Commons:Village pump/Archive/2011/10

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

{{Retouched picture/en}} doesn't show the origoff?

I filled the origoff parameter in File:Maëva Orlé 1.jpg and many other files, the zh-hans version is able to should the off-commons source, but {{Retouched picture/en}} cannot do so. The source code of en template has the parameter 4, which is origoff, but it doesn't display. Could someone please fix this?--Mys 721tx (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't seem to have any problem seeing the external URL that you indicated. — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
In my case, it just display "This is a retouched picture, which means that it has been digitally altered from its original version.", only links it has is "retouched picture" that links to a enwp articles.--Mys 721tx (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Please dear Admins and trusted users. Don't forget to mark images at the panoramio review category. There are 100+ images here now. I have been busy these past few days. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for TSSOP and other chip packages

Pictures of various electronic chip carriers (packages) are very few. A picture of a common package like TSSOP is missing for starters. And so is many others, see the Chip carrier article for more suggestions on missing chip carriers. Wirepath (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Commons uploader giving non-existent (and missspelled) categories

I recently uploaded, using the Upload Wizard, File:Hanakao'o beach looking south.jpg‎ File:Hanakao'o beach looking north.jpg‎ File:Hanakao'o cemetery 1.jpg‎ File:Olowalu beach looking south.jpg‎ File:Olowalu beach looking north.jpg‎ using the Wizard's drop-down categories - well, you can see the results - Category:Hawaii Beaches | Category:Maui, Hawaii |Category:Cemetaries in Hawaii don't exist. Glitch in the wizard? Skier Dude (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a very annoying bug that should have been solved months ago. Multichill (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Russian speaking help for possible copyright violations needed

User Miha Fetisov contributed many images (Special:Contributions/Miha_Fetisov) with the "PD-self". I suppose most of them aren't work of the user, but I can't say because most is written in russian. Please help.--Avron (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I just had a look to the most recent one, and created Commons:Deletion requests/File:Коленвал.JPG. Any other opinion ? --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 18:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

ImageAnnotator and the new secure server

Just as a note to other editors. ImageAnnotator uses the api parser. On the api parser currently there is a hack in place to always return http:// links to images. This hack is in place to support all the iOS apps that use this function, and that were falling over in droves on the new protocol relative links. Because of this, Commons will always return mixed content in https mode, EVEN with the new server, as long as this hack is in place. Don't waste time looking for hardcoded links, you can't fix it without temporarily rewriting ImageAnnotator. The hack will be in place for approximately 2 weeks. TheDJ (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

How about disabling ImageAnnotator in one's preferences? Speeds up the experience to boot. – Adrignola talk 13:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

replace with svg

could some with a bot please replace

Rhodesia Medal Ribbon.png

with its vector

Rhodesia Medal Ribbon.svg

on all wikipedias especially on english wikipedia
i couldnt find any other place to propose this
Gauravjuvekar (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

User:CommonsDelinker is specifically programmed to not heed any commands to do just that "to avoid World War III". You must replace all uses by hand. – Adrignola talk 13:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
it is stated at Commons:Transition to SVG in the second section to request for bot help.

Gauravjuvekar (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

how is this being done!?

this file has been tagged as copyvio/speedy (improperly, no valid reasons given), BUT nothing is showing up in the edit box for the page...

how is this possible/what's being done here, pls?

Lx 121 (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Cover}} does it. Template:Cover is a redirect to Template:Copyvio, since we have a large number of CD/DVD cover uploads and the vast majority are not permitted. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

NARA upload bot is off by nine

Uploaded 2011-09-30, missing categories since 2011-09-21....

The NARA upload bot is putting the September 30 uploads into Category:Media from the National Archives and Records Administration needing categories as of 21 September 2011. "Off by 9" is very difficult for me to understand as this is not a natural error.

Can this be fixed for the future and adjusted for the present? -- Queeg (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

it is strange but not much of an issue "needing categories as of" date does not have to be very precise. I think its main purpose is to break the main category into more manageable chunks. --Jarekt (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
odd, but as Jarekt says, it's not that bad a problem. (My guess is a server somewhere has the wrong date, in which case, the problem might go away by itself.) In any case, the first thing to do with issues like this is to figure out who the bot operator is (in this case, User:Dominic operating User:US National Archives bot) and ask them to look into it. Rd232 (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
It is odd, and I can offer no explanation for it on my end. The bot was in the middle of running the same command the whole time; there was no issue categorizing when it started, then the date became wrong, and then it was right again (and is currently). The bot is using {{CURRENTDATE}}, so, as Rd232 suggests, I suspect there must have been a momentary glitch with that. It doesn't seem worth cleaning up; September 21 isn't even the largest category so far, even with the additions from the 30th. Dominic (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Nine is indeed odd. In this case it is unnatural and unusual also. I realize that it is not a problem by most definitions of the word problem -- it did however increase my personal goal / todo list from approximately 3500 to 4300. -- Queeg (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem still exists. There is also a chance that yesterday I was having an off by one error which means it was off by 8 days and as a result of that, no longer odd. Does this change the anything in regards to fixing the problem? (The problem that the bot is depositing images into a location which it is not supposed to.) -- Queeg (talk) 08:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

This bot is based on code I wrote. In this code I don't hard code dates. When I look at the example file I see a hardcoded date ({{Uncategorized-NARA|year=2011|month=September|day=21}}) instead of something to substitute ({{Uncategorized-NARA|year={{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}|month={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}|day={{subst:CURRENTDAY}}}}). That's probably the source of the problem. Multichill (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't realize it was an ongoing problem originally. It was a simple mistake of the "subst"s in the code actually getting substituted when I posted the code at one point, and then used the version from Commons to run the bot. Sorry about that, but it's fixed now at least. Dominic (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

related but not the same

The NARA upload bot seems to use the description as the name for the images. These lengthy names challenge many (but not all) of my softwares which display names. They really look quite terrible in the browser with the available wiki style sheets, for instance. Is renaming them while categorizing them an option I have which would not tax the patience of the ops who do the renaming too much? -- Queeg (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. I'd like shorter names (and many people do) but there was at least one (or maybe more than one) person who actually wanted longer names. I don't think you should rename them without some sort of firm consensus from the community. To be honest, I'm not sure where the previous discussions about the title length left us. Killiondude (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for remembering a discussion without remembering where. My question, however, was different than the one you answered. My question was about the people who would be conducting the renaming. -- Queeg (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The people who would be conducting the renaming should be tarred and feathered; that's all we need to know about them. Do not rename these files.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, File:COASTLINE, WHICH IS SOUTH OF LOS ANGELES. SOME 84 PERCENT OF THE RESIDENTS IN THE STATE LIVE WITHIN 30 MILES OF THE... - NARA - 557466.tif shows that there is at least a cut-off for copying the description into the title. It's certainly an example of a file that should be renamed; that partial description in the title (after "Los Angeles") is really no use to anyone. An easier issue to address though might be Can We Have Title Case INSTEAD OF ALL CAPS? It hurts my eyes! Rd232 (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
There is room for discussion about page titles, though the real reason they are how they are is because few people expressed an opinion at the beginning, so it was unclear what the community as a whole wanted. I don't feel strongly about the current length, and it's easy to change. The current limit is around 120 characters (less than half the total possible length), or shorter, so as not to cut off words in the middle. As for the all caps, we could change it to title case, though that is still problematic (and sentence case could only be done manually). There is probably also an argument to be made that we want to mirror the National Archives' given title exactly, though. In any case, what we shouldn't do is change things without having a discussion and then consistently changing the whole batch. As for removing parts of the title that seem unnecessary, I don't really think that would be a productive use of our time, since it would require a lot of manual renames (and, in this case, actually reading, comprehending, and deciding subjectively what to change it to) and result in inconsistencies across the batch. I'm happy to see actual suggestions about what to do, though. :-) Dominic (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I am quite certain that the NARA filenames are just that number, so to "mirror" NARA would not work as commons wants descriptive filenames. A community not expressing an opinion can be a community expecting that left to their own, the software author will make some good or at least more than adequate decisions on their own. That is how I interpret this -- perhaps others know differently? -- Queeg (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
You missed my point. I am talking about the titles in the descriptive metadata for the documents, not the literal names of the files. Dominic (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Python has a str.title() which, at least in 2.7 has some problems (it capitalizes the character after a "'") but mostly it does a good job for making a single-cased string into a two-cased title. This would be really nice for those titles. I have been converting song titles into file names recently and I tend to strip punctuation also, that is for my use, however and not a commons requirement. In Rd232's example filename, it seems like Coastline-557466.tif would have been unique and descriptive enough, but the first word and the numeric identifier is probably not going to be descriptive enough all of the time. Looking at a few pages of the images, it seems like the first 2 words would more than 70% of the time be adequate and reduce the need to rename a lot.
Out of curiosity, how many images are there and how many has your bot uploaded so far? -- Queeg (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
You can see a live progress bar at the bot's user page (you may need to purge the page cache). Of course, the ultimate goal is all of NARA's digital files. The current batch represents just over half, and I'm still trying to get my hands on the rest. Dominic (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me that a requirement that the bot authors clean up messes that their software makes might improve the quality of 1) the software being used here and 2) the people writing the software and 3) help to discourage "paste" errors like this.

How do the bot authors feel about accountability and responsibility like this? -- Queeg (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me that if we take the wrong sort of attitude we might just end up wondering where all the software authors went. By all means ask for improvements (and try to ensure appropriate design and discussion ex ante), but nicely. Rd232 (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: maybe there's a way that we can have the community manually come up with appropriate filenames before uploading? For instance the bot could make a list of files it's going upload in a week's time, with descriptions and proposed titles derived from those descriptions. Then anyone can look at the list, and add a better filename (eg if it's a table, into a separate column), and then the bot can use those better filenames at first upload. Wouldn't that be much better than the status quo of creating not-great filenames and then possibly renaming later (or not)? Rd232 (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

We have lots of work to do already. We have tens of thousands of files to categorize and use on the projects. I appreciate the suggestion, but there is, in my opinion, almost no chance that a bunch of Commons editors are going to appear to start assigning manual file names to thousands of files at the speed of the upload bot, and I don't think it would time well spent. Dominic (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
"There is almost no chance..." - maybe, maybe not. My suggestion isn't that hard to implement, though, and it would give people the opportunity. I wouldn't worry about "time well spent" because there's really no way of knowing what impact it might have on other Commons activities. And bear in mind that in this list format, it would be very efficient - just one editor could do hundreds of Better Names(TM) in a fairly short period. Rd232 (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, most of the names are completely appropriate, and I think the DOCUMERICA series that your example comes from is the only that is titled with all caps, so that's why I think it wouldn't be time well spent. In any case, the list isn't secret; it's just so large that it's not easily adapted to a wiki page. The IDs are the unique identifiers from NARA's catalog. For example, 123456 would be Feel free to do whatever you like with it. Dominic (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, OK then, I'll take your word for it that's it's not worth doing. Rd232 (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I made some suggestions about for changing the file name to the first three words of the description and I also wrote the simple code that would do this and also suggested a subroutine which would remove the need for the python re module and that reduced the bot code by about 25 lines in a way which is mostly easy to understand and easy enough to append. This was not nice behavior, btw; this was patient behavior for what at the time I thought to be a person who had written a first working script. Then I reread the information about the software. Nice behavior is the kind of behavior that a person has when they believe that they are assuming that the person using the nick is the same person and that they will mature along with their abilities. Nice didn't actually work real well here. I got five years of evidence of this. Nice comes naturally to me; perhaps others also.
I appreciate that the errors caused by the paste error have been reversed. I appreciate that it happened without discussion, ass-kissing, policy establishment or me having to have been "nice" here. Thank you, whoever caused this. Cache error.
I actually am also under the opinion that it is alright to not upload 10 of thousands of files with software until the software can upload them without causing so much need for human attention. If NARA is going to go away soon, perhaps it is better that they ask for the mirror.
What is nice? I always thought that commons had the potential to be one of the finest and most useful image collections that is available. Any person that is involved here should be thinking the same thing and in this way, everything and everyone is nice together without the need to define it or require it.
Nice is credibility. Nice is not taking too much advantage of a situation. Nice is not causing a lot of work for others. Nice is doing a good job without the need for ass-kissing by others. Yes, more of this kind of nice should be welcome here.
Not maturing yet maintaining status is not nice. Or do you disagree with that?
The python I have written, especially that for personal use is so much crap. Most of that is better than what I saw here. Is it to be considered nice to lie about that? -- Queeg (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, it is very difficult for me to understand what you are saying, and statements like "Nice behavior is the kind of behavior that a person has when they believe that they are assuming that the person using the nick is the same person and that they will mature along with their abilities" do not really parse for me. I think the suggestion that we reduce the names to the first three words will make most of the names nonsensical, not descriptive at all, and few others on Commons will agree with that. There is an argument to be made for reducing the length, but I would want more input before making that kind of a change. I do not see this as a very major problem, though; useful files are being uploaded, and the style of their names have very little effect on their utility. Dominic (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Agree with Dominic. Filenames follow current policy Commons:File renaming and Commons:File naming. Filenames need to fill very few criteria: be unique and be informative and not misleading. Those requirements are met. We can always come up with better names but a potentioal rename request would not meet any of the "seven widely undisputed uses for rename requests" listed in Commons:File renaming. In general I would prefer shorter names, but it is a rather irrelevant esthetic preference. Also I found user:Queeg suggestion about how to "improve quality of 1) the software being used here and 2) the people writing the software" to be rather rude. I would suggest tackling a few Commons:Batch uploading and sharing the code so others can reuse it, before criticizing "quality [] of people writing the software" any further. --Jarekt (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Standard license violation letter

Unless I'm blind, there are no resources on commons for standard license violation letters, like w:en:Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter, and some interwikis can be found there. As commons can contain the most probable steal-worthy objects of all projects, perhaps it could be an idea to create a page containing boilerplate letters in different languages for cc-by[-sa] violations? AzaToth 18:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea. --Jarekt (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
+1 --Martina talk 20:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


I have two duplicate cases:

Need help renaming image uploaded with a misspelt name

Dear admins,

Could you please rename to as I misspelt the name of the car? I cannot find a command to rename it myself, and Commons will not let me upload the same image using the correct name.

Any help will be much appreciated.

Many thanks, Cmglee (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Just tag it using the {{Rename}} template; indicate the name you want. - Jmabel ! talk 00:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

October 4

Main page layout

There is an interesting proposal at Talk:Main Page#Time to make the pics larger regarding the design of the main page. --ELEKHHT 11:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong categories

Hi. I want to upload some pics of Palacio Legislativo (Uruguay). All of them are in the Category:Palacio Legislativo. However, mix with these there are 3 of a project of Palacio Legislativo in Mexico (File:Pal LegFed 003.jpg, File:Palacio_Legislativo_A_Boari_Z04.jpg and File:Palacio legislativo-Maqueta.jpg) At least this last one should be rename for not to mix with the other, and a change in the categories I think is needed. Also, Category:Book fairs is a real mixture, cause Category:Book fairs by country has only 2 subcategories, while in the major there a lot of book fairs (of Moscow, of Buenos Aires, of España, of Italia, etc) but not in what I think is the right place. Can someone look at all of this, please? Thanks --Andrea (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The less ambiguous the name is, the less we have such problems that need removing. Moved to Category:Palacio Legislativo, Uruguay.
Concerning Category:Book fairs, most book fairs want to be international and not limited to a country, but in the end, they will all be organised by country. Nothing will stop you of doing that. --Foroa (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but I don´t know how to do it. Thanks for move the category, now is needed to move the tree files I mentioned before to another one, 'cause they're from Mexico, not Uruguay. Thanks for youl help. --Andrea (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


Until recently the Category editnotice was stored on an unprotected page (MediaWiki:Editnotice-14 used to transclude Commons:Categories/editnotice, an unprotected page). Some recent changes to the editnotice system broke this, and a request to reinstate it (at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Edit_request) is disputed. This structure appears to have been instigated by one user about a year ago, and possibly it didn't have wide enough support and was a bit "under the radar". So the question here is:

Should the Category editnotice be stored on an unprotected page?

Pro: easy editing by any user. Con: easy editing by any user, including risk of vandalism of what is effectively part of the interface. And the existence of the {{Edit protected}} system for edits to protected pages.

Rd232 (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't think all these pages should be fully protected. All this creates too much of unneeded bureaucracy and annoyance for non-admin users, while the benefits are marginal to non-existing. Trycatch (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
    • AFAIK it has long been standard practice to fully protect editnotices, because being part of the interface (a) it's more important to avoid the risk of vandalism and (b) they don't need editing very often. Rd232 (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Missing link to previous discussion : Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2011/07#Enable_Group_editnotices. – Adrignola talk 15:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well unless any further input is forthcoming, IMO this may be considered a failed proposal. The thread could be moved to COM:VPR to allow more time for input, if anyone wants. Rd232 (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please restore the solution we used to have. --  Docu  at 06:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Video game images

