Commons:Village pump/Archive/2012/02

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

Correct aspect ration in thumbs?

I've recently created this. I'm trying to get the photos just right, so I cropped the images of the XL-R and Z-R at the bottom of the page. However, now they appear "stretched" in the thumb, which is bad.

I suspected the images would keep their aspect ratio after this change, appearing the same width in pixels, but being slightly taller. Is that understanding not correct?

In any event, suggestions? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me -- maybe try refreshing your browser once or twice. Worst case, try a w:Wikipedia:Purge to make the HTML page re-generate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, all "fixed". Odd! Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Organizing a US copyright status review

Following on from #Proposed changes to PD tags above: I would like to propose a review of materials tagged {{PD-old}}, {{PD-old-70}}, etc. up to {{PD-old-100}} for works that may be in copyright in the U.S. because they were published 1923 or later and were in copyright in their country of first publication on the URAA date. Even in the case of PD-old-100 this is possible if the work was first published posthumously. To help organize this, I think it would be helpful to have a category Category:Files requiring U.S. copyright review listing all unreviewed files with these tags, similar to e.g. Category:Flickr review needed. All files that use {{PD-two}} or {{PD-Art-two}} would be excluded from review, as would any using the combined tags {{PD-old-70-1923}}, etc. All files that already include PD-US-*/PD-1923/PD-1996 tags could be reviewed automatically by a bot. A very (very) large backlog is expected, but that's okay. If you think this isn't the best way to proceed, I'd be interested in hearing alternative proposals for review.

