commons:Language policy then doesn't provide any more detail, and it points to Commons:Naming categories which apart from being only a proposal merely says there is no consensus (for the specific point that sparked my interest, namely proper names). So, the answer is "nobody knows"? Rd232 (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
An interesting statement there is "we still lack internationalization for category names... Creating intermingled category structures in different languages would only make things worse." – Adrignola talk 03:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
"intermingled" would be bad certainly. But if policy was firmly to use English except where no English term exists, then all redirects would straightforwardly point to the English. That would be better than chaotic status quo, which is actually intermingled due to lack of organisation, consistency, and consensus. As to the Bugzilla5638 mentioned in the category policy: that's currently closed "WONTFIX" after languishing for years. Rd232 (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and @ redirs for some languages: Commons:Only use category redirects where necessary. Short: not, if there isn't a specific reason. --Saibo (Δ) 04:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
OK. I'm sure there's a relevant bug for proper category redirects too [Bugzilla3311 in fact]. Funny how long MediaWiki has been around without fixing what are clearly important things for Commons categories to be organised well. Rd232 (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
You can redirect Category:Bavarian Academy of Sciences to Category:Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften
Commons:Only use category redirects where necessary is a somewhat outdated personal essay. It's a bit disappointing that it was retitled "proposed guideline" as it doesn't really tell you much more than its title. The reminder is mostly outdated. Category redirects work for several years now.
BTW either Category:Members of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences or Category:Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften should be renamed as we would expect them to be in the same language. --  Docu  at 06:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
This topic is actually one of the biggest challenges I (and I'm sure, many others as well) face daily in Commons. It's already bad enough to have things as Category:Castles in France and Category:Caves of France (and very often, if you create something as Category:Caves in France as a redirect to help in categorization, it gets deleted as unnecessary). It's bad enough that we have to deal with strange designations for well known places (like Kolkata for Calcutta, I don't know where the heck that came from, maybe I should change Lisbon to Lisboa as well to preserve the native name?). It's terrible to have to deal with churches you know very well as "Igrejinha de Nossa Senhora da Piedade, Bogas de Cima" to something as awkward as "Our Lady of Sorrows Church, Bogas de Cima" (If someone has not translated Bogas de Cima to Upper Bogas, meanwhile). And it's a total drag to have to guess if some cat is written as "Our Lady of Sorrows Church" or "Church of Our Lady of Sorrows".
Categories are being continuously renamed in a kind of waltz between all those variables. To make things worse, after renaming, the older category is often deleted, independently of its value as a redirect. All this creates noise and unneeded difficulties that, some of them at least, would certainly be diminished if there were some guidelines in place, instead of each one prior knowledge of the existing cat tree, or in the lack of it, sheer imagination.
Those are the points I want to make: First, I believe that the wish to Anglicise everything should be tempered with some good sense. There are some things that can't be translated, or if translated create much more difficulties than they solve. For instance, the Portuguese "freguesias" are being translated as "parishes", and the cats are being changed. This will have to be reversed in the future, since in Portugal "parish" has a very precise meaning, which is not the one which is being given here. Another case are local tourist attractions which appear in English language tourist guides under the most awkward designations, which are then copied here as the "English version" of the name of that thing. This is not good a practice, since while local buildings and features have a well established local name, "tourist names" are often invented at will. I've here an old Madeira postcard from the 1900s (which I'll be uploading shortly) which in the description quite funnily translates our "Fonte do Monte" (a known fountain in the Monte village) as "Source in the Mount". Really, there are things that are better left untouched, or else it would always be a mess to find them here.
Second: As I said above, there are some things that are better left untouched. However, cases like Category:Sachsenross, which apparently can be translated to Saxon Steed, should be normalized.
Third: Order of names and connection particles should be normalized. It's absurd to have to deal with "Things in XXX" and "Things of XXX" and even "Things from XXX", especially when that doesn't seem to follow any particular logic. "Churches of Saint Blabla" and "Saint Blabla churches" should be normalized as well, as well as other similar cases, like the Russian consulates and consulates of Russia (hypothetical example).
Fourth: Please have good sense when deleting redirects. If they are useful and help in the searches, please leave them alone. Proper examples would be the already mentioned "Caves in XXX", and Category:Russian consulates.
Fifth, and last: We really need to find a way to sort out category names for things that change name according to border. I've been following a discussion in a talk page in the last few days about some river that has a different name in Germany and France. There has to be a way to cover those situations in the cat tree, or else French users (in that situation) which are not aware of the German designation will not know where to place their pictures. Redirect categorization would possibly help in solving that, but since it is not allowed we are left with this mess.
--- Darwin Ahoy! 11:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Those sound like sensible thoughts, and to some extent I'm quite familiar with cat naming issues on English Wikipedia - but on Commons the problem is exponentially worse, because not only do you have all the linguistic issues with naming, but you also have linguistic barriers in discussing naming to reach a consensus in any given case. If anyone has the patience to have a serious go at a standardisation proposal that could actually get policy status, I'd urge them to seize the day. Unfortunately, the White Knight of changes to MediaWiki fixing these issues seems more likely to be a decade off than a year, and in the absence of that, the more standardisation the better. Rd232 (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
As user:Multichill eloquently said in User:Multichill/Next generation categories we need multilingual category support which would allow people to categorize in their own language. In my mind ideally each category would still need to have English name but would also allow people to add localized names for categories, which than could have been used instead English names. Names displayed would depend on user language preference, defaulting to English if one is not available. This and lack of support for category intersections in regular search, discussed here are two major limitations of the current category system. I see those problems as major obstacles for future growth and current system unscalable. --Jarekt (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

One thing I think we don't want is what's happening at Category:Mélusines in heraldry, where the English word "Melusine" has a rather different meaning in English heraldic terminology than the French word "Mélusine" does in French heraldic terminology. User:Ssire first insisted on lumping everything together indiscriminately into the pre-existing category Category:Melusines in heraldry, then created his own accented category for the French meaning (which would actually have been better as "Mélusines en l'héraldique" than as the hybridized bastardized neither-one-nor-the-other "Mélusines in heraldry"...). AnonMoos (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That is a very unfortunate coincidence, and seems to be very common in heraldry, sadly. I've tried to find English designations for every heraldic variation, and only used foreign terms were English designations for the same thing were completely absent in the literature, such as in the case of the Catalan Category:Caironat shields, provided that it doesn't conflicts with any English designation, such as in the case of the French Mélusines. In that situation, I would probably create a category named Category:Mermaids in a tub in heraldry, which I believe would be much more preferable than the current situation, with the explanation about the term in French at the top. If there still is much confusion between both cats, which I doubt, since those are rare charges, another alternative would be to turn Category:Melusines in heraldry in a disambiguation to Category:Mermaids in a tub in heraldry and Category:Mermaids double-tailed. Anything would be better than what it is now, though in this case I don't agree with a cat entirely in French as you suggested.--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Today's FP and board resolutions

How much time is there before today's featured pic is listed for deletion as a "personal photo of a non-notable person"? What arguments can save it then? NVO (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No moral rights are being infringed upon and removal of personal photos in other cases is only if they're not in use, because use of them puts them in scope automatically according to policy. – Adrignola talk 14:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


rocket0000 incoming -- 15:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh? - Jmabel ! talk 15:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bizarre image caching problem

I've uploaded a new version of File:Lombardia Pavia2 tango7174.jpg, but for some reason old thumbnails do not get updated, even after purges and null edits of the image description page. What's even weirder, when I log out, I can see only one revision on the image description page (i.e., the first version), but it has the thumbnail image of my version associated with it. And yes, I've reset my browser cache, so I think this is an issue on the server side. --Morn (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Experienced the same problem with other files. The new version is still the old version. Additionally some pages (at random) get stuck while loading. Mostly discussion pages. This even affects my bot, but no other sites. Something fishy lingers around. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 18:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I hope this is not an early indication that MediaWiki 1.17 has been silently corrupting the database. Mysteriously dropped revisions are not a very good sign IMO... --Morn (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks ok now to me, sounds like the ongoing thumbnailing problem, system response has been very slow for a while too. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Time to invest more of the money into the servers and not in stupid things like the gendergap project, which outcome is very doubtful. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 17:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Yep, the thumnails seem to be cached on serverside and fail to get updated. My theory: 800px ← shows the old version (standard preview size on file page), 801px ← shows the new version (probably the first time someone requests this - therefore it was not cached).
Here are more three cases: Commons:Help_desk#Problems_replacing_an_image (File:Karte Französische Pokalsieger.png's problems are noticed on 2011-05-17T10:09). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Yesterday and today i had multiple cases in which even the original (direct link to latest version) didn't update for a longer time. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 01:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I see that I've got my preferences set to 640x480 description page images. Purging the 800px thumbnail seems to have fixed it. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
When you hit the page purge, the system is supposed to delete all images in the thumbnail directory. One of the few reason when this doesn't happen, is when the filepermissions on the system are broken. That seems like the most logical explanation for this case as well. TheDJ (talk) 08:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Getting even weirder problem when uploading a new version of an svg. Not only does the thumbnail not update properly but following the link to the svg source code that still points to the old source file rather than the new one... /Lokal_Profil 10:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Same thing happend to me with other file types. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 10:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Me too. Purging the page did not refresh the thumbnail, and I couldn't download the updated full resolution JPG either. Requesting a different resolution gave me the new version, though. --Avenue (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

So, are the developers on to this problem by now? Or do they need a formal bug report? --Morn (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Reedy told me in #wikimedia-tech that it is a known problem. He thinks it could be bugzilla:28613. Seems we just have to wait. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Works now at least for File:Jörg Kubitzki by Stepro 01.JPG (from Commons:Forum and File:Lombardia_Pavia2_tango7174.jpg (from my 801 px example above). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Some (but not all) of mine have updated automatically. The rest can forced to update by appending "&action=purge" to the thumbnail urls (but not by purging the image page). Btw. I no longer see the thumbnail purging tab which is supposed to be gadget activated... /Lokal_Profil 16:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Minor correction. Almost all thumbnails can be forced to update with "&action=purge" stil have File:Älghult vapen.svg which reverts back to the old thumbnail after displaying the new one... /Lokal_Profil 16:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
another (of many) case: File:Silver_Target_in_XPS_Spectrometer.jpg. 120px is wrong. Slightly different thumb size - eg. 121px works. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Please let us know if this one continues. We noticed the thread and followed up with operations, and they tell us that they believe it is resolved. :) --Mdennis (WMF) (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Just click on the two link I have posted just above your message: still broken for me. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
@Saibo. The two links are working for me.
Also my last remaining thumbs have now updated (and so have any recent "re-uploads"). Thanks /Lokal_Profil 09:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep, this image does now work also for me. --Saibo (Δ) 02:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

As I noted in the "Image not updating" thread below, the file File:USS Adams C.jpg is still not displaying correctly for me, and it's been almost four days now. I know it's not my PC because the problem has now occurred on two different PCs. Gatoclass (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I also believe that the problem has not been solved, yet. Here is a German discussion and the thumbnail which has not been saved with different thumb size (in article de:Neue Berliner Pferdebahn, first image, png) still shows an old version, even though I have purged and done alle the usual things to make the server reload the current thumbnail version. --Schwäbin (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Looking at my file list, I notice the thumbnail for Lombardia Pavia2 tango7174.jpg (which started this thread) is correct now, but the one for File:CabourgPlage.jpg is stuck at the old revision. In WP articles the new version is shown. Tried a purge, but it had no effect. So the problem is indeed not solved yet. --Morn (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If I see it correctly all files from Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2011/05#Problems_replacing_an_image do work now. I had two file with a not at all displaying thumb - they worked after a file page purge. --Saibo (Δ) 23:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's now working fine for me as well, finally.--- Darwin Ahoy! 02:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
No, purged File:Karte_Neue_Pferdebahn_Berlin.png a few minutes ago, went to de:Neue Berliner Pferdebahn. Took away the sighted flag and sighted again (is that the english word for it?). Emptied my browser cache. Still seeing the thumb with dark red letters (older version). Anybody seeing the thumb in current version with bright red letters? --Schwäbin (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm seeing the bright red letters now. It seems to have been resolved since you posted here. My empirical experience is that the bigger the file, the longer it gets for the thumbnail to update, but I don't know if it had any influence here.--- Darwin Ahoy! 10:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. --Schwäbin (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
New one (also posted to the bug): File:Rebbluete_1965-2010_GV_Krems.JPG was updated at 2011-06-09T09:32:46 to include 2011 (new bar on the right): 800px is old, 801 px is new. I tried: purge the file's page, make a nulledit to it. Interesting: If I call this modified URL [11] it works for this request. However, the URLs used by the thumbs do not work. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I tried again after submitting... now also the correct URL works. Strange. Btw: I had never viewed the image at its old version - it cannot be my browser's cache. did still not work. Called (wrong hash) and now also works. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

May 21

Speedy deletion notifications

I have just seen this bot delivered notification on a Wikipedia page;

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Jedlik's dynamo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

While it is good that a notification is issued, the actual message is pretty useless. First of all it invites readers to challenge the speedy, but neither in the message nor the linked guideline is it explained how to actually go about challenging the speedy. Secondly it states "there is no rush to respond". The message was delivered at 09:00 and the image was deleted at 10:26. Well yes, that might be slower than on Wikipedia - an hour and a half as opposed to minutes - but it still requires a pretty fast response to stop it. At least you could link to the deleting admins comments, anyone who does not know their way around here hasn't got a hope of finding the "who" and the "why".

I am not particularly trying to get this image undeleted, I am trying to get the messages to Wikipedia improved. SpinningSpark 12:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding to the request above, I believe that no source/ no permission/no license notices should be transmitted to wiki-en as well, since they are in practice nominations for deletion, and in some cases input from Wikipedia users could be useful to solve those situations.--- Darwin Ahoy! 13:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of practice, I often do put a note on the page of en-wp article that is using an image, usually where it is the only image of a subject that we have. However, that's really up to the individual. Identifying and dealing with copyvios is a thankless and endless task. If there is a bot that could do that task, fantastic, but otherwise I can't see much traction in the suggestion that we force volunteers to do it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This request is out of place, here. Ask the bot-author en:User talk:CommonsNotificationBot to change the text or behavior. -- RE rillke questions? 13:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Rillke, this seems a perfectly reasonable place to discuss the text. If any consensus is to be reached, it probably needs broad discussion, which probably won't happen where you suggest. - Jmabel ! talk 16:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
It's a problem of en.wikipedia not of commons. -- RE rillke questions? 06:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Came across this by complete fluke :) I'm the bot operator (I wrote it because we realised it was impractical and unfair to ask commons contributors to notify other wiki's). Darwin; that is a useful point, and I will have a look into no license taggings, they should be fairly easy to add into the bot code. Regarding the template text; the place to discuss it definitely is my talk page :) To address the points raised:
  • Speedy deletions here tend to come in a bunch (at least by my testing), some can hang around for hours or days and some for minutes. I try to catch them as soon as they are tagged
  • I am not very versed in commons policy/help pages - is there a better link I can use in the template?
  • Changing the text is definitely something to discuss on en-wp, with input from Commons as needed, the bot is purely for English Wikipedia so it is up to editors there to decide what it is they want :)
  • Originally a further notification would have been added to the page with a "this image was deleted for the following reason" template, once the image had been deleted. This was vetoed on en-wp by a couple of people; rethinking it I could probably go back and add some new text into the speedy notification section to say "now this image has been deleted - for X reason". I'll add it to my todo list.
Thanks for the feedback, it is probably best to ping me on my talk page (here or en-wp) as I may forget to check back here in time --ErrantX (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Any endorsements or dis-endorsements for Wikimedia Board Elections?

There are only a few days left in the election-- could anyone provide advice or endorsements for voters who are short on time?? Please share the people you like, and add a link to it on Meta:Template:Board elections 2011 infobox. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

  • For me it was very easy to separate the apples from oranges and to make the decision -- I've simply reread the May 2010 foundation-l discussion about the infamous Jimbo's attempt to purge Commons from educational sexual content. From that discussion it's plainly visible what candidates gave "full support" to Jimbo's speedy deletions, and conversely, what candidates actively supported Commons community in that very difficult situation. Trycatch (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Distorted or not?

File:Miss USA Teen USA Azores.jpg has very ugly distortion when I watch it, except in full resolution. Then it is a clear picture. What's going on? Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There is something weird with that image. I tried to solve the problem with a very small curves adjustment. Such action usually increases the size of the file, but in this case it was decreased by almost 1 Mega, and the ghost picture apparently still remained in the thumbnail/reduced versions. I don't know what is the problem, so feel free to revert my version if you want.--- Darwin Ahoy! 16:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Initial file (EXIF) had an CMYK color mode causing the problem with the striped thumbnail, see Commons:Graphics_village_pump/July_2010#Visible_on_firefox.2C_not_on_IE... for an explanation from Ilmari. Download the original file, convert to RGB. With the new upload Darwinus fixed it, the filehistory thumbnail is possibly not yet updated. --Martin H. (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Announcing new templates

{{Folklore}} and {{No scaled down dupes}} need some review by a native speaker. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 20:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I took a stab at both of them (:en), but they still need work. =) Powers (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time. -- RE rillke questions? 10:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe rename "dupes" to "duplicates" or something else? Since this is a multilingual project, we need to be using the simplest language possible... Rehman 10:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons notice in non-Commons image pages

I hope this is the right place to ask this question. :)

When viewing an image uploaded on Commons, there's the box below the image that says the image is from Commons. The Tagalog Wikipedia has the Commons notice, but it's only text, and I want to improve on it to make it more presentable. However, I have no idea how to edit it. Does anyone know how it's done? --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It might be at tl:MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-here. --  Docu  at 11:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
It didn't show up when I browsing through the list of messages, but thanks for finding it for me! :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Changing nickname

Hi I have change my nickname in the Hebrew Wikipedia and Hebrew Wikisource. i would like to have that change also here. please tell me where is the instruction for that --לאה צחור (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC) (would like to change to אור שפירא)

COM:CHU. Regards. Rehman 12:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thanks!--לאה צחור (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Watermark removal attribution of separately uploaded derivative images

I'm newly familiar with {{Metadata from image}} and {{Attribution metadata from licensed image}} tags, and they make sense for uploading watermark-removed images over the same file, since the previous image containing the watermarked attribution will still be immediately available. But what about cases of derivative images uploaded under a new name where the watermark would have still appeared? I can use an example of my own doing: File:Pekka Kokko (Kalmah) rhythm guitar.jpg is the original image uploaded with the watermark. I made a crop, but a segment of the watermark would have still appeared in the corner. I removed the watermark, of course, and uploaded the file as File:Pekka Kokko (Kalmah) rhythm guitar (crop).jpg. Now the image upload history does not have a copy of the watermarked version (even with part of the watermark). Would I still use one of these tags on the derivative work? Should the language be more specific about how the attribution information is located at another file name? Does having the watermarked image appear (as an image, not just text) in a gallery in the image description page serve to fulfill the language of the tag? Thank you so much. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 21:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Generally I place the tag {{retouched}} (with the description of the retouch -- e.g. watermark removal, crop, etc.) and the text of the removed watermark to the image description. I think that should be enough, and there is no need to overcomplicate these things. IMO your description is just fine, but it would be better to add the text of the removed watermark somewhere (as it is recommended in {{Attribution metadata from licensed image}}) Trycatch (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Would this suffice? I used the other_fields parameter. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 22:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, I may be using that field incorrectly. I'll have to come back and make it less complex a little later. I think the Attribution field is saying how it should be attributed, but what I'm doing should just be written simply in the description... like you suggested earlier. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 22:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the usage of those tags. My initial impression is that when a visitor reads "attribution information, such as the author's name (...), has been moved into the image metadata and/or image description page", he will probably expect to find it in the "author" or "attribution" fields, either in the information tag, in the licence tag or in the metadata (or in all relevant places), and expect it to be immediately visible and readable to the human eye. It could be argued that, technically speaking, as long as a small thumbnail is displayed, in a different field, with the information not immediately readable, and with some luck at guessing where it might be, and then viewing another page, that sort of fulfills the statement, but that's a stretch.
If you'll forgime me for adding suggestions about two things you have not asked, I believe that the author credit should be to the identity under which she identifies herself in connection with the licensed photo (although her real-life name is found on her unlicensed website). Also, of course you mention clearly the modifications you have made and that is all perfect. But, and I mean no offense, I'm not sure that the technical modifications, fine as they are, have the level of added original creation required by the Copyright Act to generate a copyright in favor of the modificator. (That's a difference between a derivative work under the terms of the license and a work of creation under the terms of the Copyright Act, which the license reflects more by the notion of creation in the definition of "original author"(s).) That is only to say, if I were the modificator, I probably would not add the "self" template. However, if your opinion differs, I do not want to annoy you with that. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Asclepias, I respect your opinion greatly, no need to worry about offending me. But let me see if I follow what you're saying. First, regarding the attribution tags, let's take File:Tree I IMG 1497.jpg as an example. In fact, it's the image where I first saw the tag (in this case, a redirect tag) being used. The watermark was removed, the tag put in place, but what you're saying is that the removed "© J.M.Garg 2007" should be mentioned in the attribution or author field, easily read by the human eye. A note stating that the phrase was removed from the image could clarify the matter. Is that correct? This way the original image in the upload history wouldn't have to be accessed and the watermark "hunted for". I think this is an extremely important point, and I would agree with it. If this is what you are saying (I just want to be sure I'm understanding), then perhaps this should be mentioned to volunteers at the Graphics Lab (which I intended on doing at some point regarding the tags). Edit: In regards to the guitarist image, I added a specific watermark phrase to the {{retouched}} template.
As for the other two points, this may be a learning curve situation for me: Author credit. I agree with you completely about what you said, and normally I would have simply credited her as "stageshots". But I had an email discussion with Sandra and she did say I could credit her by name, but to link to her Flickr account instead of her website. If this is something that would normally be settled with OTRS, if only for the sake of clarification and/or proof of the "real life name and handle" connection, I'll gladly forward the email discussions. Because her image was licensed properly on Flickr, which could be verified by FlickrBot or a trusted user, it didn't even occur to me to involve OTRS or anyone else about the name. Otherwise, I could just leave a note on the talk page? Either way is fine.
As for the term "derivative", have no fear, I don't take offense at all. I am not well versed as to what a derivative truly is. If it requires a certain amount of originality, then there's nothing derivative about the crop at all and, in fact, the image probably could've just been uploaded over the original file (since I don't see the original file being used, ever). The original file simply serves to host the original attribution (watermark or links to sites, etc.) except by uploading a separate crop, I have removed that attribution accessibility by one step. However, I was using derivativeFX—and have been using this tool—to upload the new file. And I believe the {{self}} template is added automatically (in this case, I was given a choice between 2.0 and 3.0, I think). I must say, the "I, the copyright holder of this work" is a little disconcerting and I hadn't even given it a second glance until you mentioned it. Edit: I removed the self template. I thought I've seen templates say other peoples' names, but the {{self}} documentation doesn't link to anything (no "see also" section). Would you know if I should add another template there?
And no, I won't be annoyed. I am here to learn : ) However, the outcome of this discussion will most likely affect all the other crop/watermark removals I've done in the past (I will gladly go through and correct them). – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 02:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Keraunoscopia, About the first point (how to preserve the attribution), yes, your understanding of my comment is entirely correct. To explain some more, you know how we often have discussions with new contributors about how the Wikimedia community generallly understands the terms of the (widely used) CC licenses, in particular about the difference between, on one hand, the reuser's obligation to the effect that "You must [...] keep intact all copyright notices [...] and provide the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or [...] the name of [other] parties [designated by the Original Author]" (which is all paraphrased in the short CC summary by "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author"), and, on the other hand, the reuser's latitude to the effect that "The credit required [...] may be implemented in any reasonable manner". I believe that the general understanding is that the reuser has the obligation to preserve the wording of the credit in the manner in which the author wrote it, although the reuser has the latitude to move the credit to a more convenient place in the page/website/book, change the type font, etc., as reasonably allowed by common usage, provided that the contents of the credit are still preserved and it is reasonably clearly visible. Practically, for Commons and the Wikimedia projects, it means, for example, that when the exact terms of credit specified by the author is know to be the text embedded in a watermark, then a reuser may move that credit/attribution text, from the wartermak, to the appropriate line in the description page of the modified image. The general usage on the Wikimedia websites is also that while the credit is not directly on the article page where the image is displayed, it should not be too far away, and generally it should be immediately accessible through just one click, on the description page of this image (and not only through two or three more clicks to reach another page or image). That said, sometimes one initial difficulty is to know exactly what credit wording the author actually did specify (it's not necessarily the text of the watermak if, for example, he has more clearly specified a different credit text below the image). But from the moment that we can actually tell exactly what name and notice the author did specify, I think the reuser should reproduce, as exactly as it is reasonably possible, that wording specified by the author. Finally, it is good to also have in the page, as a bonus, the thumbnail of the original image, following an optional usage of showing other versions. (Although the thumbnail is not a requirement, especially since the original image is linked as the source anyway, and thus the reader can look at the source to verify the watermak.) Only, IMO, the thumbnail would not be, by itself, an alternative to the explicit credit line in the information fields, in accordance with the normal usage.
About the second point (the mention of the real name of stageshots), of course everything is fine if you had a conversation with the author and you acted accordingly. I had initially not assumed that there had been a private communication. I guess a simple note, as you suggest, would be enough, just to clarify the situation and avoid potential misunderstandings.
About the third point, it seems to me that any modification is indeed a "derivative" under the definition in the CC licenses, even when, under the scope of the Copyright Act some modifications are not original creations generating a copyright. I was only reminding that the definition of a "derivative" work in the CC licences is one notion, and it is much larger and includes modified versions that do not constitute distinctly copyrightable original creations under the Copyright Act, which is a different notion. In other words, there are some modifications that are not creations under the meaning of the Copyright Act (and therefore do not generate copyright ownership for the modificator), although they are derivatives under the terms of the CC licenses (and therefore should be mentioned somewhere in the description page of the modified image). Enventually, if the original image is offered under the option of more than one license, the modificator may of course choose to reuse the image under only one of those licenses (and in some cases he may even replace a CC licence version with another closely related version, because the original author has allowed that under the terms of the CC license). But, even then, the modificator of a version that does not pass the threshold required for distinct copyrightability could not claim that he is the copyright owner. The "self" template does have an optional parameter (author) that normally would be useful, but unfortunately it has some wording flaws ("hereby publishes") that make its result look confusing (unlike the PD-author template, for example). Different users may choose to use it or not, depending on their personal level of discomfort with ambiguity. The license template can of course very well stand alone without being repackaged into another template, just like in the description page of the original image.
Finally, let me add that, as far as I can tell, you certainly know as much as I do about all this. I'm only participating in the discussion to add a few suggestions that I hope can be useful. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! And I've since gone through my past images and removed the {{self}} templates. Since you've responded, I had a chance to upload some other derivative works and derivativeFX does, indeed, offer you the option of excluding the self-template, and I never really messed around with the license options. I'll be more careful of the licenses I pick in the future : ) – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 00:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

June 8

Upload errors?