Why is it that there are so many video game images? I honestly feel that such are not legal to be declared PD because they are not "simple engineering" and cannot qualify for PD under such. Many of these images even include designs that are beyond simple shapes, so I find it even harder to believe we can just take pictures of copyrighted video game systems and release them like this. This has a complex Nintendo logo. This is a screen shot of a video game. The guy on the right is clearly not a simple design. I find it hard to believe we have the right to use any of these images. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You're going over-broad; certainly, we have the right to photograph functional devices. The N64 logo is probably de minimis. The other two photos could possibly do with a DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
See Commons:Derivative_works#Isn.27t_every_product_copyrighted_by_someone.3F_What_about_cars.3F_Or_kitchen_chairs.3F_My_computer_case.3F.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
"utility articles" is what that applies to, not video game systems. Video game systems are not utility but entertainment. If video game systems are able to be imaged and used at will, then all board games can be imaged. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The section quoted specifically mentions "television sets". A controller is designed specifically around the constraints of making an effective input device for a human. Board games "incorporate[] pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independ­ently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article."--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Really? Because here is the real pertinent quote: "Unless the shape of an automobile, airplane, ladies’ dress, food processor, television set, or any other industrial product contains some element that, physically or conceptually, can be identified as separable from the utilitarian aspects of that article, the design would not be copyrighted under the bill." The box that the video game systems come in are pure decorative. The mere fact that people can put the video game systems in fridges or toasters shows that. How do you think video game companies kept other people from building cheap knock offs that looked exactly the same? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The mere fact that people can put people in fridges or (very large) toasters doesn't make ladies' dress purely decorative. I have no idea what you think video game companies are afraid of. I've seen a cheap rip-off video game system that looks like a Nintendo Wii for sale at CVS. Like most people, I recognized that it was cheap junk (and it made no pretense at running Wii games). Frankly, those few people who thought (two years ago) you could buy a Wii for $50 were pretty darn unlikely to buy a Wii at $200, so I don't think Nintendo was worried. I think they're much more worried about people selling bricks in a real Wii box, or selling broken equipment as good, which are illegal but hard to stop, especially from Nintendo's position.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
"make ladies' dress purely decorative" Um, I was referring to the computer parts and how the box could be swapped. By the way, a ladies' dress -is- decorative and the style is copyrightable. Courts have already determined that one. And I've never seen CVS sell anything like that, especially not with the substantial legal liability. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The sentence you quoted clearly mentions "ladies' dress" as something that is not copyrightable except in separable aspects. I resent the implication that I'm not being truthful about what I saw at CVS.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Please do not ignore the context. It clearly says: "contains some element that, physically or conceptually, can be identified as separable from the utilitarian aspects of that article". We are not talking about basic dresses, just like video games are not in a plain square box. You are starting to be disruptive in your clear misquoting so please stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything you identified which is separable. Two are handheld controllers; their function is constrained by what human hands can use. Items which need to contain electronics are constrained by the need to contain the required electronics. The labels are separable yes but none of the photos is primarily of the labels. Here is an EU page on industrial design. Some countries do allow some industrial design to be copyrighted, but in the U.S., to be separable, the object must be wholly separable from its utilitarian aspect and not constrained by any functional needs. It's possible in such cases to have separable aspects but relatively rare, and none of the images you link to are examples of that, and anyways the photo would have to mainly focus on the separable items to be a derivative work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
It has already been proven that video game systems can be removed from their original case and put into other cases or left without one, so your claim that you don't see anything separable is very inappropriate. And it doesn't matter if none of the photos are primarily of the labels, we cannot get around copyright of the logos themselves merely because they aren't a major part. Your response above is merely a fair use argument which is not acceptable on Commons. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Fine, take it to DR. It's not productive trying to discuss this with you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
This isn't about DR, because people with no understanding of copyright law like you demonstrated above will just turn it into a vote. This is a greater issue and needs to be cleaned up on a wide scale. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Also see Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits; photographs of a bottle with a copyrightable label would not be derivative works of the label and would therefore be OK. Photos of full-product shots, even if they have copyrightable labels or logos, should be fine. I'd probably quibble with the one showing an active video game though; that may be an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Bottles are generic. Video game consols are not. That case does not apply here. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The case of the console is not copyrightable; that part does apply. The case is functional and utilitarian. You may be thinking of Industrial design rights, which is another form of intellectual property but is not the same as copyright -- in particular, they don't have similar derivative rights stuff (i.e. photographs are OK) and protection is much much shorter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, as I pointed out above, the case is the copyrightable part. It is pure decoration and it has to be copyrightable because it keeps other companies from making knock off copies. There is nothing "industrial" about the case. They serve no legitimate function as has been demonstrated above. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
P.S. From the Wiki page you link: "Objects that lack a use beyond that conferred by their appearance or the information they convey, may be covered by copyright—a form of intellectual property of much longer duration that exists as soon as a qualifying work " Industrial Design Rights does not mean that it can't be copyrighted, especially when the box, i.e. pure deocration, is not utilitarian. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
It has to be separable. The purpose of the case is to contain the electronics within. The fact that it may be visually pleasing does not help. Do note that a UK court ruled that the stormtrooper helmet in seen in the original Star Wars movie was not sculpture, nor a work of artistic craftsmanship, but rather industrial design protected for 25 years. Please find a court case which backs up your assertions; the U.S. has design patents for this kind of thing and typically will not allow a copyright on such industrial items. There are, as always, some close lines -- the case mentioned here was about a purely sculptural work (copyrightable), very slightly altered (with permission) into a bikerack which looked almost the same, and when the bike rack maker sued a knockoff competitor the bikerack itself was ruled uncopyrightable. The case of a game is not purely decorative; it serves a function. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
They are separable - it has already been demonstrated that the case is meaningless to the utility of the electronic components. And a UK court ruling on a matter does not mean that it is usable under US law. Your claim that there can't be a copyright on industrial items has already been proven demonstrably false. Furthermore, you would need to find a court case saying it is fair, not the other way around. The Nintendo logo is clearly within the copyright of Nintendo, and you would need to find a case saying it can be used regardless. Commons defaults to assumption that something is not usable, not the other way around. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
You have very, very wrong concept of what "separable" means. The case is there to serve a function, to cover the electronics. It does not matter if the product could work electronically without the case; the form of the case is guided by the shape of the electronics, and is further guided by FCC requirements on shielding for electronic fields and that kind of thing. The handheld controllers need to be held in the hand and function that way. The shape of the case is largely dictated by external factors, and is not a purely artistic work guided solely by an author's imagination. Rather they have to have a case, and they design it to be more appealing -- that is the very definition of industrial design. I don't appreciate you telling people they have no understanding of copyright law (they most certainly do); in this case at least it is far more likely you are the one who is misunderstanding things. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
No. You couldn't be more wrong. Even the Ets-Hokins makes it clear that they are not discussing the label of the bottle, which they admit can be copyrighted. Designs and labels, and other coatings, are copyrightable. Separable means that the object can work without it. That is the legal definition. The case is 100% by definition separable. The mere fact that it can be put in a toaster proves that. You cannot wiggle out of that and continuing to try is disruptive. Furthermore, I have worked far longer both on Wiki and irl regarding copyright and law than you have. I have also talked to many people at the WMF and long standing users who are concerned that we are misrepresenting the material because we need to provide things that can be sold by other people while also being altered by them. That Nintendo controller could theoretically be held by someone trying to implicitly advertise for something else, and that would be illegal for them to produce such because it is copyrighted and they wouldn't realize it. That is not acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid not -- Ets Hokins states explicitly that whether the label was copyrightable or not was immaterial to that case -- the photographs were not derivative works either way. Photographs of the label itself, or mainly of the label, would be an issue if the label was copyrightable (and many are, yes), but not photographs of the entire object as a whole. That is stated plainly. You are also incorrect on what separable means. That is nowhere near the legal definition. The case has a utilitarian function, which is to contain the electronics and provide shielding, and is not purely decorative. I have been working on Wikimedia a long time as well, and read a lot of copyright cases, and never come across anything remotely like you are claiming. Please point to a court case which backs up your interpretations -- I have never seen one. Here is some of the Copyright Compendium on the matter: 505.04 Separability test: physical basis. The physical separability test derives from the principle that a copyrightable work of sculpture which is later incorporated into a useful article retains its copyright protection. Examples of works meeting the physical separability test include a sculptured lamp base of a Balinese dancer, or a pencil sharpener shaped like an antique car. However, since the overall shape of a useful article is not copyrightable, the test of physical separability is not met by the mere fact that the housing of a useful article is detachable from the working parts of the article. That last sentence directly contradicts what you are saying above. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
It is clear to me that the only separable element in File:Sega-Saturn-ControllerS.jpg is the logo. The design of the controller itself and the buttons is driven primarily by functional considerations (being easy to hold and manipulate). A straight shot of a game cartridge or game disc on the other hand would probably be a copyvio because the printed label would be separable and usually includes copyrightable artwork. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Which is my primary concern. Most of these images have their logos, or video games on screens, or other matters. We are trying to license material that others could potentially sell and I am pretty sure that logos would cross the line. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
If the photo is mainly of the logos, sure that can be a problem. If it is of the product as a whole, it should be fine, since the logo would not qualify as the "underlying work" necessary for a derivative work. That is the Ets-Hokins decision explicitly. The designer of a logo should not expect to have derivative rights controls over photos of products; just of their logo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
That isn't how the law works, and you are misstating what Ets-Hokins decision was. "Incidental" when the object is clearly the only thing there and not made by yourself, is clearly inappropriate. It has already been proven that Ets-Hokins does not apply because that was about -a bottle-, which has a classic and straight forward design. Furthermore, we must follow under CC-SA, which Ets is not regarding. Furthermore, Ets is about a derivative work trying to claim exclusive copyright over all derivatives against the original owner's copyright, which is not the case here. No one is saying that Nintendo et al would be unable to sell any images of their products. Finally, Ets sides with me: "the court further held that the bottle's"trade dress (the blue bottle, the gold label, etc.) and copyrighted material (the label and all non-utilitarian features of the bottle)" rendered it a "protected and copyrighted work." " - the coloring and logo are all original creations and copyrightable. The design for a bottle is not as a bottle is utilitarian. Furthermore, the case said it would not address the trade dress copyright issue when it states clearly: "We need only comment briefly on the district court's assertion that the bottle's trade dress--its blue color, gold label, etc.--renders the bottle a protected work. Although it is true that trade dress may arguably afford Skyy some intellectual property protection with regard to its bottle[n10] --an issue we need not decide here--that protection is irrelevant to deciding whether the bottle is a preexisting work under the Copyright Act". Ottava Rima (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is. You are misstating Ets-Hokins. It is not a de minimis ruling, nor incidental inclusion really. It was about a photograph of a non-copyrightable object, which was the primary thing. If the case was copyrightable, yes, you'd have a point -- but I think you are way, way, way off base to think it is. You misstate Ets-Hokin quite badly above. You are quoting the district court, which was overruled by the circuit court completely. They merely repeat the district court's findings at the top, as part of a historical summary of the case, before they get to your findings. That is a total misreading. The latter part is the main thing. First, "trade dress" is a form of trademark, not copyright, and does not create derivative works and does not cause deletion here. First, the bit about the label: Turning next to the bottle's label, which the district court also cited in part in categorizing Ets-Hokin's photos as derivative works, we note that "[a] claim to copyright cannot be registered in a print or label consisting solely of trademark subject matter and lacking copyrightable matter." 37 C.F.R. 202.10(b). Although a label's "graphical illustrations" are normally copyrightable,[n13] "textual matter" is not--at least not unless the text "aid[s] or augment[s]" an accompanying graphical illustration. 1 NIMMER 2.08[G][2], at 2-136.[n14] The label on Skyy's vodka bottle consists only of text and does not include any pictorial illustrations Ixn other words, the district court found the label to be copyrightable, but they were wrong -- it was lettering only, and not eligible for copyright protection, so that was one part where the district court erred. THe next is the most important though (bolding mine): We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable because Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label. The whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety. The defendants have cited no case holding that a bottle of this nature may be copyrightable, and we are aware of none. Indeed, Skyy's position that photographs of everyday, functional, noncopyrightable objects are subject to analysis as derivative works would deprive both amateur and commercial photographers of their legitimate expectations of copyright protection. Because Ets-Hokin's product shots are shots of the bottle as a whole--a useful article not subject to copyright protection--and not shots merely, or even mainly, of its label, we hold that the bottle does not qualify as a "preexisting work " within the meaning of the Copyright Act. As such, the photos Ets-Hokin took of the bottle cannot be derivative works. The district court erred in so concluding. Please follow that analysis. The bottle is a useful article, therefore photographs of the bottle as a whole are not derivative works under the meaning of the copyright law, regardless if there is a separable, copyrightable label on it. Photographs mainly of the label, that suddenly becomes different. This is a technical reading of the copyright law, but it does try to balance the normal expectations of a photographer -- there is no way a label designer should be able to claim full control over such photographs as derivative works, unless the point of the photo is the label itself. THe label does not qualify as a "pre-existing work" in this scenario, which is a requirement to have a derivative work in the first place. The video game casings are utilitarian; this is where I think you are quite a bit off base. People have been taking photos of such articles for decades; if there was an actual copyright issue then someone would have successfully sued a photographer at some point, and you would have a court case to point to. If you find such a case, we can then discuss it. I think the Ets-Hokins case is precisely the situation brought up here, and is a near-perfect parallel. If you have another court case in mind, please bring it up, otherwise this is your personal opinion going against every other court case I am aware of. You will find court cases on photos of stuffed doll toys, since those qualify as copyrightable, but those are about it as far as I know. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Wow, that is really, really disruptive and misrepresentation. "We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable" That right there verifies that the line does not apply to the discussion at hand, especially when they already acknowledged that the label is copyrightable and that the individual had to have a license to take the image originally. Ets-Hokin (not the original owner) was claiming copyright over all images of the bottle, not the other way around. They were dismissing his ability to claim that he had the exclusive right to take images of another company's product and that they couldn't have others that they license to take the picture. It does not say that people without permission could have had the right to take images of the work. Furthermore, "The video game casings are utilitarian" has been utterly debunked. There is no parallel. There is nothing even close. Commons requires you have to prove that it is legal, not the other way around. That is a central tenant. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
And the dissent points out how the majority's refuse to address the label is important and proves that Skyy had the right to ownership of the original copyright because of the label: "The flaw in the majority opinion's derivative works analysis is that it consistently understates the protected elements of Skyy's vodka bottle, beginning with the opinion's attempt to reproduce Skyy's label in the statement of facts. The opinion's rough, non-scale, black-and-white depiction ignores the way Skyy's gold label contrasts with its electric blue bottle. Vodka bottles are often the subject of highly-competitive print advertising campaigns. For example, Absolut Vodka is famous for its clever ads featuring its bottle. The majority opinion overlooks the Skyy bottle's copyrightable elements -- its non-utilitarian features (such as the color and shape of the bottle) and its label. Furthermore, the bottle and label also are subject to trademark and trade dress protection. If derivative works analysis is limited solely to copyrighted works (as opposed to works protected by trademark and trade dress), it is up to Congress, not the Ninth Circuit, to say so. As it currently stands, derivative works analysis may be another means of preventing Ets-Hokin from obtaining a monopoly over product shots of Skyy's bottle. " Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805 [1] Post Ets-Hokin: "But it is not true that any combination of unprotectable elements automatically qualifies for copyright protection. Our case law suggests, and we hold today, that a combination of unprotectable elements is eligible for copyright protection only if those elements are numerous enough and their selection and arrangement original enough that their combination constitutes an original work of authorship. See Metcalf, 294 F.3d at 1074; Apple Computer, Inc., 35 F.3d at 1446. See also Feist, 499 U.S. at 358 ([T]he principal focus should be on whether the selection, coordination, and arrangement are sufficiently original to merit protection." - The use of logos, the color scheme, etc., makes it clear that most of these images are so unbelievably original that they cannot be relicensed by us as CC-SA without approval. You cannot argue that the design on this screen is not original, or this design covering this device is not original, or the design on this screen and logo is not original, etc. What could be argued is the ability to make imitations, but not to take someone else's device and sell the images of it. As per the decision: "Satava may prevent others from copying the original features he contributed, but he may not prevent others from copying elements of expression that nature displays for all observers, or that the glass-in-glass medium suggests to all sculptors. Satava possesses a thin copyright that protects against only virtually identical copying." This is virtually identical copying. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
No. They state in the previous paragraph that the label is not copyrightable. The sentence you quote explicitly says that the copyrightability of the label is immaterial to the photographs of the bottle as a whole; they are not derivative works either way -- i.e. they need not decide on the copyrightability of the label at all to make the derivative work decision on the photographs. There were many aspects to the Ets Hokins case (there was a later decision on further parts of it), but you are misreading it. This section is 100% on whether photographs of the bottle are derivative works of the bottle (or the label on the side). Yes, there were further claims that any other similar photographs would be derivative of that particular photograph, and the court shot that idea down too, but that is not the question at hand. There was another complicated case about photographs of a motorcycle which had a copyrightable bit of detail work on the site; those were similarly ruled to not be derivative works. As for the dissent, it is just that -- it may inform future judicial opinions but the opposite is binding case law for that circuit (and has been reinforced in other circuits). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
They do not state that the label is not copyrightable but directly say it can be! I quoted that already. The minority opinion even claims that the court failed to combine the potential copyrightable material in the label to the whole of the bottle and thus say Skyy has the original claims to the whole thing. The only way the majority opinion could make the claim it did was to ignore the label. It is right there in plain English. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they do -- Although a label's "graphical illustrations" are normally copyrightable,13 "textual matter" is not-at least not unless the text "aid[s] or augment[s]" an accompanying graphical illustration. 1 NIMMER S 2.08[G][2], at 2-136.14 The label on Skyy's vodka bottle consists only of text and does not include any pictorial illustrations. They explicitly note that the Skyy label is basically PD-textlogo as it consists purely of text. The very next sentence, of course, states that that fact is not material to the derivative work calculation -- those photos would not be derivative even if the label had been copyrightable. Yes, the dissenting opinion disagrees, but those are not binding. I would tend to agree with the majority opinion that the design of the label, with the colors, is more a subject of trade dress and not copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
"textual matter" - The label was more than Textual Matter as was clearly pointed out in the dissenting opinion. Furthermore, the Nintendo Logo, the Game Genie logo, etc., are not "textual" so your claims are really inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
They are textual matter per that majority decision, per the Nimmer book, and per the Copyright Office guidelines. The aesthetic attractiveness of the color scheme is not meaningful to copyright (but are to trademark or trade dress). This is a side issue though; and yes some of those other logos you mention are copyrightable, but again they are placed on the product with permission, and photographs of the entire product are not derivative of them, unless the photos are focusing on said labels. You really need to find a binding decision supporting your theory; at the moment you have only a dissenting opinion. The Latimer v, Roaring Toyz Inc. is the motorcycle case I was thinking of; elements of that are still going. The district court ruled that the photographs of the motorcycle were not derivative of the designs on the side of the motorcycle, and even implied that photographs of any copyrightable object were not derivative; that aspect went to the 11th circuit court where they agreed the latter implication was going too far, but hinting the designs on the cycle were merely incidental since the photographs were of the bike as a whole, though they actually sidestepped that question and did not rule on it, instead going down a road of implied license (not really applicable here). They did not however overrule the district court determination of not being derivative works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The majority decision never says that the whole bottle is textual matter or unoriginal textual matter. It instead says that there is a case that it could be copyrighted but they would ignore it. That phrase has been quoted multiple times. Furthermore, it doesn't apply because this is not a simple bottle with simple lettering. That has been pointed out multiple times but you persist regardless in a very disruptive manner. Furthermore, we must license things to be modified, so if, in the case of the bike, we cannot do so because someone can crop out the rest of the bike to have only the design and thus invalidate the whole reason why it could be used. You seem to fail to understand that we must provide something that can be both modified and sold. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The majority says the bottle is an uncopyrightable utilitarian object. They also say the label is purely textual matter, but that latter part is immaterial in determining if photographs of the entire bottle are derivative works. Yes, if you crop such photos in particular ways you could end up with an infringing work, but that is true of any photograph containing a de minimis amount of a copyrightable work... Commons has long kept those, but will of course delete crops which focus on those works. It is simply not practical to delete all photographs where there could theoretically be an issue by someone cropping to a background or incidental item. That is long-standing Commons policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
We are not supposed to have any amount of copyrightable work. We are CC-SA, not Fair Use. Furthermore, the second case I list shows that you can still have a "utilitarian object" as an underlying design and still be able to copyright the matter based on original additions. That goes along with what the minority opinion stated about the markings of the bottle which was a matter not discussed and blatantly ignored by the majority. Thus, you cannot use the case in the way you wish to use it. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Here is proof that Nintendo has the copyright to the design on case of the Nintendo 64. NUS-S-HB-USA is another name for the physical Nintendo 64. They also copyright their cartridges. They are very anal about copyrighting their packaging. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
That is the packaging, i.e. the box it comes in. Those registrations are specifically on the text and illustrations, as noted directly in the registration, not any putative sculptural work. Of course that kind of thing is copyrightable. Here is a list of U.S. Copyright Office board of appeals decisions; a fair number of them are denying registration on people trying to register the designs of useful items; for example here, here, and here. Perhaps most instructive is one for a video game control set (which was denied); see here (or here for a searchable text version). Those go through the arguments against the casing being copyrightable in great detail. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
"the box it comes in. Those registrations are specifically on the text and illustrations" No. It is clearly about the case with their name, designs and logos on the cases. The selling packages are different. If you read the list, you will see "cartride" and the rest. They copyrighted every single item. Furthermore, the actual Nintendo 64 device is labelled NUS-S-HB-USA as sold outside of the box. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
On copyright registrations, there is an entry called "Basis of Claim", or "Description" and often "Authorship on Application" which gives a precise idea of the items being registered for copyright. The title even says packaging; it says "Authorship on Application: text & artwork: Studio Archetype, Inc., employer for hire", and it says "Basis of Claim: New Matter: text & new ill". That claim is based on text and new illustrations only (building on an older registration of textual matter). There is no mention of a sculptural work. I went through a number of other Nintendo registrations, and could find only similar registrations -- text and 2-D illustrations. Since the copyright law classifies visual work as "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" (you will see the abbreviation PGS sometimes), registrations would almost certainly need to use the word sculpture or sculptural somewhere. The only ones I could find are these, which are of toys, not game console cases. If you find one, yes that will be interesting. If not, this appears a company who scrupulously registers everything it possibly can (they have thousands of registrations), but does not copyright their game cases, presumably because they can't. The Copyright Office appeals decision I linked above explains why. As for the Border Patrol link, the cartridges themselves are not copyrighted, rather the video game software contained on them -- the Border Patrol is looking for pirated copies, of course. You can check that by looking for the corresponding entries in the copyright catalog (the recordation number in the cbp listing is the registration number -- this ("audiovisual material, computer program") and this ("computer program") are the two registrations associated with cartridges from that listing. Actually, the prefix on the registration number is another clue -- "PA" is a performing arts prefix, used for movies and things like video games; "SR" is sound recordings, "TX" is purely textual matter, and "VA" is for visual works such as graphics and sculptures. There is only one "VA" in that list and it's for a poster. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
" There is no mention of a sculptural work." Packaging is a copyright term for the item that contains the electronic equipment. It covers the entire design and not just the Nintendo logo. The individual boxes have their own copyright because there were literally hundreds of different boxes the system came in. "but does not copyright their game cases" - this was proven wrong already by showing that cartridges and every piece of equipment with a Nintendo logo on it was copyrighted. This is in addition to the content inside, as those have separate entries. It clearly differentiates between the two by saying "video game" and "cartridge". Why he persists to claim otherwise when there is evidence to the contrary is unexplainable. His claims like this: "are the two registrations associated with cartridges from that listing" when the link had hundreds of pages of material, is rather laughable in its wrongness. There is no legitimate explanation for his behavior, and it is obvious that he is trying to make any argument he can to try and justify the use of another company's product without permission to be distributed, used, and sold without any ethical or legal right by Commons. His attempts to try and argue de minimis elsewhere regarding the products when the page on de minimis says it cannot apply when the object in question is the focus of the image, which all of these are, is further proof that he is trying to disrupt Commons and put us into a bad legal situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
It is also disruptive to claim that video game systems with complex packaging and colored illustrations on them are some how comparable to "useful objects" like a lamp, a lighter, etc. especially when designs for those basic objects have existed for over 100 years. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you thought I said. "Packaging" is a term for the material it is shipped in and sold to the consumer in, the box, plastic covering, etc. The registration you mention is for the illustrations on the box, and nothing else. The claim is specifically for textual matter and illustrations only. The registrations you are claiming are on the cartridges are not, they are on computer programs. It says so, in black and white, on the website. Claiming something further is quite simply not there. You've been a pretty solid contributor for a long time, so this is really surprising me. I admit, I did not see the full listing on the link, I was just looking at the first page. Those are not direct copyright claims; they all reference a registration at the Copyright Office, and you can use the numbers to look up to see what the registration is actually for; the two marked "cartridges" on the first page are in fact registrations on the computer programs and nothing else (obviously, the cartridges contain the computer program, so that is what the Border Patrol would be looking for, but the registration goes no further than what is on record at the Copyright Office, and "cartridge" is not there. I'm surprised you persist in actually claimig that, honestly. Please look beyond the word cartridge, look at the registration number, and look up the corresponding entry at if you don't believe me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow. In the middle of a discussion, Ottava Rima decides to circumvent consensus and appeal to an administrator directly to delete these files, refusing to take them to DR. I consider that hostile to the Wikimedia spirit of open discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus when it comes to trying to violate our core policies. This discussion can only be about the whole process of clean up and seeking help for clean up, not if the images are allowed to stay. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I've walked away from copyright issues like this before; if the consensus is against you, there's nothing you can do. I bet Carl Lindberg has before, too. It's the way things work here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Autorotation using EXIF tag with MW 1.18 (old)

moved to bottom --Saibo (Δ) 02:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

October 3

Personal Gallery disapears

I choose the "my contributions" and then "Gallery" and the I normaly see all the images I have uploaded in the past. Now I get the message that this special page does not exist. (The names and messages are in Dutch) What is going on? Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Now I see a second gallery button Galerij(2) an dthis one works. Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
These changes are due to the current changes which were/are discussed here: Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Special:MyUploads_Part_2. Both ("Uploads" and "Gallery") should work now. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

October 5

Cannot add new files to my watchlist

I cannot add new files to my watchlist (this is new problem and I do not remember that something like this happened before). PANONIAN (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Which file, which browser, what happens, which error-message in javascript-console? -- RE rillke questions? 15:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, seems that this problem does not exist any more - I managed to add file to my watchlist. Anyway, the option did not worked few hours ago and when I saw that I was unable to add file to watchlist, I tried to add several more other files and the result was same. I am using Opera and now I do not remember what was exact error message that I got (something like "this action failed"), but now it works fine. PANONIAN (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I think this could have been a temporary error somewhere. As we have no confirms that this is 1.18 related I have removed this section from the 1.18 group. Let us now of new problems if they are not already mentioned on this page. :) --Saibo (Δ) 16:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see my uploads in Special:New Pages (bug ?)