I tried to do this unilaterally before and made some pretty serious mistakes - I assure discussants that this time no action will be taken until the discussion is over and has been closed by a neutral party (and we have also heard from the WMF regarding the URAA). Dcoetzee (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It would be nice to have information for every country for each file in a machine readable form. However, this proposal here is only for US. The proposed license tags are overly complicated (remember that uploaders even have problems to understand the meaning of "70 years pma" (which does not require more than 70 years after creation but after death) and nearly no-one will understand this system; especially if it uses some template parameters which need to be set. I saw the file pages you created in your last bot run (which you have reverted): much more than one screen page full of public domain (we are not talking of license templates with restrictions...) tags? Ugly and scaring away everybody who looks at (probably the reaction: they are crazy).
If you require non-US works to have a US-copyright clearance for being uploaded here that is a clear bias towards US (US-centrism) and we are no "US Commons". The reason that WMF is based in US is their problem, not ours. Your proposal: No, that is not Commons. So, in essence: we do not need that review which only helps US but not other countries and which leads in the end to more needless deletions of content copyrighted in the US (but PD in most other countries!) than without this review. Furthermore: why can't you just wait until at least the WMF has said a first word? --Saibo (Δ) 02:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A small note: I didn't actually add any tags to any files in my last run, only modified existing tags (there are files with lots of crazy PD tags out there, but they were already like that). Part of the reason the {{PD-old-70-1923}}, etc. tags were created (by User:Jusjih, I think?) is that they're much more compact than {{PD-old-70}}{{PD-1923}} or {{PD-two|PD-old-70|PD-1923}}. I agree about the cryptic template parameter - I think a simpler way to do it is to simply add the review category to the affected files, and remove it when done. User education is a difficult issue - we can't expect all uploaders to understand the intricacies of both the source country and US copyright. But in many cases {{PD-old-70-1923}} will apply, and in other cases I think a simple {{PD-old}} tag and a review category would be sufficient.
I do want to hear from the WMF and just wanted to get this discussion started while we're waiting. The requirement that all works on Commons are free in the US is part of Commons:Licensing policy and the Licensing policy resolution passed by the Board of Trustees. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It don't see why you are in such a rush. If WMF sees it the same way as you see it (US-centrisic mass deletions of carefully uploaded and maintained public domain content and crazy copyright tag requirements) then they have simply failed their mission - okay, failure is nothing surprising for WMF. ;-) But maybe they surprise by choosing a decision according to their mission. --Saibo (Δ) 06:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC) +1 link 16:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it's insane to hope that we might one day be able to write {{Super Magic PD template|type|publication date|creation date|country of first publication|author death date}}, and the template spits out what applies?? (And a wizard/gadget with dropdowns which helps uploaders fill in the parameters?) Rd232 (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well we have {{PD-old-auto}}, {{PD-old-auto-1923}}, and {{PD-art-auto}}, which is a start. Presumably if we had a template that allows you to specify important factors like the media type, death year of the author, year of first publication, and country of first publication, it could in many cases figure out whether it's PD or not and the appropriate reason. However, this doesn't address cases like {{PD-US-no notice}}, {{PD-US-not renewed}}; it may ask for information that isn't actually needed like the death date of author for US works pre 1923; and doesn't address cases where we don't precisely know all the information (e.g. perhaps we only know a range of dates, or have a guess, like saying an 1860 work is probably PD-old-70). I think a more viable strategy would be a "PD wizard" that asks you a bunch of questions until it figures out the right answer, then gives you the template(s) to paste in (or an explanation of why the file is not allowed). Dcoetzee (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was imagining a super-template plus wizard, but I suppose you could just put the "super logic" in the wizard and use simple(ish) templates. Downside, perhaps, might be maintainability, since Javascript expertise is more scarce than template expertise. Rd232 (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's wrong with {{PD-old-100}}? If the author died 100 years ago, then their works were already in the PD in the source country in 1996, and were not restored by URAA. Trycatch (talk) 07:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the work was first published (posthumously after 1923) in both the source country and US simultaneously, and the work was registered and renewed, it could still be in copyright in the US (without the aid of the URAA). This doesn't seem unlikely for posthumous works of great commercial value. It will also matter in the future: starting in 2017, some Columbian works will be PD-old-100 which in 1996 were still under copyright in Columbia. In 2027 this will expand to most other countries (for works published 1932 or later). Better to start tagging sooner than have to sort it out later.
      I was going to say the work might have been first published in Mexico, but I just learned that Mexico was only life+75 in 1996. Maybe there are also other possibilities I'm not aware of. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any work, no matter where it was published, which managed to follow U.S. formalities could still be under copyright if published since 1923. Any unpublished work could still be under copyright, as well. Things created before 1978 but published from 1978 through 2002 will still have copyright until at least 2048, no matter when the author died. All of this is without the aid of the URAA. Also, starting in 2019, old published works will start expiring in the U.S. again; copyright on restored works won't last forever. By 2027, the line should be works published in 1931 and earlier. One note on Mexico -- they really weren't even life+75. The extension from 50 to 75 happened in 1994, but it wasn't retroactive (though did extend existing copyrights). And the 1982 extension from 30 to 50 pma was also not retroactive, meaning the line is (at most) authors who died in 1952 and later, and that only if the 1982 change extended existing copyrights (not sure on that one, just as I'm not sure if the 100 pma change altered existing copyright terms). Mexico also had a registration requirement for works published before January 14, 1948. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support Copyright status in the US is relevant information about files and this information should be checked. Any categories, lists or templates that could help us to check it are welcome. A few reasons:

  • We can eventually be forced to delete or to move away files that are not free in the US, or even files not justified to be free in the US. Then, tagging the files that actually are free in the US wil help us to save those files and would ease the work of moving the other ones (if it is possible to move instead of deleting).
  • WMF inability to host unfree files may be its problem, according to WMF views or according to US courts, but if WMF decides (or is forced to) solve its problem by deleting, it will be our problem. It will be our problem even if we are not concerned with WMF problems but concerned with our projects.
  • As Saibo noted, " It would be nice to have information for every country for each file in a machine readable form." I support any serious proposal to tag copyright status in any other country, just as I support Dcoetzee's proposal for the US.
  • We can't expect all uploaders to be able to tell copyright status of every work in the US. In fact, a lot of uploaders just don't mind about copyright status. This is a good reason to organize files to be reviewed.
  • I don't like complicated templates, but the facts license templates describe are complicated. Having double templates seems a good idea, since simpler templates can be used separately or complex double templates can be used more efficiently, leaving the choice to reviewers.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good points, well expressed. Rd232 (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support in principle, but how is it to be organised in practice? Perhaps this is another case for a Request for Comment, eg Commons:Requests for comment/reviewing PD tags. I would allow the scope to be a bit broader, because I echo Pere prlpz's point that as far as possible, we should try to be clear about copyright status in as many countries as possible. (I also think we could be clearer in COM:REUSE about what the implications are for reusers when copyright statuses are different in different countries.) Rd232 (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm still getting used to us having an RfC, that sounds appropriate :-) I would definitely be amenable to a plan that clarifies not only US copyright status (which is essential to whether we can host files) but also copyright status in other nations (which is essential to whether content reusers in those nations can reuse files). We have little notes for other countries in e.g. the {{PD-old-70}} tag, but that's about as far as things go at the moment. It would be neat if we had like, some kind of drop down list of countries that could give you info about a work's copyright status in any given nation. I think any review proposal should also include more information about effective prioritization, considering the enormous size of the backlog. For the RfC, do you think we should move this discussion there and revise it as we go, or start a new one based on the feedback received so far? Dcoetzee (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some more thoughts: I think one way to get started on this would be to start documenting copyright-essential metadata about each PD image with a machine-readable template. Think something like enwp's persondata. It might look something like this (based on your super-template from before):
{{copyright data
|publication date=
|creation date=
|country of first publication=
|author death date=
|(possibly other fields)
}}
Any fields that aren't known would be left blank. With a template like this, it would be possible for a bot to reliably, automatically add appropriate license templates in many (but not all) cases, while putting other cases on manual review (just as we do for Flickr review). It would also facilitate tools (e.g. on Toolserver or using Javascript) to provide copyright status in many different countries and explanations, just by examining the machine-readable data and producing appropriate info for the desired country. The info could also potentially be useful for automatic categorization, and for other analyses. I am aware it would not cover all cases, e.g. {{PD-US-no notice}}, but those could still be described using tags as is currently done. Thoughts? Dcoetzee (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dcoetzee, majority of 452k mostly PD files using one of Category:Creator templates already have authors nationality and author death date, among other things. There are also 212k files transcribing little known tag template {{Works of authors who died more than 100 years ago}}. I think those templates can be used to quickly tag images which might not need an extensive review. It might be also a good idea to add creator templates to files being reviewed. --Jarekt (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a potentially very fruitful avenue to explore. I'll just quickly point out that the persondata approach is not unique to en.wp: there are 10 interwiki links from de:Vorlage:Personendaten, the equivalent on de.wp [and 20 interwiki links from the en.wp template, in fact]. Jarekt points out overlap with Creator templates and others; I'm not sure if there's any elegant way to reuse that data; but duplication might be a price worth paying. Rd232 (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno. You would need type of work as well (and the variants between all the countries is pretty daunting). Government work vs corporate work vs personal work. If multiple authors, needs to be the last death date, but that may be OK. You could start with using Commons:Hirtle chart, File:Canadian Public Domain.svg, and a UK chart (non-Crown