I am trying to upload a variety of high-quality TIFFs to Commons (5-20 MB), and I am running into a lot of upload errors. Generally, after hanging for several minutes, the page just stops loading and I get a blank screen or an "HTTP 500 internal server error" depending on the browser. Some of the images upload just fine, however. This seems to be specific to certain files, though I can't tell why. Whenever I reupload after a failed attempt, the same error occurs, even if other files go through at the same time. I tried using the UploadWizard as well, and it also gives errors, but this time it just says 'Unknown error: "unknown"' while uploading the files in the upload step. This issue has recurred for several days. You can see an example of one of the problem files at [12]. Can anyone shed some light on the problem? Dominic (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course this won't resolve this error. What about converting photos to jpg and other files to png or using Commonist to upload these files? Should I file a bug? -- RE rillke questions? 18:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, in the short-term, I can convert these TIFFs prior to upload. However, we really want to have the original scans on Commons, too, for maximum quality. I am working with the US National Archives (see WP:NARA) to get their documents on Commons, but right now it is has been pretty excruciating work. I hadn't tried Commonist, though. That seemed to work on the first file I tried. Let's see how it goes. Thanks for your suggestions. :-) Dominic (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Hm, actually, other images are still giving me trouble on Commonist. It just goes to 100% and hangs. Dominic (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I had the same problem recently with my very large (~100 MB) uploads from C2RMF. It would stall indefinitely at around 25%. Later in the evening the upload completed, albeit slowly. I believe it's a technical issue. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
~100 MB can be tricky: -- RE rillke questions? 20:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


Rozentals Veranda Kapri.jpg

I took a picture (File:Terras op Plein.jpg). In the category "Terraces" there only terrace structures. In the dutch meaning of the word "Terras" this also includes any outside area where there tables and chairs. There must be a lot of such places and I find no pictures of this type of terrace. Is this classified under another name? Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of them at least are filed under Category:Verandas. I believe that this is the kind of terrace you are referring to.--- Darwin Ahoy! 20:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, you'll find a lot of them under Category:Cafés, that's where they generally are. Look in Category:Sidewalk cafés, but a lot of them are dispersed down the "by country" tree, and not categorised there. But there ought to be a proper category for those terraces ("Esplanadas" in Portuguese, also "Terraço" as well, occasionally), since they are not necessarily cafés, they can be restaurants or simply a place to seat and relax without any sort of food or beverage serving. --- Darwin Ahoy! 21:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Category:Al fresco dining? Man vyi (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmm That is a good category to have in mind when organizing this stuff, but dinning al fresco doesn't necessary mean a terrace, in my understanding. I believe the concept of "terraces" is something more permanent, tough you can "dine al fresco" in a terrace, of course.--- Darwin Ahoy! 21:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Category structure amendment

I'd like to add the following to Commons:Category structure:

  • Category names should generally be in English, and in general should adopt the same naming convention as English Wikipedia. Deviations from this should generally take the form of an agreed subject-specific category scheme or annotation in Commons:Category structure.
  • Eponymous categories (categories named for specific people or institutions) should use the native name and spelling if that is Latin alphabet, with a category redirect from the standard English translation. (This does not include place names, which should be in English if a common English term exists.) If the English translation is used as the category name, the native name should be a category redirect. Any subcategories should be consistent with the main category name, and should not use cross-language category redirects.
  • Except for eponymous categories, cross-language category redirects should not be used (except where the category name is not English, in which case a redirect from the English should be used). Instead, link to the category from the relevant page(s) in the different language versions of Wikipedia, and use {{mld}} on the category page to provide a non-English description.

Rd232 (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC) withdrawn as thread hijacked by user:Docu. See thread below for renewed attempt to discuss the proposal at hand.

Disagree. Commons category naming rules are quite different from en:wikipedia, disambiguation is much different as it conflicts often with terms in other languages. What about the Russian, Arab, Chinese versions of Category:National Museum of African Art ?
Please define Latin alphabet: there are many variants, including West European accents, all European accents, Vietnamese ? --Foroa (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The objective was to provide a default category structure which works reasonably well, and to deviate from it when there's a good reason. Disambiguation collisions with other languages would qualify; we can add that as an exception. As for Latin alphabet, I didn't think that was that complex (en:Latin alphabet). Basically, all variants of Latin alphabet, but not things like Arabic and Chinese. Rd232 (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you noticed, but this isn't English Wikipedia. We categorize images, not articles. From your previous topic, I take it that you have never actually done that. --  Docu  at 17:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Cough, yes, I know it isn't, but that doesn't fundamentally affect the topic category structure, which is the key zone of confusion. And I don't know where you get the idea I haven't done any categorising (Special:Contributions/Rd232). Rd232 (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I take it from Commons:Village_pump#Category_namespace_editnotice and Category:Alfred Helberger that you seem to be ignoring things around here and simply attempt to copy English Wikipedia. --  Docu  at 17:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not "just copying". I created the category namespace editnotice on en.wp, to help complete newcomers who go about categorisation the wrong way. It's been generally judged a success. I thought the same logic would apply equally on Commons. Rd232 (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Apparently that logic doesn't seem to work for you though. --  Docu  at 17:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
If you're going to be snide and unhelpful, at least make sense. Have I been trying to add pages into categories by editing category pages? No, but it's a mistake newcomers make, and the editnotice helps reduce that. Rd232 (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
It's just that you ignore edit notices when you create categories. --  Docu  at 18:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
There is no problem creating a proposal at Commons:Category structure, but please avoid splitting Commons:Categories for now. I reverted your undiscussed change for now. BTW there is also a proposal at Commons:Naming categories. --  Docu  at 16:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware of Commons:Naming categories, it seems dormant. Splitting out the category structure stuff is so obviously necessary (as one who has done a lot on en.wp improving Help and policy pages) that I didn't hesitate to discuss it. The current page you've reverted to is a complete mess, mixing different things together. It was difficult to get a handle on for me - a newcomer must find it completely impenetrable. Rd232 (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe a good start could be to see how you could improve the categorization of File:Alfred Hermann Helberger - Hafen von Bahia.jpg and which part of Commons:Categories can help you with this.
So your response to my finding current policy messy and inadequate, leading me to try to improve it by splitting it (which would also make further improvements more likely), is to... point me to the current mess you reverted to and complain that I haven't understood it with cryptic reference to a file I rescued from category:Media needing categories. Are you always this helpful? Rd232 (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Purpose should be to find appropriate categories for files such as File:Alfred Hermann Helberger - Hafen von Bahia.jpg.
How can we do this? --  Docu  at 17:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Why have you selected this file? Are you trying to illustrate a point about the categorisation policy changes I'm suggesting? If so, what is it? Rd232 (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
You are stating the current guideline is messy and inadequate. As your categorization of the file needs improvement, the question is how to help we should go about to help you achieve that. --  Docu  at 18:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, well I've had about enough of Docu's ridiculous "help". Is anyone else interested in discussing the actual proposal? We managed a constructive discussion on 8 June (#Multi-lingual_category_naming) and I don't see why this should be any different. Rd232 (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that Foroa is active with the category structure. A discussion with that user may be more constructive. – Adrignola talk 19:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons! Killiondude (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I do indeed feel welcomed. Rd232 (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


Someone please fix the layout. Thanks. --Leyo 18:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done the problem was due to some unusual code in Template:PD-OpenClipart/lang, apparently some was trying to use as a stand alone template for some other purposes. See [13]. My fix to the main template probably broke whatever this additional functionality was. --Jarekt (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. --Leyo 20:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Somali region flag... Seriously ?

I was a bit surprised to discover the wikimedia version of the flag of the Ethiopian Somali Region. Maybe someone could come up with something better ? (I don't know if an official description of the flag is available somewhere)--Kimdime (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I just found that one which looks better : File:Regió Somali.svg. Maybe the first one should be deleted--Kimdime (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Both flags are very ugly, but the one you printed in the right is exceedingly awful. It would probably be very easy to make a decent flag using the camel from one of the svgs available here, perhaps you could ask one of our masters in vexillology design? I'll not mention any name to not favour any of them, but you'll easily find them looking at our SVG flag collection.--- Darwin Ahoy! 20:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, this is my attempt at that flag: File:Somali Region.svg. I managed to extract a good svg image of a camel from one seal, and used what seemed to be a more common size for those flags, at least looking at the best svgs. I used the camel proper and not argent, since that was the first version of the flag, apparently, which was widely in use at wiki-en. Possibly the colours of the flag and the camel would have to be corrected in the future if an image or description appears, but for now I believe that would do the trick.--- Darwin Ahoy! 06:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Category structure creation

I've split Commons:Category structure out of Commons:Categories to help clarify what's going on; that page was a mess (it confused me; I can only imagine how a newcomer would feel). At Commons:Category structure everything except "Overview" is simply split from Commons:Categories. Post-split Commons:Categories looks like this. However the change was reverted by Docu, so here it is as a proposal:

Rd232 (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This splitting rationalisation would be a first step to clarifying some of these categorisation/naming issues, if not now, then one day. Besides Commons:Rename a category there is for instance Commons:File naming as well as Commons:Naming categories and Commons:By location category scheme. (The latter two "rejected" according to the header of Commons:Categories_for_discussion, though they're still tagged as proposed.) And Commons:Sorting of categories named after people, Commons:Only use category redirects where necessary and Commons:User categories. Rd232 (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Cat-a-lot bugged again?

Is it only me, or the cat-a-lot gadget seems to be bugged again? It seems to be still working, but is now located in the lower left corner, with a very small type, and the selected files are no longer marked in green. In fact it is so small now that I only found that it was still there by casualty.--- Darwin Ahoy! 01:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Can an admin revert the last (broken) edit to the js script, see MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js#Cat-a-lot_in_non-existing_category. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it a problem with Commons? --  Docu  at 08:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki links on original wiki

Is there a template that will spawn an interwiki link if the link is on a different project, but a local link otherwise? I'm trying to consolidate my user pages, and the interwiki and local links only work sometimes. SharkD  Talk  10:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You can use something like {{#ifexist:This may not exist|[[This may not exist]]|[[:en:Main page]]}} to link to the local page This may not exist if it exists (and the English Wikipedia main page if it does not). The ifexist parser function cannot be used to check for the existence of pages on other projects, though, and as far as I know, no such function exists. LX (talk, contribs) 11:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Let me test it out. Village pump and en:Makinti Napanangka. Seems to work, thanks! SharkD  Talk  18:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there's a problem: I want the link to always point to the same place even if an article with that name exists on both projects. I.e. I may want the link to only point to the Village pump here and never the one on Wikipedia (or vise versa), despite the fact that both projects have such a page. And I want to be able to use the same code on both my user pages (the point of all this discussion if I wasn't sufficiently clear). SharkD  Talk  18:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Let me try something different then by doing the opposite and trying to link to the Village pump on Wikipedia. Village pump. Sadly doesn't work for the reason you described. SharkD  Talk  18:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Red Sonja.jpg

Hi, I am unfamiliar with WikiCommons. Using Flinfo, I have just uploaded File:Red Sonja.jpg, a pic of a female Red Sonja cosplayer, and I want to use it in the Red Sonja Wikipedia article. Can the image be used directly, or must the face of the woman be made anonymous (=> insert black bar over eyes), or what is to be done? Help is appreciated. X2000 (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If the picture can be used at all, it can be used without anonymizing the subject. However, I caution you that cosplay is not usually considered a suitable subject for illustration in the article about the character depicted -- unless there is a significant section of the article that talks specifically about cosplay. Powers (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Good semi-generic "brass bikini" outfit, not sure it has specific Wikipedia usefulness... AnonMoos (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe the person's identity needs to be blocked out, since the costumer seems to be at a public event where she expects to be photographed in the outfit. As to the question of whether it would be a good idea to illustrate the article with this photo, you might wish to start a discussion on the article talk page and ask for feedback from others interested in the article's subject. Infrogmation (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

June 10

Category namespace editnotice

I've adapted the category namespace editnotice from English Wikipedia, placing it at Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Category. However Commons doesn't seem to use en.wp's editnotice system (involving en:template:editnotice load), so this would need to be moved to MediaWiki:Editnotice-14, assuming we don't want to adopt the en.wp editnotice loader. [Superseded. See Proposal below.] The message should also be internationalised appropriately, using {{mld}} I think. Rd232 (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the current editnotice even if you didn't seem to have noticed it. --  Docu  at 19:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The additional doesn't replace the current editnotice, which is only shown when the page doesn't exist. Rd232 (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I figured out there is a current editnotice (which I did miss somehow... it's not the most visible editnotice I've ever seen), by creating Commons:Editnotice and tracking down Commons:Categories/editnotice. The latter had no documentation, so I created some, which turned up that one of the four links is actually non-existent: Commons:Categories/editintro/institution doesn't exist. Rd232 (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


The category editnotice currently only displays when the category page does not exist. Proposal: make the following appear when the page does exist:

To implement, all that needs doing is reverting this edit. Rd232 (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this trying to fix a problem you perceived at Commons or simply an attempt to copy from en_wiki? In the first case, we might want to look in detail where you perceived this and how it happens. --  Docu  at 20:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The en.wp editnotice was created following this discussion. Is there any reason the same need does not arise on Commons? Rd232 (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, it's just an attempt to copy then. Apparently the need doesn't seem to arise as you don't seem to perceive it. --  Docu  at 21:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence is untrue; I deduce the same need arises here, because I see no reason why it shouldn't. And if anything, the multilingual nature of Commons makes the need for clear and simple instructions to hand exactly where they may be needed greater, because non-English speakers may have difficulty navigating the help system, which isn't great in English and may barely exist in their language. The second sentence is English, but I can't decipher it. Rd232 (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
You are trying to fix a problem at Commons that exists at English Wikipedia, not a problem you actually noticed at Commons. --  Docu  at 21:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The problem no longer exists at English Wikipedia because the category namespace editnotice fixes it (as far as it can be). You've yet to explain why the problem should not exist here, or why the solution would not work here - but I've given an argument why the solution would be more useful here, which you've ignored. You give every indication, so far in my exchanges with you today, of being in a "who moved my cheese?" mode of not being open to change. Rd232 (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Docu is being as helpful as in the section below this. Anyone else? Rd232 (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Please remain civil. You should at least attempt to demonstrate that your problem exists at Commons, otherswise the solution can't be "greater" or "more useful" here. --  Docu  at 22:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Telling people who are being civil to remain civil is generally not intended to increase levels of civility. Rd232 (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have an actual argument? By basic logic the problem identified and solved on en.wp ought to exist here (Commons doesn't have newcomers who don't know how to use categories?) and even be worse (non-English speakers need more and simpler help). And the solution would work just as well. Rd232 (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

"ought to exist" isn't an actual argument in favor of your proposal.
Your assumption that "non-English speakers need more [..] help" is (to put it mildly) slightly disrespectful towards non-English speaking users. --  Docu  at 06:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on my quick look, I don't see any problem with it, and believe it will be helpful. I don't follow that anti-wikipedia movement. If it does some good there, and will do some good here, then get 'er done! Rehman 15:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a question to decide on a pro-Wikipedia stance. Not sure where you got the idea of an "anti-Wikipedia" movement, but obviously we can't merely copy things from Wikipedia if we don't understand how Commons works. We already have sufficient problems due to the fact that MediaWiki is primarily made for text and not files.
The suggestion to use hot-cat is a good one, but it might be a better suggestion for file-namespace than for category-namespace. Then again, does it need to be displayed on each edit and even once Hotcat is activated? Obviously not. A simple solution could be to add it to Template:Welcome or to activate it by default for all users.
As for the other part, we haven't documented any need for it yet. Remember, Commons categories are primarily for images. This even if some only get to 11.65% of edits in File namespace on Commons. Very odd if you think about it. And yes, we do give a basic explanation to users how to add images to categories. Works BTW. --  Docu  at 06:16, 2011 June 19 GMT

who owns the copyright of a photo in a science journal article (scientist or journal)?

I am interested in the photo of F and air in this 1987 Journal of Fluorine article:

I corresponded with first author to get permission but he said he "thought Elsevier would have copyright". Question I have is what is the usual status? Does the author retain copyright and give usage to journal or does journal own it now, and perhaps could technically even prevent author from re-using? I guess I'm interested both in how to check the specifics as well as general situation.

P.s. I did ask the fellow for non-published photos, but he doesn't have any.

P.s.s. And what is the norm in this you need all the authors releases or just the phototaker or the first author? How do people manage this?

TCO (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK copyright in academic journals almost always resides with the publisher, as a condition of publication. But I am not a copyright expert. Rd232 (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Rd232. I'd say you can only accept a copyright statement from the author if you find affirmative evidence that the publisher does not assert copyright to the article (a statement to that effect in an issue or an email from the publisher). Otherwise, I'd assume they own copyright to the article.--Chaser (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
But "the article" is a different thing from a photo in the article no? And it certainly seems in practice, that people re-use images (if they are the authors) from article to article. No? (Maybe I'm just whinking cause I don't like the answer. I guess I could contact Elevier?) TCO (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Elsevier's Authors' rights page allows authors to prepare derivative works based on the article, which might possibly allow them to upload the photos here. (Specifically, authors have "the right to prepare other derivative works, to extend the journal article into book-length form, or to otherwise re-use portions or excerpts in other works, with full acknowledgement of its original publication in the journal.") Most of the restrictions set out on that page (e.g. against certain kinds of redistribution or commercial use) seem to apply only to the article as a whole. But it seems unclear whether this right would extend to further re-use by others, as required to upload the images here under a free license. I think clarification from Elsevier would be useful. --Avenue (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I will try to look into it. It seems like a general concern though. If we ask an academic for a photo (maybe on his website or blog) and he has ever published it, did he technically lose ownership of the copyright? In many cases, I bet an academic would not consider this. Also, I still wonder if the journal now really owns the figure copyright or if the right was just given to use it, by the original owner (the phototaker or figure drawer).TCO (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Reading between the lines of the Elsevier material suggests they do indeed ask authors to assign copyright to them. The ultimate authority would be the agreement signed by the authors (the photographer in particular). I think the situation here would be typical for journal-published material of this vintage. There has been some change recently, e.g. w:Public Library of Science. --Avenue (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I guess also, what about multiple authors? Is the "creating author" sufficient? Should we make sure that we get the right guy? TCO (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we should (assuming they still retain enough rights for our purposes). For a photograph, the photographer is the relevant person. --Avenue (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Vectorize image

Can anyone suggest a good way to vectorize the embedded images in this? Thanks! SharkD  Talk  04:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are there four versions of the image in PNG? With the current software is not needed, should not only maintained the highest quality? Metrónomo (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
There's two versions. And that is because the image is disputed on the relevant Wikipedia article. Still not what I'm wanting to know, though. SharkD  Talk  18:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Metrónomo (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Mix licenses?

Can I mix public domain images with images under different licenses to create derivatives? What licenses am I limited to? SharkD  Talk  06:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Public domain images and images licensed under Creative Commons Attribution, MIT, BSD, {{attribution}} or similar can be combined with any other free image.
If you use an image with copyleft requirements, such as Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike, GFDL, GPL or similar, the whole resulting work must be licensed under the same terms as the original and no other terms. This means that you can combine a CC-by-sa work with one or more PD works to create a CC-by-sa work, you can combine a GFDL work with one or more CC-by works to create a GFDL work, you can combine a GPL work with an MIT work and a BSD work to create a GPL work, and so on. However, you cannot combine a CC-by-sa work with a GFDL work, because the requirements to publish the resulting work under the same terms as the originals conflict.
Sometimes, authors give you a choice of licenses. For example, a work may be dual-licensed under your choice of CC-by-sa or GFDL. If you combine a CC-by-sa/GFDL dual-licensed work with a CC-by-sa-licensed work, you would choose to exercise your rights to the first work under the CC-by-sa license rather than the GFDL in order to be able to combine it with the second to produce a CC-by-sa licensed work. LX (talk, contribs) 10:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Would you be willing to create a flow chart showing which of these combinations are workable? I think it would be useful for the project, and IMO should be displayed somewhere prominently. It's confusing and really needs a graphical chart. SharkD  Talk  18:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
If you just go ahead and use Lupo's derivativeFX, it will present the licence options available to you for any given work, if any. Jarry1250 (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


Some time ago I noticed that HotCAT not remove the local version of {{Uncategorized}} when you insert a category, I think the line of code that regulates this is not ready to recognize the template interwikis. If you do this, the template works is (only), but ideally exploited the MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js/local defaults each Wikipedia. What do you think? Metrónomo (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

June 12

losing my "sound virginity"

This is my first time adding a sound file. File:Myrrha Gavotte 3.mid

Please examine and clean up the description or let me know if anything else needed for permissions, etc. (don't want it getting yanked for me not having a link to the sheet music or something).

Also, if you follow the link, there is an nwc file (can we upload that as well? Put two files into one file? Donno what that is even...

THANKS! (I r sound newbie!)

TCO (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I believe all sound clips have to be converted to OGG format (freeware Audacity does it fine). I, for one, can't even get started on figuring out how to play your midi file, in-article or at the description page. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 03:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
No, MIDI has a completely different purpose and functionality to ordinary audio files; think of MIDI as "SVG" to OGG as "JPEG". Windows Media Player and WinAmp play MIDI files (among many other applications). AnonMoos (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you check your own transferred files?

Recently moved some files from en.WP here and they have templates saying they need to be reviewed. Can a user check files he/she has uploaded? Thanks, We hope (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I had the same doubt as well in the beginning. If you know how to do it, you can (and should) check your own files.--- Darwin Ahoy! 06:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Will do-thanks! We hope (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Voting is about to close

It is currently 10:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC) , voting closes at 23:59 UTC, so just hours after this post. If you want to vote, please do so. Additionally, there's been an on-going discussion about a recommendation for voting to be extended to give people more time, opinions welcome. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

how about a setting to look at all the images in a category (including subcats)?

I get sick of clicking on all the subcats and sometimes we have very fine subcatting going on (very small amounts of images).

I'm trying to write articles and I come here to find images to illustrate them. If I can scan a page in thumbnail view, than that is easier for me.TCO (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a "Show slideshow" gadget that sort of do that for the current gallery, though I rarely use it. For the subcats maybe you could twingle with the various catscans to see what they vomit. I'm yet to explore those tools, though I suspect they may do what you want (sort of).--- Darwin Ahoy! 14:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

June 13


I would like to have a new version of File:Internet-news-reader.svg with the Galician (gl) translation of "NEWS" being "NOVAS". Is it possible? I do not manage myself with Inkscape at all so I would appreciate your help. Thanks! --Toliño Fala aquí comigo 13:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done: File:120px-Internet-news-reader svg-gl.png! --Toliño Fala aquí comigo 14:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
There is also Commons:Graphic Lab for this type of requests. --ELEKHHT 22:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A question: better "in" or "of"?

Sorry form my poor english: in Commons we have a Category:Canals by country and a Category:Rivers by country but the subcategories are Category:Canals in Italy and Category:Rivers of Italy: I think must conform. Thanks for yours attention :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Man-made structures generally use "in" and natural features "of", e.g. Category:Reservoirs in Italy, but Category:Lakes of Italy. "Canals in Italy" and "Rivers of Italy" would be consistent with that. --  Docu  at 11:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there any reason for this rule of thumb? Reservoirs of Italy and Lakes in Italy sounds perfectly fine to me. I generally prefer "of" in category names, but might be hard press to be able to tell why. --Jarekt (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Is an English language issue. Most natives will acknowledge, but will be hard pressed to tell you why. --Foroa (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I don't understand very well but ask you a pray: delete one of Category:Canals in Italy and Category:Canals of Italy, the one as think you better. :-)))--Threecharlie (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the one that is not used should be kept as a redirect. It is very irritating to me, as a non-native English speaker, to have to guess between the "ins" and "ofs" (and between "froms" and "ofs" as well).--- Darwin Ahoy! 21:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • An horrendous example of this kind of categorization: Category:Paintings of Italy, Category:Paintings in Italy, Category:Paintings from Italy. I understand quite well the difference between the paintings that are physically in Italy ("in") and those who were made by Italian painters ("from"), but why those two categories are listed under "Paintings of Italy" is a complete mystery, aggravated by the twisting in the "from" category, which is not actually about "paintings from Italy", but rather "Paintings that were created or found in Italy but now are preserved elsewhere". This is a terrible, awful way of classifying something. Fortunately, until now at least, the Italian bad example doesn't seem to be much widespread.--- Darwin Ahoy! 21:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, how I can continue my work? Which I must use, "in" or "of"?--Threecharlie (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Specifically Category:Canals of Italy by name must be move at Category:Canals in Italy by name?--Threecharlie (talk) 09:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

please advise on using an en-WP image in a Featured Article

Yes, I know it does not concern Commons, but this is the place for permissions gurus. The question is if this image ( needs a release or not. It is a very nice image to show industrial use of fluorine and is adorning the fluorine article (, which is in Featured Article Candidacy. The question is, does the company that is depicted have to give a release (or is just the photograph permissions OK). Thanks in advance, go Wiki! TCO (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be confident that the only intellectual property rights here are to the photo itself. The room depicted is utilitarian, not artistic, so there would not be the intrinsic copyright that would exist if it were a sculpture. - Jmabel ! talk 05:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
On the description page, the author information for the photo reads: "F2 Chemicals Ltd (AK Joel)". If you assume that that information is correct and means that the copyright on the photo was owned by the company F2 Chemicals Ltd, then the photo must have been freely released by that company because the company owned the copyright on the photo (not because its premises are depicted). The contents of the author and source fields may seem to imply that the uploader F2Andy may have taken the photo for the company and acknowledges that the copyright was owned by the company. Then, the uploader F2Andy's declaration that he released the photo into the public domain implies that he was officially authorized to express that decision of the company. This kind of situation normally requires a direct communication from the company, through OTRS, to confirm either that the photo was released in the public domain or that User:F2Andy on the English-language Wikipedia was speaking the name of the company. A first step, which I see you have taken, could be to ask the uploader what was the actual relation between company, photographer and uploader. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The uploader is not around any more and my take on it is that the fellow took the photo and so it is his creation and uploaded it. But, I guess if he was taking pics on company time, does that mean he was an agent of the company and they own it? I need to figure it out as it may screw up an FA. I really would appreciate more input on the specifics of the upload and if you think the image is free or not.TCO (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that, in common usage, a credit worded in the style of "F2 Chemicals Ltd (AK Joel)" strongly suggests that the copyright is owned by the company, and then the name in the brackets adds an information about the photographer. Beyond that, we can only guess. If you really need to know more, maybe you could contact the company [14]. Also, a seach on the web shows results dating from many years with the name of an "andy.joel" associated with the rest of that company's address. With a little luck, that could be your uploader/photographer and he may still work there. And if you put name + company, that might give you a possible address to try to reach him, if you want. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. I got that and am already reaching out to F2. That said, is the wording right now in the image file sufficient permission or not?