I want to get a RSS/Atom feed for my uploads so I've used the Special:New_Pages to get a list of my recent uploads. But nothing appears in while I can see my files in . Is it a bug ? Many thanks for your answers. --Plindenbaum (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Did it work before? Filtering by namespace was removed from user contribs (not good). But at the newpages it should work in my opinion... If it did work like you called the query before, please move this section to the 1.18 problem section above. --Saibo (Δ) 14:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
well, it seems to work for the others: and the RSS feed and I use this system for wikipedia . I'm going to move my question. --Plindenbaum (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
For user:Lintoncat i only see new category pages - no new file pages. Are you sure that you saw your uploads in this query? --Saibo (Δ) 14:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
ok, that was a bad example: see and the RSS feed : . That doesn't work for me : --Plindenbaum (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Clusternote created the pages (flickrbot uploads) by hand - not by upload. Same here: I uploaded a file right now but it doesn't show up in Spezial%3ANeue_Seiten&namespace=6&tagfilter=&username=Saibo and dewp in running MW 1.17. So this is not a new 1.18 bug. Agree?
Just a kind of workaround: If you have a user category: rss feed based on Special:RecentChangesLinked.
Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I see (but I'm find it weird that in works on but not on ) --Plindenbaum (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
It works in Wikipedia for pages as it does in Commons for pages. It doesn't work in Wikipedia and Commons for uploads or pages created by uploading - apparently. Consequently I moved this section out of 1.18 again.
This could be a general feature request/bug report (if not existent already but not fixed). I will have a look in some days if the current 1.17 →1.18 software change is successfully over. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thank you for your help and your suggestions --Plindenbaum (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Special:NewFiles

I am relaying this interesting question that a user posted today on the French language Village Pump: Commons:Bistro#problème d'affichage des nouvelles images. I think it may have a better chance of finding answers if it is also posted here. Below is a copy of the original question in French by User:Jean-Jacques MILAN, followed by my personal attempt at a quick translation in English. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


Depuis plus de 4 ans je passe systématiquement en revue les nouvelles images chargées sur Commons afin de prélever celles qui peuvent être utiles pour compléter les wikilivres dont je m'occupe. D'habitude il est possible de se rendre à la dernière page visitée, en l'occurrence après une absence d'une quinzaine de jours :

ce lien renvoie normalement au 17 septembre à 21 h 58 min et 38 s

Les vignettes s'affichent normalement par lots de 48

Depuis ce matin le lien ne fonctionne plus correctement, il renvoie les vignettes par paquets de 500 (ce qui n'est pas forcément une mauvaise chose) mais surtout il démarre à l'instant actuel, donc le 5 octobre à 12 h et des bricoles. Je ne peux plus revenir là où j'ai laissé le travail...

Quelqu'un a-t-il la solution à ce problème ?


Jean-Jacques MILAN (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)



Since more than 4 years, I systematically review the new images uploaded to Commons, to pick those that can be useful for the wikibooks I manage. Usually, it is possible to go to the last page I viewed, for instance after coming back from a two-week absence:

Normally, this link would link to 17 September at 21:58:38.

The thumbnails are usually displayed by groups of 48.

Since this morning, the link does not work properly anymore. It displays the thumbnails by groups of 500 (which is not necessarily a bad thing), but more importantly it starts at the current time (5 October at the current time). I can't start anymore from where I had left my work.

Does anyone have a solution to this problem?



Welcome to the club of MediaWiki 1.18-update victims ;-). See the thread MediaWiki 1.18 deployment to Commons above. --Túrelio (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Not a constructive reply, Túrelio. or

-- RE rillke questions? 16:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As I lost so much time today as a direct result of this update and as these kind of problems are repeated with more or less each MW update over the last years, my capacity of tolerance is indeed exhausted for today. --Túrelio (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Come on, don't worry and take it too serious. No reason to be angry about something if WMF nevertheless acts against the community (yes, I have this impression). Let's set up an image-filter, let's create UploadWizard... Das Geld wäre anderswo besser investiert gewesen .. und die Zeit, die ich mich mit UploadWizard schon rumgeärgert habe. Wollen wir es mal wie die Italiener (kam sogar in meinen Radionachrichten) halten? Ein arbeitsfreier Tag, oder 2 bis hier wieder Normalität herrscht? -- RE rillke questions? 16:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Public domain?

Does the note "the photos below can be used without further permission" on this page effectively mean that these have been released in the public domain? --ELEKHHT 22:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the unambiguous interpretation. I suppose that explains everything. --ELEKHHT 04:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
See Commons:Image casebook#Press photos. The context suggests that the implied intent is for the photos to be used (without further permission) only in unmodified form and only in a limited set of contexts, the way press photos would normally be used. LX (talk, contribs) 14:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe Template:Attribution could apply, but I'm not sure (IANAL). Anyway, there's certainly no PD since the copyright holder at least requires credit. - A.Savin 05:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
If you're willing to invest some time: Send them an email asking them to license the images under a free license like the {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Ask them to put that on the press page of have them send permission by email as explained on Commons:OTRS. Multichill (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
No, {{Attribution}} requires derivative works to be explicitly permitted, which is not done here. LX (talk, contribs) 14:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
As above, I think we usually prefer an explicit mention that derivative works are OK. The above could be interpreted as allowing copying and commercial use, but the other aspects of a "free" license are ambiguous. See Commons:Image casebook#Press photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
All clear now, thanks for the feedback. --ELEKHHT 02:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
PS. Received OTRS explicitly allowing free use. --ELEKHHT 18:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2

I updated a sound file but it doesn't update

I even tried to upload the file twice and emptying my cache, but the old file stays. The dimensions of the file are correct, but the file itself isn't. TFighterPilot (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally: please Avoid_overwriting_existing_files. Please upload your version under a new filename.
Regarding your cache problem: yes, for some reason the current version delivered by the server stayed the old version. Also when I cleared the server cache. Maybe a temporary glitch. No, it is not - let's continue on this at #Full size (orig. version) of files does not update on upload of a new version.
Regarding your intention to "correct the sound": in Firefox 3.6 it plays correctly. But it is to short in VLC. Did you experience the same? Not sure why this happened - I couldn't correct this using audacity or oggenc. Maybe the guys at Commons:Graphic_Lab/Video_and_sound_workshop now. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC) 14:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
VLC always indicates a too short length of OGG files, but plays the full length. Jcb (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Didn't watch at the length - just listened: the end was missing. --Saibo (Δ) 14:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I do generally avoid overwriting, but in case of consonants the name of the file is important, because the template automatically searches for them. TFighterPilot (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
If using the same name is really justified then the old file should be moved to another name first. Should I do it? Then you can upload your new recording. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I reuploaded my file. Now it's again the old one while the twice I uploaded before are the correct one. (I suppose it takes time or something?) You can upload Peter's file by another name if you wish, though I don't see the point given that it's the wrong pronunciation. TFighterPilot (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Ehm.. okay. Talking doesn't help apparently. - I did split the file history now. The current file version is still the wrong one. This is due to the current bug. Please do not try to upload a new version currently. First wait for this bug to be fixed. --Saibo (Δ) 18:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
As the mentioned update bug is resolved and I purged your file: works now. --Saibo (Δ) 21:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Saibo (Δ) 21:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

New bugs and problems with Wikimedia Commons

Hi. Does someone know what happening with Wikimedia Commons today? I saw at least 3 new problems in this site:

  • 1. New file version that I uploaded does not appear and file page show an older file version (I remember that this problem was an issue in Wikimedia Commons few months ago, but I thought that it was repaired).
  • 2. I cannot add new files to my watchlist (this is new problem and I do not remember that something like this happened before).
  • 3. File pages are not showing list of articles in various Wikipedias where files are used.

So, does somebody know why this happening? Also, does somebody know how to repair these errors and when exactly they could be repaired? PANONIAN (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

See Commons:Village_pump#MediaWiki_1.18_deployment_to_Commons above. --Jarekt (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Ad 1: #Full_size_.28orig._version.29_of_files_does_not_update_on_upload_of_a_new_version
Ad 2: #Cannot add new files to my watchlist - please describe in more detail there.
Ad 3: #Global_usage. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Saibo (Δ) 15:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Always an optimist ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
You called?—An  optimist on the run! 06:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem with new update (not related to files images not updating properly when new version is uploaded)

Has anybody else noticed that files now also aren't should their global usage? I have viewed several files that I know for a fact are used extensively, and it is only showing their Commons usage, but not global. Fry1989 eh? 21:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The recently uploaded File:Solre-sur-Sambre station.jpg doesnt show the in use in the dutch (NL) wikipedia nl:Station Solre-sur-Sambre.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

See Commons:Village_pump#MediaWiki_1.18_deployment_to_Commons above,
ad: #Global_usage. Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Language select does not show subcategories

Hi, as in Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Austria I do not see subcategories, if selected language is de. Only if I set it to en, I will see the subcategories. Whats wrong? Are Subcategories language specific? And where does this Language select: come from? regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Something tells me that someone at Commons:Forum might be better equipped to help, since they are either facing the problem themselves or they are not and can conclude that some other variable must be at fault. - Jmabel ! talk 23:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Confirming this sort of problem (it's not a "German only" one):
I usually have "de" set as my interface language. I see subcategories/media on Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Austria when I select "de" or "show all" from the language select thingy, but I only see the top content – as if the category was empty – when I select "en".
This works the other way around, too (set "en" as interface language, select "de", and an "empty category" page is shown).
I also noticed this behaviour on several other categories within the last hours, and it's also present in all other language combinations I've tested (fr/en, it/pl, etc.). Subcategories/Pages/Media are only displayed if one selects the same language that one uses as the general interface language, or if one selects "show all". --:bdk: 00:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem reported at MediaWiki talk:Multilingual description.js#Lang-selector is no longer suitable. -- RE rillke questions? 08:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Strange rendering

When I uploaded File:Solre-sur-Sambre Station plant.jpg I see the result turned 90% and squashed. When you clic for full size it is presented the normal way. As usual I get very frustrated when I try to classify the very common garden plant, but of unusual size. (I am totally illiterate with latin) It is a conifer plant, but where the hell can you find the latin name quickly? There are guiding pictures or clues to guide you. You have to check every subcategory five levels down, before you see a picture and you know are in the rigth direction.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

@technical stuff: See #Autorotation_using_EXIF_tag_with_MW_1.18. I fixed it. Your image had a wrong EXIF tag (indicated that the image needs to be rotated). I removed the wrong information. This could have happend by using a program on your pc to rotate the image which doesn't understand EXIF. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

October 6

Commons:Categories - Only experts can get this right?

moved to Commons talk:Upload Wizard diff -- RE rillke questions? 17:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


Some problem with Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js. After "Save" click, a message "Exception Error: Version inconsistency after saving. Please reload the page." appears. --ŠJů (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Quick-fix solution:
    • Just keep on pressing "cancel" (annotations are still stored, but they all receive id=1 codes instead of consecutive id's)
    • When you're done, edit file description to (a) insert line break before the first annotation (b) manually fix numbering in id=... fields - see diff. NVO (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't seek advice for me but solution of the bug. --ŠJů (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

"Missing" uploads

A couple days ago I uploaded a photo with my cellphone (this) but never appears here. Anyone knows what happend? Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Someboy overwrote this file. You can find all your uploads in Special:Log (your log). If you enable pretty log in your preferences, you get thumbnails. -- RE rillke questions? 20:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done, thanks. --Andrea (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

October 7

Airports in Sweden

Unless I'm mistaken, all airports in Sweden are classified as "Skyddsobject" (see COM:FOP#Sweden et al). There are many images of Swedish airports in Category:Airports in Sweden and I wonder if we should require them to have consent from the relevant authorities or not. AzaToth 18:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

1) That was a recent law I think (2010 sometime), and any photos taken earlier than that should probably be fine anyways;
2) The law is a non-copyright restriction, so what do do with them may be more of a community decision and nothing that is forced (the law is not enforceable outside Sweden technically);
3) I'm not sure, but I don't think all Skyddsobject have photography restrictions; that may just be an option. There are small general aviation airports in that category -- are those really protected? Seems like the law is more about military installations.
Personally, if the Swedish authorities object to a particular photo, I would deal with the request then. Or if a Swedish resident is worried they broke the law and wanted their own photos taken down, something like that. I'd rather not try to interpret the law that much from afar. Usually we leave this type of thing to the judgement of the uploader. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
All Swedish skyddsobjekt does not have photography restrictions. Drottningholm for instance does not. Also, all airports in Sweden are skyddsobjekt, but not always the whole airport. /Esquilo (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
According to the Swedish law Skyddslag 2010:305 you cannot take pictures in the areas surrounded by no-photo signs (I am not sure whether this applies to aerial photos though, but I guess that's prohibited too). It is also prohibited to take pictures or make drawings of the security check. Otherwise you can take pictures on the same presumptions applying to other enclosed spaces – e.g. the owner can prohibit commercial photography. V-wolf (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

October 1

Problem with language select

Hi. In cats like Category:1924 or Category:1925 I have a problem with the language select. No problem when "Show all" is selected but whatever the language I select, the subcats and files disappear ! Why that ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Village_pump#Language_select_does_not_show_subcategories, MediaWiki_talk:Multilingual_description.js#Lang-selector_is_no_longer_suitable. --AVRS (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Should we upload PNG versions that are pixel idenitical to GIFs?

I've been working on the category "Images that should be in PNG format," (something I do a lot of on Wikipedia). I'm seeing a lot of no-transparency GIF images so marked. The only reason I can come up with for using PNG8 over GIF is if the GIF should have alpha transparency (which is not the case here) or if the file is smaller. However, seeing as we do not delete superseded images, it would seem that adding a PNG version is just adding redundancy and wasting server space. Should I even bother with a new version, or can I just delete the tag?

And if I am supposed to upload a PNG, could I then mark the GIF as a duplicate, since it is pixel for pixel identical?

(If you need an example: try this image. The PNG version (hosted offsite) is identical. The only advantage is that it's 43.58K smaller.)

--Trlkly (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I really would not advise doing this on a massive scale without giving individual consideration to each particular image -- for one thing, PNG image downsizing (thumbnail generation) is very low-performance and inefficient. There have been discussions about this in a number of places (see some links at Template_talk:BadGIF#Images_with_less_than_256_colors)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem with a picture

Moved up: #File:Phare d'Alprech Le Portel Pas de Calais.jpg --Saibo (Δ) 16:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Saibo (Δ) 16:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Script in German language for uploading US government files doesn't show allowed file type

Instead of showing the file extensions which are allowed to upload the script shows only the dollar sign with an 1. (Why, BTW the dollar sign is missing in the symbol line below? I have no clue how to type the dollar sign on a czech keyboard layout since I am not using a czech keyboard, but I need the layout.) Did not verify other sources and/or other languages. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Which script do you mean? --Rosenzweig τ 11:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm guessing Special:Upload&uselang=defromgov. This affects all options of all non-English versions of Commons:Upload that I checked. It was a long time since I poked around these strings, but it seems to come from MediaWiki:Upload-permitted. Not sure why the $1 variable gets evaluated for English but not for other languages. LX (talk, contribs) 13:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Special:Upload&uselang=frfromgov seems to be Ok. Weird. -- RE rillke questions? 09:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Transclusions with $-substitutions don't work. Fixed by substituting the transcluded message. Lupo 19:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

— Lupo

-- RE rillke questions? 21:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

File redirects work at Commons, but are broken at projects

I recently moved File:Chelmno Gas Van.jpg to File:Destroyed Magirus-Deutz furniture transport van Kolno Poland May 1945.jpg because of an incorrect and misleading filename. GlobalUsage shows that the file is in use at quite a lot of projects under its former name. Normally the image would show up in those articles despite the redirect on Commons, but now the image display is broken. I suppose this is another side effect of the Mediawiki 1.18 deployment. Has it already been noticed, are there any efforts to fix it? --Rosenzweig τ 14:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I performed empty edits at en:Schutzstaffel and en:Action T4 and the picture showed up again. Teofilo (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Then the problem is easy to solve. OK and thanks. --Rosenzweig τ 11:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Unexpected behavior of "comment" field of "File history" sections of image description pages

In the past, the "comment" field of "File history" sections of image description pages was cut when exceeding a certain size: it is cut in the middle of the word "contains" as you cannot read further than "This record cont" on File:Andrew Carnegie, William Howard Taft, Elihu Root and Cardinal Gibbons, with others posed in Pan American Union Building, Washington, D.C.jpg (uploaded in 2008).