copyright only) for an idea of the questions you need to answer, and the data you need up front to answer it. It might be possible, at least for many situations, but it would probably be quite difficult. Some countries would definitely be easier than others. There actually is an online public domain calculator for many EU countries -- you could see many of the needed questions there as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Dates of restoration and terms of protection would be useful. Among the |(possibly other fields) you may consider adding |compliance with US formalities=yes/no/dontknow . To begin with, it would be good to start with a template working for one or two countries, and if it works, then try to add more countries, little by little. Teofilo (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for an autotemplate/metadata system (in theory, at least): it can start off with common permissions issues, and let itself be over ridable. Then, over time, the niches can be incorporated. I think it's the only long term solution to making copyright user friendly. Happy to help! Jarry1250 (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have started writing an autotemplate for France (but I am far from being finished). To give you a taste, try the following
{{copyright data France
|the work is a musical composition=no
|country of first publication=France
|date of first publication=1926
|date of author death=1928
|author died for France=no
}}
Teofilo (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting approach, having copyright data metadata templates for various countries, including data relevant for status in those countries. That way we wouldn't end up with one giant template with way too many fields. The way I imagine it, rather than just picking one, you could add many metadata templates for different countries. To avoid redundancy, the general {{Copyright data}} template could include information that is relevant in many countries, like the data I listed above. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the general {{Copyright data}} would be a switch containing only a few lines of codes starting with " #switch:{{{country of first publication}}} ", switching to each country-specific template. If we are sure that two country have exactly the same rules we could merge them, but in that case it would be as simple to duplicate the template and just change the country name. Teofilo (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well the issue is that the country of first publication is not the only relevant one. In particular the copyright status of the work in the US is relevant to us, even if not the country of first publication. The copyright status in yet another, third country may be relevant to content reusers in that country, and it may differ if the work was also published concurrently in that country. So... the easiest way to support many countries seems like it would be more than one template. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "copyright data France" solution would be very useful in most situations in that it could automatically produce {{PD-old-70}}, {{PD-old-100}} and similar tags as appropriate and also update them at the end of each year so that the templates help reusers in a maximal way. I think that this might be the best option. However, there might be other odd situations which need to be covered somehow. For example, I have recently looked at categories of British signatures on Commons to confirm licence validity. In many cases, I found that the signature was at least {{PD-old-70}}, but I could not find any proof of any publication, or they might not have been published before 1923. In this case, the licence tag for the source country is {{PD-old-70}} whereas the licence tag for the United States is {{PD-signature}}. There might be other situations which are not covered by the template above. For these odd situations, it might be necessary to offer the possibility to take a US licence template as an argument. Also note that "author died long before 1996" doesn't imply {{PD-1996}} since the works nevertheless get 95 years from publication copyright if all US copyright formalities were fulfilled (including copyright notices in all US and foreign publications of the work). --Stefan4 (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this announcement should actually make templates like this much much easier, I'd think. Once that feature gets here, anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It should be noted that most if not all translations of {{PD-old}}, and {{PD-old-auto}} have a license text that reads: "This includes the USA and all countries with a copyright term of 70 years...". And there are generally no warnings that a PD-70 license alone is not sufficient. We might want to fix that. De728631 (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have now removed the United States from the templates in a few languages (Nordic, Dutch, French, Spanish and CJK) and translated the warning about US copyright tags into Swedish. I wouldn't dare to try to fix the other languages since I might mess up grammar or something if I try to remove a country name. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I've now done the same for German, Low German and North Frisian. De728631 (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done for catalan (PD-Old, PD-Old-Auto and PD-Old-80).--Pere prlpz (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for helping to correct the translations. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC proposal