Commons:Category structure amendment - take 2

I'd like to add the following to Commons:Category structure. The objective is to provide a default category structure which works reasonably well, and is often being used informally anyway, and to deviate from it when there's a good reason. Formalising this also makes it possible to clarify what good reason for deviation might be. Overall, it should help make category use a little easier for the average user.

  • Category names should generally be in English, and in general should adopt the same naming convention as English Wikipedia. Deviations from this should generally take the form of an agreed subject-specific category scheme or annotation in Commons:Category structure. One obvious case is where collisions with other languages arise.
  • Eponymous categories (categories named for specific people or institutions) should use the native name and spelling if that is Latin alphabet, with a category redirect from the standard English translation. (This does not include place names, which should be in English if a common English term exists.) If the English translation is used as the category name, the native name should be a category redirect. Any subcategories should be consistent with the main category name, and should not use cross-language category redirects.
  • Except for eponymous categories, cross-language category redirects should not be used (except where the category name is not English, in which case a redirect from the English should be used). Instead, link to the category from the relevant page(s) in the different language versions of Wikipedia, and use {{mld}} on the category page to provide a non-English description.

I should make it clear that the text above is just a starting point for discussion; I'm interested in the basic idea of making the category structure clearer, and this (along with the proposal above to split Commons:Category structure out of Commons:Categories) would be a start. (For instance, there's no Commons:Disambiguation. Am I missing something?) PS I'm aware of Commons:Naming categories, but that seems partly duplicative of the existing Commons:Categories text on the subject, plus some vagaries; and seems a failed proposal at this point. Rd232 (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Rd232, I know your intentions are the best, but personally I'm very wary of any attempt to redesign the category tree from scratch, and to implement excessively strict naming rules, even more if they are based in a particular Wikipedia. I came from the Portuguese Wikipedia, where there is constant bickering and fight over categorisation and category names. I understand that the same also occurs in the English Wikipedia. My experience here is that, to the moment, we have mostly been spared such fights, which is quite extraordinary, given that maybe 90% or more of the editions here are categorization or something related to it. I believe this happens due to cat naming here being much more relative and liberal than it is in the wikipedias. I couldn't care less if it is Ganesh or Ganesha, if it is Burma or Myanmar, given that it is reasonably easy to find the proper category with the content I want in the tree. There are many problems here, obviously (see my comments in a related thread above, or instance), but I don't believe that making ourselves hostages to the English Wikipedia designations would help. Most probably, it would bring here the unwanted fights that happen there all the time over those issues. The English Wikipedia is very good for reference and guidance, but we have our own system here ("Painters of Italy" instead of "Italian painters", e.g.), and it has been minimally functional with our multicultural community. IMO it would be much more productive if you chose a particular problem you have found in our categorization system, as Docu suggested, than attempt to rewrite everything from scratch.--- Darwin Ahoy! 23:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, even if people generally agree with that, there is the issue of the second and third points in the proposal. Rd232 (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Second point is a very complex question, for which I have no answer except "It depends". It has to be seen in a case per case basis, and discussed if necessary. For instance, it would have no foreseeable advantage, and would be actually counter-productive, to name the category of the Latvian National Museum of Art by its native name, Latvijas Nacionālais mākslas muzejs. It the case of such a renowned institution with a well established English name (extensively used in their website intermixed with Latvian) it would make no sense to force everyone but a Latvian to decipher the museums name. IMO, even "Kolkata" should have remained Calcutta, since I believe the latter is much more recognisable internationally than the name the city currently bears. On the other hand, what has no established translation should remain in its native form, and all attempts to transform the "Igrejinha de Santo Antão" into the awkward English version invented by some wikipedian "Saint Anthony the Great Little Church" should be mercilessly reverted.
About the redirects, it also depends. There are many things that are widely known by designations that are not native nor English, and those cases should be kept at least as a redirect. Colonial designations of places, gods, objects which are occasionally used by foreign designations even in Anglo-Saxon countries, etc. It really depends.
From what I've seen here, generally people use as a rule of thumb to check the English Wikipedia designation and use it as reference, but it's not something rigid. About two days ago I created Category:Nandankanan Zoological Park with a different name than the Nandankanan zoo that can be seen in the English wiki, and I did that on purpose and after consulting the wiki-en article, for the name of that article looks excessively informal. It's a matter of personal decision most of the time. Though generally they are based on wiki-en, making it a strict rule would only bring unwanted problems and fights. We usually make our decisions, and if someone disagrees we discuss and reach a consensus generally based on logic and facts, and not on some strict written law.--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Those are perfectly sensible thoughts, and you know what, I should have taken my own advice and relied on the en.wp precedent, where endless debates have settled a lot of this reasonably satisfactorily. Take a look at en:Wikipedia:Article_titles#Foreign_names_and_anglicization - it seems to cover the issues you raised better than my proposal above. So why not just adopt this as some sort of "default" or "weak guideline" status? It can be written down as clearly as anyone could want that people can do their own thing if they have some good reason to. But in the frequent case where people are just not sure what to do, why not use a set of guidelines that's ready-made? Rd232 (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I must say that I very much agree with you when you said above that the current category help page is a total mess or whatever you called it. It has never been of any help to me, and I always relied on established usage rather than deciphering what is written there, so I generally ignore it. I agree that it should probably be revamped, especially after a small confront I had one or two days ago with an user which obstinately used the COM:Categories link in the edition summary to do some frankly incorrect categorization. Apparently he found a justification for the editions he was doing there, though I never managed to understand where it was in order to correct, or at least discuss that supposed guideline. About en:Wikipedia:Article_titles#Foreign_names_and_anglicization and other useful recommendations from wiki-en, perhaps it would not be necessary to port them here, but simply link to the wiki-en version, no?--- Darwin Ahoy! 03:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Well if you support the split please go to that section and say so :) . I've just seen that the header of Commons:Categories for discussion actually points to en:Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories) as guidance. (Besides declaring Commons:Naming categories and Commons:By location category scheme as "rejected", though the pages are still tagged "draft".) It seems my proposal is kinda-sorta accepted already - it's just the policies and guidelines are all over the place! I told you I was ill I told you it was a mess! Well, anyway, yes, I don't think there's a desperate need to import the en.wp guidelines in order to generally declare here "they're useful and we should use them unless there's some particular reason not to". Exactly like a default setting, if you will. But the various guidance that there currently is badly needs cleaning up, and then something resembling a summary of the "en.wp as default setting" added. Rd232 (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I never used that help page because it was too confuse, and I don't care much about it, since now I'm already quite used to the system, but as I said it should probably be revamped. Newbies are often very confuse with the categorisation, and I pity them each time I point them to that page. I'm not interested in actively changing it, but if a discussion on it gets started, I'll try to follow it.--- Darwin Ahoy! 06:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I have little time right now. But a first clarification needed is: with your reference to en:wikipedia names, do you mean en:wiki category names (and is there a specific category naming rule ?) ? Some wikipedia article names change several times per month because article name changes have almost no implications with working redirects. This frequent changes are not acceptable for categories that have sub category trees.

Secondly, Commons has more than twice as much categories as En:Wiki, within a couple of years, we will have 4 to 10 times more categories. I noticed that in several cases, en:wiki evolved to a naming system that resembles Commons because we tend to be a bit more systematical and scalable. A chicken and the egg problem. --Foroa (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

  1. The CFD header points to en:Wikipedia:Category names, which in turn relies also somewhat on "standard article naming conventions", as the intro of that says. There are also subsets, such as en:Wikipedia:Categorization of people and en:Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, which relate particularly to the WMF's BLP resolution. Living Persons issues are a particular gap in Commons categorisation guidance; Commons:Living persons may be a poor draft, but the WMF's BLP resolution applies to Commons as well, and en.wp has spent lots of time and effort refining how to handle BLP issues as regards categorisation of living persons.
  2. Where Commons has a better approach than en.wp, well I'd expect that to be documentable/explainable [we probably wouldn't be having this conversation if Commons naming guidelines were as clear and well-organised as en.wp's], and I'd also argue that in such cases attempts should be made to adapt en.wp's category naming. I'm not sure whether whatever you exactly mean by "more systematic and scalable" necessarily ends up contradicting the existing en.wp guidelines. If not, it's simply a question of organising en.wp category renaming in the usual en.wp way; or else to try to amend the existing en.wp guidelines in the usual consensus way, with an explanation of why the Commons approach is better.
  3. Finally, you are correct that en.wp article names sometimes change frequently (since articles can be moved easily), but this is not true of categories, which generally require a en:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion discussion or (if seemingly a non-controversial category rename) centralised listing. In any case, a little language to emphasise that stability of category names matters can be created, to say, for example, that Commons categories primarily try to match en.wp category naming not article naming, and the renaming of related articles on en.wp should not immediately be followed by category renaming on Commons. Instead, wait for the relevant en.wp category to be renamed (if one exists), or give a reasonable delay, taking into account strength of consensus for the article rename. That sort of thing.
The bottom line for me is this: it makes no sense to me for English Wikipedia's category naming and Commons' English-based category naming (per Commons:Language policy) to provide different naming schemes without some actual reason. If there's a reason for en.wp and Commons to differ, fine (though as I noted above, alignment may go either way, if one has a better system). Otherwise, it's just haphazard differences which cause unnecessary confusion. Using en.wp schema as a default arises both because en.wp's (topic) categorisation is usually more comprehensive, and certainly its category guidelines are clearer and more comprehensive and don't obviously contradict Commons practice. I realise following en.wp is a tough pill for Commons to swallow, but (a) it's happening anyway and (b) formalising it (as a loose "default setting" link, not some sort of strict dominance) encourages clarifying and standardising deviations from the en.wp practice, which by and large looks very similar. Because it's all so unclear, people may well be following en.wp practice when they shouldn't be. Rd232 (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
It's a matter of available resources. Commons doesn't have resources to maintain any strict naming scheme. There are volunteers who enforce and maintain categorization in their own fields of interest, but each of them does it independently. Discussions at COM:CFD drag for centuries. Categorization evolves organically ("haphazard differences") - it's the only way possible. Declaring cat schema is simple, maintenance is impossible.
"en.wp's (topic) categorisation is usually more comprehensive" - this may be true for categorizing topics (subjects) only, and only those that matter inside English language encyclopedia. But commons is not an encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia's media pool, but a media pool for everyone. That's why there are un-encyclopedic categories "by visual appearance" (i.e. Category:Men facing left and looking right). They (imo) should be orthogonal to by-subject tree, but right now they are weaved into it. A schema developed inside an encyclopedia cannot realistically integrate such un-encyclopedic things. NVO (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I thought it was obvious that those types of category should be treated separately. There's little current guidance for those either, but that's a separate issue, really. As to "Declaring cat schema is simple, maintenance is impossible." - how so? By using en.wp's topic schema, we have a ready-made guide which doesn't require maintenance. Making everything respect that guide is a strictness that's neither necessary nor desirable (not sure it's impossible...), but at least if there's a guide, there's slightly more standardisation, and hopefully a better understanding of why in some cases the guide isn't helpful. I also think it's worth emphasising that rejecting the core idea of using en.wp topic categories as a guide has King Canute-like qualities: people are already doing that and the CFD header states that. Better to be clear about it in a written guideline, not least because in doing so you can then evolve clarity about exceptions or structural differences. Rd232 (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
"we have a ready-made guide which doesn't require maintenance" - very well. There's a perfect system and 10,336,403 imperfect files that must be squeezed into it. Any volunteers? And if not, what's the point? NVO (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
"Any volunteers?" - if there are no volunteers, Commons is shut down. If there are, they can be encouraged to use the guidance. No-one can force anything, it's a volunteer project. Rd232 (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it is ignorance, lack of experience or arrogance, but commons is much more different from en:wikipedia than you might think. De facto, Commons tends to follow the en:wikipedia unless there are very good reasons, which they are. I guesstimate

  • In terms of topic names, 80 to 90 % are identical,
  • In terms of category naming structures, luckily only 30 % is identical to En:wikipedia, we don't need such erroneous structures such as en:Category:American people by occupation, En:Category:People by nationality or the thousands of non scalable structures.
  • In terms of disambiguation notation, only part is following the en:wikipedia, the others are following their main wikipedia notation: this has basically nothing to do with en:wikipedia.

Anyway, Commons is a hard working community, why you will have little response on such unrealistic proposals, knowing that VP discussions will disappear in one or two week time in a discrete archive. --Foroa (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"De facto, Commons tends to follow the en:wikipedia unless there are very good reasons" - but that's not written down anywhere clearly, and nor are the good reasons. In fact category structure is hardly described at all, which is obviously unhelpful in a number of ways. It's perhaps less obvious to people who know the category structure by heart, but still. Rd232 (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
That's correct, but if you want to instate a stronger emphasis on en:wiki naming, you have to specify at the same time the exception rules. There are a number of Category:Commons category schemes, but they are hardly maintained and probably even less read; it is not easy nor natural to maintain category documentation. Considering that people created last month about 47000 categories and only a small percentage will be deleted or renamed, it seems clear that a good existing structure is more efficient than all sorts of rules. As stated above, category trees seem to grow organically, most CFD's grow or age away, disagreements disappear under the dust.
Just to give an example: it took me 3 months of negotiations with people of the Category:Basque Country to find a political acceptable category and naming scheme, and since then, the place with endless edit wars have turned quiet for years. Compare that to en:Gipuzkoa or other Basque items. This type of conflicts arise everywhere where one has several ethnic groups and languages in one area, and there are many more than you would think. No way to catch that in rules I think.
--Foroa (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I suppose I can accept that, but then even writing down something along the lines of what you said would be helpful; even this would be a useful form of guidance. Incidentally, what do you think of the split of Commons:Categories I proposed above? Rd232 (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
On Eponymous categories, I am sitting in the middle and I don't always feel comfortable with it. To me, one of the biggest added values of Commons is that all sorts of information are piled up in several places and countries, and finally come all together. An example could be category:Jacques Cartier, but it is only in the beginning. So my priority in naming is that the significant part of the names remain identifiable. Problem is that I am not very good placed to judge as I can find my way in most Western languages, so I tend to be tolerant for Romance and Germanic languages, while central Europe and further become problematic as key words are no longer recognisable to me. --Foroa (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

MLD bot

Could there be a bot which uses the interwiki links to populate {{mld}}, for languages that don't have mld entries on that page? That would make things less confusing particularly for non-English speakers (since the category names are usually English). User:Emijrpbot seems the most plausible for taking on the task. Good idea? Rd232 (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea indeed, especially since interwiki's are not extracted for the search index database and it takes easily 10 to 15 minutes of work to format a proper MLD. Note that when I make multi-language descriptions, I put first the description in English and then in the local language(s) as a reference, so we can visually check translations. See dusty link here. --Foroa (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

June 11

Animated SVG

I'm trying to upload an SVG image with JavaScript animation, but the uploader keeps saying the image is corrupt. Are animated SVG images not allowed? SharkD  Talk  04:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Scripted SVG is not allowed. Animated SVG images using SMIL are allowed. Note that SVG animations will not work in articles. For some mysterious reason, we still insist on converting all vector graphics to raster graphics before serving up pages. This is apparently done as a service to a small number of users who cling to extremely antiquated web browsers – to the detriment of everyone else (since this behaviour cannot be turned off in one's preferences). LX (talk, contribs) 11:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
They can't be called "extremely antiquated" when they were used by significant numbers of people browsing the web as recently as two years ago (or less). Furthermore, there are practical problems: it's often difficult enough to get an SVG file displaying correctly just in RSVG -- imagine how tedious it could be if you had to get it to display correctly in a number of external software programs simultaneously.... AnonMoos (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
It's feasible that an animated SVG could be converted to GIF. Simply capture a frame at a set interval (determined by the image author ideally), then bundle the collection of frames in a GIF animation. This might produce very large raster images however since people tend to make SVG images quite large. That said, I've created a handful of SMIL and scripted animations and they all look more or less the same in Firefox, Chrome, Opera and IE (with a plugin installed granted...). SharkD  Talk  18:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Adobe has discontinued further development on the SVG plugin, and of course it's not open source, so it would be unwise to rely on it indefinitely into the future... AnonMoos (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories of France

Sorry if I do not understand what I'm saying, I will be simple and brief as I am using a machine translator. I just noticed that there are trees following categories: Category:Categories of France by region, Category:Categories of France by department and Category:Categories of France by city. If I'm not mistaken, all French departments belong to one region and all the cities belong to any department. If I start in a category by region, then pass by the departments and finally by the cities. In the category tree, each appear twice or thrice repeated. The categories by cities are in the categories by departments and categories by region. For example, Category:Sundials in France => Category:Sundials in France by region => Category:Sundials in Alsace => Category:Sundials in Bas-Rhin while Category:Sundials in France => Category:Sundials in France by department => Category:Sundials in Bas-Rhin. This is not strictly speaking overcategorization (Does it?), but becomes more elaborate the category tree and doesn't add a great benefit. Is really needed this threefold categorization? Metrónomo (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, as "by country" and "by continent" categorisation, we have plenty of parallel structures and overcats, but sometimes this seems to make sense, just because the country is organised like that I guess. --Foroa (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I also believe it makes sense, and that "overcategorization" had proved to be very useful to me in many occasions. There are many roads that lead to Rome. If you know that Bas-Rhin is in Alsace, it's easy to find it in the region category, but you may only have the department name, and in that case the "by department" is the way to go. Fears of "overcategorization" should not be user to hinder and harden the usability of the category tree.--- Darwin Ahoy! 15:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
For most of the things that are categorized by department, by region or even by continent categories are generally not of much use. --  Docu  at 15:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Can you explain it better, Docu? I use those categories a lot.--- Darwin Ahoy! 15:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I think one would use Category:Sundials in France by department rather than Category:Sundials in Europe. --  Docu  at 16:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I do not recall ever using a continent category (actually I do recall one time, but not the context), so I guess you are generally right. However, they are useful in some cases. Take the sundials example: You may need to find a sundial from Africa, or to compare between sundials in a certain region of Africa, to find cultural links, etc. I expect that those images would be quite rare, so you'll be forced to wade your way through the unsorted sundials to see if there is one there. It also happens that such rare items end up in single-items categories, needlessly: Category:Sundials in Egypt is one of those cases. It would be much more practical and useful to create a continent category to group those items.
Regions of France: It often happens that you have something identified as "Village in Alsace". But in the village you see a peculiar castle, which can be used to identify the place. You can then limit your search to the castles in that region, to see if you find a match.
As a whole, I find the tendency to strip images from useful categories and bury them deep in some obscure corner of Commons much more damaging than overcategorization. A few days ago I was so irritated with it that I even wrote a little essay ranting about it. It is very annoying when you spend time organizing something into a scheme that you deem to be logically useful to find the wanted files, and then someone comes in and destroys everything claiming its "overcategorization".--- Darwin Ahoy! 16:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I understand that. I recently happened on a user devoted much time to organize the flora and fauna by country and then the consensus was that it was overcategorization. It is more productive to use the correct standard for each case. In the case of the flora and fauna should use a political one biogeographical approaches. The same happens in the example, there are many sundials to apply the general rule, this classification can be meaningful in some cases, as you say, but the idea shouldn't be generalized. Sometimes users believe that the best thing is that all ratings are by regions, department and cities. When perhaps in this case is overcategorization and not in another. My common sense tells me: Do not generalize, learn to discriminate in each case what is best. Metrónomo (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
That's exactly how I view it as well. Some people tend to build extremely complicated category trees which, while appealing to logic due to the repetition of the same basic concept, are completely useless at best, and plainly damaging at worst, if there are only a couple of images to classify. Elaborated categorization must come with quantity (and thus, necessity).--- Darwin Ahoy! 06:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
One could argue that categorizing sundials by location isn't needed. It's more important to categorize them by type or any other subcategory of Sundials than Sundials by country. The main advantage of Sundials by country is that it helps you find files for the other subcategories .. --  Docu  at 07:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
It is generally important to place the file inside some location category, so that it can be reached in connection to that location if needed. However, I do entirely agree that "sundials by location" is much less important than anything else, and should be at the bottom in the priority list. And when you start having to wade through uncountable "by location" subcats to find material to place into the real important categories (types of sundials, for instance), they are already more of a problem than a solution. Unfortunately many people tend to chose the laziest path of categorising the obvious (a sundial in London) instead of making a little research to place the files into immensely more useful categories (date of sundial, type of sundial, material of sundial). This, allied with an uncritical wish to remove "overcategorization" - by blindly removing from the root category sundials not yet classified into useful categories, but already classified "by location" - can be quite damaging to the usefulness of the project. At the very least, its a permanent annoyance.--- Darwin Ahoy! 07:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Generally, CatScan2 can help with this, but it takes some time to figure it out and its output can't be processed easily either. BTW I rescued the "Ancient Egyptian" ones.
This reminds of a suggestion Saibo made the other day: a bot could simply copy files from one "by .." tree to all others (e.g. adding files from subcategories of Category:Sundials by country into Category:Sundials by type from where they could eventually be sorted further). --  Docu  at 08:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Such suggestion would possibly horrify some people here, but to me, frankly, it would be a bless. It's very annoying having to wade constantly in the most obscure corners of parallel category trees in order to place the files into the more meaningful and useful categories.--- Darwin Ahoy! 08:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
If there are combinations you are interested in and you would follow up on, I can run it for you on demand (here). One just needs to make sure that the subcategory structures are fairly clean. --  Docu  at 09:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, I will certainly make use of that offer in the near future. I've refrained from categorising the Portuguese CoA until now because they are almost entirely located into the location tree, and it's very boring to have to go there again and again, and that will really be of much help.--- Darwin Ahoy! 09:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe it would be of interest to this thread if I mention the last example of hideous categorization I've just found: Category:Houses in Brazil. It started well, with someone creating the categories for the various states and placing them at the root category. Then someone else came in, and probably thinking that it was too overcrowded, buried the states inside the Brazil regions, something I expect almost only a Brazilian would know, and possibly not even all of them. As it is now, unless you happen to casually know where the hell Piauí is placed in the map of Brazil, you have to open each region looking for it or consult in some source what is the correspondent region. IMO, this is a clear case where a parallel tree with the states should be made, though I have serious doubts if the region cat tree is of any usefulness here.--- Darwin Ahoy! 23:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

File pages

Following on from the category issues discussed up the page, there are also some file issues:

  1. Commons:File types isn't classed as guideline, or even policy. Commons:Project scope/Allowable file types is in Category:Commons policies, but lacks a {{policy}} tag.
  2. Commons:File renaming refers to the proposed Commons:File naming policy/guideline as if it were accepted
  3. Commons:Superseded images policy is a mess. It says on it "discontinued" (but is still marked policy and is in the policy category), but Commons:Deletion_policy#Redundant.2Fbad_quality suggests it isn't, and says "Be sure to read Commons talk:Superseded images policy".
  4. Commons:Stock.xchng images is in the policy category, but without a policy tag, and has a header in it "The text below is historical and may or may not be applicable anymore."