Are those bugs or features? What is the expected behaviour of the comment field ? By the way, do we really need the "()" brackets ? Teofilo (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Filed as bugzilla:29068 TheDJ (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Or bugzilla:31535. Thanks. Teofilo (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Checking Special:NewFiles, I find that some files are still having an empty comment : File:Revolucion de los Claveles 8374746 hOTwp.jpg, or File:Pereza (Bradypus tridactylus) La Boyera, Miranda - Venezuela 000.jpg, but some are OK like File:Reuleaux triangle on a window of St. Michael and St. Gudula Cathedral, Brussels.jpg or File:Bulbophyllum lobbii - Flickr 003.jpg. Teofilo (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
The designer of UploadWizard did not care about adding comments (and it is -I think- difficult to add one because upload takes place before describing). All files uploaded with the Wizard do not have them. -- RE rillke questions? 09:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

October 9

Cannot upload files

Hello! I'm using Firefox 7.0.1, and I cannot upload files or new versions of old files anymore. When I use Special:Upload and select the local file from my computer to upload, there is a new thumbnail preview feature that I haven't seen before, it freezes my browser. It's fine in Internet Explorer. How may I disable this preview feature while I am uploading? --Shibo77 07:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Not the solution but a quickfix: After logging in, you can turn off JavaScript before uploading. Are the files very big? -- RE rillke questions? 09:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey thanks! That did it. The file was a 357 KB .SVG, not particularly big. --Shibo77 09:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thumbnail/EXIF issues with uploaded images

Anyone can help with Commons:Help desk#Thumbnail/EXIF issues with uploaded images? To me, it seems like a technical issue/bug with the thumbnail generation scripts. Thanks --Codrin.B (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

User page images

Are images such as File:Pratik's user page.gif appropriate for Commons? —Ruud 17:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Provided it is used on the uploader's userpage(s) on Wikimedia projects, I would say Yes. But clearly No, if it has promotional function for the benefit of an external website. --Túrelio (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Typically, such an image would be considered out of scope, but COM:SCOPE does state: " custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal Commons user page is allowed".--Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Old Ordnance Survey maps (UK)

I've uploaded File:Castlle Bromwich Exhbition Hall OS 1st ed 1-25.png which is out of copyright per and sourced from

How should such maps be tagged? I've looked for a template, or discussion of such maps, and can't find any, though the question seems unlikely not to have arisen before. Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are satisfied that the openstreetmap reasoning applies to this map, then I guess it is a case for the Template:PD-UKGov. (Normally, a second tag about the U.S. copyright status would be added, such as Template:Not-PD-US-URAA, but government works are often treated differently on Commons. In particular, for government works that are out of copyright in the UK, the tag PD-UKGov already provides a link to an e-mail from HMSO about the status of those works outside the UK, so you probably do not need to add a second tag.) The source of the scanned image is somewhat ambiguous. Did you scan it directly from a paper copy of the map? If so, there should be a more precise indication of the year. If not, it might be useful to indicate also the immediate source of the image. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
This looks to me exactly like an Ordnance Survey map, and as such will be Crown Copyright, i.e. fifty years from date of publication, so Template:PD-UKGov is correct. There is an error in the file description: it is not 1:25, but 1:25000 scale. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

October 8

mr korvald

please, somebody crom mr korvald and upload that part as stand alone image, and add that to articles about prime ministers of norway! -- thanks

File:Korvald cropped.jpg has now been added to two articles. Feel free to add it to as many others as you like! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

License attribution with alliases

I have uploaded a lot of images with the default CC-by-SA license. The problem is that I dont want to oblige reusers to attribute to "smiley.toerist". This is only a meaningless alias used for privacy. I do however want reusers to mention that they have uploaded the image from wikipedia, to prevent misuse (as selling it as their own work). I see no license with this kind of specification. I made an experiment with the permission field in File:Solre-sur-Sambre Station plant.jpg. I want to know if this is correct before I use a bot to adapt my contributions. (about 1500 pictures) Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If the users comply with the instruction to attribute the file to "smiley.toerist", they are not attributing it as their own work (Or that would require them to make a fake claim such as "I am smiley.toerist"). On the other hand, "Wikipedia" being a trade mark, you need a permission from the trade mark owner to use it. Generally speaking, using this trade mark is forbidden. Your pictures or videos might contain views, political or other, that the trademark owner does not want to endorse. Teofilo (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The license says "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor" -- that means you can specify whatever you want, though I warn you that many reusers will simply credit the uploader rather than tracking down the actual requested attribution text. Powers (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Teofilo, this is clearly an acceptable use of the trademark; please don't mislead new users like that. Powers (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Using a trademark without the permission of the trademark owner might be something that you want to advise new users to do. Personally I refrain from giving this sort of advice. Only a WMF official can say what is an "acceptable use" of the trademark. Are you a WMF official ? Also the definition of "acceptable use" might change over time. What is "acceptable use" today might change tomorrow. Teofilo (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I fully and wholly back Powers on this. Let's look at what actual staff members have written. Trademark policy, "Things You Can Do" section: "describe your content as 'source: Wikipedia' or 'derived from Wikimedia free content projects' (or something similar)." – Adrignola talk 14:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Saying that a content was found on Wikipedia is not the same as inducing the public into believing that the sole copyright owner of the content is some corporation called "Wikipedia" or that the creator of the content is approved by the owner of the "Wikipedia" trademark. Although contents can be found on the Wikipedia website, the Wikipedia trademark owner does not necessarily endorse those contents. It is the same difference as between sending an Email using Gmail, and signing "Gmail" at the bottom of your mail instead of writing your own name. The Gmail trademark owner does not endorse every message you send using that e-mail system. Teofilo (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist, though you as the licensor are free to designate any entity (license party) instead of or in addition to your user/artist/real name, I would strongly advise against an attribution containing only or mainly "source Wikipedia", as it may mislead re-users into thinking that "source Wikipedia" is a correct credit for all CC-BY-licensed (or even all Wikipedia-used) images, which is not the case and is not in the interest of the mayority of image contributors. --Túrelio (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You can use the "attribution" argument to the {{Self}} or CC license templates to specify an attribution, say {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|attribution=Wikipedia/Anonymous}} (or "Source: Wikipedia" or "From Wikipedia" or whatever you want). I would agree with Teofilo somewhat (and Túrelio) in that I would try to make clear that the Wikimedia Foundation is not the author, but rather just the source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

As Carl said, the attribution parameter should be used for this. I altered the mentioned file page as an example. –Krinkletalk 17:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I think I wil use "From Wikipedia" as this causes less confusion.Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Cutting videos into parts smaller than 100 MB with or without Firefogg

The other day I needed to encode into OGG and cut a video bigger than 100 MB (an about 150 MB wmv). I thought I could do that using Firefogg, as the "Screencast on using Firefogg" on Commons:Firefogg shows it is possible to use the "encoding range" option to select only a part of the video. However, after installing the latest version of Firefogg, I did not find any such option. The "advanced options" button contains only limited parameters. Finally I had to shrink the screen size from 680 px wide to 400 px wide in order that the whole video fits into the 100 MB limit. Do you know a free tool that can perform video cutting ? Teofilo (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

To do this I used to use the command line applications oggz-chop from oggz-tools ( and oggCut from oggvideotools ( but I remember a few files created by oggz-chop gave errors with some players, but not Firefox. -84user (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
In case I misunderstood the question, if Firefogg itself is unable to create videos larger than 100 MB, I can recommend VirtualDub to extract the desired part of the source video before converting to Ogg. Depending on codecs available this may be near lossless. Alternatively I found the command line application ffmpeg2theora ( was able to convert any selected part of a video using options --starttime and --endtime . -84user (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

mwEmbed gadget: Videos no longer properly linked to description pages by clicking on the thumbnail

Until a short time ago, you could access the file description page of videos by clicking on the thumbnail. As you can check with the polar bear video I attach here, it does not seem to be possible any longer. Does anyone know why it is so ? I think this change must be reverted, because

  1. ) free licenses require to make the licensing information available to readers/viewers
  2. ) even in the case of public domain videos, the uploader should have some form of recognition for his work (the readers/viewers should be able to easily find his user name)
  3. ) Description pages often contain valuable information about the circumstances when the video was taken, which might be useful to readers/viewers.

(I know that the small "enlarge" icon is still available, but in my opinion this is too small, and I guess that only a limited number of viewers are likely to click on this icon).

Teofilo (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem on my end, I can click on the thumbnail which takes me to the File:Polar2001.ogg description page. (using the MonoBook skin) Bidgee (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I have tried changing my skin to monobook but it is still the same (a "play clip" button is displayed on the thumbnail, which starts the video instead of taking me to the file description page). An other problem is that the "Credits" that display after clicking on the circled "i" in the "menu" is empty. In my view, this "credits" menu option should redirect to the file description page. Also the "embedd on page" "copy code" should include licensing information and author name. Embedding on page without licensing information is a violation of the license. Teofilo (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
As I was trying my best to use Firefogg (See #Cutting videos into parts smaller than 100 MB with or without Firefogg above) I had turned the "Add mwEmbed support for Kaltura Sequencer, Video Playback, Firefogg uploading" gadget in my user preferences. I have removed that gadget and everything is OK again. Teofilo (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I filed the above as Teofilo (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Clicking on the "Menu" (while playing video) gives you a "credits" overlay (the "i" tab) − but it appears broken to me now. Maybe 1.18 issue. Thanks for filling the bug. Jean-Fred (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Added a note to the bug --Mdale (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The note added by user:Mdale consists of sheer denial that there is any problem. I don't think a trusting relationship between video creators and the Wikimedia Foundation can be maintained by such an attitude. Teofilo (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems to work for me. --Jarekt (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC) is a copyright violation (author name JJ Harrison and license are not provided) of File:Arborophila brunneopectus pair feeding - Kaeng Krachan.ogv which displays at like this screenshot with "no credits available" in the "i" option of the "menu". Clicking on the "i" option of the polar bear video inserted here on the village pump produces the following screenshot: screenshot of the polar bear video on Commons village pump. What the video viewer can read is "Credits: Title : File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv Kaltura". This is not a proper way of providing author name (which should be Nehrams2020 ) and license (which should be Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license with a link). The "share" menu provides "< i frame src = " //" width="220" height="165" frameborder="0" >< /iframe > ". There is no "Attribution" code similar to the one you can find when clicking on "Use this file" on the toolbar on the Commons description page (screenshot of "use this file" toolbar tool). The small polar bear icon displayed in the "credits" option of the "menu" is too small (it is only about 50x30px, while the standard "thumb" size is 220px!). Using the full 220px rectangle as a link is the way by which we tell readers/viewers that the Commons description page is an important page. Most users will not be aware that they may click on that 50x30px icon to find valuable information about the file. The File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv text is in grey color. This is not the standard way to make the viewer aware that it is a clickable link. Usually, clickable links are blue. This video player is putting the Wikimedia commons description page 3 clicks away from Wikipedia instead of just one (you must click on "menu", then on "i" then on "File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv"). If installed on Wikipedia, this gadget will not be an improvement, but a huge drawback for the quality of the relation between Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Commons will be unknown from Wikipedia readers or seen as something far away. I guess a lot of people are going to believe that the person that deserves credit is the company named "Kaltura" instead of the real video creator. The "i" symbol is meaningless for people whose languages do not have the word "information" in their vocabularies. Even in English or in French "information" is vague and does not mean "credit" or "license" or "attribution". The efforts Wikimedia Commons has been doing on description pages (indicating the source of the file, provide a description, provide a date, provide categories to find related files, etc.) are put aside for the purpose of the promotion of the "Kaltura" brand name. And again a download link seems to be provided from the "menu" even if the user has not made the effort to learn about the licensing conditions. Teofilo (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the videos on [2] do not allow you to easily find the commons file page with description, author data, attributions, categories, etc. This should be fixed at some point before wider distribution. --Jarekt (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't PD-font and PD-textlogo conflict?

[moved to Village Pump]

This is VP, where is it? -mattbuck (Talk) 22:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
moved to Template_talk:PD-textlogo#What about PD-font? NVO (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I deleted the wrong one. I thought I would get a faster answer here than at the talk page (as is usually the case on Wikipedia). I guess I was wrong. Trlkly (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

October 11

File rendering

Weird question, but could an admin possibly delete the recent uploads of File:Bandera Darfur.svg back to the 5th version? I have tried to get the new colours I uploaded to render, but the servers don't want to do it. I have uploaded several times, I have waited for it to work itself out, I have purged, I have refreshed my browser, nothing does it. I am hoping that to delete these uploads back to my original upload of my new colours, it will push the image to render. Fry1989 eh?

Do I understand that you want the first version of 5 October 2011, rather than any later than that? - Jmabel ! talk 04:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, back to my very first change to the file, please. Fry1989 eh? 04:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done ... but it didn't fix the problem. I believe this is a widespread problem, because I've seen it on another file, but I haven't checked if it's in the bug reports. --99of9 (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The first time I uploaded my new colours was during the role-out of the new Commons. There was alot of server problems, and it may be tied to that. My only other guess, would be to delete all my changes to the file all together, and I wait a couple days, and try a fresh upload. I have uploaded some new file versions in the past couple days without incident, so maybe it will work then? I really have no clue, that's just my best guess. Fry1989 eh? 05:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one? Since yesterday I can't put a category to my recent files?

Hallo everybody! I am very unsure how to do anything in Wikimedia Commons but I try and do my best. Until now I added the category to my files once they were imported. But since two days, when I make a click on Category I don't have anything happening and am unable to put the category to my files. Please tell me if this is a general problem or if there is a new manipulation to make which I don't know. Thank you to you all. Dinkum (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please specify where you try to add categories. We have a lot of tools. If you are using HotCat, please say which browser you are using. For me, uploadwizard, uploadform and HotCat work fine. Thank you. --RE rillke questions? 07:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you have to Please purge your browser’s cache. (You only need to do it once.)

Microsoft Windows or Linux macOS
Internet Explorer Press Ctrl+F5
Mozilla Firefox Hold down  Shift while clicking Reload
(or press Ctrl+F5 or Ctrl+ Shift+R)
Press  Cmd+R (reload page) or
 Cmd+ Shift+R (reload page and rewrite cache)
Opera Press Ctrl+F5 or  Shift+F5
Apple Safari Hold down  Shift+Alt while clicking Reload
Press Ctrl+R Press  Cmd+ Option+E (clear browser cache)
or  Cmd+R (update)
Chrome Press Ctrl+F5 or  Shift+F5
or hold down  Shift while clicking Reload
Press  Cmd+F5 or  Shift+F5
or hold down  Shift while clicking Reload

and make sure HotCat is active in your Preferences. --RE rillke questions? 07:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to move "Cafés" to "Cafés and coffee shops"

I have proposed that "Category:Cafés" and "Category:Coffee shops" be merged into "Category:Cafés and coffee shops". If you have comments about this, I suggest that the discussion take place at "Category talk:Cafés". — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Can an admin move this to the correct name of File:Tua Chua District.png, typo error, thanks.Blofeld Dr. (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please tag it with {{Rename}} (click on the link for instructions on how to use this tag). Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem with copyvio

This picture and this picture show a statue by it:Cleto Capponi, a sculptor who died in 2000. They are displayed in Italy, where there is no FOP. So I marked them as copyvio. User:Jcb now says that "FOP related cases should be discussed via a regular vote", which is something unheard to me. Can a vote overturn what a national legislation says concerning the lack of FOP? Or did Wikimedia change its policy, all of a sudden? If so, could you point out when and where? I had to delete hundreds of images of mine a few years ago when the matter of the lack of FOP in Italy was brought to the attention of us all... Thank you in advance for your clarification. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

A DR is *not* a vote. You must use a regular DR, because FOP-related cases are too complex for speedy deletion. Jcb (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Though I don't think it's anyhow complicated in this case: Commons:Deletion requests/File:S8300751.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:San Benedetto T Monumento al Pescatore.JPG. --Túrelio (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
COM:CSD#F3 -- RE rillke questions? 14:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
May I ask Jcb why we are talking about a "FOP-related case"? There is no FOP case. FOP is an exception to copyright laws that only applies in certain countries, as Rillke reminds us in his link. Italy does not belong to this group of countries, fullstop, therefore there is no exception to the rule, and no case to be disputed. Speedy deletion in self-evident cases of copyvio applies. "Indisputably": no reproduction of an artwork for 70 years after its author's death, UNLESS there is a donation from the owner of his/her intellectual property (him-herself or his/her heirs). If there is no "Unless", then the rule stands, and then there is no "dispute".
We already had long disputes about the matter in 2007, when the impossbility to use the FOP exception to Italy was brought to our attention, and we had - kicking and screaming - to make a huge cleanup, deleting hundreds and hundreds of images, which was painful, and which sparkled a lot of debate among us Italian wikipedians about the new rules to conform to (which is what I have been doing since 2007). So please forgive me if I cut and paste the highlights of the discussion which I saved in this sandbox page of mine:

I'd rather do without repeating again and again the same discussions.

We, as Italian wikipedians, in 2007 even petitioned for a change of the ABSURD Italian law,

However, we got no result, which is obvious, since the biggest owner of copyright rights sits as our Prime Minister (he sued Youtube for "stealing" the contents of his Tvs, he owns the publisher who holds the monopoly in printing books about Italian museums...). Unfortunately, until it is changed, the law stands, and images such as those I nominated are not allowed under International copyright conventions (the Berne Convention, I mean, not habits). I wish we could "dispute" that: actually we tried everything to avoid deleting our own images, but eventually there was no possibile dispute: they had to go. And they still have to go, since the law did not change meanwhile.
In sum: can we please please please avoid yet another row of the same old and already settled "disputes", dear Jcb, please? Please, please please...--User:G.dallorto (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
COM:CSD is a proposed policy. However, some time ago (I'm sorry but I don't remember the date, July or August I think) there was a discussion where emerged that, for FOP cases, a RFD is a better way than speedy deletion; there are various experiences where obvious speedy deletions for FOP cases weren't not so obvious (PD-shape, de minimis, reproductions on public streets of famous copyrighted works and so on), and there were consequently undeletions. But this is a hint for administrators, not a policy: if an admin is very sure that there is a copyvio, he can speedy delete it. I don't think that a RFD is needed for very obvios cases like Atomium or Charging Bull.--Trixt (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
COM:CSD#F3 was the major problem with the proposed policy page, to me -- determination of derivative works is rarely "obvious", as there can be many aspects to consider. I think those should virtually always go through regular DRs, and not speedy deletion (this goes especially for photographs of copyrighted objects outdoors, like these -- the proposed policy even mentions these as not being speedyable). This is not disputing your rationale for deletion, which is sound, but rather just a request to not use speedy deletion on them, that's all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Evaluating whether or not freedom of panorama is needed to keep a file and whether or not it applies can be complex, but it's not perpetual motion theory, either (rocket science seemed too accessible an analogy – even amateurs are doing that stuff these days). Whether we use deletion discussions or not, I think a checklist or decision tree would come in handy. It should include things like:

  • Is the depicted object original enough to be eligible for copyright protection?
  • Is the inclusion of the object incidental?
  • When did/will the depicted object's copyright expire (taking into account rules regarding copyright notices, registration, publication, and author's death)?
  • Which country's freedom of panorama principles apply, and what do they entail?
  • Have there been previous deletion discussions regarding this particular subject?

It seems to me that with a good list of checks to follow, deletion discussions should be unnecessary for many cases. LX (talk, contribs) 16:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

  • FOP is not an issue in this case (since Italy has no FOP) but I generally nominate derivative works for discussion, because they are not always as clear cut as the images under discussion here. In any case there is no harm at all in deleting an image via the slow process instead of the fast one. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

An appeal to contributors who upload flickr images

I'd like to appeal to other contributors who upload images from flickr.

I leave a thank you note on the flickr page of every image I upload from that site. The CC liscense doesn't require this, it is a courtesy. But there are important reasons to do so.

In 2009 I found I had uploaded enough images from flickr that I could no longer count on recognizing when I had previously uploaded an image. The thank you now saves me time, because it prevents me wasting time uploading images for a second time.

The second reason to inform the flickr uploader is that the occasional flickr uploader doesn't understand that the CC liscense they chose does allow re-use. Earlier this year I left a note thanking one flickr contributor, who went ballistic [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [], [8]. He checked and found that over two hundred of his images had previously been uploaded, by commons contributors who didn't thank him. He tried to get all his images deleted. He deleted all his flickr images, and swore revenge on us. In his case, it would have been far better if everyone had thanked him. If that had happened maybe he would have felt appreciated, and not altered his liscenses. Alternately, he would have altered his liscenses before we had tapped over two hundred of them, and he wouldn't have had a nervous breakdown.

A thir reason to thank flickr uploaders is that the thank you might encourage more flickr uploaders to use a free liscense.

So, first, I am going to encourage all commons contributors who upload images from flickr to leave a thank you note. Today I uploaded an image of Time Robbins, that someone else had already uploaded, but who didn't leave a thank you note there.

Second, I would like to get us all to standardize the thank you notes we leave. If the thank yous were standardized then the computer programs we use, like flinfo, could recognize when we were trying to upload an image that had already been uploaded. Geo Swan (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

When I'm uploading images from Flickr, I'm using Flickr upload bot, which sadly doesn't add a note on Flickr regarding uploads (which I think it should do now as you are taking up this issue). AzaToth 18:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • There was a discussion as to whether we should add a new bot to thank people, or modify the programs we use to leave a thank you. It was suggested that a thank you left by a robot would be spam, but a message left by a real human being would not be spam. I use the clippings addon for firefox, so it takes 15 to 20 seconds to paste in my standard thank you.

    Would you consider supplementing your use of the bot with a personal thank you? Geo Swan (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Not always a good idea. I upload frequently from a single Flickr source (Seattle Municipal Archive). I've had conversations with the people who work there, they know what I'm doing, etc. Surely you are not suggesting that I (or, worse yet, a bot) leave a note on the page of each of their images we upload to Commons. That would be spamming their Flickr account. "Hi, this image is now also on Wikimedia Commons." "Hi, this image is now also on Wikimedia Commons." "Hi, this image is now also on Wikimedia Commons." I suspect it would make them much less' inclined to cooperate. - Jmabel ! talk 19:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
    I personally use the flickr bot to upload from my own flickr account, to save me reuploading it myself. I'd rather not spam myself with annoying messages. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to take the chance to advertise those pages: Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change, one example thank you text (I made my own ones based on this; including link to the file and to Commons. And if already in an Wikipedia article I link it. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI: I have a very low tech script that prepares the Flickr thank you note on User:Jean-Frédéric/flickrLinks.js − nothing extraordinary, but feel free to use it / build on it. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've had many of my Flickr photos imported, and I would appreciate people doing this, mainly because they always import my images with the wrong license and I have to fix them (my images are {{Cc-zero}}, not {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, but Flickr doesn't give cc-zero as an option, leading to confusion). Dcoetzee (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

October 10

Images are out of numerical sequence order

Some months ago, after a major software upgrade, the numerical order was disturbed in Category:Popular Science Monthly illustrations/Volume 28 and Category:Popular Science Monthly illustrations/Volume 30 Is there a way to correct this by myself? If not, who could/would do this? Thanks in advance. Ineuw talk page on 07:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at just the first few, it looks like they are sorted alphabetically, except for the first one, which is manually sorted. But the answer to your question is "Yes". If you want them in a different order than they are in now, you can manually sort them by using a piped link (e.g. [[:en:Category:Popular Science Monthly illustrations/Volume 30|1]] or [[:en:Category:Popular Science Monthly illustrations/Volume 30|A]]. If you want them to appear in all of their categories with the same sorting, you can use {{DEFAULTSORT}}, which is often used for names (e.g. to ensure that the photo of John Smith is sorted under Smith, you apply {{DEFAULTSORT|Smith, John}}). If you want them to appear in all of the categories except one or two, you can use DEFAULTSORT for the general sorting and the piped link for the categories that you want sorted differently. For more, see m:Help:Category#Sort order. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Much thanks for your direction. It seems that someone added the default sort to a couple of the images, but my needs for tracking require the .djvu number order corresponding to the page. Thanks again. Ineuw talk page on 22:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

remove paddings from an svg image

hi guys, my first time in the village pump. need your help with an svg image - File:Major Russian Gas Pipelines to Europe.svg. the image has padding around it and it dosn't look nice. is there an svg expert here that can remove this padding. Ramiy (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Adjusted margins (though it still has some font issues). AnonMoos (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Not notable kid

This pic is from a kid who say "Ignacio Nicolás D'Angelo Areán was born May 18, 1997 in Montevideo. Currently studying at the Colegio Nacional José Pedro Varela. Other extracurricular activities are playing basketball on the glorious Club Atlético Cordón and study English in the Anglo. His favorite hobbies are playing play station, being on facebook and enjoy with friends." Not categories, not linked, not in scope... Can I send this to speedy deletion or should I open a DR? Clearly is not notable, and the picture is not good (white/red eyes, dark picture)... I´m sure he confused Commons with Facebook. Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

COM:DR please. To my knowledge, that's where all scope-related deletions should go. Wknight94 talk 20:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ignacio D'Angelo.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

User using commons as personal photo album

Hasan Sami Bolak (talk · contribs) seems to use commons as a personal photo album; Should most of his images be deleted? AzaToth 19:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Commons is no private photo album. Feel free to nominate them. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
And please do individually since some of them look okay to keep. Wknight94 talk 20:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Most of them are personal photos and not in use. I did go ahead and nominate the ones as a group before I saw your comment that looked like they were not in use beyond personal userpage. If you see some nominated that you think are OK feel free to revert them and nominate them individually. He had multiple different photos on multiple different wikis. It would be better if he picked a couple to use on all his different accounts or hosted them on the individual wikis that he uses if he wants to use so many different images. Someone who speaks Turkish may want to explain the proper use of Wikimedia Commons for images hosted for user pages to him. I tried some limited explanation using a translator. Warfieldian (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Notice of new discussion on meta about controversial content and images

There is a new discussion on meta about how to manage controversial content that is primarily about images. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Controversial content/Brainstorming.