This is expanding from the original thread title, but I think it flows naturally from it, and we could use a concrete proposal. I suggest we launch Commons:Requests for comment/PD license tags to discuss the broader issue of how we organise license PD tags, with some of the ideas from above. I'd like some quick input on whether that's a good idea, and if so on what the scope and aims of the RFC should be. Rd232 (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. I think the discussion should center around two main problems: 1. how should information relevant to the copyright status of a PD image be represented and displayed on file description pages; 2. should there be a review process for PD images to research this information, and how will it work? An RfC could support a series of proposals on these topics. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ALERT: Interwiki links

What's wrong with the interwiki links? Why aren't they linking to the wikipedia pages? --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just come here to ask the same. They seem to work fine an hour ago. See for example Category:Cemetery Père-Lachaise. --Jarekt (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seem to be a global problem in all wiki projects, see: [1] --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is very strange. For some reason Institution:National Museum of the Union has red link (pointing to http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=En:National_Museum_of_the_Union&action=edit&redlink=1, using capital En:?!) while Institution:National Museum of Romanian History which is nearly identical doesn't have this problem. But if you go to File:Bratara Nr 13 MNIR IMG 7412 .JPG, the Institution:National Museum of Romanian History referenced there gets red links. What is causing this?--Codrin.B (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By complete coincidence, I came across this problem at Help:Interlanguage links and Help:Interwiki linking. Sometimes the universe has a sense of humour :) ... Anyway, en:Wikipedia:VPT#Interwiki_links reveals that it's a problem with the interwiki cache. Solution: purge the problem page, eg by adding &action=purge to the URL and pressing enter. Rd232 (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notes. Purge helps after they fixed it. But hopefully they will find the underlying problem for this.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:AIDS Clinic, McLeod Ganj, 2010.jpg

Please help I have just uploaded an image - File:AIDS Clinic, McLeod Ganj, 2010.jpg -

to WP Commons and entered it into a WP aticle. For some reason it has come up rotated 90 degrees and I don't know how to rotate it back so the image can be seen properly. I wonder if anyone could do this job for ame please and/or let me know how to do it myself? Many thanks John E. Hill (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a rotation request to that page. This means that the image will be rotated by a bot in less than an hour. In the future, try to save the image in the correct orientation on your computer. Some programs, and in particular most Microsoft programs, often display images with the wrong orientation. As a rule of thumb, if it looks correct in your digital camera but incorrect in any Microsoft image program, do not attempt to rotate the image. The image is already correct and the fact that it looks wrong in the Microsoft image program is due to a bug in the Microsoft image program. There is more information about this at COM:ROTATEFIX if you want to know more about it. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. The image was correctly rotated on my computer so I just assumed it would be O.K. after uploading. Looks like I have more to learn. But thanks again and all best wishes, John E. Hill (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2

Category interwiki vs Article interwiki

I expanded into an older conversation at User talk:JarektBot#Interwiki to dissimilar page types regarding Category interwiki vs Article interwiki. I though this is a generic enough topic to drop a note here. Maybe the entire conversation should be moved here as well.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki

COM:Interwiki is redlink, "interwiki" search found nothing, so I will ask here - is it OK to add interwiki to category? Bulwersator (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, adding an interwiki to a Wikipedia category is abviously okay. Adding an interwiki to a Wikipedia article is also convenient and seems to be standard practice. The more controversial case seems to be adding the same links in both the article page and the gallery page (see for example Taipei and category:Taipei). (as far as I am concerned I like to have interwikis in categories as often as possible, just because I use categories much more often than galleries (many galleries are badly maintained and not really useful).--Zolo (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't give the answer to your question, but there is actually Help:Interwiki linking. I've made a redirect. Rd232 (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added Help:Interlanguage links which is a proper name to what most people call Interwiki links. --Jarekt (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not always a perfect match but where it is it s best to pair galleries here with articles, and categories with categories. So for example with Taipei. The article en:Taipei at wikipedia should be paired with the gallery Taipei here, and the Category Category: Taipei here with en:category:Taipei there. Where there isn't an exact match I add the interwiki to which ever seems the most appropriate, be that the article or category.--KTo288 (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Video Thumbnail Image

Is it possible to change the video thumbnail image by users? If not is there any way to change the thumbnail image of this video? --Vaikoovery (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"thumbtime=2.1"
Still yet there is no way to select another thumbnail on file pages. However on other pages (on commons or wikipedia) you may create your preferred thumbnail by using the thumbtime parameter. --Pristurus (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :) --Vaikoovery (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Advert: you may like to use User:Saibo/thumbtimefinder for finding nice stills. --Saibo (Δ) 23:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments about some changes in template:Information

A few days ago, some changes were made to {{Information}} and they were reverted due to a lack of consensus. Some of the proposed changes have already been discussed before, but I sum it up here so that we can get a clear community view. --Zolo (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have announced this request section at Template:Centralized discussion. --Saibo (Δ) 23:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not display the "permission: "see below") when the information field is blanked

Pictogram voting comment.svg One objection for that was that we lost the link to the "reusing content page that is displayed next to "permission".