Fixed: Commons:Fair use not listed in {{Commons policies and guidelines}}, as part of a general cleanup and expansion of that. I've also added a third section in that template for key pages in Category:Commons licensing help, because quite often it seems fairly arbitrary whether licensing-related pages are policies, guidelines, or neither. Rd232 (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

3. The policy is that superseded images are no longer deleted in a speedy-like way. So "Deletion of superseded images has been discontinued". /Ö 19:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Similar questions:

  1. Why isn't Commons:Permission a guideline or policy? Should there be some attempt to move it forward?
  2. Commons:Username policy was provisionally rejected here and seems to have languished since. Should it be marked rejected?
  3. Various other members of Category:Commons proposed policies and guidelines which have been there a while. Speedy deletion policy is under discussion now, at least. Rd232 (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Fashion shows


Is the video of a fashion show (without sound, since I imagine there will be non free music) is authorized and interesting for Commons? Okki (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It should be interesting. If there aren't non-copyright restrictions, I think that there aren't other problems (see COM:IC#Clothing and Category:Fashion shows). Eventually, you should just add warning tags such {{Copydesign}} and {{Personality rights}}.--Trixt (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Clothing which is being worn by people is considered to be "functional" or "utilitarian" under United States copyright law, and photographs of people wearing clothing rarely cause copyright problems (when there are such problems, it's caused by something -- other than an ordinary decorative pattern -- which is printed on the clothing, not by the clothing itself). Furthermore, "Copydesign" in the realm of clothing does absolutely nothing to prevent the proliferation of ready-to-wear knock-offs of haute couture. So all systems are green for Okki to upload the file. AnonMoos (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


Opinions welcome on passing COM:CSD as official policy. Rehman 02:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That is "Criteria for speedy deletion" - the criteria for when files and pages should be deleted without any discussion. We have been discussing changes and clarifications for about a month, but it appears that there was not any site wide notification of this, so of course any further input is welcome too. --Tony Wills (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

SVG as PNG render bug

I could use help understanding this bug and forwarding the report upstream to the appropriate spot. This page renders incorrectly. Look at the "( xy,)". According to the SVG source, it should be "(x,y)". The image on the page is rendered as a PNG (which confused me when I submitted Bug 663353 to the Firefox Bugzilla because the page title made me think it was a SVG). Anyhow, I validated the SVG source and it passed. If I click on the image at the page in Firefox 3.6.17 for Linux, I do get to see the actual SGV image and it renders fine. So it appears that it's a bug in whatever module is generating the PNG image. 04:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

General hint: Our renderer does not render all svgs. That is known. See Commons:SVG and the links there (especially Commons:SVG_Check is very useful). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
First, formal XML syntactic correctness is a rather different thing from observed SVG working functionality. Second, the previously-uploaded version of File:LinearInterpolation.svg had "x" and "y" freely rattling around in the <text>...</text> element, while the parentheses and comma were within a <tspan>...</tspan>, which is considered poor style... AnonMoos (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the source, I find that the problem version had <text><tspan>(</tspan>x<tspan>,</tspan>y<tspan>)</tspan></text> while your updated version has just <text><tspan>(x,y)</tspan></text>. In the generating source, it is seen that the line set label 13 "(x,y)" at 1.55, 1.95 tc lt 3 produces the text and the string was treated as a whole. So GNUPLOT obviously does something that breaks up the string. Your edits are nice but as a GNUPLOT source code is generating the image, they are likely to be lost when somebody remakes the image. The old version may be poor style but is it an error? In other words should this SVG source be reported to the GNUPLOT folks as a bug? I don't know SVG hardly at all but I don't see how the order of the characters in the old source were changed. If the GNUPLOT code was not an error, it must be an error in the way Commons is generating the PNG image. Presumably all other GNUPLOT-made files can suffer from the same type of problems. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know whether it's a formal syntax error or not, but from a practical functional viewpoint it's kind of stupid, so it's hard to blame RSVG for doing something unexpected when faced with such strange input... AnonMoos (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
So the PNG images are created by RSVG here. Now I know the name of the second suspect. The browser seems to be able to render the "weird" SVG source okay, so perhaps RSVG should too. Eventually, this should be filed as a bug against either RSVG or GNUPLOT. I'm still gathering the necessarily basic info. Thanks. Jason Quinn (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Report to you: Emilia Romagna vs Emilia-Romagna

Report at yours attention the problem mentioned in User talk:R'n'B#Attention please! Emilia-Romagna, not Emilia Romagna. Thanks. :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No need to take this to his talk page. That's just a bot automagicly cleaning out redirect categories like Category:Emilia Romagna. There is no human involvement at all. I see that some of the subcategories don't use the the name with dash, you can tag these categories with {{Move}} to have them moved. Multichill (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons lacks images of sex acts

The other day, we shouted at sexual photographs. Commons is frequently thought to hold many images of sex, but looking more closely into this, one notices that we seem host primarily:

There are many sexual acts that could easily do with more choice of available images:

  • Doggy style (currently 42 images of which 3 are photos, and only one of those over 50kb)
  • Blowjobs (currently no images of men performing it, and only 8 photos of women performing what is quite possibly the most common two person sex act)
  • The Missionary Position (currently 1 photo)
  • Cowgirl position (currently 1 photo)

Category:Handjob seems to be primarily pixtures of mannequins.

So, if you come across additional images, feel free to add them to the relevant categories. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and sorry, forgot to mention this was a derivative work of Docu's topic, helpfully provided under CC-BY-SA-3.0. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
hehe, that was really funny ;) - Amada44  talk to me 12:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Lol! ;) Rehman 12:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I should point out that this is completely true. We do need more sex photos. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
... with Eiffel tower for backdrop. In broad daylight: no FOP in Paris at night. Sorry. Duralex. NVO (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Blow jobs are quite possibly "the most common two person sex act"? That may be true for the 15–19 age bracket, but not above that. --JN466 18:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
If I well recall, we had a reasonable assortment of those items before the Great Pogroms of May 2010, including men on men BJs and a lot of varied stuff which vanished. Perhaps it is time to revert some of those hasty deletions?
Though I'm not inclined to be myself the subject of such activities for the public joy (or disgust), I know it's easy to find a nice set of pre-1923 US released "vintage porn", which depicts many sex acts and positions, including all kinds of threesomes, as well as very interesting underwear fashion from the Belle Epoque, along with the great historical value. Such depictions are also usually so candid that many look more like demonstrations or enactments compared to the lusty things of more recent times. I could upload some of them, perhaps even videos, but I would only do it if they would be fairly safe from the puritan rage.--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
That's kind of my issue, we only have historical sex, not modern depictions. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Believe me, most things haven't changed that much in those 100 years. :) If anything, they became more "porny", which seems to be one of the things that most annoys the higher echelons.--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like some high quality images. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
There are actually many open venues, if there is genuine interest, besides the PD vintage images (which I still find of much interest). I recall the case of Category:Bruna Ferraz, which allowed, along with the photographer, a number of free licence images to Flickr, and there are many similar others. There seems to be an interest on the part of a number of porn stars to have their photos in Commons, certainly because it's a publicity stunt. I believe it wouldn't be that far-fetched to think that some of them would produce a number of good quality photos of whatever on demand and under free license, if someone takes interest in contacting them and provide a connection point. This provided, of course, that we want that stuff here, and that no god from above would come in hurling thunderbolts at those files for being potentially disturbing to some Peruvian child - Who, by the way, most probably understands and looks at dippity doo da as a natural act of Nature more than any "Western" child can dream of (and many adults as well).- Darwin Ahoy! 03:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with mattbuck. Today I struggled to identify a single Commons image to depict hardcore pornography, which is a very broad topic. We need more photos and drawings related to sex (for illustrating sex related topics) and more professional modern pornographic works as well (for illustrating pornography related topics). @Darwinius: Re the historic deletions of 2010, keep in mind that most were eventually undeleted, unless they had copyright issues or were low-quality redundant orphans. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I suggested a while ago that we could contact adult film companies and ask if they would be prepared to donate some files. That would avoid any problems related to age, personality rights, record keeping, etc. The potential downside is that it might trigger PR problems and a new wave of complaints that we are hosting porn. However, that has to be balanced against the very real risk that we get (and keep) amateur uploads of sex acts showing someone who has not consented to having their image released. It's happened before, and our possibilities to reliably verify consent (by e-mail!) are very limited. --JN466 18:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Today I went back to the intense message exchanging of early May 2010 in the WMF list, and noticed that even a WMF Board Member seemed to truly believe that porn companies were abusing the project to host their stuff. It was poor information and judgement from her part of course, but that myth seemed to be somewhat widespread at the time, possibly it still is. However, I do believe that active engagement between Commons users and companies interested to cooperate could lead to the production of high quality and encyclopaedic photographic (or video) depictions of various sex acts, and therefore provide the content we need without having to resort to dubious amateurish material. Many porn actresses and actors are actually good professionals who know how to do their stuff depending on the context. That is a project that could have some success, indeed. If it came to happen, possibly being completely open about it (even issuing a press release informing on the objectives of such cooperation, for instance) could help mitigate the PR problems. --- Darwin Ahoy! 20:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps float the idea in a post to the Foundation list. The idea has pros and cons; it would need very careful discussion. And perhaps it should wait until after the implementation of the personal image filter. --JN466 23:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
An alternative idea would be to contact university sexologists for image material. Probably more educationally appropriate. --JN466 23:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we need both, to serve the two separate categories of sexual images (depictions of sexual acts, and depictions of pornography). These are both notable topics in their own right. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation of locations

Hi everyone, we currently have two systems to do disambiguation for location categories:

  1. <location>, <higher location>: for example Category:Springfield, South Dakota
  2. <location> (<higher location>): for example Category:Beaumont (Haute-Savoie)

Having two systems is confusing. As the category names are in English and the first system is common in English I would like to make the first system the default. What do you think? Is this something we can reach consensus on? Multichill (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Tentative Symbol support vote.svg Support - In the Portuguese wiki we use the brackets for everything, but I do prefer the English system for locations, as it doesn't mix up with other disambiguations. Category:Calheta, Madeira (parish) is a good example were the two systems mix up. (The "parish" qualifier there is wrong and will have to be reverted back to "freguesia" when I have disposition for that, but that's another story).--- Darwin Ahoy! 14:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Tentative Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. The former system is common in the US and Canada, but not normally used in other English-speaking countries. It is appropriate for US and Canadian place names: it's not so much disambiguation as simply the normal way we write the names of any but our largest cities. However, I don't think it is appropriate as a general way to write place names. - Jmabel ! talk 15:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. I believe the first format is much more widely known, even to people who use brackets, or people outside North America. From what I see in Sri Lanka, the other side of North America, people use the first format. And it is more easily understandable than brackets. Rehman 16:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Makes sense to me. Even the second option has Beaumont, Haute-Savoie as its matching article name. – Adrignola talk 16:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
fr:Beaumont_(Haute-Savoie) matching article?? :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Touché. :P This whole thing may tie in nicely with above discussions as to whether category structure should be based on by default. – Adrignola talk 22:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I must confess that though I prefer the en:wiki model for locations for the reasons stated above, I rarely use it due to habit: Even after writing here I've created Category:Shanti Stupa (Dhauli). Old habits die hard. :-\ --- Darwin Ahoy! 22:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • A typical support pattern for a standard that moves in "their" direction.
  • I have been pushing this standardisation since several years, but I have been continuously reverted and never got any support on that. Now that about each country standardises the disambiguation in line with the wikipedia of their language, and since we have hardly any support to improve category moves and linked references (commons cat mover is dead since two weeks), I have no choice than to Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as I don't have the energy to rename the tens of thousands categories and their subcategories.
  • Anyway, this <location>, <higher location> standard is only followed partly (example :Category:Austin, Texas, Category:Manhattan, New York City and Category:Cities in the United States by decade), subcategories use very often complete different notations, which is a far more long term problem as they even don't respect their own notation. --Foroa (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. It's clearly a disambiguation issue, for which the general rule is to use an additional information in brackets. It should not be confused with location naming rules. Croquant (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for the nominator's reasons. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jmabel's and Croquant's reasons. A standard way of disambiguation are brackets. We can tolerate a traditional exception for US and Canadian placenames but it would be counterproductive to extend this speciality. --ŠJů (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do not see the advantage (renaming thousands of cats?!) of applying this unusual(!) style to non-US places. --Saibo (Δ) 02:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

When are US Government files, from wikileaks, appropropriate for upload here?

When are US Government files, from wikileaks, appropropriate for upload here? I think there are some contributors who would have reservations that these documents belong on the commons because the US government still considers the files to be under a secret classification. I think if the commons was active in the 1970s when the New York Times and the Washington Post published the "Pentagon Papers" then there would be no question we should have hosted those, and the same principle applies here.

I'd appreciate input on a couple of issues.

  1. Should files from the whistleblower site wikileaks be treated in the same manner as any other files?
  2. When should redirects be deleted? Should redirects that are in use be protected from speedy deletion?

On April 25th various newspapers started to republish approximately 750 formerly secret "detainee assessment briefs", prepared for and signed by the commandant of the Guantanamo interrogation camp, each containing recommendations about a single captive's future. I decided to upload these 750 or files, and about 250 images embedded in those files.

When I had uploaded a small fraction of those 1000 files a commons contributor made this nomination for deletion -- a flawed nomination I believe. Although I had fully addressed whatever sliver of validity there was in that nomination (the fixing of a small number of double redirects) an administrator nevertheless deleted all the files named in the nomination. This administrator has an ongoing pattern of not leaving any explanation in their closures, and they didn't explain this decision to delete in this closure.

I asked the administrator in question to offer a policy based explanation for the deletion, and I asked them to reconsider and restore the files. The administrator in question proved unwilling or unable to back up their decision with policy, or to bring a sufficiently open mind to my questions to consider the possibility they may have made a mistake.

What the administrator deleted, and was apparently unwilling to consider explaining, or consider the possibility they made a mistake, were redirects.

Naming these files has been complicated, because almost all of the individuals have Arabic, Pashtun, Persian or Turkish names, and those names can be transliterated into English multiple ways, and, for most of the individuals, the Guantanamo staff have shown a very surprising inability to pick one single name to unambiguously identify them.

To manage my efforts to upload these files, I created some tables, and started uploading them under names that didn't use one of their several transliterations of their names, which distinguished between them by their official ID numbers. Initially, I then renamed the images to a name that included both the ID number, and the primary name the DoD used in the document itself, even when other DoD documents had used alternate transliterations.

It was these redirections that had been nominated for deletion. The justification was that some of the redirects I had left were double redirects. After trying to discuss this with the closing administrator I initiated a deletion review. In that deletion review I repeated that if there was a genuine policy concern over these redirections I would go to the trouble of finding another approach to managing these uploads. I stated this several times. However, no one has voiced a policy based concern.

In the deletion review one contributor who voiced support for undeletion added that they figured only a temporary undeletion would be necessary -- that once the files were all uploaded the redirects would no longer be useful.

In my undeletion request, of May 12th, I predicted it would take over a month to upload all the files. Today is June 12th, and I am close to being finished. In addition to the redirects being very useful for the ongoing management of these files, I think they would remain useful for our general readership. None of the various transliterations of these individuals' names are obviously superior to the others. Some readers are going to require the files being listed by their ID numbers, not by one of their names.

It is a month later, and I am close to uploading all of these files. This took well over 100 hours. The wikileaks site seems to have been under an ongoing denial of service attack -- this made the upload take longer. And, frankly, I think it needs to be said that the deletion of those redirects, a deletion for which no policy based explanation has been offered, cost me dozens of hours.

This table contains a link to the file for each captive -- by their ID number. The table contains a bunch of red links. A couple of dozen of those red links represent individuals whose files were hard to upload. The rest of the redlinks are due to the unexplained deletion of the redirects. Geo Swan (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If you moved files shortly after they were uploaded, then the redirects should no longer be needed as they wouldn't be used by outside parties yet for attribution. You can fix the links in your own personal table, can't you? Regarding multiple methods of transliterating names, the simplest solution to me would be to list all the transliterations in the English language descriptions for the files as well as the original name in the Arabic language descriptions for the files. – Adrignola talk 13:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply.
Can I assume you don't see a reason why files available via wikileaks should be treated any differently than any other files?
You ask whether I could fix the links in my own table. Well, the simple answer is "yes", but I am using multiple tables User:Geo Swan/wl/NLEC, User:Geo Swan/wl/Guantanamo captives still in custody ,User:Geo Swan/wl/alleged Tabligh Jamaat associates, User:Geo Swan/wl 2011 05 03, User:Geo Swan/wl/Alleged recidivists, User:Geo Swan/wl 2011 06 12 table. Please bear in mind that there are 750 files here, across multiple tables, so manual editing represents a very considerable amount of work. I'd be very grumpy if I was directed to do that.
If I understand the second part of your comment you do not see any reasons why the files' names need to include any of the individuals' names. Is that correct? There is a contributor over at the English language wikipedia, who objected very strongly to anything that struck them as identifying human beings by ID numbers, because, they claimed, doing so was "dehumanizing". Geo Swan (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I looked at things objectively and did not feel the origin of the files would have an influence. I don't see why the files need to include names given the complexities you detailed above. You shouldn't have to go through extra work simply because one person was offended by your naming convention. But frankly I think the whole situation was avoidable. A deletion request for redirects... really? They wouldn't hurt anything being left around and if there's double redirects, well that's why they make bots. – Adrignola talk 00:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Files from Wikileaks should not be treated differently from any other file. The only special consideration to keep in mind is that works that are not available anywhere else and pose an immediate danger to someone should probably be deleted (at least temporarily). As far as I know almost all Wikileaks released files are still available from the official Wikileaks website and mirrors, and most do not contain information of imminent danger. The deletion of redirects is a separate matter that I have no opinon on. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


Museu Quinta das Cruzes, Funchal (8) - Oct 2010.jpg

Hello. Yesterday I attempted to classify a museum item from Madeira, depicting a quite common object used at church services and events, the naveta. It is what you see in Category:Navetas, an object with the shape of a boat (thus the name, naveta, little ship) used to hold the incense before it is burned in the thuribles. the Portuguese item even has the spoon used to feed the incense to the thurible. I created this with the Portuguese designation, since I don't know if this has any English name, though from the Czech item depicted there it is obvious that similar objects were used across Europe. Does anyone know if there is an English designation for this?--- Darwin Ahoy! 17:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

June 14

Help add images to Wiktionary!

Although nearly any word can be illustrated with the use of relevant media, right now very few words on Wiktionary have images to accompany them. I've recently been working to rectify this, but I could use help from more Commoners like yourselves! Here's my process:

  1. Go to wikt:Wiktionary:Random page, right-click your language, and click (in Firefox) "Bookmark This Link" or in Internet Explorer "Add to Favorites".
  2. Visit that bookmark to go to a random word.
  3. Find a suitable image by searching the corresponding Wikipedia article, Commons, and/or other websites like Flickr for an appropriately licensed image.
  4. Add the image to the page. Per wikt:Wiktionary:Images: "Images should usually be placed alongside the definition that it illustrates. If there are too many images in a particular section for this placement to be possible an image gallery may be created that is left-aligned (see wikt:A for an example). Galleries are commonly placed at the foot of the Part-of-speech section or in a See also section."
  5. Repeat steps 2-5.

Thanks for your help! Dcoetzee (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

What fun! I added "File:Adriaen Brouwer, Bauernrauferei beim Kartenspiel (c. 1630–1640).jpg" to brawl and scuffle. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Scrap "new" UI, improve "traditional" UI

The new UI (user interface) is slow (multiple clicks from page to page) and buggy (it crashed my browser once). It would be much more useful to improve the "traditional" UI - e.g.: a button that adds today's date, as en.Wikipedia's Reftools does for accessdate; easily ways to add categories to images and other files. ---- Philcha (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Should Category:To be checked be a hidden category

All the categories under Category:To be checked are basically maintenance categories, not something useful for the users of our images. I am inclined to mark them all as hidden categories, but are wondering why they are not already. Anyone know of a reason? --Tony Wills (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess that it is because not all people have the display of hidden categories enabled. I think it would be better to rename hidden cats to maintenance or non-topical cats and enabling the display for all users. That would avoid a lot of frustration and problems. --Foroa (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Correction, it displays already as "Non-topical/index". --Foroa (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "displays already as Non-topical/index" means, they just show up as ordinary categories? But regarding the first point, users who are here maintaining images, rather than just searching for material to use, should all turn on hidden category view. Perhaps "hidden" categories should just be always displayed greyed out, that would effectively highlight the "topic" categories. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
On subcategories, "hidden categories" are visible, on files they are not.
After a previous discussion here, I made a corresponding feature request at Bugzilla:22689 "Commons __ HIDDENCAT __ (change the default setting for logged-in users)".
It hasn't really advanced since, but maybe this is something we could actually change in one of the style sheets. --  Docu  at 11:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Getting Help With Uploading A Photo

Hi all,

Am trying to upload a photo for an article I wrote. But it is too hard and complicated. Can someone help me to upload the photo to the artice page?

I am happy to send you the photo as well as source, etc. information. Frankly, the tagging process for uploading photos to the WikiCommons is too difficult for me to understand.

Best regards,


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noslevas (talk • contribs)
Hello Noslevas1, what problems exactly are you experimenting? You may try the old Commons:Upload and see if it is more easy to understand. If you still find problems with that, You may just post here the license you want to use, the authorship, source and description for the file, so that an {{information}} template can be prepared. Then you may use it along with the basic upload form, which is the easiest way to upload.--- Darwin Ahoy! 15:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Darwin. Thanks for your note. I'll try the old upload form. If I have trouble, then I'll move on to the second step you recommended.

Best, David


The template contains 2 cats, namely Category:University of Toronto Wenceslas Hollar Digital Collection and Category:Prints by Wenzel Hollar. While the first is ok, the second puts all ca. 2500 file in one big heap. It would be better, if the cats where removed from the template after adding them to each file with a bot. This done, users could recat them with finer granularity (eg in Category:Book illustrations of Vergil's Aeneid by Wenzel Hollar). Any help? --WolfgangRieger (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not support at all those hardcoded categories in file templates, they are much more a nuisance than a real help. Currently Category:SVG coats of arms of France is completely useless and filled with coats of arms from the most different countries, which can't be removed from there because they are hardcoded in the template used in the CoAs and that template is protected - And anyway, who will now sort the ones from the others among those over 11.000 files, to fix that? Hardcoded categories in templates is generally bad practice and should be avoided. Even when they can be changed directly in the file template, its always worst than if normal categorization was used, since we can't use hotcat or cat-a-lot on such things.--- Darwin Ahoy! 17:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd keep the source one on the template (Category:University of Toronto Wenceslas Hollar Digital Collection, possibly with a slightly different name) and add the author one to the files (Category:Prints by Wenzel Hollar). --  Docu  at 18:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
You should be able to move the files in Category:Prints by Wenzel Hollar now.
BTW at Special:Preferences#preftab-8, there is a tool "cat-a-lot", that might be of help. --  Docu  at 20:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Docu. There is a reason I didn't put Category:Prints by Wenzel Hollar in the template when I created it. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The criticism of the (two?) templates associated with the category SVG CoA of France sounds a bit unfair. The templates have a specific use and also the default category is only softcoded. After browsing very quickly through about a dozen pages (2400 files) of the category, it seems to me that almost all the files are well categorized. I found two files that I think could be moved to other categories, and I changed them there and there. (I hope that's ok? I probably missed some and I noted a few others that, superficially, looked like they might have been misplaced, but after a closer look turned out to be correctly categorized, if their svg categorization is to follow and be kept consistent with their thematic categorization, such as those of the "England and France" era.) At some other time, I may take a closer look at the files in the category, but if the proportion of files to recategorize is less than 1%, that's not bad. It is certainly not "filled with coats of arms from the most different countries" and I don't know why the category would be "completely useless" (unless the SVG CoA by countries categories in general are useless, but I don't think that's what you're saying). I'm sure you can occasionaly find some misplaced files, as I did, but when you spot one, it can be fixed easily. Those templates are meant for specific use on the svg images created by the French workshop of blasons and are used by the contributors of the workshop who I assume know what they're doing. If a large proportion of their works are destined to that category, it sort of makes sense that it defaults to there. And the files they produce with CoAs of other countries are parametered with the relevant country category instead of the default. If it facilitates their work, I would be relectant to modify their templates, with no other practical result than to complitate their task. If we spot an occasional mistake where a relevant category was overlooked, we can always simply add that category in the parameter to replace the default. There is always either a SVG CoA by countries or at least a SVG CoA by continents category that can replace the default. One can even use the option to remove the default without replacing it by any other. It seems fine: practicality for the common situation and the regular contributors and complete flexibility to replace the default when you want. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I suspect you haven't found significant numbers of them because you waded trough the first pages, which are generally overtaken with loads of "armoiries" and "blasons", generally from France, and it not very easy to spot them inside that load of French material, but I can assure you that there are loads of coats of arms from other countries there. There is not a single occasion when I'm messing around in the coats of arms that I don't find them. In a quick look, starting from the end, I found two standing next to each other - File:Mowbray of Norfolk.svg and File:Mortimer.svg, and there are loads more. Some minutes ago I was dealing with a bunch of them from Hungary. Every coat of arms using that template, independently of being French or not, is classified as SVG coat of arms of France.
Frankly, I must admit that I don't understand the purpose of that category, even if it only contains SVG coats of arms from France, but it doesn't worry me the least since starting a parallel categorization tree in the SVG files to make them more useful is totally at the bottom of my proprieties. What is annoying is that when I stumble upon one of the many files incorrectly placed in that category, I can't change it easily, as I would have to look up for that damn string you changed (something I tried to do before, without success) and manually edit it on the file. It's a total drag. Some of them even have an additional softcoded category in that template like "of families of Blablabla" which I manually remove each time I see, since it doesn't allow for easy refinement of those categories. Frankly, what is the advantage of hardcoding or softcoding a category instead of simply adding it in the bottom? I can't see none, none at all. They are the rock you must throw out off the road in order to move forward, nothing less.--- Darwin Ahoy! 02:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I went there again, and I really don't see how you didn't noticed the load of CoAs from other countries. Even on the second page, starting from the beginning, there are between 10 and 20 from Spain, Germany and possibly other countries.--- Darwin Ahoy! 02:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure we can find examples but, on the total, the proportion of files that could use a recategorization seems very small. (Uncategorized files seem often from the same uploader in the same period.) I am not familiar as you are with heraldry and I do not know the conventions when it comes to categorizing the CoAs of those families that had a branch in France and a branch in England. I can categorize the obvious cases. But I would rather leave to you or to others the choice of removing the category when the author may have categorized the image purposefully when it may have a connection, although non-exclusive, with the country. As for the use of the SVG CoA categories, I wouldn't know. I see that those categories are standardized. This category is not different from the other similar categories. I assumed that it's something that you guys at the heraldry project, or more largely the contributors and users of graphic files, have established, and that it must be useful to the users of this type of files. Me, I just take those things as they are. I leave the choices to the users who work with it. I don't mind either way. (Detail: the templates automatically add the appropriate sort key, determined from the parameter "alias", to the categories parametered in the template. So even if many file names begin with "armoiries", "blason" and "coat of arms", they are sorted under the significant name, i.e. "File:Blason Hinckaert" is sorted under "Hinckaert".) -- Asclepias (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Some are sorted, some aren't. The very first items in that cat aren't sorted, and many more are that way, tough it doesn't bothers me the least. But I still don't understand why you insist that the problem occurs in a "very small percentage of files", when in the second page we find already almost 20 of them. My guesstimative is that they may pass the thousand files wrongly classified there, and in many instances lacking the proper SVG category.
About the SVG cats, the point of them, in my perspective, is to provide a way to check what has already converted to that format, to provide a source for reusable SVG content to make new SVG coats of arms, and to provide a pool from where you can pick some high quality examples if you are making general articles bout heraldry. All of those advantages are lost in a category with more than 11.000 files where the most different countries are mixed up along with France. I see that some people already attempted to refine that SVG category, but such efforts are pointless on the face of the softcoded cats.
Anyway, the point is that the whole thing is a pointless nuisance with not a single advantage. It hinders and messes up categorization, and to top it with yet another annoyance, if you want to know where in France is that village with the coat of arms you just matched with one of a Portuguese family (real case, and very interesting, since that family claims legendary French roots), you can't check it easily just using the "up" feature of Hotcat. Instead, you have to open the category and then go up from there.
Solution: It is easy to make a bot follow the template usage, and transform every softcoded category and sort key into the regular, useful format. I can do it myself with my bot, if there is interest and permission for that (my bot has no clearance here).--- Darwin Ahoy! 15:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahem ... How about my problem with Template:TorontoHollarCollection? Some bot to do the edits? --WolfgangRieger (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think User:Category-bot already fixed it yesterday. /Ö 18:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
If you still need a bot, do not hesitate to request the work at Commons:Bots/Work requests. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thanks. --WolfgangRieger (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed: Commons:Featured video candidates or Commons:Featured media candidates

Please weigh in at Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Proposed: Commons:Featured video candidates or Commons:Featured media candidates!--Pharos (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


Commons currently uses mw:Manual:$wgUseDynamicDates

Pages which use this feature can be found via

This feature only works properly when the language is English.