October 12

How I can get Location to my pictures

I have waited that some bot shall visit in my pictures and add Location but no visit. Do sombody know situation of GPS data bots.--Motopark (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's DschwenBot (talk · contribs). More, I can't say. You can contact Dschwen, the operator or read current threads on his talk page. -- RE rillke questions? 16:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
On holiday ?, last 2 of october--Motopark (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

SVG uploads hanging in Firefox

I'm currently unable to upload larger SVG files to Commons using Firefox, whether I do so via the UploadWizard or any flavour of the old upload form. If I attempt to upload a SVG above about 1MB the browser just hangs completely and with smaller files there is an appreciable delay. The same delays also occur with other files, such as jpgs. The problem is being caused by the preview thumbnail that is generated when I select the file to upload: FF freezes until the file is created. SVGs are particularly bad as generating a thumbnail for them is a complex task. I can upload using IE, as that thumbnail is not generated for IE, the browser doesn't freeze.

I haven't tested on other browsers or tools such as the Commonist. It may be my computer - if others have similar issues attempting to upload a copy of File:Acadie généalogique.svg that rules that out. The problem is also recent, I was able to upload normally last month.

Making the thumbnail faster would be ideal solution (of course). However could we either disable it, or have an option to do so? I don't need a preview image to know what I'm uploading! I also wonder about the cost of the thumb generation - is it giving them a very intensive task that isn't really needed?--Nilfanion (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I had similar troubles with FF several days ago (but after the new software was installed), with this file, for the record, but in the end I managed to upload the file allright just by letting it hang for couple of hours. It still systematically fails to generate thumbnails.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is not only your machine and yes, the should an option to switch it on (should be off by default). I suggest switching off javascript and using the old upload-form for the moment. You may consider filing a bug at bugzilla: for UWiz and contact User:Lupo for the upload-form. -- RE rillke questions? 10:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem is with MediaWiki, not Commons - so presumably in last major update. Using the UploadWizard, using Special:Upload, using Special:Upload with "old-style" enabled in gadgets. Uploading to ast.wikipedia also hangs. Disabling JS is a workaround, but not a solution. I'll file a bug in a bit - and this is worse than just "preventing upload"; as it means FF itself becomes unresponsive.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

See bugzilla:31643 for bug report.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate samples of files that cause problems so we can test them -- especially SVGs -- and see if there's a better workaround (either for stopping it from rendering files that will be slow, or doing the slow bit without interfering, etc). It looks like Firefox needs some improvements as well, but hopefully we can avoid triggering problematic things for now! It would also help to know the browser / browser version being used, so we can cross-check (sometimes a bug'll be fixed in a newer version of the browser, or only happens on one OS, so it's harder to reproduce without knowing that.)
As for the difficulty of the thumbnailing task; it's pretty much the same task that your browser performs when you click on the original file link. --brion (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I've quickly tested the pre-upload thumbnail with copies of File:Tayga Magazov.jpg and File:Acadie généalogique.svg on Firefox 6.0.2 / Mac OS X 10.7 (1.7 GHz Intel Core i5); each of them showed the thumbnail within about 1-2 seconds on my machine. How long are they taking for your guys, and what version of the browsers are you running? (Looks about the same or faster in Chrome 14 on same machine.) --brion (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The plot thickens! Testing with the same two images above on Firefox 7.0.1 (latest 'stable' release) on the same machine... File:Acadie généalogique.svg hangs for at least 30 seconds before I get bored and kill the app! File:Tayga Magazov.jpg still seems to work fine and shows up reasonably quickly for me. Definitely looks like some sort of regression in Firefox 7... --brion (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Same behavior on Firefox 7.0.1, 8.0.2b, and 9.0b -- all hang on File:Acadie généalogique.svg for me while the older Firefox 6.0.2 didn't. --brion (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've filed a bug report for Firefox; will see if we can disable the thumbing for SVGs at least for the moment until we can work around it or the fix goes out. --brion (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, client-side SVG thumbnailing is temporarily disabled for both Special:Upload and Special:UploadWizard. --brion (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Brion.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edittools don't work in Firefox 7.0.1

May be it is related to this mentioned above but the edittools don't work in Firefox 7.0.1. For example pressing on <nowiki></nowiki> lets disappear the cursor. In Safari 5.0.6 there is no problem. Any idea how to solve the problem when working in Firefox? Wouter (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you try to Please purge your browser’s cache. (You only need to do it once.)

Microsoft Windows or Linux macOS
Internet Explorer Press Ctrl+F5
Mozilla Firefox Hold down  Shift while clicking Reload
(or press Ctrl+F5 or Ctrl+ Shift+R)
Press  Cmd+R (reload page) or
 Cmd+ Shift+R (reload page and rewrite cache)
Opera Press Ctrl+F5 or  Shift+F5
Apple Safari Hold down  Shift+Alt while clicking Reload
Press Ctrl+R Press  Cmd+ Option+E (clear browser cache)
or  Cmd+R (update)
Chrome Press Ctrl+F5 or  Shift+F5
or hold down  Shift while clicking Reload
Press  Cmd+F5 or  Shift+F5
or hold down  Shift while clicking Reload

? For me they work fine now. -- RE rillke questions? 11:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, now it works fine. Wouter (talk) 11:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Purging the cache does not help in my case (monobook skin). I always get Error: Script error. when I click on one of the symbols below. --Leyo 10:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Accessibility issue of collapsible boxes

It seems that it's impossible to expand the following boxes using keyboard only.

parameter one

parameter two



Will this be a problem? Liangent (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I never though of expanding collapsible boxes by keyboard. How would it work? many pages have several of those boxes. See for example File:Achilles Troilos Polyxena hydria Met 45.11.2.jpg how can user tell by a keyboard which one to expand? (May be all?) Do the browsers even pass keyboard events to the websites? --Jarekt (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
To make it work one needs a dummy link, with an event bound which should call preventDefault (just google). This is definitively an issue and should be reported. Yes, the browser passes click, hover, scroll, ... to the JavaScript engine. -- RE rillke questions? 16:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
You use the tabulator-key to select an element and then you click space or enter-key. That's how keyboard navigation works. -- RE rillke questions? 16:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
There needs to be a link to select -- there currently doesn't seem to be one, and at least on Firefox 6.0.2/Mac I don't seem to be able to tab into the one above. Looks like it's just a span, so not normally selectable by tab. --brion (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes and that's actually the problem, I think. Properly implemented it looks like that. Note that you can tab into the link and then when pressing enter, it opens the hidden content. -- RE rillke questions? 20:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
It's possible to make the header container selectable with keyboard by setting tabindex=0 in HTML. However a dotted border will show up when it's selected or even clicked with mouse, which seems a little uglier. See the 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th box on [9] for a live example where tabindex is set with JavaScript. Liangent (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Tikara & Keika sambando.jpg

The image File:Tikara & Keika sambando.jpg claims fair use based on being commissioned by the Brazilian government, but the template says that such images are only fair use until the ones produced in 1983... WhisperToMe (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean public domain, not fair use. (Fair use content is not permitted on Commons.) At the time that this file was uploaded, {{PD-BrazilGov}} was grossly misleading. It was corrected to reflect the actual legal situation earlier this year; see Template talk:PD-BrazilGov#Template recreated. Files using {{PD-BrazilGov}} which are not covered by the new, corrected wording should be nominated for deletion. LX (talk, contribs) 11:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Video closed captions / subtitles

I'm trying to watch a video with closed captions and i can't turn them on.

See, for example, File:WalesAnniversaryAddress.ogv - it has subtitles in several languages (i wrote the Hebrew subtitles myself). They don't appear and i don't see the button that turns them on. Any help? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You need to use the link in/below the description (as long as you don't have this script enabled by default) ... but it doesn't work for me. Obama instead works - must be related to Jimmy. ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 11:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. I can't see subtitles at the Obama video either.
Commons:Video#Subtitles_and_closed_captioning says that there's supposed to be a CC button and i don't see it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
True - I re-checked: just the player ist replaced by the correct player. But no subtitles appear or can be switched on. Also the download button inside the player produces a "script error" on top of the page. --Saibo (Δ) 16:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Still not solved: Vectorization of PD-works: Copyrighted or not?

Already discussedin september, but still not solved:

In the last weeks, I did some housekeeping in some flag and coat of arms categories, usually removing the various PD-self and CC-licence plates und replacing them by PD-ineligible or PD-country tags, because a CC-licence for a flag with free stripes is surely a copyfraud. I also replaced some CC-licences plates from several state emblems (which are not classic, european-style coat of arms, where an artistic rendition is of course copyrighted), an action which for which I received some criticism, because it was claimed that the vectorization of such emblems might be copyrighted, altough the (raster) basic image is PD. The question concerns graphics like File:State emblem of Mongolia.svg. Those images are an exact vectorized copy of a PD-image (without any alterations or "improvements"). Perhaps influenced by my german background, I believe that the vectorization is also PD, because no new artwork was created. Are there other opinions on this question? If there are, two questions have to be answered:

  • How should we tag a "basic image PD, vectorization CC" image?
  • Where is the "treshold of orginality" in such cases?

--Antemister (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

A SVG file is completely analogous to a TrueType or Type1 font file, which have been ruled by courts to be copyrightable as computer programs, even if the fonts they draw are not copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd disagree with that analogy though -- the Copyright Office considered the kerning and other font information the primarily points that made it copyrightable, and not the outlines -- but not sure that courts have followed that logic. An SVG of a circle is still PD-ineligible to me. That said, if somebody hand-edits the SVG file, that could be considered copyrightable, a completely separate work from a different SVG coded another way but which results in the exact same image. If drawn in a GUI editor though, I think only the resulting shapes are what could be copyrightable, and they wouldn't be given much different status than a bitmap I don't think. Still, there could often be small copyrightable details in a vector, especially in cases of complicated images like coats of arms -- those will almost always have a copyrightable component. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Though I should also say that some countries, such as the UK, still allow a sweat-of-the-brow copyright, meaning an SVG is almost always copyrightable there, and existing CC tags should be left alone if for no other reason -- they can ease usage in those countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Please, please do NOT remove CC tags from such works. The threshold of originality can differ considerably by country, and there is always some uncertainty with it. If the shape is PD-ineligible by our standards (which usually follow U.S. standards), by all means add that tag but please keep the existing CC tags, as they could be critical for use in some other countries. It is *not* certainly copyfraud; the aboriginal flag was actually ruled copyrightable in Australia since they use the rather different UK-based interpretation of "original". And modern renditions of coats of arms would almost never be PD-ineligible -- each different rendition gets its own copyright, so SVG or recent bitmap drawings would all be copyrightable most likely. See Commons:Coats of Arms. It has nothing to do with when the design was introduced and everything to do with when the artist drew it, and who that artist was. So PD-country tags are usually inappropriate for those, and even if they are exempt from copyright in some countries, they will be copyrightable in others so again, please don't remove CC tags supplied by the authors if they are there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Antemister -- I am not a lawyer (and don't even play one on TV), but your personal concept of "exact vectorized copy"[sic] seems to me to be factually and legally quite problematic (except in some simple cases where the emblem/flag has an exact geometric specification), as I tried to explain on your user talk page... AnonMoos (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
In case of the threshold of originality, it is in fact not possible to be compliant with any copyright law, that's why it was decided to use US copyright law. The design of the aboriginal flag may be an extreme exception, such a simple creation is not copyrighted in most countries. The Well, let's come back to the two questions above, are there any suggestions for them?--Antemister (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The current situation of the coat of arms images is unbearable. Exact reproductions of emblems (not coat of arms) are CC-licenced like own artworks (imagine the situation that government official wants to use such an emblem - he will have to mention the "unknown wikigraphist" on his document...) In case such SVGs are protected in some countries and we want to keep the CC-tags, there has to be labeling that only the (vector) rendition is protected, and not the basic image. Just having a CC and a PD-tag together is not enough. I had suggested a new template. Coments, please.--Antemister (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a better place for this discussion: COM:VPC. --Saibo (Δ) 12:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
For File:Coat of arms of Cameroon old.svg, I found your personal "exact vectorized copy"[sic] rationale for removing self copyright declarations to be quite strange, since while I was doing my best with the information available to me, and within the limits of my artistic abilities, this SVG has a number of deviations from any "exact" government of Cameroon specification (such as the scrolls being changed to horizontal, the shape of the map outline, the map outline not extending close to the top of the red area, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


Today Europeana launched a new interface. One new feature is a clear indication of what is PD. You've got document like this one that are clearly indicated as PD. Half a million document has been tag as PD. May be we should upload those on commons? More info. - Zil (d) 16:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe Europeana folks, Some of whom contribute here, are working with user:Multichill (and possibly others) at batch upload. See Commons:Europeana. --Jarekt (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

October 14

Thumbnailed animated PNG

I noticed recently that blogspot / blogger manages to resize animated PNGs while maintaining the animation, whereas the thumbnailer of commons does not. Seems like something that would be nice to have. Shyamal (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It will only be useful if your browser supports APNG, which many do not. Furthermore, as long as PNG thumbnail generation remains quite poor (generating larger files than necessary), many will continue to see usefulness in GIF. (All the patents have expired, so that's no longer an issue.) AnonMoos (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
My PNG thumbnailer already solves this problem (among others) but the devs haven't deployed it... bug 9497. Leave your opinion if interested. (I don't think it handles APNG though.) Dcoetzee (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

upload wizard bug?

Today the upload wizard inserted inappropriate {{Flickrreview}} templates, even though I told it the 38 images I used it to upload were {{PD-USGov}} Geo Swan (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This is getting really annoying. bugzilla:29346. Maybe some caching issue? -- RE rillke questions? 06:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is this bug, I assume. Please do not wonder: It's upload wizard. This must be the dark Magic by the wizard who invented it. -- RE rillke questions? 11:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I need help for the implementation of my (undisputed) proposal in the template. Putting {{editprotected|technical=yes}} was not successful. Also more comments are welcome. --Leyo 12:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Creative Commons license

Hi. Can you tell me please if the Commons has changed its requirements? I changed the license for this photo to Attribution 2.0 (which is the real license), but that option doesn't appear in the Upload Wizard. Why? It is in this list. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Only small fraction of allowed licenses shows up in the Upload Wizard. Other are available through other upload scripts Commons:Upload and (my favorite)[basic upload form]. Upload Wizard is trying not to overwhelm users with several hundred license options. --Jarekt (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Jarekt, okay then everything's all right. Thanks for your reply. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Also the upload wizard has 'The copyright holder published their photo or video on Flickr with the right license' option. That option is the perfect option for this upload and it has the cc-by-2.0. --Martin H. (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

when multiple versions of a document might be appropriate

I have worked on some of the National Archives material and have asked myself in several instances whether the appearance of the image or its content is more important.

For example, certain landscape photographs of Oregon, California and Washington have fine mists; these need to be distinguished from over-exposed or damaged photos, first of all, then the question becomes whether the image itself is more significant than its contents or whether it's more important to capture the quality of the day or the fine detail of people's clothing, for instance.

An Ansel Adams might be an example of this. Or Cliff_House_and_Seal_Rocks."_-_NARA_-_520071.tif, to use an actual example. My edit sharpened detail but also made everything denser-looking and less ethereal if you consider the photograph as art rather than historical record. Another for-instance is I looked at the image and eventually did not upload my edit. At the time, at least, I found that removing the stain in the 3rd column from the left required so much tonal tweaking that the resulting document is probably indecipherable. If the purpose of restoration is a cleaner document that is still legible, the stain should probably be ignored. Unless of course someone knows techniques I don't, which is naturally a possibility. But these are examples and I am certain that other people are asking similar questions.

Is anyone having this conversation anywhere? I realize that there's probably no chance of hard and fast rules, nor do I think I am advocating them. But what would the thing be to do when such tradeoffs are encountered? Possibly separate images with an explanation in Discussion, ie. something like "use this image for articles about the expedition and its work, but use this other version over here if the article relates to specific geological formations in the area." Any thoughts?

A related question concerns blemish and scratch removal. Any problems clearly stemming from damage to the photograph should be fixed, it seems to me, but the question is less clear when it could also be that the building needed paint or that the prisoner had an injury to his face. My own inclination here is to err on the side of caution and remember that prior versions are retained, but it would be good to have a flag we could set requesting that someone in the same city as the document take a look at it.

I have also seen photos tagged as "faded" where the patches of grey seem to be due to mold or some other damage to the mural the photograph is *of*.... while it's possible to get some colors in there, the price is distortion of the other colors in the work. If we start selectively editing white areas for color, we're almost painting and this makes me wonder if we'd still be calling it a faithful reproduction of a work of art. The mural I am thinking of is medieval, too old for any sort of copyright issue, but again, I'd like to know if there's a place to take such questions.

thanks Dana -- 06:58, 14 October 2011‎ User:Elinruby

Generally speaking, if two images have a significant difference, such that the two might both be useful in their own way, they should be uploaded under separate filenames. The question of which to use is then left to the projects, and we offer little in the way of guidance. Generally speaking, if a work is used to depict the subject of the work, blemishes or artistic stylization are better omitted, whereas if it's used to depict the work itself as it appears at the present time, it's better left unmodified (except for eliminating problems introduced by digitization, like dust on the scanner). There's also the interesting question of whether to depict the work as it appears at the present time or as it appeared at the time of its creation (for example, Mona Lisa once had a blue sky, not a green one - in this case a single article may wish to display both). Digital restoration inevitably involves some amount of creativity, and it can be difficult to capture the original artist's intent, even with complete knowledge of the context it was created in. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Also speaking generally, there is little or no harm in having multiple images, each with its own title. When at all in doubt, go that way. - Jmabel ! talk 15:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both for the input, which does help a bit, thanks Elinruby (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Another instance that shows US government press officials can be completely clueless about copyright...

A few months ago we discussed the routine practice of White House officials insisting photos issued by the White House could not be modified.

There are lots of flickr-ids rund by US government press officers who keep publishing PD photos as "all rights reserved".

According to this recent article Press officers with the Office of Military Commissions recently completed a full rewrite of their site -- and then put an inappropriate (c) symbol on it. Guantánamo Inc.? Oops. Geo Swan (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

October 15

Is commercial exploition of Wiki Commons acceptable?

Just curious to know where lines are drawn - in researching some of the public domain stamp images at Wiki Commons, I've noticed that several philatelists have included quite a few images from their "personal" stamp collections. What I find rather interesting is how the User often includes a "Source" link on the image page that usually links to a commercial philately website. Apparently, philately is a very lucrative business. Also included under the image are associated links, one of which usually refers back to the Users' gallery where you often find rather large collections of stamps, many of which are linked to commercial philately websites. Is it my imagination, or is Wiki Commons promoting the business of philately under the guise of public domain? Is this allowed? If so, then I should be able upload photos of my antique gun collection to Wiki Commons, each of which will include a source link back to a retail gun shop showing the pricing for the gun (with a notation under it stating the pricing is for information only). The commercial links for gun sales below it can be disregarded as well. Oh, and I can also include a link to my User Gallery under File Usage because that's where I'll keep all the images for my guns, some of which will have a resource link to various retail gun shops. Atsme (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Many PD artworks, collectibles etc. come from commercial websites. At some point when I was cleaning up images with watermarks, I noticed that many images were coming from eBay. Many images of rarely seen paintings can be found at auction houses websites, etc. Many source links can lead you to some strange places. I do not have problem with that, but if you find some examples to be over the top you can always edit the page and tone them down. And, by the way, please upload photos of your antique gun collection, even with the links to gun shop website. If someone finds the links to be artificial or unnecessary they can always change them. --Jarekt (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
We already generate enormous web traffic for many different websites with our courtesy links to sources. I don't have a problem with this - in fact if it incentivizes them to contribute more, or tolerate our absorption of their material, all the better. If on the other hand the link is frivolous, like a link to an unauthoritative "gallery" website containing low-res copies of the work, which was not actually where the image was taken from, by all means remove it. If such an unauthoritative site really is the source of the image, we do have to link it, but we should be thinking about obtaining a digitization from a more authoritative source, because third party copies on the web are often modified in terrible ways. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Misidentified portrait?