Symbol support vote.svg Support permission: "see below" looks pretty strange. MediaWiki:Gadget-Stockphoto.js adds a more prominent link to the "reusing content" page. --Zolo (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support The "see below" notification is barely useful, rather senseless and unsightly. Whatever location of the link to Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia is better. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Zolo and Petrus. --Leyo 16:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support I do not like "see below" - I thinks is not necessary and it clutters the screen. If "permission" is used than the template works as it does now. --Jarekt (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment See previous discussions: 1 2 and 3. --Jarekt (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support never liked the "see below" approach. Rd232 (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useless. Rocket000 (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support Never liked it. --Sreejith K (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Will the field be hidden, or show no-license-warning? If hidden, Symbol support vote.svg Support, but if we show warning I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. – Kwj2772 (msg) 07:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting info.svg Info It would be hidden, like other versions now. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support - maybe the Commons:Reuse link can be shown in the "author" field if permission is empty? --Saibo (Δ) 23:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add an option "other fields 1" between description and date

Pictogram voting comment.svg This parameter will probably not be used very often? It adds a new customizable field to the template just like the already existing "other fields" , but at a different place: between description and date rather that at the end of the template. A similar result can be achieved by directly adding {{Information field}} to the "description" field.

Symbol support vote.svg Support As I said here the new proposed parameter Other_field_1 similar to Other_field and the same as {{Artwork}}'s Other_field_1. The purpose of it would be to allow adding other fields below Description field rather than the bottom of the template. See the code in {{Information/sandbox}} and test in Template:Information/testcases#Test_Other_field_1. This would allow us to rewrite {{Infobox aircraft image}}, {{Bus-Information}}, {{Rolling Stock-Information}} and possibly many others to use {{Information}} as their basis and simplify maintenance of those templates. It would also allow users to add additional description fields in more logical location. See for example File:Kyushu Electric tram 3.jpg with additional "location" field located on the bottom. The change will not affect any files currently using the template. Finally this proposed change is mostly meant to make wiki code more clear since once achieve the same effect without this field, see here. --Jarekt (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't understand all the details of this issue, but from Jarekt's description, it sounds sensible. Rd232 (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it is useful. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did not dive in deeply, but that sounds useful and not hurting. --Saibo (Δ) 23:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove {{Parse source}} from the source field

Pictogram voting comment.svg Parse source automatically converts texts like "Obra pròpia (own work)" to {{Own work}}.

GA candidate.svg Weak support. {{Information}} was designed to appear simple and without much "magic" feel, the automatic conversion of exotic strings may be a bit confusing (all the more as it works for " Eigenes Werk (own work)" but not for "eigenes Werk". Hopefully, more and more uploading tools will use the correct {{Own}} making {{Parse source}} unnecessary. On the other hand, a bot should convert existing pages so that internationalization is not lost.--Zolo (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite cryptic, I would prefer a robotic substitution of the texts to {{Own work}}. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I did not notice that template before, and did not see that this edit removed it. Although I would prefer a robotic substitution of the texts to {{Own work}}, I do not see the reason to change current version. --Jarekt (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support removing fancyness. That is very unobvious that the info template does that. It should display what the user put in - nothing more or less. Could lead to confusion at this important info field. --Saibo (Δ) 23:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Align the content to the same line as the headers (now it is lower)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Description is now lower than the title Description, proper date lower than the title date etc.

Symbol support vote.svg Support The present different alignment looks ugly and should be improved. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support This alignment was a side-effect of switching from quite confusing mix of wiki-tables and html-tables to plain html-tables used by all the other major infobox templates ({{Artwork}}, {{Book}}, {{Creator}} and {{Institution}}). It also was meant to fix incorrect template rendering shown here. --Jarekt (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support per Petrus Adamus and Jarekt. Rd232 (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support - Everything should be bottom aligned. --Sreejith K (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be able to use Wikipedia as an acredited source....