Example: set language to 'German' and Datumsformat to
  1. option 2 or 3 - 'day month year time' (i.e. 14. Jun. 2011, 02:08), then go to File:Alicebeggar.png. I see '2010-12-22' which is w:ISO 8601.
  2. option 4 or 5 - 'time day month year' (i.e. 02:08, 14. Jun. 2011), then go to File:Alicebeggar.png. I see '22 December 2010' which is correct.

In 2004 a bug was created requesting that this feature work in other languages. See bugzilla:248. It looks like this bug will never be fixed. As this is a multilingual project, I think a feature which doesn't work properly in non-English languages is undesirable, and we should disable this feature and use {{date}} instead. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Note, the feature uses the content language (which is always english on commons), not the user language (aka what is set in the preferences), so changing your language in your preferences probably won't have any affect on the feature. Bawolff (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I am seeing a problem, but it could be something else. Using German and date format option 2 or 3 results in '2010-12-22'. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Need feedback re new uploader problems

I've run into several bugs on the new uploader, I report the problems via the bugzilla link and nothing happens with no feedback. Looks to me like I'm just bashing my head against the wall. Why isn't there any feedback? Why do the same problems keep on coming back?

The latest problem is that it doesn't like the names I give my files - saying I must have gotten them from some other imagehost. Maybe I'm not creative enough in my image names, but I'd think names like "Marven Gardens HD House 1" "Marven Gardens HD House 2", etc are fairly informative and must be in a fairly common style. (BTW - these are from the famous "Marvin Gardens", photos that I know you've all been waiting for!) Today I tried something a bit more creative, something like "Marycrest HD Q Davenport" but it didn't like this either and just got hungup.

Summary: some things on the uploader don't work well. When I let the developers know, nothing happens, and no feedback is returned. This has happened multiple times. Smallbones (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

We're looking at everything that's coming in, and have a pretty good view of what the main issues are. Neil's been working on image preview issues -- see his note to commons-l. I replied to your comment re the blacklist issue here. In a nutshell: It's more complicated than it seems. In fact, the blacklist on the old upload form is currently broken.--Eloquence (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi there Smallbones. Sorry I have not been as responsive. Unfortunately a lot of bug reports pile up and when they are similar to a known problem that I'm working on, I haven't been good about responding to everybody. Also I was away for a while at a conference and then a vacation. Anyway, the short answer is that there is a problem with the title checker -- it thinks your title looks like a date due to it beginning with "Mar". This is fixed in the upcoming version which I am trying to deploy to live Commons ASAP. -- NeilK (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
There isn't really anything wrong in including dates in filenames. --  Docu  at 21:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe, but is that for me, a developer, to say? In lieu of an API that would make this simpler (which is on the very long todo list) I simply copied the regexes that the community has created in the various blacklists on Commons. The regex in question comes from MediaWiki:Titleblacklist and is:
So you see that actually a lot of such filenames would be rejected. I also made a few mistakes translating them into JavaScript, since standard JS does not have the unicode metacharacters that PHP does. Finally, we also made the choice that it should reject the filename entirely rather than give you some option to recover. Perhaps that was a bad idea, especially since some of these patterns, as you noted, seem rather dubious. I fixed it in Bugzilla29029. So there you go, now you know *exactly* what happened. -- NeilK (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Date only would probably be a bad idea. Not sure what the effect of "\P{L}" is, but the error message being displayed suggests to include a date MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-filename. --  Docu  at 21:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a very strange rule. I usually include a date on the files I upload every time I'm able to find one (from exifs for instance), I do that as a standard, as it's a good way to disambiguate. date only is a bad idea, but including a date should definitively be allowed, IMO.--- Darwin Ahoy! 21:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back. Usually I put up with a few quirks here and there, but sometimes (e.g. if it hangs up on a 9 file upload) I suppose I can get a bit shrill. I never would have guessed it had anything to do with dates. Mar, Jan, and even Oct must be fairly common at the start of filenames (e.g. March of the Hippopotami, Jan Murray, and Octagon House). This would definitely be better if it was easy to change the title in mid-stream. BTW, what is the best thing to do when it hangs up, e.g. wait for an hour, or start again (say after 20 minutes of nothing happening)? Smallbones (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I still don't get it, what's the point of suppressing date info in file names? And what's the point of suppressing it in one upload tool and allowing it in the other one? Almost all files in my database have "Mon Year" in filename - quite convenient. What's wrong there? NVO (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Translated into English, the rule means "A filename consisting of a month name, followed by nothing but non-letter characters". "March of the Hippopotami" is permitted, as is "March 2010 perfomance graph", while "March 09271675" is not. --Carnildo (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

int:license or int:license-header

Which is preferrably used as a header in file description pages?

  • == {{int:license}} ==
  • == {{int:license-header}} ==

I could not find any difference in the result. --Leyo 07:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

{{int:license}} is the label for the license field on the old upload form. {{int:license-header}} is supposed to be the subheading on the file description pages. They may differ in some languages; in particular, some labels may have a trailing colon whereas the subheaders shouldn't. Lupo 07:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
CommonsHelper (and probably other tools as well) uses {{int:license}} for the header, and it's much more commonly used in that purpose than {{int:license-header}}, from what I've seen. Jafeluv (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The split was introduced about one or two years ago, don't remember exactly and I'm too lazy to go look up the exact date. Before that, {{int:license}} was used for both purposes. External tools may not have followed up on this change in the MediaWiki software. Lupo 15:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
int:license-header was used first by the new upload wizard. Before that almost all bots used int:license. Since then, conversions to int:license-header are being done. --  Docu  at 18:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Quick licensing question.

I was wondering if there is a preferred licence (or lack thereof) for own work files uploaded to commons?--Lead holder (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The most free licence (and therefore preferred) is {{self|cc-zero}}, but {{self|cc-by-3.0}} and {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} are welcome too. — Cheers, JackLee talk 13:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I personally prefer {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} or {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} if the image is my own work, but you can choose any other free license. mickit 13:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The closest to a standard seems to be CC-BY-SA-3.0 (plus the GFDL, often), since this is the first choice in both upload forms. The three Creative Commons licenses are the main ones to choose from yes, though you can also use anything from {{Beerware}} (if you like the work licensed, you can buy the creator a beer upon meeting) to only the {{GFDL}} (which requires attaching the text of the license to copies) if you like. —innotata 13:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much all.--Lead holder (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Kirche Limbach, Einzelbilder.jpg

Not sure exactly what the uploader was trying to do here, but he's uploaded a series of images of a building, from the left to the right over each other. Presumably the author intended to put the images together side by side or stitch a panorama (I'm not sure what "einzelbild" means), but whatever was intended, it looks clear it doesn't work to do it this way. The uploader's talk page says only to post in German, so I haven't posted there: would anybody be able to tell what needs to be done, and ask? —innotata 20:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL. That's quite original. You could attempt to combine them and upload it as a new version? --  Docu  at 20:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
A combined version is available at File:Kirche Limbach, 2.jpg and there is some discussion about stitching at w:de. --  Docu  at 21:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmm I experimented combining them in GIMP with Pandora, but the perspective differences make the image very hard to match together. I wonder what he used to produce File:Kirche Limbach, 2.jpg, the result is much better than anything I managed to produce, even with the problems it has.--- Darwin Ahoy! 21:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't stitch in GIMP - panoramas are taken by rotating the camera in a fixed position, and so need to be perspective warped before they can be merged. There is a variety of excellent software that can align and warp/merge panoramas automatically according to mathematical models, such as PtGui. The most popular open-source solution is HugIn. See also en:Category:Panorama_software. (Apparently the original uploader here just wanted to use a single file to group all the images together, which is unusual but works okay). Dcoetzee (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much Dcoatzee! I tried Hugin, and the result was indeed pretty good: File:Kirche Limbach, Einzelbilder-2.jpg. Actually, it looks to me as the best of the three available now.--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
(EC) By using this method to store all single frames (=Einzelbilder) you do not need to spam a category with many images which cannot be used while being not stitched. Images are uploaded to Commons instead of a off-wiki file hosting service to make the licensing of derivative stitched images easier and to store them permanently in case somebody wants to redo the stitching in future. I can assure all people who think he did not know what he was doing that the opposite is true. :) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It's an excellent method indeed, and I'll use it for my panoramas. Does it have an English name, or I must use "Einzelbilder"? By the way, those files should probably be grouped in a proper category for those "panorama pieces".--- Darwin Ahoy! 01:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, Rainer is a quite productive photographer in the German Wikimedia community, but he obviously does not communicate in English, hence his germanophone file names. Here, "Einzelbilder" is a word for "single views" or "single frames". Darwinius, you are clear to chose any appropriate file name within our guidelines, of course! Kind regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
@ Darwinius: we have Category:Stitching (→ Category:Stitched images) and Category:Originals - I am not aware of a existing subsection category like Category:Originals for stitched images. Maybe we should create one - yes.
You could use "Einzelbilder" if you would like to coin this word as a terminus technicus in Commons. Just joking ... use any name you like. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 09:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both Grand-Duc and Saibo (and Dcoatzee, who I thanked before already) for the heads-up. I have here several images I took with building panoramas in mind, though I hadn't the slightest clue how to do it besides manually merging the images in the GIMP. This is really great! Thanks for showing me the appropriate cats as well, I will create the proposed cat suggested by Saibo and will upload teh pieces in the way Rainer did. Some of the pieces would most probably be useful on its own, and those can be uploaded separately in addition.--- Darwin Ahoy! 06:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The categorization below "stiched images" is not really correct - the single frames are not "stiched images" (they are just related to them). Could be annoying when doing a category intersection via catscan. Maybe we need a new super category: Category:Image stitching (en:Image stitching) (not sure if this would be a good name) with the subcategories Category:Stitched images and Category:Originals for stitched images?
Btw: I am not sure if should be Category:Originals for stitched images or Category:Originals of stitched images or Category:Originals for image stitching. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it happens unintended. The upload form locks up and doesn't update destination file name, so file after file after file are uploaded over the same file name (example: File:Borovsk Pokrov 01b.jpg). But not in Rainer's case. NVO (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Since it was referred to I think inaccurately as "spam", I just wanted to note that there is nothing inherently wrong in multiple photos of notable or historic buildings within a category for that building. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

June 15

Would like a copyright, etc. double-check on recently uploaded images/cat

I recently added images to Commons from a public domain text (work of the U. S. Fed. Gov.) to a Category that I also created which corresponds with the images. The images were derived from a pdf version of the text that I have downloaded to my computer. I would like to be absolutely certain that the images can be used here, but am unsure as to whether only the text portion of the work is considered to be in the public domain. I am not very familiar with the ins and outs surrounding this subject. Thank you ahead of time, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

At a quick look, it looks fine to me. I can't think why the illustrations would have a different status than the text. But someone else may want to delve in deeper. - Jmabel ! talk 03:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the entire work, as long as it is a work by the US government, should be in the public domain.--Ben.MQ (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The Stanford University logo is not PD-USGov, though depending on how old it is, it may be OK. The rest are fine as they are all federal government works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Time to move Category:General Motors Place to Category:Rogers Arena?

The relevant arena has changed names relatively long ago, as have the various Wikipedia language version articles. What should we do, if anything, and how to do it? --Mareklug talk 20:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I created the category for new images. --  Docu  at 20:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

File renames affect templates

See Commons_talk:File_renaming#File_renames_affect_templates. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Fonts in svg, persisting


Its the first time I'm contributing to wikimedia, and everything seems to be a bit complicated..: I have created 5 maps for the "Finnish War", and started by uploading the first. I use AI which renders SVG catastrophically, in fact one cannot really use an svg exported from AI. Afterwards i found Inkscape, which imports my pdf and saves a perfect svg, which I can SEE in various software perfectly. The problem starts when its uploaded here, the first preview page shows the problem, some fonts are widened somehow and exceed their transparent boxes, along with other letters that are transferred somehow. The strange thing is if you click the full resolution link, you can see a perfect svg. The same problem happens if you click the render to png option. File:Test3_delete.svg Can anybody help?

If its possible please mail me ( cause its a bit of a labyrinth to understand how comments and helpdesk functions, I'm probably too starter for it..


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geopsis (talk • contribs)
Our SVG renderer is persnickety. It doesn't do everything perfectly. Please see COM:SVG for some tips and tricks. Powers (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I went through the article which solves many problems, systematically replaced avery font to match the proposed by wikimedia. The problem (really irrational) still persists, check this out: File:Test_4_requires_deletion.svg in comparison to the link above.

Any help?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geopsis (talk • contribs)
Hello Geopsis. The right (better) place to discuss it would be COM:GL/ILL, anyway, this file needs more improvements as fonts. For example, some of the same objects should be cloned, rather than duplicated. A few unnecessary bitmaps are also included. I've uploaded a new version at: File:Test_4_requires_deletion.svg -- Perhelion (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Orientation problem

Selection of cultivated Alliums.jpg

This portrait-format image, taken on my Nikon D40, has uploaded sideways; even though IrfanView shows it with the correct orientation. What's caused that, and how can I fix it? Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I changed the orientation and uploaded new version. BTW, when you make mistake during upload (like in this case) you should ask renaming instead of sending same file with different name. Cheers :) mickit 22:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you; but I still need to know why the orientation wasn't correct and/ or how to fix it, for other, similar images I want to upload. Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this happens. I downloaded the image to my computer, changed the orientation using Microsoft Office Picture Manager and uploaded it again. That's all. mickit 22:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
In the future, you can fix this more easily using the {{rotate}} tag - for example {{rotate|90}}. A bot will then losslessly rotate the image for you. This problem generally occurs because orientation information included in the EXIF data is not recognized by ImageMagick, the rendering software we use to generate thumbnails. In short, it's a technical limitation. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing -- The problem arises because the software on your camera and/or computer stores the image data in one orientation, but also automatically compensates to display it in another orientation. When the file is uploaded as a JPEG to Commons, the underlying orientation in the data then becomes visible... AnonMoos (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

To be precise, this is bugzilla:6672. There's been some debate regarding the what would be the best way to solve this. The good news is that it looks like it's getting attention. LX (talk, contribs) 20:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Rotate bot failed

See File:Aeonium tabuliforme at BBC Gardeners' World.jpg. Any idea what went wrong, why, and how to fix it, please? I'm afraid the error message means nothing to me. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It was an underlying libjpeg error... AnonMoos (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Appeal: Please use losslessy JPEG rotation. The file-size should be the same after you rotated. (on Windows you can use irfanview's plug-in). -- RE rillke questions? 12:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Critical Edition / Urtext


Is there a template for denoting Critical Editions of works in the Public Domain?

Specifically: the editor for File: Immanuel_Kant's_gesammelte_Schriften._Band_4_-_Grundlegung_zur_Metaphysik_der_Sitten.pdf died less than 70 years ago, but it should still be public domain in the EU because it is an Urtext/Critical Edition published over 25 years ago.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Operalala (talk • contribs) 2011-07-14T23:20:27 (UTC)

June 17

Photos taken in India prior to 1947

I have some photos of British troops taken by unknown photographers in 1917 when the soldiers were stationed in India. Like many photos of this type they were taken in local studios but the prints bear no details of the studios. The date and location are known from accompanying letters. Would {{PD-India}} apply or would {{PD-UK-unknown}} be preferred? Nthep (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

They both seem OK. I would use {{PD-India}} or both. --Jarekt (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

June 18

Our Lady, Saint Mary or Nossa Senhora?

Nossa Senhora do Livramento

Good afternoon. Today I noticed this category change in one of Madeira churches. I do not mind it at all, but I'm increasingly confused with the variety of names used to describe the Churches devoted to the mother of Christ. I've seen Churches of Our Lady, Our Lady churches, Churches of Saint Mary, Saint Mary churches, and a variety of others. In this case it is even more complicated, as this particular church, as many others in Portugal, is devoted to a particular brand of "Our Lady" that may possibly be peculiar to the country, in the case "Nossa Senhora do Livramento". I would like to group those churches and chapels under a category, but I'm not sure what name to chose, since anything short than "Nossa Senhora do Livramento" would most probably be original research and inventing names for invocations that really don't have a translation. Suggestions?--- Darwin Ahoy! 17:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't see anything wrong with Senhora or Theotokos (within their regions and confessions, and with their local subsets like Nossa Senhora do Livramento), but Saint Mary - ?? Just how many other St. Mary's are there? Or it is just the least objectionable common denominator? NVO (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea. The two denominations, "Our Lady" and "Saint Mary" are sometimes interchangeable, even for the same church. So the long gone Funchal's first church, "Nossa Senhora do Calhau", is documented with that name, as "Santa Maria do Calhau", and if I well recall, "Conceição de Baixo", since the invocation was the Conception, though the first islanders chose the "Calhau" (cobblestone beach) denomination since the church was built literally in the beach (which was it's ruin). I will create the native denominations, then, and if some are found to be international (like Our Lady of Sorrows) we then study a way to merge them. I suspect those merges will not be an easy task, however.--- Darwin Ahoy! 19:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
My 2 eurocents: now I'm working on italian church categories and have the same problem. We have some (chiesa di) Santa Maria del (= Saint Mary of), Vergine Maria = Virgin Mary, Nostra Signora = Our Lady = Nossa Senhora, all referencing at Mary mother of Jesus Christ. For me the better solution can use the name in mother language and subcategorized in a translate category in english. IMHO an "attribution" of Saint Mary can be categorized every in a "Our Lady ... churches", exemple Category:Santa Maria della Neve (Boara Pisani) in Category:Our Lady of the Snow churches in Italy. For yours attention in latin language this churches was called Sancta Maria ad Nives. Sorry for my poor english...--Threecharlie (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
PS: If in english is correct write a white car and not a car white as well as a church must be Saint Mary church, Our Lady church etc etc.--Threecharlie (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
English has no palatable term for either Θεοτόκος or богородица. And, in reverse, Orthodox tradition would not stand Western heresies like "Saint Mary". Better keep it as is. NVO (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I can digest "Our lady churches in ...", but I think it's very counter productive to extend that to the churches themselves. No problem with "Church of Nossa Senhora das Neves" instead of "Igreja de Nossa Senhora das Neves", as it identifies the object in an internationally recognizable way, if it's a generic building. But making it "Church of Our Lady of Snow", or worst, "Our Lady of Snow Church" virtually turns it into a cryptic name to everyone without a good domain of the Virgin Mary denominations in English, hides it from native speakers cataloguing images of their church, and hinders everyone else trying to get information on that church, since that information most probably will not be in English. In sum, it has not a single advantage that I can see (except, perhaps, for English native speakers, but still), but has a lot of problems. In general I see such category names when applied to specific buildings as a bad practice. I agree, however, that up in the tree the categories should be in English as much as possible, though I personally do prefer "Churches of something" to "Something's churches", as it sounds more logical and easier to search.--- Darwin Ahoy! 01:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Highly doubtful image of french football players

A user has uploaded a serie of image from french football players. The quality of image, the angle of shots, ... made really unlikely they are photos but more likely screenshot of a video feed of the match (Ukrania-France):

15:46, 11 June 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Yohan Cabaye en sélection nationale.png ‎ (top)

15:46, 11 June 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Patrice Evra en sélection nationale.png ‎ (top)

15:46, 11 June 2011 (diff | hist) N File:M Martin en sélection nationale.png ‎ (top)

15:46, 11 June 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Franck Ribéry en sélection nationale.png‎ (top)

15:46, 11 June 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Florent Malouda en sélection nationale.png ‎ (top)

15:31, 11 June 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Karim Benzema en sélection nationale.png ‎ (top)

15:31, 11 June 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Karim Benzema dribblant Anatoly Timochtchouk.png ‎ (top)

15:14, 11 June 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Younès Kaboul en sélection nationale.png ‎ (top)

14:36, 11 June 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Steve Mandanda en sélection nationale.png ‎ (top)

13:49, 11 June 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Anthony Réveillère en sélection nationale.png ‎ (top)

What is your opinion ? Thanks in advance to take a look at this potential problem. Loreleil (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio uploader. He already tried it with flickrwashing from his flickr account, he failed. Now he tries to push this screenshots again to Commons. 1700 edits on Wikipedia..... he should know that this is not a place for plagiarism and false author information. --Martin H. (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
All images have no metadata at all. Looks like copyvio to me.--Ben.MQ (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Good afternoon,
A parallel discussion took place on te football project on the French Wikipedia (here), and then a member of this project asked on Commons:Bistro if we could the serie.
I then deleted these pictures (and willing to warn the user on his user talk page, see the link to the current discussion). --Dereckson (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Merci Dereckson/Thanks Dereckson Loreleil (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

June 20

Harassment & email address not working

The user listed below is clearly trying to harass me:

The files he has uploaded is already on the site and the sole purpose is to use it to get attention to the link he placed to a site where he harass me.

I would not have bothered the Village pump with this if the mail address worked - - but it does not, at least not from Gmail. I don't care about this guy, but I find it strange that you do not have a level of patrolling so you can delete and ban such trolls. Even stranger is that it is not possible to send a mail about it. Other contributors may not be as battle-hardened as I am and would run away, which I never will. Best regards, Ulflarsen (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You missed the @ or where did you find this wrong address version? --Túrelio (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I've indefd Hunter4fun and blocked his likely IP-sock and version-deleted part of his edits. However, if you also do object against the identification in File:Ulf Larsen - 2011-01-15 at 17-12-35.jpg, File:Jarle Vines og Ulf Larsen - 2011-01-15 at 17-29-04.jpg, File:Ulf Larsen - 2011-01-15 at 17-12-30.jpg and File:2011-05-28 Ulf Larsen Kurs for samisk wiki.jpg, you should state so and/or contact the original uploader. --Túrelio (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
No problem with the photo of me on the site, the thing that worked me up was that he did new uploads (as far as I could see) to use it to draw attention to a link to a page where he attacks me. So if Commons have any use for my old face, then just use it. Best regards, Ulflarsen (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not a question about use (besides, Commons itself usually does not use images), it's about the realname identification/disclosure in the above linked 4 images. So, no problem with this, right? --Túrelio (talk) 07:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Very different parsing some templates by Special:ExpandTemplates and the actual parser

As discussed here templates:

*A: {{Creator:Paul Aichele}}
*B: {{Creator:Paul Aichele}}

are parsed incorrectly at regular pages (for example here) but are parsed correctly by the Special:ExpandTemplates page. I found it worrisome that Special:ExpandTemplates parses differently than MediaWiki (?) parser. Is that a bug in one or the other? Are there other code examples that parse differently? --Jarekt (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Upload wizard

I think it needs to be reviewed after some period of usage (once its development is stable), to see whether it is achieving any of the things expected of it. Eg
  1. are users being educated by it, or are they just clicking options until they get what they wanted uploaded - ie does it just generate more uploads that look properly licensed but have bogus licenses just to keep the wizard happy - making it more difficult to spot the copyvio uploads.
  2. are we getting more or fewer images properly categorized?
  3. are we getting more or fewer images with useful descriptions?
  4. has it slowed down the number of images over-wriiten accidentally?
  5. has it restricted the number of duplicate images uploaded?

--Tony Wills (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You are 100% right. Some of these things can be determined with scripts and others will have to be based on a qualitative survey. It has always been part of the plan to do this, and I have some scripts half-written to do just this very thing, but I haven't completed them. If someone with Toolserver access wants to take this up it would be really easy and I would help them out. Otherwise you'll all have to be patient. -- NeilK (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
These criteria, imo, need tweaking - they seem over-ambitious and prone to subjective decisions (e.g. what is "proper" in "properly categorized"?). I also suspect that as long as dual options (form vs. vampire) are in place, the strong division of user base (certain groups of users leaning to certain tools) will invariably skew statistics beyond repair. You will be measuring something of a user group, rather than the tool itself. NVO (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I think this piece of newbie’s-toy should be disabled as long as the developers refuse to fix very annoying bugs, which disrupts the work of commons. It is also mis-configured: You can select all licenses if you state that it isn't your own work, which a user did and then asked on help-desk what he should use for media-wiki-screenshot. It took me about 30 min to fix his approximately 100 uploads. Furthermore, there is no advantage in using it. You have to do all the description-work for every singele file. It only makes more trouble by adding {{self|self|self...- loops and if you click on the right white place, after uploading the file-selection-dialog reappears. It seems to me the whole "Wizard" is not ready for publication, yet. -- RE rillke questions? 12:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Apparently newbies also seem to misinterpret the AFL license option there as a free pass to upload everything they grab from the web. I've found tons of copyvios and "no permission" files uploaded in UW with that license, and often the uploader was careful enough to state the real source of the file, which hints he was confused by that license, and was not acting on bad faith or in a reckless manner.--- Darwin Ahoy! 16:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The FAL has been used that way for a while: File:Naming_Your_Pirate.jpg just now, etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No multi-licensing

Why own work is not multi-licensed by default? This makes it potentially more difficult to reuse these files.