File:Ebony Bones-01.jpg

We've been having some problems lately on English language Wikipedia with a disruptive contributor attempting to replace this image, claiming it is not Ebony Bones. Whoever it is claims to work for her and keeps uploading copyrighted pictures without permission. Obviously, that's not okay. But the persistence sent me investigating, and I think that this person is right; I think that this picture is misidentified. I cannot find the original image on Flickr anymore, but I do not believe that this woman is Ebony Bones, but rather one of Ebony's back up dancers/singers. I've found another image of the woman in the dress we have here; this was taken at the Black Rock Coalition at Summerstage. You can see this woman again in this shot. Same dress, same necklace, at the front of the picture. Ebony herself, with her characteristic hair-do, is also in that picture, at the far end of the stage. If you look at the PhotoStream, you can see plenty of pictures of Ebony as she appeared at that event, and she is obviously not that woman. I wonder if this was a mistaken identification based on labeling a picture according to the act performing, as here. Since I can't find the original image, I don't know.

Given strong evidence (I think), I've taken the liberty of correcting the description in the image (in English anyway). But I think if this picture is misidentified and misnamed, we need to do something more about that, since it's not an accurate representation. :/ What do you think? And if you agree, what can we do? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is probably mislabelled by a contributor who found the pic on Flickr labelled with Ebony's name, and did not realise it was in fact a pic from Ebony's performance, not a pic of Ebony herself. Use {{Rename}} to suggest a more appropriate title. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done Renamed. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


Can anybody delete this picture: NK Osijek-before 1990.svg ? Thanks! --IvanOS (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

But why? --Túrelio (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I guess because it is not free.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
O.k., gone. --Túrelio (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

This signature was used in the English Wikipedia article about the convicted fraudster. There being no source or other reason to think this is actually the signature of that person, I've removed it from the article. In the course of doing so, though, I looked at the contributions of the uploader, and it doesn't really add up. A Thai Wikipedian uploading a signature of a British fraudster/party planner and also pictures of pretty girls, claiming it all to be his own work? Anyway, I am just bringing it to your attention! :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the hint. Most uploads of this user now have been found to be copyvios. --Túrelio (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Davenport's girlfriend is a Thai national. See also the contribution history of Londongreek on whose talk page that uploader contributed. Various images relating to "James Stewart" or "James Stuart" were uploaded and later deleted. That was one of Davenport's aliases [10]. I would guess that someone involved in the fraud was trying to use Wikipedia to support the credentials of "James Stewart". Prioryman (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Misaligned picture

File:Ed Greenwood.jpg is not aligned correctly - it wasn't always like this. 14:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have added {{rotate|270}} to invoke a bot that will fix the EXIF. 84user (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Gallery pages

Quick question: do you think that the following pages can exist in the main namespace, ie, a standard page, eventually with more elaborated captions that include also English versions?

The pages are: User:Stegop/Istambul1, User:Stegop/Panorâmicas de Istambul, User:Stegop/Imagens antigas de Istambul.

I created them because I wanted to make a careful selection of photos to illustrate pt:Istambul, which I want to propose for featured article, and I am not able to that looking at small thumbnails of 300px, so I thought that making some pages showing pre-selected photos with a larger resolution would be much useful to make the final selection. The method involves much work, so I confess that I am not sure if I'll follow it to do all the selection, but that is another matter.

Then it occurred me that maybe that work could be considered useful or interesting to others, so I am asking opinions of others. --Stegop (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

A bit off topic - sorry: The <gallery> should have a optional parameter which allows size selection. Hmm.. just thinking about - probably not that hard to hack this via JavaScript. ;) Well, should better be in MediaWiki. And: all our gallery images (also in Wikipedia) are too small. They should be enlarged and there should be a user setting (like there is one for thumbs) for gallery images.
On your pages: I wouldn't say that they cannot. ;) Move them to subpages of İstanbul and link them from the main gallery. If you want to do multilingual descriptions: use {{Mld}} in the captions (personal opinion). Incomplete example. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
On the gallery tag -- it does. Just use <gallery widths=200px> ... </gallery>. As for making them mainspace galleries, sure. That is what that namespace is for ;-) Once moved others may edit them of course, either to make the images a bit smaller (lot of scrolling there; browsers will need to download a fair amount of data to display those pages), or put them in a MediaWiki gallery (which puts more images left-to-right as people's browser windows get bigger; your table would not), either of which may hamper your immediate purpose, so be sure you're OK with that before moving. But there is no requirement for those alterations before moving (nor for English captions); others can edit or add multilingual captions as they prefer. I would make them subpages (or links from) İstanbul though; it should not replace the gallery which is there already. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, yes, sure - the gallery tag offers a fixed possibility to increase size - but it is not variable. ;) It would be nice to have such a dropdown box like the mld has to select the favoritism image size. But, yes, those pages should be converted to real gallery tags (with fixed size increase if you like) for now. --Saibo (Δ) 01:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Could be nice, but also a bit harder on the server with image thumbnail caching ;-) Changing the size would have to re-download all images at the very least. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I do not care about the servers that much if something here can be made better. That is the other guys job. ;) --Saibo (Δ) 13:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I forgot to mention (or stress, as maybe it could be implied by the purpose behind the creation of those pages) why I didn't use <gallery>: although it allows specifying the widths and heights, I don't like the resulting layout. As for the images being so big (relatively), if they are smaller they are useless for making a decent selection. --Stegop (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

October 16

Fate of File:Image-request.svg

Hi there, I'm wondering what happend to the original File:Image-request.svg which was a golden picture frame with a question mark in the middle? I need it for artwork and stuff.

I cannot explain how that happened. Maybe someone can restore the old one please? --Mattes (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It's still there -- just click the timestamp, which is the download link -- but it does not render (doesn't work in Safari either). Presumably the newer version is a tweak to fix the problem, whatever it was. Maybe we upgraded our SVG library and some dodgy SVG syntax no longer works. 18:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded from enwp the same image, and it appears to have fixed the problem? russavia (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thanks! --Mattes (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I thought it affected reuploads or reverts only, but if it can also make some other svg files suddenly vanish without reason or warning, it could be more serious. Do we have an idea of how many files are vanishing or are potentially affected? Just a few? Hundreds? Is there a general solution or do we react individually when users notify a case to the VP or the HD? (By the way, Commons:Village pump#File:Cone-response.svg is still not fixed. If someone who knows how to do it could fix it, the original poster would probably appreciate.) -- Asclepias (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Nothing vanished -- it's right there in the file history. Mediawiki on the other hand can no longer display the old version for some reason. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the original is still there on the server for someone who clicks on the timestamp, but the images vanish for all practical purposes from the projects pages, in the sense that they are not displayed. See for example how File:Cone-response.svg currently appears in the article fr:Bâtonnet. (Currently = quick, before someone fixes it :) ). If you're talking about File:Image-request.svg, it did have a problem when Mattes posted, before it was fixed by Russavia. Of course, now it is fixed. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Safari does not display it either, so I assume there is a fundamental problem with the SVG itself. The other one you note is different... that does seem odd. Safari can display that one. Perhaps a new version of librsvg was installed, and maybe the new version has some regressions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Not quite sure to which image you refer by "it" and to which by "the other one". Are you saying you can see File:Cone-response.svg correctly displayed in the article linked above? (Not the two other images in the article.) I use Safari and all I see is "File:Cone-response.svg" (no image displayed) at the top of the article. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
By "it" I meant File:Image-request.svg. File:Cone-response.svg was not displaying for me either on a page, but downloading the SVG directly and displaying in Safari did work (unlike Image-request.svg). It looks as though someone modified the file and re-uploaded; perhaps the newer Mediawiki has more items it searches for when trying to prevent HTML uploads (that check often catches SVGs and maybe it's casting a wider net now). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

wikitables vs html tables

I have lately been trying to make a new version of {{Building address}} so that it would intergrate more smoothly into {{Information}}. What I have noticed so far is:

What can wikitables do that html cannot do ?--Zolo (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

They can be very confusing ;-) Did you read meta:Help:Table? I did not. BTW there is en:Help:Tables#Comparison of table syntax. -- RE rillke questions? 21:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
In the old days most templates used wiki-tables: {{Creator}}, {{Artwork}}, {{Book}} (or their precursors) all used them. But they were a pain to work with and were slowly replaced with html tables. {{Information}} is the last holdout among major infoboxes (that is why default {{information field|style=wiki}} works only inside {{Information}}), mainly because is used on so many pages that nobody wants to touch it unless there is a very good reason. But I agree it adds a lot of confusion. Also some of the problems with unusual template configuration for which we found fixes in {{Artwork}} are not fixed in {{Information}}. But to answer your question: there is probably not much that wiki table can do that html tables can't. After all Wiki code is converted to HTML in the end. --Jarekt (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the links and explanations. Is a rewrite of {{Information}} really likely to cause many bugs ?--Zolo (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
At least it will force the server to render all file-pages again - for each language. Of course this happens on demand only. If you intend to rewrite template information, make sure that your new template is tested for a long time. Also consider adding general parameters for derivative works (dw-source, dw-author, dw-date) and licensing (dw-copyright, license) as well as geo-information (object-location, camera-position) to this template. These are the most wanted parameters, I think. I hope I did not forgot to mention an important one. BTW while talking about geotagging, it must be possible to add a world-map with a dot-overlay for the location... -- RE rillke questions? 09:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

categorizing en masse

I realize that that this would be a dangerous option in the wrong hands, but I am wondering if there is a tool around that does this. If so I have not found it. Where I have wished for it is in the National Archives material, which has some folders whose contents, whatever else they might be, all relate to a single location or law. Chinese Exclusion Act, and Pine Ridge South Dakota come to mind. Just wondering. I tried categorizing the folder, but the files do not inherit. Elinruby (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you would be more specific. In many cases, the right thing to do is simply to make the category you are looking at a subcategory of another category. For example, if a category is entirely about the Pine Ridge Reservation, it should probably be a subcategory of Category:Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. If a category needs renaming (or merging), make the request at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. I can't think of too many cases where the right thing to do is to add an additional category to everything in a category, but maybe there is something I'm not thinking of. I hope that helps. - Jmabel ! talk 15:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying attribution requirements

A recent VP discussion prompted some thoughts on making it clearer how reusers should attribute credit. Please comment at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Clarifying_attribution_requirements. Rd232 (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Problems with uploading large files

I am trying to upload a 87 MB file, I have stopped a first try with the new upload wizzard after 3 hours, the 2nd try is running for 2 hours now. My Computer has uploaded more than 120 MB both times, but i do not know how much of this upload volume has not been a part of the image upload. Does anyone know, what the problem could be? --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

bugzilla:31610, perhaps. Have you tried the older, but less problematic Commons:Upload? LX (talk, contribs) 18:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Rotatelink on filedescription-pages

Rotatelink: Discussion

Below the image: the start link
Pop up: the parameter setting window of the script after clicking the "request rotation" link.

I just wrote/composed two scripts to achieve this: User:Rillke/RotateRequest.js and User:Rillke/RotateRequestInstall.js

To test it, use importScript('User:Rillke/RotateRequestInstall.js'); in Special:MyPage/common.js.

Why? Most people and especially newcomers don't know that we have a bot for this. They often use lossy Windows JPEG-rotation which results in wrong Exif-tags and a loss of quality.

My script offers a simple interface for adding {{Rotate}} to the image-description page. It is also fast loaded, that's why I used two scripts: One installer and one containing the heavy code. I intend to put the contents of User:Rillke/RotateRequestInstall.js into MediaWiki:Common.js and User:Rillke/RotateRequest.js should be moved into MediaWiki-namespace. If someone does not like the position or the icon used, please note this here. Also if you think there are problems with the script-code. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 19:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Very cool. There appears to be a problem with the thumbnail though, which fails to load for me. For example on File:Hymenocallis_littoralis.jpg, apparently the script tries to load, instead of
HTH, Jean-Fred (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes this helps. Forgot to remove a line. Pictogram voting keep-light-green.svg Fixed. Thanks. -- RE rillke questions? 22:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, the "link"/event is active on all the "xxx pixels, size of file blah" line, ont only the "request rotation". Jean-Fred (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Pictogram voting keep-light-green.svg Fixed

Really nice! - but too much Klickibunti! ;-) How did you override the server-side caching of thumbs?
Something was wrong here - a newline is missing after the template. Pictogram voting keep-light-green.svg Fixed
Some minor stuff which could be better:
A: How is the preselected radio button determined? It was 270° every time. I would prefer 0°. Agree - could be useful for masstagging. Even better would be: remember the last selection. ✓ Remembers last submitted now. Using a cookie, which expires after 14 days.
B: If I increase the font size in Firefox (3.6) by one (Ctrl + +) the popup gets scrollbars. ✓ depends
C: The thumbnail in the popup has no space between it and the border of the popup. ✓ Done
D: 90-270 should be emphasized more. The "nach EXIF" should be somewhere else but not after the "0°". ✓ Done
Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC) 12:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions. Concerning the cache: I clone the first image in the revision-table and decrease the requested size by one px. Further concerns or suggestions? -- RE rillke questions? 14:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done Cookie works nicely. However, (minor, minor thing) if I had 90/180/270 as last choice could you select one of the radio buttons instead of the text box? Just a bit confusing that the text box is used although I used the radios last time. Or save R90, R180, R270 in the cookie if the radios were used?!
Okay, so we hope that the thumb is fresh then (like I did it in the rotate template). ;-) If would be not fresh it would leaed to wrong rotations for images which were uploaded before 1.18 but have a EXIF rotation specified. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
A "; " before the "(request rotation)" would look nicer to me. Before/After: ✓ Done
Volle Auflösung‎ (1.800 × 2.826 Pixel, Dateigröße: 685 KB, MIME-Typ: image/jpeg)(request rotation)
Volle Auflösung‎ (1.800 × 2.826 Pixel, Dateigröße: 685 KB, MIME-Typ: image/jpeg); (request rotation)
Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Indeed I have to admit I stole your idea with the unusual width. Glad, that it wasn't patented yet ;-) Cookie stores now whether you used a custom option or one of the bot-options. Is the list of supported file-types up-to-date? Then I have to strip-out tiff from the supported types. Am I right that rotation bot does not support "rotation" by 0° to correct the difference between physical view and Exif of an image when loaded in a browser? (thumb displayed right but full-res not in browser). If not, consider implementing this. If/When Browsers start to support autorotation by Exif, it will be a mess with small images, which are displayed raw on image-description-pages.Can be a problem only without autorotation RE rillke questions? 06:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC) -- RE rillke questions? 21:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Thumbnail still broken for me. Eg on File:Tramway graz20.jpg I get instead of − Purged cache to no avail (and I do have now the semi-colon suggested above, so I guess I run the latest version). Jean-Fred (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I get --Saibo (Δ) 00:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
It is a caching issue. If you use firefox, go to Extras?→Clear recent history?→And select cache only. These type of load-on-demand script is often not purged when using the x+Reload command. -- RE rillke questions? 06:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

@Rillke: Nice changes - works like a charm. Btw: Thanks for the Extrawurst!  :-) Yes, Rotatebot doesn't do 0° (see template talk:rotate for more). If small images are not rotated server-side this is a server-side bug. Should go to Bugzilla. Update: File:TheHiggins.jpg was small enough to show the orig. image - but instead (rotated) was shown. So this imagined bug is not existent.

However - yes - Rotatebot could get more functionality but ... I am short on time (an Luxo too). I think we could put it to Common.js... if no one opposes. Or: what about a Gadget which is enabled by default? I think I did read that this is possible with 1.18?! Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC) 02:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, a gadget would be preferable. I'll read about this. Thanks for your comments and bugreports. Ja, auch die Extrawurst habe ich zwar zähneknirschend angefertigt, muss aber einsehen, dass es ein Bug war. -- RE rillke questions? 06:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Two small ones more (if you like to): I'd prefer if the "(" ")" would not be included in the link. ;-) And: a "°" is missing after the small text box.
I tested on Firefox 3.6 (Linux, Monobook), Opera 11.5 (Linux, Vector and Monobook), IE 8 (WinXP, Vector and Monobook). On IE8 the popup doesn't appear on first click - needs two clicks on the link. Strange (bug or feature for Windows user? ;-) ). But no script error.
de:Wikipedia:NEU (search the page for "gadget") → mw:Extension:Gadgets. If we do not want it for anons the script could kill itself right after loading. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
First, there is a check for anons in the installer-script: They shouldn't get the link and secondly, do anonymous users have preferences? (please do not quote this sentence without context somewhere)
I am going to add the °. But I prefer the brackets clickable as link. You are admin so you can change this when a lot of annoyed users complain about these silly clickable brackets, which look sooo odd ;-)
I tested with IE 8, too but there was no problem for me. It took long time but the the dialog was shown. Did a little change now within in the order of the installer-script. Now it must load or it is a bug of MSIE. -- RE rillke questions? 14:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Anons have no preferences - but: mw:Extension:Gadgets#Options: "Makes the gadget enabled by default for everyone (including anons!)."
Brackets: okay :D Just wanted to mention. ;)
A bug in MSIE? Not possible. scnr Will go to test again and try to find out why it did not fire on first click. --Saibo (Δ) 15:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I made a suggestion on COM:AN#Rotatelink about setting this up. Before doing so, I need some translations (not the link, as I think it's easy to find out what it means but the dialog-messages). -- RE rillke questions? 16:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I just had (again) a look on both scripts to ensure that you did not insert malicious code. ;-) One question: Can the strange IE detection (on beginning of the imported code) be replaced by $.browser.msie ( from MediaWiki:Stockphoto.js)? --Saibo (Δ) 19:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Second click problem in IE solved: it was due to another script ... whyever (it shouldn't have be active since it only runs on file history pages). --Saibo (Δ) 20:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Btw: New code for rotatebot is ready (but not yet deployed and not tested): will be able to rotate by 0° (some use requested this although it doesn't make much sense (100% view needs to be fixed on server-side not by rotating all images with correct exif)) and to just reset the exif orientation to 1 (to fix old images from experienced users who know what they are doing). But this shouldn't affect the script now (we can think about those additional options later) . --Saibo (Δ) 20:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Intuitive answer to the msie-test-matter: I know that Opera had an option to tell scripts that it would be MSIE. Would be a catastrophe if opera is treated like msie by the script but one the other hand the user is responsible... I'll google for this. -- RE rillke questions? 20:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
When attempting to find out which browser the client is, it is always better to rely on the behavior. I will remove the eval but the rest is not evil. -- RE rillke questions? 20:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay - fine. Just thought the jquery people would know what they are doing. ;)
Translation: we have Danish, German, English, Polish now (thanks: MGA73 and Odder!).
Regarding enabling: I would enable it but I think we should wait for at least a few more people's comments, hm? --Saibo (Δ) 21:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No harm in trying.. If it can help users then why not? Should any problems arise it is easy to remove again. So I support. --MGA73 (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Now also tested in Epiphany 2.22.2 and unspecified Firefox and Opera versions on Linux by another user. --Saibo (Δ) 00:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Also tested in SRWare Iron 14 (Chromium). --Saibo (Δ) 19:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Could the rotate request link on non image/animation/video (all files which are not able to be rendered as thumbnail) file pages like File:Voiceless alveolar lateral fricative.ogg be removed? Using the file extension will probably not work since ogg is used for both, audio and video. Ah.. found an error: If I click on File:Volxbibel_-_Die_Bergpredigt_.ogv the link: "imgLastPart is null" - probably since there is no usual thumbnail in the history. --Saibo (Δ) 18:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC) ogv: fixed, ogg removed by Rillke. --Saibo (Δ) 00:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC) ✓ Done

.oga, .mid (cannot be rotated, is no image). xcf (can be rotated, is an image but no thumbs available) also lead to a error on click. - Thanks for improving! :-) --Saibo (Δ) 00:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC) oga, mid removed and xcf fixed by Rillke. --Saibo (Δ) 14:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC) ✓ Done

Possible feature idea: support removing an old rotate template when a new one is added using the script. --Saibo (Δ) 15:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Would require sending an XHR to get the full wikitext of the page. This can lead into edit-conflicts and increases the time to be loaded or executed. Once the template is on the page, it should be possible for newbies to find it, remove it or correct it. -- RE rillke questions? 11:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Another feature: support a user preference (var rotlinkonlyatjpeg=true; or var rotlinkonly at = [jpg, jpeg];) which users can put in their common.js to disable the gadget everywhere except on jpegs. Or even the other way round (by default only on jpeg file pages unless the user made inserted a var rotlinkeverwhere=true; in his .js)? The rotation is nearly only needed at jpegs (since nearly all photos are in jpeg) - not sure. I think that I would like to only have it on jpegs to reduce clutter. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 10:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Blacklist or whitelist? I think I am going to create a whitelist. -- RE rillke questions? 11:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done here
window.rotateFileTypes = ['jpg', 'jpeg'];
to add to your common or /skin/.js -- RE rillke questions? 12:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Rotatelink: short poll

Below the image (highlighted): the start link "request rotation"
Pop up: the parameter setting window of the script after clicking the "request rotation" link.