I'm enrolled in a class in my local community college( don't really know if that makes a difference).My professor makes it very clear that we are not to use this site as a basis of any knowledge for our paper that we wil have to turn in at the end of March. I personally, go on here for a lot of different info. Is there any way to make a case in which to provide necceasry information to use this site as being accredited. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.139.222.5 (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

As you mention "Wikipedia" in your header, are you even aware that here you are NOT at Wikipedia? Try this. --Túrelio (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopaedias, Wikipedia or any other, are not a basis of knowledge. They merely digest and organize the information that is available from many sources. So, your professor may tell you not to use encyclopaedias "as a basis of knowledge", to force you to dig more deeply into the sources and read them directly. Then the idea would be to verify where the information came from in the first place, instead of using only the encyclopaedias where the information is reused. You can use Wikipedia or other encyclopaedias to get a personal overview of the topic and to find a list of sources that were used to write the article and other references. Then you can select and read directly the sources and references that you consider relevant for your paper and cite those readings in your paper. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recommended further reading on this: en:Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia. - Jmabel ! talk 03:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do you even got here? O.o (seriusly) --Sistemx (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

help needed

can someone edit out the first few seconds in my file File:Burping.ogg so there is one second before the burping starts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.172.30.3 (talk • contribs) 30 January 2012 19:20 (UTC)

✓ Done Also cleaned noise, normalized, etc. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 01:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Language issue on Special:Upload&uselang=daownwork (and others) and auto-add category on upload from Danish language upload form

On the Danish Wikipedia there currently is a suggestion to replace the current 'Upload file'-link in the sidebar with a link to either Commons:Upload/da or Danish language own work. This has thrown off two issues, which I'm not quite sure where to address:

  1. Uploads using Danish language own work or Swedish language own work (and possible also others) doesn't show allowed filetypes but just '$1'. Is this a bug for bugzilla or a translation-issue I can't figure the source for (I would have assumed MediaWiki:UploadForm.js/Documentation#Localization but no dice there...)?
  2. It has been proposed that files uploaded using the Commons:Upload/da, the Danish language own work or a new custom form, have a special category (alternatively a template - i.e. similar to {{ImageUpload|basic}} when using the basic upload form previously) added. I would have assumed Commons:Redesigning the upload form or User:Pfctdayelise/Manual:Uselang hack would describe that - but again I didn't manage to find anything :( Is this possible somehow?

Ind kind regards heb [T C E] 13:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first was a wrong configuration; I have fixed it now. It may take up to 24h until the fix becomes effective due to the way the MediaWiki software caches its interface texts. The second is currently not possible. However, why would you want to have such a marker category at all? Maybe an alternative approach might be a specially configured upload wizard? Maybe it's possible to use the "upload campaign" feature to customize the wizard in ways that might be acceptable to your needs? Lupo 20:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First: Thank you for fixing the configuration-error :)
Second: As I'm not an administrator on Commons, I don't know if upload campaign could work, but I'll encourage someone on DaWiki, who is also an administrator on Commons, to look into this so thank you for the suggestion :) The reasoning for this, is that most of the files uploaded "vetted" by someone with Danish language-skills, as they have a high error-rate (lack of license, copyvio's etc.). Of the current last 20 uploads (covering the time back to 17 January 2012, 11 have been deleted for being clear copyright violations, and of the remain 9, for 3 of the files, the uploaders are currently being "helped" so that they have correct and sufficient information. By adding them to a special category, it would be easier for Danish speaking wikipedians to identify and correct the issues in a helpful and leaning manner. In kind regards heb [T C E] 07:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miscoded Region locations in Geocoding templates