What about usability:Multimedia:Upload_wizard/Questions & Answers#Why do you make it so easy to multilicense works?

Is this really intended or just an error in the configuration?

Was this discussed before? (I can't find it in the archive.) -- RE rillke questions? 18:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Strange error message

When I try to access File:Wolfgang Diondavich.jpg, I get this error message:

Uncollapse to show message
Internal error

Non-string key given


#0 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.17/includes/GlobalFunctions.php(780): MessageCache->get(NULL, true, Object(Language))
#1 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.17/includes/GlobalFunctions.php(901): wfMsgGetKey(NULL, true, Object(Language), false)
#2 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.17/languages/Language.php(521): wfMsgExt(NULL, Array)
#3 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.17/languages/Language.php(533): Language->getMessageFromDB(NULL)
#4 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.17/languages/Language.php(807): Language->getMonthName(false)
#5 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.17/languages/Language.php(1568): Language->sprintfDate('H:i, j F Y', false)
#6 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.17/includes/Exif.php(740): Language->timeanddate('-00011231000040')
#7 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.17/includes/media/Bitmap.php(591): FormatExif->getFormattedData()
#8 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.17/includes/filerepo/File.php(926): BitmapHandler->formatMetadata(Object(LocalFile), 'a:31:{s:16:"Ima...')
#9 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.17/includes/ImagePage.php(99): File->formatMetadata()
#10 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.17/includes/Wiki.php(469): ImagePage->view()
#11 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.17/includes/Wiki.php(69): MediaWiki->performAction(Object(OutputPage), Object(ImagePage), Object(Title), Object(User), Object(WebRequest))
#12 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.17/index.php(114): MediaWiki->performRequestForTitle(Object(Title), Object(ImagePage), Object(OutputPage), Object(User), Object(WebRequest))
#13 /usr/local/apache/common-local/live-1.5/index.php(3): require('/usr/local/apac...')
#14 {main}

At first I thought it had to do with the confusing file name that it used to have, but after renaming the file, purging several times, etc., nothing changed, so I'm guessing it's a problem with the file itself, or a MediaWiki bug. Has anyone seen this before? fetchcomms 00:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That's...bizarre. I can access the image itself at without problem. In fact, using popups, I can access the description and license data, along with a thumbnail of the image, without problem. Huntster (t @ c) 02:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, problem fixed. I saved in Paint Shop Pro and stripped out EXIF data (which appeared to be about 20kb worth). Now, someone needs to determine the legitimacy of the file. Uploader states "own work", but applied Category:Public Domain Images from the New York Times. Under "permissions" gives a Creative Commons license, but releases as public domain under "Licensing". Huntster (t @ c) 02:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
It's also at . It would need at least an OTRS tag. --  Docu  at 07:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Good catch, I didn't find that one. It's already been tagged as missing evidence of permission. Huntster (t @ c) 08:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I have the same problem but only with the files in Category:Wolfgang Diondavich with a name that begins with JyiaH0fsTj9oa ... --Foroa (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Strange indeed, I posted it at Bugzilla:29471. --  Docu  at 10:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Already fixed in MediaWiki! --  Docu  at 00:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Of course you're not going to see it until MediaWiki 1.19 is deployed (which won't be for a while). In the mean time I removed the (rather wrongish. presumably the image was made after the year 1 BC) ModifyDate, CreationDate and DateTimeOriginal exif tags that were in the file. Bawolff (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Most images in Category:Wolfgang Diondavich might eventually be deleted anyways. At least, they helped improve Commons. --  Docu  at 05:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


It is broken. It does not work. It hangs. Look, I am thinking of a polite way to express the frustration. I have a bog standard- Firefox 3.6.17 on a bog standard Ubuntu 10.10 OS on a bog standard IBM Thinkpad. I have been criticised in the past for the volum of Cat-a-lot edits I make while catting geograph images- and then zonk it no longer works. Can someone rollback the 'improvements' so I get a working version. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Update. Do a search on a village name, you get a list of x possibilities. Press Cat-a-lot. Type in a known category. It finds that. - then adds the option Add. Select your images. Click Add and it does nothing more- spinning wheel!
However Choose one geograph image and you see it is in the cat- Images from the Geograph British Isles project needing categories in grid AA99999 click on that, see x images. Press Cat-a-lot. Type in a known category. It finds that. - then adds the options Copy Move.Select your images. Click Copy and Cat-a-lot works. It works for the Move option too. Over to you kids, --ClemRutter (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Cat-a-lot seems to be working fine for me. I am using FireFox 4.0.1 on Windows XP. — Cheers, JackLee talk 12:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
All gone once more! --ClemRutter (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Got it. Conflict between the gadget js, and the js in my monobook.js- remove one and the other works. Two names may be helpful. Thanks for comment, Jack. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Gadget "Use this file on the web"

Hello, if unlogged one can see there a button "Use this file on the web", which shows i.e. for one of my images the code Foto: Martina Nolte / Lizenz: Creative Commons CC-by-sa-3.0 de, via Wikimedia Commons or the HTML/BBCode:

<a title=' Foto: Martina Nolte / Lizenz: Creative Commons CC-by-sa-3.0 de , via Wikimedia Commons' href=''><img width='800' alt='Landtag Thüringen 2011-05-18 (9)' src=''/></a>

Apart from that I haven't named in my credit line Wikimedia Commons as third party (see legalcode 4.c.i.), I'm missing in both cases the URL of or hyperlink to the CC legalcode. This is a strong requirement of the licence (see 4.a). Whom do I have to address to fix that? --Martina talk 19:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Martina, here: MediaWiki_talk:Stockphoto.js. Btw: The "Personality rights warning" tag for a dog? ;-) Cute dog. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
At least he didn't obscure the dog's identity, as done at File:Kerkrade_2CV_rechts.jpg... SFriendly.gif -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
.oO It was a template that all of us should use for images in that project; I fixed most of mine after the mistake was discovered but forgot this one. :-D --Martina talk 17:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I know. I was funny, though. :-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
BTW the link to "Martina Nolte" next to "Attribution" is broken. --  Docu  at 05:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Funny. How come that we all get different results? If I log out and look up the picture, I can see five buttons, one of them saying Use this file on the web. Attribution will lead to your German user page as well as to the legalcode. Seems fine to me. --Schwäbin (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
In between I had "repaired" the broken username/page link after Docu's hint. --Túrelio (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Martina, hast Du den Fehler (Anführungszeichen) im Commonist schon geändert?/Martina, have you fixed that mistake in your Commonist yet? --Schwäbin (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No one here has addressed what seems to me the most important point: missing the URL of or hyperlink to the CC legalcode, which is central to the license. - Jmabel ! talk 14:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Saibo gave the link to the message talk page, which seems to be the place to report the omission and request that the message page be fixed. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, it is useless to discuss the technical problem here and should be avoided (would be kind of off topic / crossposting) - in my opinion. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all that hints on my mistakes. :-) I'll check that out on the MediaWiki page (thanks, Saibo). Maybe it's a problem with the format in my credit line (uploaded via Commonist). --Martina talk 17:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Kuril Islans on maps -?

File:Map of Japan with highlight on 13 Tokyo prefecture.svg has South Kurils colored in green as the rest of Japanese territory. But these islets are subject to en:Kuril Islands dispute between Japan and Russia. Shouldn't the islets be colored in, say, grey, because Japan doesn't control them now and Japanese government technically has no authority over them? While I can understand maps having South Kurils colored in Russian colors (which is also bad and should be fixed, I think, but Russians at least do control them so there is a tiny bit of logic here), I doubt the map in question can be considered correct. Ari Linn (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that question is more for the Wikipedias to decide than for us. An image doesn't really have to be "neutral" to be on Wikimedia Commons; it can instead express one side in a legitimate dispute -- which is why we have alternate Western-Sahara-including and Western-Sahara-excluding versions of many Morocco map images. Of course, if an image is a malicious hoax, or expresses an idiosyncratic personal view which is beyond the range of legitimate controversy, then it can be deleted on those grounds... AnonMoos (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Since this is a svg file, someone can easily edit it and produce another version, mention the dispute in the description, so that reusers/wikipedians can take note of that? --Ben.MQ (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

June 21

Nominate for deletion button?

The delete template reads when placed "If this template was added because you clicked "Nominate for deletion" in the left menu..." What nominate button? I don't see any! ps. The manual deletion process is a bitch, the obvious testament of this fact is the mass of articles in the incomplete deletion requests category. Palosirkka (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's really a link, and you have to make sure you have clicked on the "Toolbox" menu heading to open the menu. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The toolbox heading is not a link for me. Does it perhaps require JavaScript for some (un)reason(able)? Palosirkka (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is a script... --Ben.MQ (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the help guys. Palosirkka (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion-requests of pictures of one or more specific person(s) taken in a public space in Denmark

Approximately a month ago I was made aware of this page (in Danish link through Google Translate). The page is an guideline from the governmental Danish Data Protection Agency, regarding the publication on the Internet of pictures taken of persons in a public area. One of the relevant points is (my translation):

The predominant point of reference, is that any publication of a portrait photograph requires consent [of the person depicted]. The reasoning for this, is that such a publication might provide the depicted person with discomfort, possibly with other information such as name, of the publication for all with access to the internet, and the considerations of this discomfort is judged as more important than a possible interest in publication.

The page also defines a portrait photograph as a photograph with the purpose of depicting one or more specific person(s). As I read this, this basically means that it is not legal in Denmark to publish a photo of one or more specific persons - even if taken in a public area - unless there is a consent from the person(s). This later led to this discussion on the talk page for Commons:Photographs of identifiable people and later the Country specific consent requirements-section on the Commons-page. As I have uploaded photos which are of one or more specific persons on Commons I then created some deletion-requests to have these deleted:

The three latter User:Yann has concluded as keep with the reason Public performance, while the first is still open. I then had a chat with Yann on COM:IRC, where the conclusion was to get a more widespread opinion on the village pump. One of the problems is that the Danish Data Protection Agency (DDPA) really doesn't deal with identifiable here (but on another page the DDPA defines identifiable as if somebody is capable of figuring out who is depicted), but the more open issue that if a person depicted on a published photo _might_ feel violated by the picture it's not legal to publish it. For the pictures above there is no saying that the persons depicted might not later regret their participation and thus might feel violated, which in my perspective makes it illegal to publish them on the internet. Another issue is that in this folder the Danish Union of Journalists, writes that public and well-known figures are exempt from this, but doesn't really go into detals what constitutes a public and well-known figure. My judgement is that common people on the street - even if participating in a public event - does not constitute a public and well-known figure. I have however - since the deletion requests was made - found that photos of police officers at work on a public place (and sometimes even at a private location) may be published according to this statement from the Danish Union of Journalists. It is however (according to the first mentioned page from the Danish Data Protection Agency) not legal to publish photos of:

  • Employees at work in a private company or in a public institution
  • Customers in a shop, in a bank, in a postal office and similar
  • People in a bar, nightclub, discotheque and similar

So it is not a complete simple matter. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 06:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

@Henrik, you might copy or move your posting to Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people‎, where this topic (in general) is currently discussed. --Túrelio (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Certainly the first of the carnival pictures seems much more like a situationsbilleder ("situation photo" in Google Translate's terminology) than a portrait to me. The other two might be more arguable, but I think that the subjects are clearly taking part in a public activity. The photos can also be used in harmless ways. So even without the subject's consent, Commons does not seem to violate the Danish privacy law (as set out in Henrik's first link above) by hosting these photos. --Avenue (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I've deleted the bicycle police photo since I believe there is a legitimate concern of liability there (for Henrik, not for the WMF) and we already have File:Danish bicycle police 2.jpg which is similar, but not personally identifiable. Even if the image is technically legal, I wouldn't want it to be left to the discretion of the police. (Better to lose an image than a contributor.) The other images seem less worrying to me as they are clearly public performances. Kaldari (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Russian aircraft image

Hello. A contributor posted on fi.wikipedia's village pump saying that they suspect the aircraft in File:Jak-3U.jpg is in fact not a Yakovlev Yak-3 but a Lavochkin model. The file is used in several Wikipedias as an illustration of a Yak. Could someone knowledgeable about the subject confirm the type of aircraft in question? Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've posted a request at w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history to see if anyone there can identify the plane. Nthep (talk)
I also posted at w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft and on both pages editors have confirmed that the picture is correctly labelled and is a Yak-3U. Hope this helps. Nthep (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I can see why it is confusing: those 2 air crafts look similar. See File:LavochkinLa-9.jpg --Jarekt (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Additional info from another editor RA-3482K is a replica Yak-3UA built in the last few years in Romania by Avione Cariova and has a Pratt & Whitney R-1830 radial engine. Nthep (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The first looks distinctly Yak (although not a genuine one). Look at the shape of the fuselage behind the cockpit. NVO (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, everyone. I'll point the fiwiki user to the relevant discussions. Jafeluv (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Dumb image help question

Somewhere in the wiki-help pages there's a workshop for improving uploaded images, but I'll be darned if I can find it again. Maybe I'm slow this AM. Help?

The image that needs help is File:Kuaua ruins, Coronado State Monument, 1940.jpg, a WW2 era aerial, and I'm hoping to de-emphasize the big gray rectangle (former caption box?) at lower left. TIA & cheers, Tillman (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Graphic Lab School is this what you are looking for ? --Ben.MQ (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop? — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
That's the one. Thanks! Cheers, Tillman (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Microsoft Permissive License (Ms-PL)

When I was patrolling new files I come across this one. The program code was licensed under Microsoft Permissive License (Ms-PL), the full license can be found here. The license allows free distribution, derivative works etc but says that ) If you distribute any portion of the software, you must retain all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices that are present in the software. So I changed the description page from {{cc-zero}} to this and used a {{copyrighted free use provided that}} template. Can someone review my edit and confirm if that is correct and compatible with our policy here? Thanks a lot--Ben.MQ (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And also, if it is ok, does the license mean that we need to place a link to the license whenever we use it on one of our projects, or the file link itself is sufficient? Wasn't thinking. We are not using source code here. --Ben.MQ (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I have created a new license template for the Microsoft Permissive License at {{Ms-PL}}. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

June 22


This is not a deletion request, just a clarification on the validity of the tags used on this file. It states that this file, a rendering of a heraldic design is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 France license.. How can this hold to be true? The emblem was designed by Robert Louis (1902–1965). French copyright is death of the artist + 70 years meaning it will be PD in 2035, but until then still under copyright. I understand that if it were published in the Journal officiel de la République Française then it would not be eligible for copyright, but this has not been demonstrated. Can someone correct me? --Grcampbell (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And it isn't a coat of arms, but an emblem, so Commons:Coats of Arms cannot apply. --Grcampbell (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
If the emblem is described in a French government law or decree, then the basic design (as described) is public domain. Individual renderings, however, may be copyrighted depending on how much is unique to the rendering. It doesn't look like there are any templates for PD-Gov-France (as very few government works in France are public domain). Kaldari (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. As no demonstration of the appearance of this design in French government law or decree has been provided by the uploader it needs a source for the cc tag instead of a PD tag. --Grcampbell (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Useful links: Discussions about the deletion of the original png, original png (which looks identical to the SVG version). Apparently it was uploaded with no source at wiki-fr, then transferred to Commons, then transformed into svg, then deleted for lacking source or not enough lack of originality to be PD, from what I could understand.--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Most government seals and emblems are described in law. Has anyone bothered to actually search the French legal code for mention of it? Kaldari (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is known (in France) that France does not have any official emblem, other than the tricolore flag, and there is nothing in any official text. This design, thought to be by Jules-Clément Chaplain (1839-1909), from which File:Armoiries_république_française.svg is inspired, is known for having been unofficially used at the department of Foreign affairs since circa 1913 on plaques of consular agencies [15] and on passport covers, and recently on the website of the French president since Chirac's term, but always without official text or status. This design would be in the public domain now, although new original renderings may be copyrightable. Another unofficial design, represented on File:Coat of arms of France.png, has also sometimes been used. It differs by several elements, with no shield, a blue background, the légion d'honneur collar, a ribbon. A particular rendering of it was made by Robert Louis in 1953 for a decoration in the U.N. building. For details: fr:Armoiries de la France (in French. The English version is less complete). -- Asclepias (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with the informational or licensing tags (unless it is argued that this variation has not enough originaly when compared to the old designs). But I suppose you could reword the description of the image, if you think the word armoiries is inaccurate in a case like this. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeking Flickr licensing advice

I uploaded two pictures today sourced from Flickr, and the FlickreviewR bot rejected them as unsuitable for licensing reasons. I cannot understand the reason and would like someone to explain the problem to me. The images are File:Coffeeone.jpg and File:Coffeetwo.jpg, and I have a message from the Nikbot that I could not decipher. There is so much Help text on Wikipedia that sometimes it is hard to find the specific item you need, or once found, to understand it, and this is particularly the case with Help text concerning legal matters such as licensing, so I would be grateful if anyone could explain the error of my ways.

I have uploaded Flickr images before without trouble, and on this occasion I specifically searched for free images using Flickr's advanced search option, "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content", and I found a few pictures that way. You will notice the Flickr search results page title, "Showing Creative Commons-licensed content". So please tell me, 1. What is wrong with my uploads? and, 2. Can I simply solve this FlickreviewR bot rejection by re-coding the license information differently (as suggested, I think, by Nikbot's message)? Thank you. O'Dea (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you searched from images with a CC license, but not ticked the option for "commercial use", so it returned CC-NC images, as those two you uploaded, which should be speedy deleted as they are not freely licensed. To avoid similar problems in the future, I strongly advise you to use this tool, it makes your uploads from Flickr very easy and instantly checks the license without the need of asking the bot.--- Darwin Ahoy! 01:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
If you still want to use the image contact the flickr user and ask them if they can change the license to cc-by-sa to allow "commercial use", very little commercial work gets released under the share-a-like license such that nc is almost unnecessary. Gnangarra 01:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both for your replies. Gnangarra, can you tell me which of the licenses shown at Flickr is the one I need? (I have numbered them in red so you can refer to the correct one by number.) I'm afraid they all look indistinguishable to my untrained eye. Also, why would I request "commercial use" when Wikipedia is a non-commercial enterprise? Thank you again. Odea (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not strictly non-commercial (some people would consider the annual fundraiser to be "commercial use"), and many re-users of Wikipedia's content are commercial. --Carnildo (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
5 (CC-by) or 6 (CC-by-sa) are okay (5 has less restrictions to reusers than 6). See also Commons:Flickr files. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
5 (CC-by) or 6 (CC-by-sa), thank you for replies, Saibo and Carnildo. I appreciate them. Odea (talk) 06:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright question

Works of David Roberts are in public domain (made in XIX century). So is it legal to upload this image to commons as public domain (AFAIK it is not uploaded to Category:Paintings_by_David_Roberts)? ("By obtaining high resolution TIFF files or prints from The New York Public Library (“NYPL”), you agree to the Permissions Terms & Conditions set forth below. As used below, the term “images” refers to imagesand/or microfilmed copies of printed materials reproduced by NYPL.["). Thanks for answer, I prefer to not cause work by uploading images with delete-on-sight problems Bulwersator (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright has expired on that, so the NYPL has no copyright control over it (nor the digitized version, per the Corel vs Bridgeman decision). The lithographer, Louis Haghe (1806-1885) would also be an author for that one, just as an informational thing. You can use {{PD-Art}} as the license. The image on the website is not the high-resolution TIFF, but if you were to obtain and upload one of those, you may or may not be bound by contract -- that is an issue between you and the museum. We wouldn't delete it if you wanted it to stay; the legal risk is yours in that case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp FYI :) .--Ben.MQ (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


Please see Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Enable_Group_editnotices for a proposal to enable "group" editnotices (eg an editnotice applying to all subpages of {{Motd}}). Rd232 (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

June 24

Why was my own photo flagged on my Wiki page as a copyright violation?

<moved content>

I have moved this question (to minimize clutter here) to Martin's talk page: User_talk:Martin_H.#Why_was_my_own_photo_flagged_on_my_Wiki_page_as_a_copyright_violation.3F. Please continue there. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright betacommandbot !? has a strange copyright mention towards wikipedia's betacommandbot. Is this a consequence of uploading by bots? How to avoid that? --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This happens when people look at the uploader field for the author instead of the author field, which may be a natural thing to do when they don't read the default language on the page. I don't know how to deal with this, other than to encourage more use of the "use this file" tool among non-English speakers. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
If you can identify the image here on Commons, you might want to send a message to the true author notifying him or her of this reuse. Powers (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The file is File:Benedenstad 1.jpg by User:Labé – no "author field" … --El Grafo (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Can't really blame them for getting it wrong the way that file description page looked. Kudos to Innotata for fixing it. To get a better idea of the size of the problem, could we put a bot on categorising files without a {{Information}} template (or equivalent)? LX (talk, contribs) 09:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
What about restoring File:PICT1760.JPG and moving to the current file name? This this, the uploader would be the author and we would have the whole history. --Leyo 09:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
That would work for this file, but not in all similar cases. For example, consider the number of files that have Flickr upload bot as the uploader. Jafeluv (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and downloaded a dump, wrote some of the ugliest perl code the world has ever seen, and concluded that out of 10,388,467 files, 1,262,704 (12%) did not have a {{information}} template or any template (either in the template namespace or user namespace) that transcludes it. (I did not look for redirects to transcluding templates.) I'm thinking about whether it would be a good idea to add something similar (but different) to {{uncategorized}} to such files. LX (talk, contribs) 16:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

In the past I've also found our Flickr-review-bot being credited on an external website as author of an image of a politician in Germany. Same reason as above, the bot had uploaded the full-resolution version from Flickr and was therefore mentioned in the upload-log. --Túrelio (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

How about making MediaWiki:Filehist-help a bit more verbose? We could add something like "Users listed below are not necessarily the authors of this file. Please refer to the file description above for licensing and attribution requirements." It should be changed globally to have any real effect, since most people only see the Wikipedia version of file description pages. LX (talk, contribs) 23:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons has its own problems with this. We have thousands of files with "Author=Original uploader was User:... at xx.wikipedia". For most of these images author and original uploader are probably the same, but there are also many cases where they are not. /Ö 16:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Template incompatibility

I'd like to start using this handy little template Template:Credit line but it doesn't seem to accept the CC-BY-SA-2.0-UK licence. Any ideas?--P.g.champion (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You must use exactly this syntax in the {{Information}} template:
|other_fields={{Credit line |Author = © John Doe | Other = Wikimedia Commons |License = [ CC-BY-SA-2.0-UK] |Style=html}}
--Trixt (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Trixt. --P.g.champion (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I added more examples to Template:Credit line and listed supported license shortcuts. Hopefully it makes more sense now. --Jarekt (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Jarekt. I've noticed in resent years, that if I am doing visually intensive work, I start finding it difficult to remember wikicode (or any other code) and make silly mistakes with the syntax. Having examples to refer to really helps.--P.g.champion (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Pictures from Facebook

Maybe the question has already been asked, anyway: actually there are a lot of files uploaded with a filename structure like this one: 199833 1972004938729 1201177527 32511014 5657964 n.jpg. Those pictures come from Facebook, as image files uploaded on Facebook have the same filename structure. First of all, there's a copyright issue: the copyright owner of those picture is the author, or Facebook? In the second case, all those pictures could get speedy deleted for copyvio. Then, not all the pictures uploaded to Facebook are uploaded by the real author, and we can't say if the author wanted to release the image under a free license, and which free license. Moreover, we can't say if the person who uploaded the image on Commons is the same who uploaded it on Facebook, and we can't even verify the author (or at least the Facebook uploader) of those files, as many (most?) pictures on Facebook are not available to everyone. I would suggest to delete ANY file with the typical Facebook filename structure (a variable number of digits, for example 6+15+15+6+7, each series separated with a space from the others, followed by a letter, usually n or o), as there are many issues about copyright status and the ownership of those images. What do you think? --Broc (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is no copyright issue; Facebook does not claim ownership of files uploaded to Facebook. They claim the right to store, transfer, etc., but that's it. As for Facebook images, there are some checks reject Facebook-style titles, but that has more to do with the fact that they're terrible titles for Commons (they should be more meaningful). I think your notion of a blanket policy of deleting such images isn't going to be helpful, as there are many such images uploaded in good faith. -- NeilK (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I reluctantly agree - however, it seems truly bizarre to me to upload one's own photo to Facebook (downscaling it in the process), then re-download it, and upload that photo to Commons. If they took the photo themselves you'd think they could upload the original. I think most of them are probably from the accounts of others and will require close examination. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Dcoetzee, a photographer will unlikely need to download his own work from facebook first. There is not only a growing problem with files with strange filenames taken from other facebook users profiles, there is also a growing problem with photographs taken from facebook and uploaded here using appropriate filenames: A filesize with 720px at the longer size is most likely not a size selection made by the uploader but comes from the facebook 720px maximum size downscaling. --Martin H. (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
You haven't answered my question anyway: How do you know that those images are really uploaded by the author, as you can't verify the source? --Broc (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
We always assume works are uploaded by the author if the uploader claims they are the author and there is no evidence to the contrary. If it turns out we're wrong, all their self-authored uploads are deleted as untrustworthy, and they may be blocked. Unfortunately there is no alternative - and erecting barriers like contracts or mailing in ID would only discourage contribution and could still be faked. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Well yes, but it's more likely that a photo downloaded from Facebook and then re-uploaded on commons is not a work of the uploader, otherwise he could upload a high-resolution version of his image. --Broc (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
You'd think, but you can't rule out the cases where people have lost or discarded the original image file. This is becoming more likely with direct publishing of photos to Facebook from cellphones, etc. where the image file is never stored elsewhere. We can't demand they produce a file they don't have. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

As of yet, I've considered every declared or recognizable image upload fom Facebook as either copyvio or no-permission. --Túrelio (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think there are two opposite ways to deal with those images: the first one is the one suggested by Dcoetzee, the other one is to delete those files (as told by Turelio or, for example, here and here). So I think it would be better to choose a rule and to follow it... --Broc (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Photos first published elsewhere typically require an email to COM:OTRS from the site in question (I guess in this case from their facebook account). Or, they could edit the source page in some way to indicate the license, or some other indication that the account uploading here is the same person. It's entirely possible that people forgot how they made the original, or can't find it, or maybe just more convenient to use the Facebook image as a source for an upload here -- we can't really require a direct upload. Facebook does not own the copyright of uploaded images as far as I know, so the reason for deletion on those two images wasn't really correct, though they could have been marked as no proof of license. It's also possible we should add that filename pattern to the ones to be rejected as non-descriptive. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Preventing upload of images with Facebook-like filenames might be unwise, as not rarely it is only this kind of filename which notifies us of Facebook as source. --Túrelio (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
And what about photos with that filename pattern (so uploaded from Facebook) with source "own work"? I don't think they can be accepted, they should at least have an indication of the source, even if it's not verifiable because most of the photos on FB are private. I also think that a policy, or a guideline about images from Facebook should be made. --Broc (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Túrelio. Photos with that filename pattern that claim own work without providing a link to the Facebook account are not verifiable. They should provide the source at Facebook. If Facebook allowed users to choose licenses for images much like Picasa this would be far easier. As it is I would mark those with no permission. Then when they come to OTRS I have the uploader at Facebook leave a comment in the description or underneath the image stating the license. Then the OTRS verification confirms the verification by a trusted user even if the image is made private or removed later on. Anything short of that will not get a confirmation from me. Note that Commons:Assume good faith is proposed. – Adrignola talk 19:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Even if Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia :). Anyway, I completely agree with you, let's see if there are different opinions, too. --Broc (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't understood what to do with images from Facebook, anyway. Discussions hardly ever reach a conclusion... --Broc (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Village Pump / Proposals

I've created Commons:Village pump/Proposals to provide a place to give more attention to significant (community-wide impact) proposals which require more discussion over longer periods. Experience shows that the main Village Pump isn't doing such proposals justice, so this subforum should help. Proposals placed there should be advertised here, at least for a while.