Rillke wrote a gadget to add a link "request rotation" to file pages. It can be used to easily request rotation of an image (most rotations will be done losslessly by Rotatebot max. six hours later).

Why a script/link? Most people and especially newcomers don't know that we have a bot for this but we could get (MW 1.18) more mis-rotated images in the future. They often use lossy Windows JPEG-rotation which results in wrong Exif-tags and a loss of quality. Rillke's script offers a simple interface for adding {{Rotate}} to the image-description page. It doesn't slow down (notably) loading of file pages since the heavy code is loaded only on clicking the link.

The gadget is planned to be enabled by default for all logged-in users but can be easily disabled in the user's settings by one click if someone doesn't like it.

Translations: we currently have Danish, German, English, Polish. Please post new translations there. But even if there is no translation available: it is not hard to understand the interface.

I would like to enable this very soon but wanted to collect some more opinions (there were only some in the section above). Please post discussion comments or technical questions in the section above. --Saibo (Δ) 19:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC) (parts of this text are based on text by Rillke in the section above)

Short comments/Support/Oppose

... here ...

Useful. No downside I can see. Support. Rd232 (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Agree that it is a very nice tool and should become standard issue. --Jarekt (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Since we have breathtaking 100% support in the poll ;-) ... and no opposes since 12th October I have activated the gadget now. Works fine.

Thanks to all how did test and especially to Rillke for programming this user interface script! :-) --Saibo (Δ) 22:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Can we ignore "Not released for public use"?

A google search took me to the source page from which I uploaded File:US Navy Undersecretary Robert Work talks with press officer Tamsen Reese at the Navy Memorials theater -a.jpg. The exif data included a standard military ID. It also said "NOT released for public use". Since it was taken by a US Navy photographer, of US Navy personnel, at a USN event, in a USN building, I figured it was as fully in the public domain as any other USN photo. However, I anticipate someone, at some future date, may challenge the image based on that "NOT released for public use". So I thought I would request the opinions of others.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

  • IANACL, however it is my understanding (based on a little time spent in journalism) that the activities of a public official in the course of his duties at a public and official event are totally totally fair game. If some wrinkle exists that would make this image different, I am not aware of it. Possibly they intended to indicate that the photo should not be used in press packets? Either way though, it's a document created by the federal government. Elinruby (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd say they changed their mind after the EXIF note was added (or made a mistake in putting it out there). The site page seems pretty explicit about the status, and yes, provided the photographer was on the job at the time, the work would be public domain regardless if the Navy considered it public use or not. Anyways, if there was something the Navy wanted private and wants it taken down, they could request it. But I don't think there is any doubt on the copyright status itself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the input! Geo Swan (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Inkscape quick question

Would any inkscape users be able to tell me how to "arch" text? And example would be the inscriptions on File:Seal of the Governor of Alabama.svg. I know how to select my font and type in the wording I desire, but I don't know how to bend the wording into an arch like "Office Of The Goveror" is on the file I linked. Assistance would be greatly appreciated. Fry1989 eh? 02:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I mean you must do give every letter separated position. Adove Illustrator can handle this in one way. Examples File:Common Point Ground Symbol.svg, File:Major levels of linguistic structure.svg. -- πϵρήλιο 03:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there any way to do it in Inkscape? I don't have Adobe Illustrator, and need a free program to do it in. Fry1989 eh? 03:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
1. Draw a path. "Arch" in your case. 2. Prepare your text separately. 3. Select both. 4. Use: Text > Put on path. 5. Commons do not support text on path feature. So convert your text to path before uploading. Path> Object to path. Thats all.
6. You can set your path stroke to transparent if it should be invisible.
* Sample: File:Okuyorum-paylasiyorum nevit 037.svg --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you guys, I hope these techniques work for me :D Fry1989 eh? 20:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

ASTER and database/sweat equity copyright

Lugubriously I surveyed another article crowing about a new NASA topological database, knowing that despite it being a U.S. government work and despite being a faithful representation of the Earth and despite it simply being a collection of data points (how high the terrain at x,y is) the thing would still turn up as a commercial product being sold to people with too much money.[11] Does Commons (or some other Wikimedia project) have any aspiration to contradict this doctrine? I wish the ordinary people could see the Earth the way the big oil and mining companies do. Wnt (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting any particular specific course of action? Powers (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
It appears a Japanese group owned the instrument making the measurements; that probably does not qualify as PD-USGov. NASA was a partner, but it was a joint project. Mass measurements like that may not be truly just factual, and may well support a copyright... don't remember where I saw that though. Anyways, it's not a US government work, and you need to buy the stuff from the Japanese group. It looks like some data was released to the public at large, and some of the detailed data for the U.S. only, but there are still restrictions on it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Your section title is somewhat misleading -- U.S. courts have generally refused to recognize "database/sweat equity copyright" in the form of compilations of publicly-available data (see "Feist"), or photographs of out-of-copyright paintings, etc. However, if you create the original data yourself, then that's quite a different matter... AnonMoos (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

October 18

Statue of Jefferson with The Declaration of Independance

Hello, My name is Patsy. I just recently purchased a statue of Jefferson which is connected to The Declaration of Independence, which is engraved and has lots of signatures just like one of the pictures presented on one of the pages I researched on Jefferson...This is made out of some sort of heavy, heavy wood of some sort...I am wondering if this is worth anything or if this is an actual original from one of the authors. - unsigned

You are unlikely to get an answer here. This is a page for discussion of matters of concern internal to the Wikimedia Commons project. - Jmabel ! talk 06:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
You might post your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, they are more likely to be able to help you. MKFI (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

problem with rotation

File:FacadeSanJuanBasilica04.jpg appears fine in Commons, but sideways in en:San Juan de los LagosThelmadatter (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Just wait a few hours. -- RE rillke questions? 16:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

October 19


It seems I cannot revert my upload of File:Cone-response.svg. Could you kindly check it? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You have more than one revert there. Could you please be specific about which version you consider correct? - Jmabel ! talk 15:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
He tried to revert to 13:14, 23 July 2007 twice, so I assume that version.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I just tried doing the same, and it shows the reversion as taking effect, but the thumbnail doesn't seem to update. Does someone else want to look into this? - Jmabel ! talk 23:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Right, I tried it twice with no success. Does the original file use an obsolete syntax or something? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
It’s fixed. Thanks, Anomie. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Locations and a sea navigator needed

I have uploaded a series of pictures taken from a Ferry to poland. These are in cronological order File:Ferry Helsinki Gydnia Rostock departure (1).jpg to File:Ferry Helsinki Gydnia Rostock departure (8).jpg. Up to (4) I have no problem finding the location. After that I cant find the rocks on File:Ferry Helsinki Gydnia Rostock departure (5).jpg (They should be visible on google earth). I Guessed number 7 but I am not certain. The timing of pictures also gives clues. Has anyone navigated by boat in this area or has good navigation maps of the area? I would be nice to have some other geolocations and island names of the other pictures in the gallery. Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Ferry Helsinki Gydnia Rostock departure (5).jpg are likely to be Maloxratan and Maloxen. I'm not sure about the islands in the background, though.
File:Ferry Helsinki Gydnia Rostock departure (6).jpg is propably Krokholmen seen from NNW. Same island as File:Ferry Helsinki Gydnia Rostock departure (7).jpg.
File:Ferry Helsinki Gydnia Rostock departure (8).jpg would then be Svarthästen and Svarthästklobben.
/Esquilo (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks I now worked out the missing locations. The Ferry starts in a Southeast direction and turns to a South direction. Beyond it wil probably go Southwest. Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Now I'm home and have had a look on my charts, and I must admit that I am amazed that my charts from 2004 are no longer accurate for this harbour area. The quay has been extened almost a kilometer towards Lilla Bastön and there is a new waterway between Lilla Bastön and Krokholmen that is almost 2 meters deeper than the old one. The port of departure is however not Helsinki. Helsinki harbor is located 17 km further west. I don't know what this harbour is called. /Esquilo (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Language Selector in Category:Bösebrücke_(Berlin) hides category items

Can anyone tell whether this is a software bug ore a syntax error on this page: If I open Category:Bösebrücke (Berlin) and choose "en" as language, all category items below disappear. If I choose "de" or "All" the items are correctly displayed. --Alexrk2 (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Known issue. MediaWiki_talk:Multilingual_description.js#Lang-selector_is_no_longer_suitable -- RE rillke questions? 15:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. --Alexrk2 (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Outgrown from previous thread

At least it will force the server to render all file-pages again - for each language. Of course this happens on demand only. If you intend to rewrite template information, make sure that your new template is tested for a long time. Also consider adding general parameters for derivative works (dw-source, dw-author, dw-date) and licensing (dw-copyright, license) as well as geo-information (object-location, camera-position) to this template. These are the most wanted parameters, I think. I hope I did not forgot to mention an important one. BTW while talking about geotagging, it must be possible to add a world-map with a dot-overlay for the location... -- RE rillke questions? 09:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, if there's to be an improvement as well as a conversion, perhaps Template:Information/draft and Template talk:Information/draft should be created? I'm not one of the great code writers, so I can't really help out with that bit, but anything that improves over 9,928,148 pages is a good thing in my book. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I have the Template:Information/draft based on {{Artwork}}. I did not add any extra parameters except for "other_field_1", which although not strictly necessary (see here), would make on demand insertion of new fields more readable. I think in the past most proposals for adding more permanent fields to {{Information}} failed, so I am reluctant to go there. --Jarekt (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems to work well, thanks (apart that {{Information field}}) will have to be restricted to the "html" style). But I cant figure out any systematic way to test it.
About Rillke suggestions for new fields. Object and camera locations could be useful. In many cases it would make more sense to have the location next to the description (or may in the top right corner like Wikipedia) rather than below the license. However, the field is not useful for every file, so adding it by default may result in a lot of non sensical input - I dont know. Maps could be nice but a World map would look vague and more precise maps would probably have to rely on Openstreetmap, like in some Wikipedias. It is interesting but very slow. I am not very clear what the derivative work parameters could look like. About license. I really think something should be done to clarify license/permission. It is currently considered that the license should not go into permission but I dont think that it makes things very clear (and when left blank, permission states "see below", which really means "see license"). I imagine that turning the license into a SQL attribute or whatever could make things simpler but I have no idea of what is actually possible.--Zolo (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure if adding Object and camera location coordinates to the {{Information}} template is desirable. We have a family of {{Location}} templates used on 2,535,785 images. The template is added on the bottom of {{Information}} and as you can see for some strange reason the way it is attached it seems to be part of {{Information}} template. License/permission field situation is strange, mostly due to competing standards (license inside {{Information}} or outside). I usually like it inside except when the license section is so enormous that you miss fields below it. --Jarekt (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Location templates look nice in most files. However I think it could be great if we could fine a (simple) way to better integrate location into the template. It is much easier to internationalize names of places (through {{City}} and {{Institution}}) than the rest of the description, so it can sometimes be useful to move it out of the {{en|}} template and it could make sense to have one single field to display things like place name, coordinates, {{Building address}}.--Zolo (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Very basic example here--Zolo (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

October 17

Need help with categories


Today I took the plunge and uploaded my first images to Wiki Commons.

Now, I can't figure out how to put them into the correct category. Yes, I did go to the help page, but I am obviously not a technical genius and I could not figure out how to go about doing it. Can someone dumb down this process for me?

I would like them to be in the Cypripedium montanum category.

Thanks, Rosalee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosalee (talk • contribs) 2011-10-19T21:55:27‎ (UTC)

It looks like someone has done the categorization for you. You can take the way they did it as a model for next time.
Also, I see you put "{{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}Attribution Rosalee de la Forêt". What you probably want is "{{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|author=Rosalee de la Forêt}}". - Jmabel ! talk 01:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that tip about the attribution. Obviously I don't really know what I am doing. I also noticed that someone was kind enough to categorize for me, but I still don't know how to go about doing that myself.

October 20

Redirecting File:Sort none.gif to File:Sort both.gif

There are hundreds and even thousands of files arround the Wikipedia projects that uses the new sorting image File:Sort both.gif, while thier body uses File:Sort none.gif to describes users what to click to sort, such as this exemple:

  • To sort this table by nation, total medal count, or any other column, click on the icon next to the column title.

And many more like that, I hope an admin or someone with the file mover power will move the File:Sort none.gif to File:Sort both.gif. so we wouldn't have to make those edits. and please note that if you upload the same image to affect the old it tells you its a dupe of the new location files. so maybe even delete the File:Sort none.gif and edit the 10 articles that use it. (As im not sure if the global system use that parcticular image). See all links that link to the old image - [from Special:GlobalUsage]
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A not very clever idea to use Sort none.gif directly in a text which is copied thousands of times. This is an obivous case where a template (for the whole text with image or only for the image) should be used. There is no description text in File:Sort none.gif which says that this images is always updated to the currently used "no sort" icon of Wikimedia wiki table heads. So in principle this file should keep its name... --Saibo (Δ) 13:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but it does say in German, ""Unsorted" icon used in the header of wikipedia sortable table". So giving the image was changed, the description of the image should reflact the changes, no?, either by changing to prior to 1.18 or "old Unsorted icon"? and seen as all WP projects changed and use the new image shouldn't we change it still?
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
It does only mention where it comes from - not that it gets updated to the current Wikimedia wiki style. --Saibo (Δ) 01:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Bali Tiger image

There is an image of a Bali Tiger by Helmut Diller, and it is classified as Public Domain. I wanted to know how this could be as the illustrator (H.Diller) has only been dead a few decades. The reason I ask is that H.Diller did many illustrations, some included other extinct tigers taht would make a great addition to Wikimedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distant smile (talk • contribs) 12:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be a huge help if you could link the file, please? Powers (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
He's talking about File:PantheraTigrisBalicaHeineman.jpg, which is identified here as being "© WWF-Canon/Helmut Diller". The file was uploaded at the English Wikipedia on 2008-08-12 by en:User:LeonisRugitur with the upload summary "{{Information |Description= Balinese Tiger |Source= Heineman drawing |Date= 1920s |Author= Heineman |Permission= expired copyright |other_versions= none }}" and the license {{PD-author}}. It's totally unclear to me who "Heineman" is. In fact, I also consider File:Panthera tigris balica, old male.jpg, File:Panthera tigris balica.jpg, and File:Balicolor.jpg as equally suspect, as neither give any publication history or author info. Lupo 17:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Another larger version here, and Diller's signature is at the lower left, so yes this does look very problematic to me. Diller was German, and died in 1984. Heinemann is a publisher of educational material, I think, so presumably this came from a book published by them. The "1920s" date on the upload is clearly incorrect as Diller was born in 1911. I don't see anything resembling permission from the given info. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
File:PantheraTigrisBalicaHeineman.jpg marked for speedy deletion per this discussion. Lupo 06:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Contributions history

If I upload an image, and the image is later deleted, does the original "contribution" history also get deleted from the chronologically dated list? I'm trying to find out when I uploaded a file, along with the description, for a photo that was later deleted, but it seems to no longer show up in my contributions list. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There is page Special:DeletedContributions/Wikiwatcher1, available to administrators only. But you can use your upload log. --AVRS (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Toolbox link for copyvio and permission missing


Lately I've started categorizing uncategorized files and I've come along lots of copyvios and files without clear permission. The process is tagging a file and alerting the user is long and cumbersome and I am growing tired of this work. There is a link in the toolbox for the Nominate for deletion tool. Could something similar be done for copyvios? Or does it exist already? Cheers. Badzil (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets Quick Delete -- RE rillke questions? 21:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks. Badzil (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

October 21

To big?

I have uploaded the File:1891 Brussel oost.tif, but the system doesnt seem to be able to produce a thumb of this picture. Shall I upload again with reduced size? Why didnt I get a warning? Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I could cut some parts out of the image. The part above the folding line and a small strip underneath (beneath the Ferme de Ravestein). That should reduce the image to under 20M. Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You didn't get a warning because it is simply not known before you upload. The file size is fine (below 100 MB). But currently the scalers cannot render it to a jpg thumb. There is no fixed limit (as it is for gif or png). You can try to scale it down by some amount... and upload a new file version.
Or: Upload a high quality (compression setting to heighest possible quality) jpeg version - it will render (if you do not use progressive jpeg). Then: link the jpeg and tiff version in the "other versions" fields. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
"not known before you upload" - ?? Upload form (the new one, 1.18 style) and UW display file size as soon as there's a file name, before pressing go. NVO (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
"not known before you upload" - was meant regarding: if it will render or not. --Saibo (Δ) 15:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
" UW display file size as soon as there's a file name", if your browser supports it. So FF, Safari, Chrome, not IE i think. TheDJ (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The TIFF file-format allows very many options, and in fact is more a collection of losely-related file formats rather than a single defined standard. There are some types of TIFF image which will not have a rendered thumbnail on Commons regardless of size... AnonMoos (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I do get a warning with fotoshop that the file could be damaged or incomplete. Maybe thats the reason the scaler cannot render it. In now have made a PNG version of it. I wil also upload a jpeg version.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The png version File:1891 Brussel oost.png gives error messages. I only put the jpg version in all the categories as the two other versions are of no use for wikipedia.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a reason why I didn't suggest png but jpeg instead. ;) PNG auf GIF is only thumbnailed up to 12.5 megapixel (currently). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 11:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I wil ask for a delete of the png version, as there are good alternatives. (tif=big size and jpg for good rendering)Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted the png. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Note that I have already fixed the 12.5 megapixel bug (see bug 9497) but the devs have not yet deployed the fix. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Just depressing .. can't they just deploy the fix for the 2007 bug first and then wait for 2015 to develop a new great feature .. --  Docu  at 05:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

October 13

Commons search gadget and SSL problem

Hi. Today, I added Wikimedia Commons to my search toolbar in Firefox and noticed that my search queries do not go through secure server. (They go through standard HTTP.) Is there anyway to fix this problem or contact developers?

Thanks in advance. Fleet Command (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Use the SSL search plugin: and or use httpseverywhere or noScript to force https for Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch! I noticed that it searches "" instead of "". But I guess I am more than comfortable with a slight change in my browsing habit. Fleet Command (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
To use use the second one here: But: the server is to be switched off anyway. See Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/09#new_HTTPS_support. Also many/all our scripts get/have been adjusted to the new https service so you may have problems with the old https service. Btw: it didn't server the thumbnails over https - which alone is a good reason to use the new https service. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Really? So, I had better change my Wikipedia and Wiktionary search add-ons too. Fleet Command (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Just checked - it was like I did describe earlier but now also the "secure" server does use https for images. I guess the secure sever has been switched over to be just a redirect to the new https servers. I personally prefer the new service since it also has nicer URLs. ;) You can easily convert such an URL to a http one by just removing the s. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

NRHP refnums

I notice that BotMultichill is adding NRHP refnums to a more or less random subset of my images of items that are on the (US) National Register of Historic Places. See for example File:Seattle - Union Station interior pano 01.jpg‎, File:Ballard Bridge from Seattle Maritime Academy 01.jpg‎. Shouldn't these either be placed on the relevant categories (since they apply to all images in the category, that would be my preference) or to all images in the category rather than on a few photos apparently chosen at random? - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not random. It's images in infoboxes i'm able to parse (en:Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_NRHP image and refnum field).
And yes: {{tl|NRHP} should be put on both the categories and the images. This is just a start. Multichill (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I see. So currently you are tagging only the files that happen to be used in en-wiki? - Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes. You have to start somewhere :-)
Any suggestions or help to get more photos and categories tagged with the (right) reference number are welcome. See Category:Cultural heritage monuments with known IDs for other countries with similar systems. Multichill (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
In general, if we have many images of a particular NRHP-designated place, then we have a category. So we could probably set something up to add the template to a given category and all the files in the category, no? - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
This is what we are doing for Russian cultural heritage monuments. I thnik this is a pretty much reasonable strategy.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
You might be interested in this conversation.
Would probably be nice to deploy some toys here to get more images and categories recognized as {{NRHP}}. Multichill (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Renominating for deletion

David Gerard has asked me to reopen the deletion debate for File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869.tif. How does one go about doing that? Anthony (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

One does that by renominating the file for deletion and telling why one believes that the previous decision was wrong. But why would that user ask that from you? Why not do it himself? And what is the logic when he has uploaded a derivative of that image? -- Asclepias (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Because he is as ignorant about copyright law as I am about deletion debate procedures. Thanks. Anthony (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
My advice is to have him open a new deletion discussion, and have you comment in it by editing the deletion discussion page. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Uploading from another website

I want to upload a very old public domain book from It's easy enough to put in the url when I upload, but first my computer downloads the file to temporary internet files and then uploads to Commons. Do we have an easy web interface tool for this? Heyzeuss (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The upload by url right allows users to upload an image directly from its URL at another website, however, only administrators have access to that right here. I'm also not sure if the functionality is enabled. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Fix this

I uploaded this file File:Rugby world cup countries best results and hosts rev2.png. To replace this file File:Rugby world cup countries best results and hosts rev1.png. No idea how to do it, I hate Wikimedia Commons, it's so unusable compared to Wikipedia. Anyway, make it happen someone. --Pretty Green (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

October 25

Flickr review question

I reviewed this image today and found that it was listed as 'All Rights Reserved.' However, the image is attributed in the caption to a Staff Sargent doing his official duties and is clearly in the public domain. The license reviewing tools don't provide an option for this situation that I could find. When you click on 'License +' it states that the image is available on Flickr on the above license but it is not available under that license. However, it is still acceptable on Commons due to being Public Domain. What is the best way to mark this image that is has been reviewed and is acceptable on Commons but not not under the license on Flickr? Warfieldian (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Flickr-unfree-but}} is probably the closest thing we have today. It takes a parameter as a reference for the "permission" (which could be a link to en:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government in this case) to use the file under a specified "license" (but public domain status is not a license). For other reviewed media sources, we have templates like {{Ipernityreviewunnecessary}}, {{Panoramioreviewunnecessary}} and {{Picasareviewunnecessary}}, but there seems to be nothing like that for Flickr (and I don't really like the wording of those templates). LX (talk, contribs) 22:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Not ideal since, as you say, public domain is not a license but appears to be the best solution at this time unless a new template is developed. This situation doesn't come up all that often. Warfieldian (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The guy who maintains the flinfo tool recently did some excellent work to address this problem. Some images where the uploader hasn't understood that US federal images can't be published as "all rights reserved" nevertheless contain information embedded in the EXIF data. They added a couple of dozen non-compliant flickr uploaders as special cases to flinfo. If the exif data supports public domain it will help the commons contributor upload an image from one of those sites that was marked as "all rights reserved"

    If you were already trying to use flinfo, then this site of your should be added to that exceptions list.