By way of further explanation, here's the page's key summary blurb:

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for making proposals relating to the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons; it is distinguished from the main Commons:Village pump, which handles community-wide discussion of all kinds. Discussions here should be of wide interest; those which are more specific may be moved to the main Village Pump, with a note left here. The page may also be used to advertise significant discussions taking place elsewhere, such as on the tal page of a Commons policy.

Now of course this subforum may not succeed, for whatever reason; but I can see no reason why it should not be tried. If in a few months it hasn't proved useful, it can be disposed of in some way. Rd232 (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the amount of threads on Village Pump, some wikis have multiple Village Pumps.
This page (Commons:Village pump) still has a manageable size, thus I'm wondering if it's worth splitting off "operations, technical issues, and policies". There wont really be much left. We already have Commons:Help desk which covers should cover some of the points brought up here and is rarely used. --  Docu  at 03:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
(i) I hardly think it's fair to say that Commons:Help desk is "rarely used" - though maybe some of the threads here would be better off there. (ii) it's not really the number of threads, it's how quickly threads reach a conclusion, and how prominent threads should be. Such threads here can too easily disappear into relative obscurity up the page. A separate page allows these more significant threads to be watchlisted separately, and just gives them more space to breathe, and more likely to receive attention particularly from editors who log in less regularly. Minor "operations/tech/policy issues" can still be discussed here, it's those which need more discussion that would benefit from being handled separately. Rd232 (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
It may or may not. BTW it should have read "isn't always used". --  Docu  at 03:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to forewarn you, Rd232, that Commons has a history of giving off a lot of backlash towards people who try (for better or for worse) to turn this project into an enwiki clone. Not that all your recent changes are bad (or just changes to Commons in general, I suppose), but it sort of seems like that's where this is going. I am of the opinion that one unified VP serves this project fine as of right now. Thanks for trying to make Commons more efficient, though, and all the work you've been doing here. Killiondude (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your thanks (bouquets leavening the brickbats.. :) ) but I'm really not trying to clone anything. All I'm trying to do is take relevant bits of experience from elsewhere (and like a lot of people, the most relevant experience happens to be from en.wp), bearing in mind the differences between Commons and elsewhere. In this particular case, I've given arguments why a separate page may prove useful, and in the absence of any substantive counterarguments, I see no reason to not try it for a while and see. I could add further arguments about many people perhaps logging into Commons less often than Wikipedias, so again a separate page for certain kinds of discussions would be helpful, so that less frequent visitors can easily find these more (potentially) significant discussions. More broadly, issues of multilingualism on Commons suggest to me that a lot more could be done to try and be helpful and clear to editors who may not have full guidance available in their native tongue, and there are some tools on that front, like editnotices, which can be developed building on experience elsewhere. Rd232 (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping that it wouldn't seemed like a backhanded compliment of sorts... It was genuine. You're a smart contributor and Commons does need organizing. That having been said, I do see your point about logging in and wanting to view specific areas. Killiondude (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I concluded a few years ago that if you don't fail occasionally, you're not taking enough risks. The trick is to weigh the downside from failing in any particular thing against the upside from succeeding and the cost of implementation/transition. (Also, the costs of inaction are easy to acknowledge in theory, but easily overlooked in practice.) Rd232 (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
BTW, you can't just move around threads. --  Docu  at 02:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
"you can't just move around threads" - who told you that? It's a wiki, and you can, if you have good reason and make clear what's happened. That thread is 3 days old and had no input since the day it was started; it's exactly the sort of thread which should be on the new page. On the new page it could live another week (no rush) to see if anyone can sway the weak consensus in favour. Here, it'll probably get no further input and be auto-archived in a few days, leaving me to go ahead with the proposal and hope that there isn't suddenly a lot of opposition materialising then. Rd232 (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this proposals forum - but one thing we probably should do is create a Village pump section for copyright and licensing questions, then ask them there instead of burying them at Commons talk:Licensing. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I very much agree with Dcoetzee on this. There should be a proper VP forum for copyright questions and discussion, instead of the talk page of the policy itself.--- Darwin Ahoy! 10:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
We could direct users to Commons:Help desk instead of Commons talk:Licensing. --  Docu  at 10:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
In my humble understanding, Commons:Help desk should perhaps be directed to VP (I never quite understood the difference between the two forums, and similar issues are discussed in both). But the necessity of a forum dedicated to copyright discussion, in the same way we have one for graphic stuff, appears to me like a real one.--- Darwin Ahoy! 10:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Help desk is meant for basic questions (by new or experienced users) AFAIK. It's linked from Commons:Upload, Special:UploadWizard, MediaWiki:Welcomecreation/Template:welcome and MediaWiki:Uploadtext/ownwork.
For copyright questions, MediaWiki:Welcomecreation/Template:welcome links Commons talk:Licensing, while Special:UploadWizard and MediaWiki:Uploadtext/ownwork link Commons:Help desk. --  Docu  at 11:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I've created Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Move_copyright_discussions_away_from_Commons_talk:Licensing to discuss this, since this thread isn't a good place for it. Users please feel free to copy comments across to there. I've also posted notes at Commons talk:Licensing and Commons talk:Help desk. Rd232 (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
There is an interesting suggestion Rd232 made elsewhere: "Per some initial discussion at VP, I propose moving copyright discussions away from Commons talk:Licensing (currently listed in {{Discussion menu}} as the venue for "copyright questions"). I understand that discussions about copyright will very often closely refer to Commons:Licensing, but the talk page of the policy really should be reserved for discussion about the policy. The most obvious thing would be to create a new Village Pump (Commons:Village pump/Copyright). An alternative would be redirecting these issues to the Commons:Help desk. The argument against that is that Help Desk should be reserved for more general help, especially for newcomers. In terms of volume, however, using the Help Desk for copyright issues would probably work fairly well." --  Docu  at 12:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


After discovering an old, failed attempt to create a gadget to move the drop-down menus to tabs, I propose a working version that has been tested and running on enwiki (en:MediaWiki:Gadget-MenuToTabs / en:MediaWiki:Gadget-MenuToTabs.js). Edokter (talk) — 23:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-DropdownToTabbar.jsKrinkletalk 00:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


Any ideas on how I can search for images that have "{{category:...}}" instead of "[[category:...]]"? As an interesting aside, when I searched for "{{category:" it found files with the string "ategory", eg [[ategory:...]] which was useful, but not what I wanted :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I happen to have a dump handy and did a quick grep (well, as quick as a grep over 350 million lines of text can be) and found 560 instances. Seems more like bot work than human work to fix if you ask me. LX (talk, contribs) 00:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Could you throw me a list of those 560 instances? --Tony Wills (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
See also WhatLinksHere. It's not super useful due to bug 7304 but its something (the pages listed there transclude a page that uses {{category}}). –Krinkletalk 01:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, that's for {{category|...}} rather than {{category:...}}, yes a bot that cleaned up both would be good. --Tony Wills (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

June 26

A vote where "All users are invited to participate" Really?

Since a few days, the site-notice banner says: "A proposal for adopting Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion as official policy has been initiated. All users are invited to participate." But now the vote was closed! Proposer declares that his proposal was adopted... This procedure is absurd and completely irregular. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to spam all pages just to get the message out. You didn't even respond to my reply there (where I offered re-opening the thread). Rehman 09:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I missed that. But the procedure is a complete mess anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice here, Pieter. I did not notice this until now. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


Another user just added a Template:Mld to one of my uploads - and I am not sure what to think of that. For me as user it signifies that I see will only the description language I have selected as my user preference - for all others I have to look at the source code - or change my user prefs (if I don't want to fiddle with style sheets). What will happen if a description is not available in the selected language of a particular?

Actually I'd rather prefer it the old way - being able to see all descriptions in every language alltogether, as it makes life for as an uploading user much easer, e.g. it facilates comparision between descriptions in different languages. Quite often I do add at least two descriptions, e.g. in English and German. I have read the Meta page about language select - but that does not really answer my questions. Does it mean that I am (and other users are) expected to create own <Monobook|Vector|whatever> CSS pages in order get a non default behaviour, e.g. "show all"? Couldn't that not be turned into preference setting instead?

Maybe I have missed some discussion about this topic? Might it be even commonly agreed practice by now? Regards, --Burkhard (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I also found {{Mld}} very annoying as I prefer to see all languages. I discovered strange behavior of Meta:Language_select when trying to debug why parts of file descriptions were not showing up in some Bundesarchiv files. Adding "ls_enable = false;" to my User:Jarekt/vector.js fixed the problem. In my humble opinion that should be the default behavior and users that want to see only pieces of description should change their preferences. --Jarekt (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, annoying and unhelpful, I unconditionally prefer the old way, even with all the cluttering. The old way has a small problem, though. It displays something as "中文(简体)‬: 北京前门大街东来顺". this is frankly stupid, if I have my preference as English, 中文(简体)‬ (whatever that is) should be in English too, what is the point of showing the name of the native language in its native language? Glad thing that Google translation have an automated language detect tool, but this only works for well known languages, if it's some obscure dialect everyone that doesn't know how the dialect is written in its native language is left at a complete loss.--- Darwin Ahoy! 21:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Annoying indeed. Thanks for the hint to add "ls_enable = false;" to "Special:MyPage/common.js". --  Docu  at 21:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, fixed the problem to me as well. It's sad when a new feature is in fact a problem, however.--- Darwin Ahoy! 21:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the Meta page this feature is apparently five years old.  But clearly not working as expected for me, it shows en-gb (from my browser preferences) and treats this as "show all" instead of "en".<shrug />Be..anyone (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
As for showing language name in the native language, well, but then the language name must also be i18n-ed localised? Ben.MQ (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Bencmq, but "i18n-ed" is Chinese to me. :S --- Darwin Ahoy! 14:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Couldn't resist the pun, as I've found now that you are Chinese, and I suspect that 中文(简体) is something like Chinese Simplified ;) But I'm serious, I've no idea about what i18n-ed means.
oh sorry. Basically I mean that we should translate the language name into different languages as well? and yes that was Chinese Simplified :) Ben.MQ (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it would be of great help, at least to me. It makes more easier to identify the context of those pictures. My problems have been more with the Slavic languages than anything else, but when it comes to non Latin alphabets it's even worst to decode it. I don't k now if it is something technically easy to do, however.--- Darwin Ahoy! 06:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
(double edit conflict) My words (@Jarekt), excepted that I wouldn't say "humble" but "strong" opinion... I really doubt that this template will improve the usability of our media; at least, it is (for me, I guess also for other contributors) something that I'll remove from the descriptions of my uploaded files when it happens to be added to them. Dunno if we could even get it deleted: "A page can be deleted if it is: [...]Patent nonsense, a test or vandalism." (italic highlighting by me). ;-) This template adds too much barriers in the important work of improving the file descriptions as polyglot persons cannot see errors and inaccuracies in descriptions without comparing the source codes. Grand-Duc (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)(
  • I think we need to differentiate between us users that are maintaining pages and the general user who just want to use the image. The whole point of adding seperate translations identified with templates is exactly so that the right translation can easily be automatically selected. For most pages there are so few translations that {{mld}} isn't really needed, but if you ever come across pages where there are 10 or more translations, and not just the description field, but source, author etc also have seperate translations, you will welcome getting rid of the clutter. I expect that eventually the {{information}} template will default to only showing the appropriate translation. I find the "show all" facility entirely satisfactory, but it is nice to see that there are ways to turn it off altogether. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I have my reserves about {{mld}} really helping end users. I suspect that trading less cluttering for less information is not a good approach when you have so many, many images that have a very complete description in one language (often English), while in the other languages the description is very scanty or plainly wrong. Even yesterday I came across an image of a Russian building which had 2 or 3 lines of description in English, while in Russian it said "Railway station". Sometimes it's even worst, and all that is there is some gibberish the uploader wrote in his language, such as "pretty building" or "Ulan Bator is a nice place to live". Hiding the best descriptions from the end users doesn't look like a good service to them.--- Darwin Ahoy! 23:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not working, and it's good news. I logged out and I still see all options. I changed my language to Corsu then to Gujarati and then (horror!) French, and it showed all options at all time. Censorship failed, perfect! pleased don't make it work. Do you realize the embarrassment of an expatriate in Ulan-Baatar when all the major news sites show news in Mongolian because they think it's what the Mongols deserve? Ah, some runaway Russians or Aussies or (horror!) Frenchmen, they can wait until their flight home. No, there's no "take me back to English", only Google does it. NVO (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, or maybe things work differently for me for some reason, but {{mld}} works independently of what language I have set in my preferences (English or Swedish, depending on what mood I'm in). If I select the "show all" option in the dropdown list presented on a page with {{mld}}, that selection remains active on other pages with {{mld}} until I change it. If I have selected a specific language and that is not available, it falls back to "show all" without affecting the remembered selection. I'm using Monobook without any relevant custom stylesheets, scripts or special options, as far as I can tell. LX (talk, contribs) 22:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

On the one hand, we need something compact; if descriptions grow to cover all 270 supported languages, one will get too many pages before getting at the things you really want to see. On the other hand, descriptions in other languages are sometimes plain wrong. For items that need doc in many languages (cultural items with a large vocabulary or alternate names for example such as Category:Mbira and Category:Quadricycles, I set up first the doc for English and local languages, the rest I put them in a collapsable structure to limit the page size to less than half a page, so I can compare the texts in some languages against the English and local language descriptions which tend to be the references. I never bother to convert to Mld as it does not satisfies the needs and takes often 10 to 20 minutes of fidling to get it it right. It is only since a couple of months that the multi-language switch has an impact on such collapsable structures which results indeed in some confusion. --Foroa (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks LX for the hint about the "show all" option in the dropdown list - I admit that I simply did not notice the new field as my primary focus was on the summary section. Made me feel a bit dumb for a moment - but definitely points to a usability problem: users - regardless of being logged in or not - have first to find this language select option. In my opinion the placement below the preview makes it hard to find, especially for the more occasional users/visitors who are not aware of its existence. Nevertheless my question about making this a pref setting seems to be still valid. --Burkhard (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

May be we should add an option to the preferences which allows disabling this feature without messing with Special:MyPage/vector.js. Is it technically possible? --Jarekt (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If you go to the Gadgets tab, under "language support", you'll find a gadget that says "Do not hide foreign languages on multilingual pages." Checking that box and clicking the save button at the bottom will do the same thing for you. (I just added this). – Adrignola talk 15:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Adrignola, I used this feature ASAP. :-) Grand-Duc (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

On some pages, it seems that simply using {{en}}, {{es}}, {{fi}} etc does the same as {{mld}}. These aren't nearly as complicated {{mld}}. Couldn't we simply depreciate {{mld}} in favor of these? --  Docu  at 04:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

except that mld allows to synchronize all translation at a given level. Actually, If there are several levels of {{de}} in a description and that one is missing, there will be no indication that one is missing locally. The basic behaviour in this case is to show all translations per mld block, to indicate a translation is missing. Esby (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Is this a problem with {{de}} or also with the others I listed? What type of page is this relevant? --  Docu  at 06:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
There are two differents things: the mld template, that is a logical construction that triggers {{en}} {{de}} etc. and encapsulate them in a single multilingual div, so each translation is corresponding to the same thing.
the java script that is used for displaying the information, MediaWiki:Multilingual_description.js. It triggers either when an mld block is present or when the number of languages is superior to a given value. the current value is 5 different languages presents to trigger the effect.
Esby (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

June 23

DMCA takedown

Pursuant to a directive by the Wikimedia Foundation's general counsel, I have executed a DMCA takedown on a number of files, described here. Please do not readd the files. Best wishes, Philippe (WMF) (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Out of interest, does anyone know what these were photos of? Also, Flying Elephants Inc? Nice name. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Photos in en:Ashes and Snow were deleted, for example this photo. Category:Gregory Colbert should be checked. I remember another photographer who said that his administrative assistant gave unauthorized permissions, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Witch's Rock, Costa Rica.jpg. It is difficult to do business with such people. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Files were in category Category:Gregory Colbert, many were uploaded by Briennewalsh and moved from en wiki in 2008, they had low resolution and show "The Nomadic Museum which is the permanent traveling home of Ashes and Snow, created by photographer and filmmaker Gregory Colbert". One came from flicker others were very similar to other photos on flickr. One was a photo by Gregory Colbert with GFDL license but no OTRS. At least one did not seen to show any artwork but a night photo of Mexico City. Most of those photos would not survive DR. --Jarekt (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Most uploaded by Briennawalsh on en.wp, lot of other photos still exist from en:Special:Contributions/Patiofurniture- some of that users uploads are even duplicates of those deleted files.--Martin H. (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the most interesting aspect of this is that several files were OTRS approved. I have seen many emails where images were discussed with a member of an organization. In this case it was with an administrative assistant. Should we request an audience with every organization's legal department before slapping on the OTRS permission label? – Adrignola talk 19:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The title of Administrative Assistant is frequently held by people with little or no tertiary education or prior work experience – and very little actual authority. Under agency law, a more senior title (director, officer, or agent) is generally required for apparent authority to come into play. A person without actual or apparent authority cannot bind the company to an agreement (such as a license). However, as part of the standard OTRS consent declaration, the submitting party makes an explicit warranty of authority. If a third party relies on such a warranty, the submitter is personally liable to that third party for breach of warranty, which should recover costs incurred as a result of the license being declared void. Thus, an OTRS consent declaration with a warranty of authority is still of some value. At least that's my layman's interpretation of the situation. LX (talk, contribs) 22:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
LX is correct that under agency law the administrative assistant did not qualify. I assure you, we did this one carefully, and our general counsel spoke with the counsel of record. If we had any doubt about their claim, we would have fought harder - but in this case, it was fairly clean cut. The administrative assistant was not authorized to claim authority over those works. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
There's no doubt about that - our real concern is how to prevent this from happening in the future. If someone had reused that work before it was taken down, one of our content reusers could have suffered serious economic damage. It's clear that OTRS needs to be more methodical about assessing whether a given person is able to act on behalf of their company, and this needs to be communicated somehow to the OTRS team. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree it's a potentially perilous situation, but there's only so much we can do. Powers (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
And it should be noted that we do a heck of a lot more than, say, Flickr. LX (talk, contribs) 20:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

June 25

British Rail templates

I've come across some unused templates - should they be deleted or is there some use for these?

Rd232 (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Question raised at w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways. Nthep (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. They are used, just as a subst. Ditto for tbyl, tbyline, tbyo, toc, tocl, ukt, ukcs and whatever other rail templates I created and have forgotten. They're for creating train categories. Just a thought, but in future you may want to alert the template's creator (in this case me) when you come across this sort of thing. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to check whether the creator was still active (usually not, in my current cleanup efforts). So, can you create a suitable category for these templates, and perhaps some documentation (it could be a single /doc shared across all of them)? Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Also {{tll}}, {{tint}}, {{Ukc}}, {{tocint}} and {{trainline}}. Rd232 (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused uncategorized templates tend to get nuked (by me). So if you want to keep them you should properly categorize these templates. Multichill (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I've done I quite a bit in Category:Uncategorized templates, dealing with the more obvious cases (like uncategorised /xx language pages). Increasingly, though, the templates remaining don't have obvious (to me...) categories to be put in, so some need creating, or someone else to figure out what to do with them. Rd232 (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Think I got them all: Category:British railway templates -mattbuck (Talk) 21:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Cool. Could that category be added to Category:Category navigational templates for the United Kingdom? (The category structure for these sort of specialised topic templates seems a bit unclear.) Rd232 (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea about template categorisation, please, do whatever you wish with it. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

June 27

How to delete my own picture?

Picture is not in use, and it is a poor quality picture. -- 10:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please identify the picture? — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
You can tag the image for speedy deletion: {{speedydelete|reason for deletion}} mickit 14:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

License cc-by-sa plus additional restrictions

Some people add additional license restrictions like adding my name ... directly under the photo ... additionally using or re-using only with my original file name. Who decides which additional restrictions are accepted at commons and whether and how re-users can be warned that this is actually no cc-by-sa license but something else (what exactly)? See the previous discussion(s) on the Adminstrator's noticeboard for previous discussions. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that some of the licenses accepted at Commons allow such restrictions. Unless we limit the use of such licenses, it is acceptable. --  Docu  at 06:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
"some of the licenses accepted at Commons allow such restrictions". Which licenses allow restrictions, which licenses do not allow restrictions? --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
There was a previous discussion on this, but I'm not sure where it took place. You may want to try searching the archives of this page. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Nothing found. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
That is not the issue. The previous discussions had no conclusion or final result. In other words: We have no consensus how to handle this cases. In fact most licenses allow modifications. But this usually leads to a new incompatible licenses and to incorrect license tags.
  • Incompatible licenses: For example we have "CC-BY-SA" (A), "CC-BY-SA + X" (B) and "CC-BY-SA + Y" (C). The license itself declares that changes will create a new license. The compatibility part states that A, B and C are incompatible. That means that we cant combine A with B or B with C and in any other combination anymore. We loose the possibility to combine works, since the licenses are incompatible.
  • Wrong Tagging: Since a modification to a license creates a new license, the images are tagged wrongly. They are for example categorized as "CC-BY-SA 3.0" (using the template + X). But they are not licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. They use "CC-BY-SA + X". Automated services will trip over this issue very easily. They can't understand the additions and will accidentally create copyright violations.
In the end I'm very worried about such additional restrictions. We create a license jungle of incompatibilities and make correct (automated) re-usage harder or impossible. Keeping an eye on the main goals of the project I'm convinced that we should not allow such custom derivative licensing. Instead i would appreciate to limit the set of acceptable (minimum of required) licenses even further to enhance compatibility. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 08:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • cc-by-sa allows specific demands for attribution, but Commons limits then to common-sense (haha) also the demand can't be in the picture itself, as that would be an ND restriction (but we also allow German stamps you can't crop, this is a hypocrisy). These restrictions don't necessarily create incompatible licenses as long as the attribution demand is kept. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 09:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
cc-by-sa does not allow such restrictions: Can I insist on the exact placement of the attribution credit for my work? No.. So we do not have a cc-by-sa license but some other license with a misleading cc-by-sa tag. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me, for once, speak my mind : these claims are bogus and a abuse of the Creative Commons license − people « cannot insist on the exact placement of the attribution credit for their work » (see their FAQ). We do not do anything against these abuses because we have to be extra-nice to our Photographs™ in fear they might Leave The Project™. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