    I am on my little netbook, otherwise I would look up the name of that hardworking flinfo maintainer, to thanks them by name for an excellent feature.

    Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

    • Thanks for the compliments! That account was not yet on flinfo's list. I've added it now. (As usual, with rather conservative settings. Some images from that account will still be reported as ARR since they may not contain any PD indication in the EXIF.) See here for more information. Lupo 21:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Category garbage

There must be hundreds, if not thousands of empty, unused, misspelled categories in the list. Is there a group which maintains them? How can I get involved in removing them? Ineuw talk page on 22:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a list of unused categories here. There is no formal body that deals with them, and from the looks of it they seem to be pretty neglected. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I noticed that some are redirects. Guess I should contact the admins to inquire.Ineuw talk page on 02:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sadly this page does not separate empty cats from category redirects, it counts even cats set up as disamb pages. Many of these cat redirects are useful expect for very unusual typos or just capitalization issues. Maybe something to be done for BernsteinBot and to be added in a subpage here ? --Denniss (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Again I thanks for teaching and guiding me into the mysteries. Agree that redirects are important and I am only referring to poorly spelled categories or just plain empty ones that go nowhere. I use Categories constantly as I upload 100's of old B&W images on a weekly basis and waste a lot of time searching through the badly spelled Categories.Ineuw talk page on 03:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Another useless category is Category:Terminus. It seems someone made a scan of the word "Terminus" and dropped the collected images in it. Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to tag useless category names with {{Speedy}}, and list those that require renaming at "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands". — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Terminus seems to be a Roman god, but this is confusing as the subcategory make no sense (other roman gods). A rename to "Terminus (god)" seems indicated. Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I need help about an image

Hello, sorry if I bother you about an issue that could be probably be resolved reading the guidelines, but i really didn't understand them. In few words: I'd like to upload this picture on Commons. Since it's on public domain, is it possible to do it? Thanks in advance. --Vipera (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No, please don't. Laurence Housman died 1959, and his drawings were first published in 1893 in the first English edition of Jonas Lie's Weird Tales from the Northern Seasby Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd. in England.[12] That is, the drawings are British works, and are still in copyright in the UK. They will enter the public domain in the UK on January 1, 2030. In the U.S., the text and drawings are in the public domain because they were published before 1923. The file is mis-tagged at the English Wikipedia; the correct tag would be "PD-US-1923-abroad". I'm going to fix that right away. Lupo 11:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Fortunately I asked :) Thanks and have a nice day. --Vipera (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki 1.18 deployment to Commons


We are currently running this Version: 1.41.0-wmf.11 (3be33cf) (updated template) The fun will start now. --Saibo (Δ) 02:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've notified them at meta of our growing buglist below. --Túrelio (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. Let's sort in possible related issues underr level 3 (===) headings here. --Saibo (Δ) 14:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Autorotation using EXIF tag with MW 1.18

Fixing using template:rotate

Use the new, simple rotate Gadget RotateLink which is enabled by default for everybody. --Saibo (Δ) 21:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixing using exiftool

That is the user expierience: #Strange_renderingFile:Solre-sur-Sambre Station plant.jpg.

Fixed by those shellscript lines with en:ExifTool:
#! /bin/sh
exiftool $1 -exif:all= 
exiftool -tagsfromfile $1_original --Orientation $1

Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Create a textfile with
@ECHO off
REM change to bats directory
CD /D %~dp0
exiftool.exe -EXIF:Orientation= -overwrite_original "%1"
  • And save it as RmOrientation.bat
  • Either exiftool.exe is in %PATH% or the same directory as the .bat or you have to specifiy the path in front of exiftool.exe.
  • Then just drag&drop the images over this new .bat-file. Good luck! -- RE rillke questions? 14:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


Am I misunderstanding something or will we get many/some wrongly rotated images when bugzilla:6672 goes live in two days?

Imagine a currently present image (uploaded in year 2007) at Commons which has for some reason (camera sensor / software error) an EXIF tag claiming that it is rotated but in fact the image has the correct orientation. After the update those images will be displayed rotated.

Can we run a bot/DB query to find all images (older than ~2 months) which have an EXIF tag indicating that they are rotated? --Saibo (Δ) 21:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think some Microsoft tools like Microsoft Office Picture Manager (and possibly many others) does not change EXIF data when rotating images. GIMP often asks me it it should rotate for me some correctly rotated image, because EXIF data suggests that it is rotated. Autorotation of old images might be a problem. --Jarekt (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Imoo, it is very probable that we will have a lot of problems with this new functionnality, but imoo there are enough active people here to handle that smoothly (not like the "image filter" thing........ --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 18:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
So many regular expressions and so few (maybe none?) php query.... -- Queeg (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Too many backlogs to allow another one. Is there any estimate, how many images will be affected? NVO (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Just thinking about... will also the full size (original image) be rotated on server-side? Firefox (3.6) does not rotate based on EXIF tags. If they are: how to get (download) the real original image? If not: huh! crazy behaviour when clicking on an image to get the fullsize view.
A scenario for tomorrow: an image shows up rotated by 90° (it isn't but the EXIF tags leads to rotation). A user tags it {{rotate|270}}. It gets bot-rotated and will display 270° rotated now. Confused user and another rotation is needed. Right? Hopefully I am misunderstanding something and the devs did their thing right (not like all the UX products)... or we have few images with wrong EXIF orientation. --Saibo (Δ) 03:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
To manually (download, process, upload new version) reset/remove a wrong orientation this command could be used (en:ExifTool needed of course): exiftool -Orientation= filename.jpg. --Saibo (Δ) 02:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
File:SagradaFamiliaSanJuan04.jpg, File:SagradaFamiliaSanJuan05.jpg as expected... full size isn't rotated serverside. And this image had a wrong EXIF orientation. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC) 03:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Reopened bugzilla:6672. --Saibo (Δ) 03:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Added more comments there (although I really do not like splitting a discussion...). Probably the devs do not like reading here... --Saibo (Δ) 13:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

There is now also: Bugzilla:31391 ("Aspect ratio incorrect for rotated images"). Images which are (physically) rotated but have an correct EXIF tag indicating this rotation correctly and were uploaded prior to the 1.18 update will need to be purged. Before purging thumbs will display the image in the correct orientation but will be compressed/wrong apect ratio. --Saibo (Δ) 19:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Special:Log/Jane023 just as one bad example of wrong exif tags. Example file: File:Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal 53h RM5918.jpg - strange: the mediawiki exif display even doesn't show that the exif specifies rotation. But apparently it does (click on the full size view). Did fix it here: File:Grote_Houtstraat_9-11_Haarlem_RM19200.jpg#filehistory. For some reason exiftool could not strip nor alter the "rotation" parameter. After the lat upload of me exiftool reports "Rotation: Rotate 90 CW" despite I told it to omit. Anyway: The orientation param is gone and it works. Another example: File:Nieuwezijds_Voorburgwal_161_RM5945.jpg#filehistory

But we need a bot for stipping the Orientation tag as asked Dcoetzee. Now we do not need our User:Rotatebot anymore but a OrientationResetBot... would be nice if we had time to bring one up before deployment of this half-done "feature"... --Saibo (Δ) 22:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

People who try to rotate images with wrong EXIF orientation tag by Rotatebot get this result: File:Fegersheim StMaurice14.jpg. The tool used by the bot apparently doesn't take the EXIF orientation into account. Result: two rotations are needed. At least: the orientation tag is reset by Rotatebot. Therefore only two steps. ;) --Saibo (Δ) 02:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Stats: 6 of (currently) 23 pictures in Category:Images requiring rotation by bot had wrong EXIF data and were therefore showing up wrong. --Saibo (Δ) 03:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I really don't like this "feature", this resolution is not proper. Good would be if the software rotate the images directly after upload, but not just the thumbnails. If I open the original file or download it on my computer, it's wrong rotated. For me this feature is shitty.--Luxo 15:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree File:Château de Chazey-sur-Ain.jpg is truly bizarre - raw data is rotated correctly but does not show up properly when displayed at commons pages. I wonder how many of those do we have. --Jarekt (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Stats: 2 of (currently) 5 pictures in Category:Images requiring rotation by bot had wrong EXIF data and were therefore showing up wrong. 2 images had correct EXIF, were physically rotated and just needed a purge (autorotation). 1 image had incorrect EXIF, was physically rotated and needed rotation. --Saibo (Δ) 16:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Looked again: 9 total, 3 phys. okay but wrong exif. Remaining 6 could be rotated by bot (if it weren't switched off - which is not a bad idea currently). --Saibo (Δ) 21:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Some discussion/info about popular M$ tools (e.g. "Microsoft Picture manager") which do not care for EXIF rotation and also do not update it after rotating an image. See: en:Windows_Photo_Gallery#Bugs,, picasa discusion,
In case some people did not understand the severity of our problem: this user did use MS photo manager since ever to rotate images. That means: when the thumbnails of his old uploads get purged or a thumb size which wasn't used before is used they all (also the old uploads) will display wrongly rotated and are unsuable until fixed. If they are currently in articles the article will contain a rotated image. --Saibo (Δ) 02:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I also usually use "Microsoft Picture manager" to crop and rotate my images. But at the moment they are not affected. --Jarekt (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting, every single popular Linux picture viewer/manager I've checked (Gwenview, Eye of GNOME, Geeqie, gThumb, Shotwell, Nautilus, Dolphin, etc.) understand EXIF orientation tags correctly. It's strange that standard MS tools still do not support this. Trycatch (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Microsoft. They never support something that comes not from them self... --Luxo 16:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that it is a bigger problem that this function support (and cheer?) a non-pre-rotation of images – the uploaders won't even have to look at their pictures before upload. I think this MediaWiki update does more harm than good, because so many programs don't change exif, but we want people to look at their pictures first – right? V-wolf (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, if your cam did set the tags correctly you can plug in your SD card and upload all (good and bad, close duplicates) via Commonist. Questionable if this is what we want ... ;) --Saibo (Δ) 19:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Exacly my point. What is better, have faith in the uploaders and believe they have judged, sorted and rotated their own pictures, with free software or MS products, or let the MW go (havoc) by the provided exif data? V-wolf (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
It would be a smaller problem if the rotation by EXIF was enabled since ever in Commons. But I suspect we have thousands of images with wrong EXIF (due to camera sensor errors or pre-rotation by tools which do not respect EXIF). We would need powerful tools to correct all old pictures which have wrong EXIF. Physically rotated pictures with a correct EXIF tag would be the best thing to have - but that is not possible. --Saibo (Δ) 20:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
New stats from the bot (disabled) cat: (currently) 26 pictures in Category:Images requiring rotation by bot
  • 15 of had wrong EXIF data, were not physically rotated and were therefore showing up wrong.
  • 4 images had correct EXIF, were physically rotated but a user did apparently intentionally request the correct rotation based on the physical pic.
  • 9 (incl. 4 left over from yesterday) image had incorrect EXIF, were physically rotated and needed rotation. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Brion created a tracking bug now: bugzilla:31504 - there you can find all the different bugs related to this issue. --Saibo (Δ) 22:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Bugzilla:31487 is fixed now. → no longer totally wrong rotation based (apparently) on the IFD1 thumbnail orientation --Saibo (Δ) 00:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Will Rotatebot resume working soon, then? Because it appears to be still inactive as I write.--Edelseider (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
What's fixed? The thumbs are still rotated, see e.g. File:Praia de As Catedrais - aroberts.jpg. --Luxo 13:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Luxo, I assume that you can read. ;) Bugzilla:31487 is fixed - that was only a part of our problem (as you can see by looking in the tracking bug). We can switch on the bot if all files a removed from the cat which have a wrong {{Rotate}} (relative to the physical orientation). If those files stay in they will not be fixed by one rotatebot run. They need two or even three (I saw such a file) rotatebot runs. Luxo, will Rotatebot fetch the list form the category at exactly 00:00 UTC? I could clean up the category and switch on the bot for this one run then (to let it rotate the files which really need rotation). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

How to proceed now? It seems that the devs are eager to fix the issues in some way but not roll back the change. Having all the files with wrong rotate templates is not very useful. We could place an advice text inside the rotate template to look at the full size view and decide then which rotation is needed. For those cases with wrong EXIF tags {{rotate|0}} would be an option which sorts them in a Category:EXIF orientation needs to be reset... Or instead of rotate=0 another, new template {{Reset EXIF orientation}}. Maybe better. It could show a message then: "Problem is known.. fix can take some time". Whatever we do with the files then. Maybe bot-correct them or maybe the devs do a reset exif funktion in software - they are aware of this problem. --Saibo (Δ) 16:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC) ... currently in chat with Luxo. --Saibo (Δ) 17:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Luxo goes to modify Rotatebot (and then probably {{Rotate}} with included small thumbnails with unusual sizes to try to get a fresh thumb to compare) to respect EXIF orientation and act accordingly (rotate and reset). At least he looks into it since that is no big change to rotatebot. --Saibo (Δ) 21:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Bot is back at work. the bot is now also able to process files with wrong EXIF tags. The rotation will take the image's EXIF-based rotation into account.--Luxo 16:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
{{Rotate}} can be used now. I made some (partly temporary) changes to this template: 1, 2en, 2de.
We are still tweaking rotatebot a bit... --Saibo (Δ) 18:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
One minor error still there (therefore Rotebot is halted): Same like Maybe we should get -IFD0:Orientation . Would be useful to know which tag exactly is used by mediawiki now. I didn't see it in code diff for bug 31487. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC) One example file is File:P1050245_Paris_Ier_rue_du_Bouloi_rwk.JPG (more are linked in bug 31487. --Saibo (Δ) 21:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC) Note (for self): Read and(?) write should specify a explicit EXIF group. --Saibo (Δ) 09:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
One minor error fixed, next minor error found: ;-) Doesn't work with some broken EXIF records. Fix is nearly done ... Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Single cases

File:Phare d'Alprech Le Portel Pas de Calais.jpg

A user has advice this picture appears in this way when in Commons is in the other side and no one change the template of the article in a long time. Could be this for the Media Wiki change? Or there is any other explanation? Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no valid reason to explain that strange decision ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Strange indeed, 'cause nothing seems to be out of place. Any idea of how to fix it? --Andrea (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
See Commons:Village_pump#Autorotation_using_EXIF_tag_with_MW_1.18 --Luxo 13:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Is it the same bug? The other seems about the rotation from uploader to Commons, while this one is the difference between the orientation of the original size on Commons and the orientation of the displays (on Commons and other Wikimedia projects). -- Asclepias (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is. It has a wrong Exif-orientation tag, which should be removed. -- RE rillke questions? 14:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. Now both, picture and thumbnail, have the same orientation, but picture is rotated 90º. Is there any way to rotate the picture to get it in the correct orientation but avoiding previous problem? I have just seen rotate template. Thank you again.--AdelosRM (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Rotatebot cannot handle this currently. But you can still use the template. Saibo or another experienced user will do it. See also #Fixing using exiftool. -- RE rillke questions? 14:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not only this picture. It is a more general problem since a few days. For some images, the image appears in the correct orientation in the original size but the image is displayed rotated in the insertions. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
rotate questions by 84user

Hi, I'm finding a few cases where the image is rotated wrong in the main page description, or in the preview thumbnails or in the wikipedia pages that include them. I used Firefox 6.0.2 and Opera 11.51, caches cleared. I tagged a few with {{Rotate}} but these were then reverted. Am I using the right template? Is there a better way to get these problem images listed ? Maybe a special wrapper named "RotateEXIF" template so that they do not get reverted? Examples: File:Tropas nacionales izan su bandera en la sede gubernativa de Tarragona (15 de enero de 1939).jpg - all previews except 800x560 are rotated ; File:Desfile de despedida a las Brigadas Internacionales en Barcelona (octubre 1938).jpg - all except 456 × 599 pixels rotate wrongly. -84user (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi! You are using the right template. Please check the image's orientation using the thumbnail inside the template (it should show a fresh thumbnail in most cases). And directly add the degree to the template (e.g. {{rotate|270}}). I made some preliminary text amendments to the German and English version of the template giving more help and a purge link.
File:Tropas nacionales izan su bandera en la sede gubernativa de Tarragona (15 de enero de 1939).jpg - "all previews except 800x560 are rotated ;"
Probably was reverted since the reverting user had a look at a working thumbnail (e.g. the 800 px version). Should be fixed now (look in the file history).
File:Desfile de despedida a las Brigadas Internacionales en Barcelona (octubre 1938).jpg - "all except 456 × 599 pixels rotate wrongly"
Same as the image before.
Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Rotate problem: Scabiosa caucasica01.jpg
Moved from VP talk page to here

When I moved File:Sabiosa caucasica01.jpg to File:Scabiosa caucasica01.jpg something went wrong. The shape of the picture of the new preview (450 × 600 pixels) is distorted. However, when clicking on it (full size) it is OK. Please solve it. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 07:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Clicking on Purge did it ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Túrelio, it is not yet solved. The current preview is in landscape (clockwise rotated by 90°). --[[User:Meneerke bloem|Réginald alias Meneerke --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)bloem]] (To reply) 10:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
But the image is in landscape fomat, or isn't it? Initially it was clearly distorted. That did go away by purging. If the rotation is wrong, this might be related to the new (stupid) autorotate feature (bug) introduced with the MW1.18-update, for a lenghty discussion see [13]. If you don't want to read through, just rotate the image manually and re-upload. --Túrelio (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Túrelio, the originally uploaded image was in portrait, as it indeed appeared when looking at it in full resolution.
I have reuploaded it as such and nothing is changed. The preview still remains in landscape, despite the picture in full resolution is OK (i.e. the preview is in landscape [wrong], the full resolution is in portrait as the original picture [correct]).
Because of this bug the thumb of the picture on my gallery on en:User:Meneerke_bloem/Photographic_Collection_4a is distorted (i.e. landscape thumb compressed in portrait)...
Instead of anti-clockwise rotating my original picture by 90° for avoiding the bug and reloading it again, I prefer to wait for the resolution of the bug.
Thank you for your appreciated help, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Will be rotated correctly in 10 Minutes. --Saibo (Δ) 11:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I have checked it. It is now OK, on my en:User:Meneerke_bloem/Photographic_Collection_4a gallery too. Thank you, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

IE 8 crash

Nice to hear of. Now I know why the hell my Internet Explorer 8 today reproducibly crashes when starting with Commons. Same problem with IE 7. --Túrelio (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing changed since then. Seems the WMF is discriminating against IE users. --Túrelio (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Mhh, for me it is ok (don't say fine because IE is slow and strange...). Did you try to deactivate all gadgets, blanking your <skin>.js and common.js? -- RE rillke questions? 15:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
"Did you ..." - no, because I need those gadgets for admin work. --Túrelio (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I fear without Investigation which script causes the problems, we can't help you. Ich werde jetzt jedenfalls nicht alle Tools mit IE durchprobieren. -- RE rillke questions? 17:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
After I un-checked 11 gadget-boxes, the problem decreased, but at what price. Anway, on :en scores of users complain about IE problems following the 1.18, see link below. --Túrelio (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

enwp → reported at bugzilla:31424. --Saibo (Δ) 17:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC) and IE8 and reloading, lol. Und dabei ist das M$ bestimmt schon bekannt. Ja, Túrelio, das ist ein Fehler Deines Browserherstellers, nicht von jQuery oder MediaWiki. -- RE rillke questions? 18:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Mag sein, ändert aber nichts an der Auslösung der Probleme durch Aufspielen des offenkundig ungetesteten alpha-Updates 1.18. In einer Firma würden die verantwortlichen Angestellten vermutlich entlassen. Mit deinem Link weiß ich leider nichts anzufangen. --Túrelio (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)