One very simple addition to CC-BY-SA 3.0 came to my mind when i explained the issues above. How about this additional restriction:
"Since my additional claims constitute a new license you are not allowed to combine this image with CC-BY-SA or any other not CC-BY-SA compatible licensed image, until CC-BY-SA itself claims to be compatible with this new license terms. The preceding sentence is the condition. You are free to modify and to distribute the image under CC-BY-SA 3.0 while keeping this license terms intact."
That sounds crazy. But it is what we have in this situation, even if it is not written that way. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 09:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Requirements on the placement of attribution limit the range of transformations and adaptations that can be made. Therefore, works with such requirements are non-free works, which are not accepted at Commons. As an example, if the attribution must be directly below a photograph, it is impossible to use that photo on the cover of a book spanning the whole page. Attribution on the front page or on one of the first pages of the book are a reasonable, industry-standard means of implementing the attribution, but would not be compatible with such a requirement. Remember that works should be reusable in collages, motion pictures, in painted form, interpreted as a sculpture, and in any other conceivable form. LX (talk, contribs) 10:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. The history up to now is that I contacted the copyright holder and asked him to adjust his license. He refused to do it, so I made a deletion request. That particular image was deleted and the decision was supported during the undeletion request. Then the same copyright holder made an upload of another image under the same restricted license, I made a deletion request for the new image with the result that the new image was kept. The reason for keeping was Concerning the question whether the additional condition "directly under the photo" can be used, a DR is a wrong place to discuss. Let's hope that here is the right place to find some conclusion how to treat such licenses. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Clearly we should be consistent about this. I agree with LX's conclusion that such imposing restrictions on how attribution must be done restrict reuse in a way that is fundamentally incompatible with our policy and our mission. However, I also agree that, despite all the practical issues it creates, authors should be able to release works under any license they like, including a modified or extended version of a CC license, and that some of these are compatible with our licensing terms. The burden is on us to evaluate each new license as it appears. I believe the best way to do that is as follows:
  1. Move the licensing terms into a template, if they are not in one already (possibly a user space template).
  2. Nominate the template for deletion.
  3. (clarifying edit) If the template is deleted as an invalid license, delete all images using the template.
This is the way we have evaluated many custom licenses in the past, as in Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:CC-Dont-Remove_Watermark. We should not evaluate such custom license terms image-by-image, but rather license-by-license. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly: I should make a template with something like "adding my name ... directly under the photo", then delete that part from the cc-by-sa tag and add the restriction-template? Then we (possibly) delete the restriction-template and get a "pure" cc-by-sa license? Wouldn't this mean that I changed the license without permission of the copyright holder? --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
If the restrictions are incompatible with the license and these restrictions were stated at the time of the upload, the upload was invalid and the files should be deleted (if the upload doesnt rectify the situation). If the incompatible restrictions were added after the upload, we could consider those revisions to be invalid and revert them. This was done at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_23#edit_war_over_relicensing, however that resulted in a DMCA takedown so maybe that isnt a good idea. --John Vandenberg (chat) 12:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
"If the incompatible restrictions were added after the upload, we could consider those revisions to be invalid and revert them." I agree with that part. Let's restrict our discussion to the case where the restrictions were stated at the time of the upload. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
@Dcoetzee: This is exactly the nightmare i was talking of. We invite our uploaders to create dozens of custom licenses which are in fact incompatible with each other. This also limits the re-usage, since combining images (collage, etc.) can't be done with incompatible licenses. That is a general problem with different licenses, even with the same goals in mind. But we would make it even more of a problem if we accept such licensing. I don't think that this is compatible with the goals of Commons. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 12:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Niabot. Custom attributions licenses -- well, I am not happy with that, it makes reusing much harder (often without any legitimate reason), but ok, it's tolerable if the license is not very strict. But custom copyleft licenses?! I don't see why we should allow this, such licenses limit reusers so seriously, that on practice they are free in the words only and are hardly compatible with our mission. IMO Commons should resist to the license hell, and not to encourage it. (It's sad to see pictures licensed as something like GFDL + CC-BY-SA-NC, so uploaders see GFDL as a rough equivalent of a non-commercial license, but Commons still allows it, because, well... I don't really know why, likely only because it's an RMS-approved thing. It's sad to see that such nonsense as all these pseudo-free licenses is still allowed.) Trycatch (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • obviously ignoring that the sa part places restrictions on who can use and how they use the media, in that only end users who themselves use the cc-by-sa license can use the images. Gnangarra 11:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You cannot make placement restrictions as part of a CC license. That is evident from a reading of the legal code, and is make explicit by their FAQ:
Can I insist on the exact placement of the attribution credit for my work?
No. CC licenses allow for flexibility in the way credit is provided depending on the means used by a licensee to re-distribute the work. There may be differences based on the format in which the content is re-used. For example, providing attribution to the author when re-distributing information via a blog post may be different than how credit is provided to an author in a video remix. All CC licenses provide that attribution is to be provided in a manner “reasonable to the medium or means” used by the licensee, and for credit to be provided in a “reasonable manner.” This flexibility facilitates compliance by licensees – minimizing the risk that overly onerous and inflexible attribution requirements are simply disregarded.
The question on our side then, is the restriction legally not part of the license (since they said CC-BY-SA), meaning other editors here can simply remove or ignore the requirement, or is it part of the license actually given by the user (therefore not CC-BY-SA and therefore not free)? Restrictions added after an initial upload are more obvious; we can simply remove those, though that can obviously cause friction with the author -- something we'd all like to avoid. It should be made more clear these types of restrictions are not allowed by the CC licenses if possible, to head off these situations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Do we all agree that this condition makes the license unfree? Martina said that it's not less free than content under GFDL-only or FAL. Martin H. said that "The «license addition "directly under the photo" is not acceptable» is not mentioned in COM:PS#Non-allowable licence terms" and that it could be "a homebrewn license template based on {{copyrighted free use provided that}}". If there were other licenses accepting that restriction, we could ask the copyright holder to switch to such a license. On the other hand, if we consider that condition unfree, this should be made clear in COM:PS#Non-allowable licence terms. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As long as we accept GFDL licenses here, it doesn't seem to make sense to make all this fuss about Wolfgang license requirements. From what I understand, his requirements, though less free than the original CC-BY-SA license, would in many occasions be much less an annoyance than the limitations imposed by GFDL (reproduce the whole license every time we reuse the image). I also agree with Dcoetzee that the best way to handle this is to make a new license from or based in Wolfgang custom license and nominate it to DR, so it can be validated or discarded in a proper debate.--- Darwin Ahoy! 06:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment AFAIK, this thread is meant to discuss license "amendments", i.e. mandatory-worded specifications of the credit location, in general, as a few DRs for this rationale have ended with a keep as well as with a delete. --Túrelio (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Demanding that the same filename be used may be impossible under some operating systems. Demanding that the author's name come under the picture makes it unusable on Wikipedia. That's much worse than the GFDL.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Wolfgang has publicly stated that his additional license requirements don't apply to Wikipedia. Though this has been twisted as a "Wikipedia only license" (which I don't believe to apply here, since it only deals with an additional requirement), it basically makes the argument that the files can't be used in Wikipedia baseless. (I agree with Turelio that this debate should be more broad than Wolfgang license requirements, but it's a good case study to take as an example, nonetheless.--- Darwin Ahoy! 07:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
IMHO we should restrict the discussion to the license text as stated on the image description page on Wikimedia commons. Of course the copyright holders can give special permissions on some other places but we should consider them only as relevant when these permissions are explictely stated on the image description page. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Besides it not being noted in the file, it means that a Wikipedia mirror will be in violation of his license. That makes it a Wikipedia-only license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, thank you. This gives us a possibility to handle the situation more systematically. What is still not clear to me: If one of these licenses is deleted, will we then get "automatically" a valid CC-BY-SA license? --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
No, if one of these is deleted, that indicates that the license is unacceptable - and all images bearing that license tag must also be deleted (manually or with bot assistance). (If this is not done, the images will have a redlink for the license, and should eventually be speedied as having no license.) We cannot change the license. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
No, they should not be speedied, they must be allowed the regular 7 day grace period so that the license could be changed, if the author is willing to do so.--- Darwin Ahoy! 17:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
That's silly. If the author does not change their license during the deletion review of the template, by modifying the template (which will last at least 7 days, and probably longer), why should they be given extra time to modify each file individually, which is an arduous and error-prone way of accomplishing exactly the same thing? (Moreover, you seem to be confused regarding what "speedy deletion" is - it's deletion without discussion, not immediate deletion, and includes deletion of images without a license.) Dcoetzee (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I interpret speedy as {{speedy}}, the no license deletions are not exactly "speedy" in my understanding, but possibly it's common practice to use that word for them as well. In any case, I maintain that the fair and correct thing to do is to allow the 7 day grace period. The user is not forced to change the license during the DR, which may decide for its approval, after all. If the license is not approved, the images are void of license and should follow the regular path, which is tag them as no license and wait 7 days. I don't see any reason that could justify the hasty deletion of all of them simply for the fact that their license was suddenly void.--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The previous deletion request (for the image itself) came to the conclusion Concerning the question whether the additional condition "directly under the photo" can be used, a DR is a wrong place to discuss. Discussion the license templates is a good idea from the technical point of view, but we still have the problem that "a DR is a wrong place to discuss". --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not the wrong place to discuss. I've already cited precedent in which the acceptability of a license was established by the community in a template deletion request. I agree that a file DR is the wrong place to discuss, since the discussion should concern all files using the license; I disagree that the license should only be discussed in a wider context (all licenses with a requirement like this one), partly because some of those licenses might be okay and some might not, and partly because it's often a good idea to let general to let rules emerge from generalization from particular cases, rather than abstract discussion. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been really puzzled about attribution, and bylines, since I started uploading images to Wikipedia. Since there is an on-going discussion, I add a few questions.

The picture where it clearly says "you are free to distribute and modify the file as long as you attribute". If I now use this picture in print (paper), which is correct:
put "photo:" under the picture,
or put "source:" or
or put "source:",
or are all these alternatives ok?

If I use the picture on my (non-wiki) website, what is then correct: to place "photo:" (as text, not a clickable link) directly under the picture, or
state "image source:" (as a clickable link) or
state "image source:" (as a clickable link),
or are all the alternatives ok?

Wikipedia, Wikimedia and the CC FAQ states that image creator should be credited "in a manner 'reasonable to the medium or means' used by the licensee... minimizing the risk that overly onerous... attribution requirements are simply disregarded". Keeping this is mind, I think it is a safe bet to assume that that uploader of the image would be satisfied if I put "picture from" as a clickable link under (or near) the picture, or possibly even the same credit as text non-clickable. One can also say that it is reasonable to have the name (website) of the picture provider under the photo, as it can be seen to be that way in many websites all over the world. It is clearly not unreasonable. Now my question is, would this kind of attribution be likely to fulfill the picture creators requirements?

Next question, would it be an acceptable way of crediting on my own website, or do I in addition need to state that the picture was found on Wikipedia, or commons.wikimedia?

Next question, instead of quoting "", would it be fully acceptable only to link the image on my website to point to the Commons file descrition page (that is, no mention of under the picture, no text on my web page, only a clickable link so that if you click the picture you get to the commons description page). I was thinking that the commons file description page has the title, creator, and license conditions.

When I read the license, another question pops up. It says something about quoting the title, and quoting a link to the license. Since I am free to change the title (or edit the picture), why should I quote the title? It says that I should reference the license as well. Would it be ok just to say "CC-BY-SA-3" as a non-clickable text? Or how should it be made? --Janwikifoto (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The attribution in your example should be "", just as it says. In this case, there is no indication that it needs to be a clickable link, even when reproduced in a form where this is possible. Unless required by the author, there is no need to mention Wikimedia Commons. Commercial stock photo agencies typically require attribution of both the author and the distributor, but Wikimedia Commons has no such requirement. A link to the original work on Commons would probably be appreciated by most readers, though. I would not recommend linking to the Wikimedia Commons file description page as a means of fulfilling the attribution requirements, as there is no guarantee that the page will always be available. Requirements to quote the title mainly refer to things like textual works or films, whereas photographs usually don't have a title. The filename is typically not considered to be a title for the purposes of this type of licensing requirement. If the author specifies that the photo has a title, you should quote that. You must provide a copy of the license or the address of the license when using a Creative Commons-licensed work. Simply stating the name of the license is not sufficient. See Creative Commons FAQ: How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work? for more details and suggestions. LX (talk, contribs) 09:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Now the Title requirement makes more sense - for a book or a film. LX writes 'You must provide a copy of the license or the address of the license', but the CC-FAQ says only 'Cite the specific CC license... If you are publishing on the Internet, it is nice if the license ...links to the ... CC website'. My understanding of the wording on the CC-FAQ page is that it is enough to just mention someting like 'Creative Commons SA 3.0' or similar, though it is of course nice to give the full information. Further, the CC-FAQ says 'They may require you to associate/provide a certain URL (web address) for the work', however the legal text says something (I am not sure I am reading the correct part) '(iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work;', and I understand this as I do not need to supply the requested URI unless it refers to a copyright notice or licensing information. So in the case of the Kremlin picture, I understand the FAQ as it would be nice and apprecieated if I supply the link, but I also understand the legal text as I do not need to supply the as that page does not contain copyright notice or licensing information. I am confused. Do others understand it the same way? Finally, for another practical example: uses pictures from Commons. The webmaster has gone through the trouble of supplying both copyright and attribution info, right under the pictures, but per the above discussion I think it fails, by just providing the file desc page on Commons. There is no mention of the author, though it is clearly readable in the desc page. There is no mention of the license name, nor any link to CC. Is it correct to say that this attribution and copyright info does not meet the mark, even though it was probably well-meant? (If somebody just wanted to snatch the picture then it would be easy enough just to change the file name and not give any source, and in most cases nobody would find out). I look forward to opionions about the example I found on the net! --Janwikifoto (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
As for your example, I think this way of attribution is - despite of the obvious good will of the user - formally not o.k., because the author is not mentioned anywhere on the site where the image is used. In addition, the problem of such external linking of the attribution is, when the original file is renamed/moved/deleted on/from Commons, all attribution and license information would be lost. --Túrelio (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The requirement to provide a copy of the license or the address of the license is my understanding of Section 4 (a) of the legal code of CC-by 3.0: "You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License..." In my opinion, the FAQ doesn't accurately reflect that part of the license. The other requirement you mention – to link back to the original work where practicable – appears in Section 4 (b). The double negative makes it a little tricky to understand. Here's how I read it: if the author specifies an address to be associated with the work and that address leads to a page that has a copyright notice or licensing information related to the work, you must mention that address. In the example of File:Kremlin birds eye view-1.jpg, "" is probably not a "URI associated with the work" in the sense of Section 4 (b), but rather an "attribution party" (the publishing entity, to be specific) as mentioned in the same section. I'm guessing the reason for the confusion is that the name of the attribution party in this particular case could also be read as a web address. LX (talk, contribs) 23:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Would it seem correct to make the following statements about (example) the Kremlin picture: that if I use it on my/any web page, with only the clickable link under the picture, then I have fulfilled the wish of the copyright holder, I have been nice according to the CC-FAQ, however, I would not have fullfilled the CC reference to the license as I did not mention it at all
that using a clickable link counts higher (seen from the copyright holder) than using a text-only link, as clickable links generate search-engine points
that the missing license reference is not something that I might get in trouble with CC over, but possibly the copyright holder might complain
that the missing license reference is not something that a third party could sue me for (unless acting on behalf of the copyright holder)

that if I use it on my/any web page, with the clickable link under the picture, and the text-only "CC-SA-BY-3", then I have fulfilled the wish of the copyright holder, I have been nice according to the CC-FAQ, and I have fullfilled the CC reference to the license by naming it, though I still would not be "nice" as I did not give the URI of the license conditions

If I now used the picture in paper print, then just putting and CC-SA-BY-3 nder the picture would be an appropriate attribution and license information, as to what is common and practical in print, and probably that would make the creator happy, as well as the CC people.

In all these cases, there is no need to mention the title, as the title does not seem to be very important. Nor is it necessary to mention Commons.Wikimedia as the file description might change, and that it is not necessary in any way according to the license to mention Wikimedia - though it would still be useful information that might be of interest to some users.

Or am I wrong in any of these statements? I am trying to understand the conditions, as the FAQ and the legal text does not really match fully the way I read it. --Janwikifoto (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion request for the license templates

As suggested by Dcoetzee 00:31, 17 June 2011, I know made a deletion request for the license templates, see Commons:Deletion_requests/License_"adding_my_name_directly_under_the_photo". --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons Mission Statement ?

What is the Mission Statement of Wikimedia Commons? I have looked on the first page, and I do not find anything that describes what Wikimedia Commons is supposed to do, what commons is supposed to beneficial for, or in what way. Is there such a statement? If so, where? I would think that Wikimedia Commons is supposed to be a repository for media, to be used in various language wikipedia projects. Kind of an educational helper (excuse my bad english there) --Janwikifoto (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Project scope. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
On the Main Page it says "Welcome to Wikimedia Commons". "Welcome" links to Commons:Welcome; maybe "Wikimedia Commons" should link to Commons:About. I know About redirects to Welcome, but for those in Janwikifoto's situation, it's a lot more obvious to click on "Wikimedia Commons" ("what is this? aha") than on "welcome" ("what am I being welcomed to? tell me that first!"). So I'd link both, i.e. "Welcome to Wikimedia Commons". Or possibly "Welcome to Wikimedia Commons" or even "Welcome to Wikimedia Commons". Rd232 (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Missing files

Earlier today (at around 09:30 UTC) there was some temporary global tech issue and many new uploads seems to be missing. I have not encounter such situation before, so just want to ask if it is going to be fixed automatically? --Ben.MQ (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Go to the file description page of any missing image and click "purge this page cache". They are there, just not showing up without a purge due to a technical issue. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

.RM and .MOV

Hi! I learned that Commons does not accept files with .RM and .MOV But there are some video files from the NTSB website that are in those formats. Do I need to convert them, or can there be an exception made? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No exceptions is the short answer. Have you seen Help:Converting video yet?--P.g.champion (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I have not seen it yet. I will check it out, and convert the videos. Thank you so much! WhisperToMe (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

One file, two pictures

This one File:Prisches.jpg contains two pictures, shouldn't it be two files? --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Generally, yes, but it could be that the first version was an accidental upload. The new version was uploaded only two minutes later. So I wouldn't split it. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
But in this case where both pictures seem to be valuable (though the one showing is the best), may it be separated, or is there any problem with the licensing? --- Darwin Ahoy! 22:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I would assume they'd both be considered as uploaded under the same license. Huntster (t @ c) 04:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
With such a quick re-upload, I'd suggest asking the user. He's still active as of two weeks ago. Powers (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, both are valuable - but it could be, as I said, that it was an accident and that he did not intend to license the first picture and the license is possibly indeed not valid therefore. Ask him please. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Asked, permission granted, new file now at File:Prisches 2.jpg. :) --- Darwin Ahoy! 23:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Tineye Gadget

MediaWiki:Gadget-Tineye.js is very useful, but tineye's database is relatively small. Now that Google Images allows you to search images by drag-drop, I wish there could be a way to update the gadget to automate searching images, so we can easily detect copyvios. Huji (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

There is already a new gadged for that: GoogleImages tab. MKFI (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep, mentioned at #New gadget : GoogleImages tab on this page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Also there are extensions from Google for Chrome and Firefox, the Firefox extension is not compatible with Firefox 5 though.   ■ MMXX  talk  20:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Voting on policies and guidelines

Setting aside questions about procedure, are anonymous votes on the adoption of policies and guidelines counted?[16] We don't count anonymous votes on COM:RFA and COM:FPC. I don't think anonymous votes on the adoption of policies and guidelines should be counted, but I couldn't find guidance to that effect. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines should not be decided by counting votes – anonymous or otherwise. Anonymous contributors are certainly welcome to discuss existing and proposed policies and guidelines. LX (talk, contribs) 18:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Training area

I'm hoping to run some training sessions soon, teaching people to edit Wikipedia and upload to Commons. On Wikipedia, the trainees can use a sandbox to practise editing. Is there any facility on Commons, for them to upload images to a test area or category, from where, after a day or two, they can be deleted? Andy Mabbett (talk)

Image showing how to mark an upload as a test upload in the Upload Wizard.
I have taken the liberty of creating {{test upload}}. During upload, uploaders should click "More options" on the "describe" panel of the Upload Wizard, and enter "{{test upload}}" in the "Other information" box. These will be deleted after at least 24 hours. Note that trainees should never upload copyright violations, even temporarily - instead they should either use an existing image on Wikimedia Commons, or a photo or artwork created by themselves. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
That's brilliant, thank you. can we get such images excluded from warnings such as "this is a duplicate"? Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a category with test images: Category:Test images. Most images there should be okay to mess around with. Amada44  talk to me 10:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
There are images, such as this one, in that category that are used in wikipedia articles. However, this edit added the text "These are test images. Images can also be used for testing actions like moving, deleting etc. License may but must not apply. Images in this category may be deleted, moved or other images loaded on top of them." Is this truly intended? If so we should remove all "useful" images away from that category. If not we should delete that text. -84user (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Hmmm, that one may have been the only image that was not a test, so I removed it from the category. -84user (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

June 28

Golan v. Holder amicus filed by EFF, WMF, et al

From en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-06-27/News and notes: WMF moves to defend public domain: As announced earlier (Signpost coverage), the Foundation has joined forces with several educational institutions to support an Electronic Frontier Foundation Amicus brief regarding the Golan v. Holder case. The case stems from US acceptance of the Berne Convention in 1994, an act which granted copyright protection to several foreign works that were previously in the public domain according to the Copyright Act.
Last week, Geoff Brigham, the General Counsel of WMF, announced that the amicus brief had been filed, and explained the relevance of the case to Wikimedia "in light of the tremendously important role that the public domain plays in our mission": "To put it bluntly, Congress cannot be permitted the power to remove such works from the public domain whenever it finds it suitable to do so. It is not right – legally or morally." More information, including the Amicus brief, is available on the EFF page.

I'm overjoyed to hear that the WMF is getting involved with this. I actually raised this point in a discussion here earlier (Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2010/11#Should Metropolis be on Commons?), where Metropolis is one of the films listed in the Wikipedia article as affected by URAA. I feel like the WMF is arguing a case before the Supreme Court on my behalf, and it's most welcome. Wnt (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Request help, upload several files from pdf

Hi. Can someone help coordinate and get a whole bunch of sign images up that will make our collection better? Would involve extracting them from a pdf and making them individual images (think this is best.)

I corresponded with the USG and got an e-mail assurance that all of their DOT symbols are off copyright. Also, he pointed me to this file, when wanting a high res image (sorry, I realize it is not.) [17]. I can OTRS, although this would really ideally cover a whole set of images, not a specific file right now. So advise me on how to adress the OTRS!

TCO (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

P.s. I actually have what I need in terms of helping out a specific article (Fluorine on Wiki), so I personally have no need of all these images. Just thought that Commons would be a GREAT place to host them. Surprisingly we have very few of them in commons. See here: [18]. The signes are helpful for element articles or other chemicals articles. Even our chemical and hazard symbols articles themselves on Wiki are pretty pathetic.

TCO (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If this is of any help, I use Nitro PDF reader to extract images from PDF files.--- Darwin Ahoy! 22:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Will you do the work? I am really sort of an image idiot. I kind of tromp around and upload stuff at times, but am not a wiki veteran. ;-) TCO (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I can't compromise with that, sorry. I'm already in the middle of a thousand projects here, many of them already severely delayed. :\ --- Darwin Ahoy! 23:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Ha! I'm downloading it now. I really don't think I'm good at this sort of thing though. Is there a way to batch upload all the images and not do the one by one thing? And I only know how to use the old upload form, btw.TCO (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you can use Commonist for that and upload all them at once. The new Upload Wizard allows for 10 uploads at a time, but Commonist is much better IMO.--- Darwin Ahoy! 23:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Cutting and pasting and putting into Paint was how I did it before. I actually still need to learn how to use the Nitro, the new upload, and now this program. :( TCO (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
They are both very easy to use, especially the Nitro. You only have to click a button, actually. :) --- Darwin Ahoy! 00:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I played with the Nitro a little. Tried the extract images. However more than half the signs are not images somehow. So I still have to do the select individually and transfer to MS Paint, no? (which I can do in Adobe anyhow, no?_ And then some stuff was not really images. You know what...I will try. I just feel like this is so hard. And then...all the instructions for the communist program. I'm an article person. :-( Do you really want me to learn how to do this?TCO (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

OK...I'm doing the cut and pastes and saves through MS Paint. Is png better or jpeg? TCO (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Please don't take screenshots to extract images from PDFs if you can avoid it. If you must, zoom in on the image as far as you can before screenshotting, and save as PNG. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm just using that select button (that kind of gives you a square and then it takes it to the clipboard). then I take that to MS Paint and then save as PNG. Just hitting extract all images, really didn't work since a lot did not come over and I got things I didn't want (not signs) also. Am I doing it right?

We have some of them in Category:US DOT hazmat symbols... AnonMoos (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

June 29

File not found in listed categories

A user recently added three categories to File:Siitolanranta talvella.JPG, but the file is not found in any of them: Category:Winter in Finland, Category:Trees in winter or Category:December 2010 in Finland. Only the Category:Imatra where the file was already previously shows this image. Does anyone know if this is caching problem, or what? Bypassing browswer cache did not help me (even tried with a different browser). MKFI (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 19:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

3-d files/formats


possibly a stupid/obvious question (& likely one that has been asked previously), but do we have ANY provisions @ commons for 3d media files?

like CAD, or etc...

such files are useful "onscreen" already, BUT in the "now-to-future" 3d-printable "images" are going to become increasingly important.

Lx 121 (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Previous discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009/05#Other_types_of_media:_three_dimensional_objects_and_videos.3F -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

2 fat people picture

I saw two of the same image:

Charles Mellin zugeschr - Porträt eines Herrn - Gemäldegalerie Berlin.jpg
Charles Mellin (attributed) - Portrait of a Gentleman - Google Art Project.jpg

because both these images were the same topic, there's no point to be maintained one of them. If I select the image that is left to be deleted because it looks stain brush / dust. --Erik Evrest (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is best to keep both images in such instances. The left image is indeed enhanced from a scan with too low a contrast; nonetheless, it might have useful information. Also keep in mind that the Commons PD-Art licensing decision is one which may be prone to legal oppression - I would feel more comfortable keeping duplicate images so that in case one of them eventually falls to a "sweat of the brow" argument, the other might be spared. Wnt (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
agree with the above opinion; they are not EXACT duplicates. also; the one file is 56 kb & the other is 14.17 megs! commons is meant as a media repository, we don't just collect "one of everything", & it's useful to have at least some variety in file sizes...
i do appreciate the good-faith efforts of the user in raising the queation, however
Lx 121 (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
What everyone here failed to notice is the unfortunate fact that the original Yorck Project image was replaced by User:Shakko with a much lower-resolution and lower-quality image in 2009, with no update to the source metadata. I've reverted to the Yorck image, and warned Shakko. (So there are actually 3 versions here.) This is nothing in comparison to the number of versions of The Birth of Venus or The Mona Lisa we have (see Category:The Birth of Venus, Category:Mona Lisa). Dcoetzee (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A new, open, Flickr Alternative?

This seems like it'll be worth watching out for:

Andy Mabbett (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

MediaGoblin looks promising as well. --P.g.champion (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)