My mistake, I didn't realise that the "region" field used ISO-3166 in these templates, so some of them have "region:UK" instead of the correct "region:GB". There may be a few hundred but is there a bot that could go though and substitute these for the correct version? Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm being dense, but how would the bot distinguish your errors from places that are actually in Ukraine? - Jmabel ! talk 01:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because the ISO 3166 code for Ukraine is UA, not UK. I've classified very few images from Ukraine, in fact none that I can remember. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Bots/Work requests - though it's probably an AWB job, processing your uploads. Rd232 (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't my uploads, they are category maintainance. Paradoxically, when I was an Admin on en:WP, I probably considered more requests for AWB use than any other admin over a year or so, without using AWB myself- it looks like I may now have to look at that as an option. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hotcat and Category:Media needing category review

I think that it may be a good idea to add "categories are OK" next to list of categories (the same as "Check them now!" on Template:Check categories) - it is inefficient to change categories using hotcat, scroll to Template:Check categories, hit "Check them now!", scroll to save, hit save Bulwersator (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend against adding such a thing to HotCat: the functionality desired is completely different, and Commons-specific. HotCat is for changing and adding categories, and it's being used on many wikis, even on non-WMF projects. This new functionality is a special-purpose hack for one template existing only here at the Commons, and the desired functionality is just removing the template in one click. That's completely unrelated to what HotCat does; the desired functionality could be implemented easily in a completely separate script. Lupo 20:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I implemented it (in ugly & hackish way) Bulwersator (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rillke/checkCat.js for your special needs.
  1. Adds a cats are ok - link to the category-section
  2. Removes the "check categories template" from the file-page when categorizing with HotCat.
-- RE rillke questions? 20:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preclearance

I uploaded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:D._W._Reeves.jpg to en, and tagged it PD, as it was a lithograph from a photo of someone who died in 1900. The source I got it from, though, doesn't indicate the actual publication date. It's since been tagged as a candidate to transfer here -- should I untag it, or is it likely ok? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's U.S. and obviously published pre-1923, so I can't imagine an issue. Just use {{PD-1923}}. - Jmabel ! talk 02:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 4

Noteworthy deletion discussion

I came across a very interesting template at {{AlbanyNY}}. From what I can tell, this is a novel use of templates to create a specially curated category of Albany, New York-themed images in Category:Albany, New York Collection. I think this duplicates the purpose of the Category:Albany, New York and the gallery at Albany, New York. Because of the novelty of this issue, DR could use a broad discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:AlbanyNY..--GrapedApe (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any category we can give to either smaller versions or alternate formats of the same file? I know it's a derivative, but that's not very specific.

I recently needed a PNG thumbnail for a JPEG so that the white background could be removed, as is typical usage on the English Wikipedia--said images are usually tagged {{Should Be PNG}}.
--Trlkly (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

upload protection doesn't work for reverts

Does somebody know if that is a bug or a feature? http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:AaatestSonnepalmenstrand-portrait_new.jpg&action=history The page is upload=sysop protected and it works (I cannot upload with my test account). But the testaccount can revert to another file version. This is pretty stupid since I thought it isn't enough at upload edit wars to upload protect (COM:P should be adjusted then)... Also that is a bad choice for high-visibility files which have more than one version. Mediawiki displays the reverts as "uploads" - but apparently doesn't apply the protection status. I would have assumed that it protects against that reverts. First because it is useful, second because mediawiki titles the reverts as uploads in the logs Asked in Wikimedia tech channel on IRC but got no answer. --Saibo (Δ) 00:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try reverting File:Testfile-bidgee.jpg in your test account. If it allows you to move it in the test account, try the Edit protection. If all fails then someone needs to fix it as it is a rather big problem that revert wars can continue. Bidgee (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your test file is deleted now - however I tried again at "my" file: File:AaatestSonnepalmenstrand-portrait_new.jpg#filehistory Of, course - still the same. Have filed it in bugzilla since you seem to agree that that is a bug. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Also have mentioned it in COM:P. --Saibo (Δ) 14:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Help me somebody is it legal to put a picture from this website on my book cover? Or will I have to get permission?

Medical school or School of Medicine

Hi Categorizers! There is a problem about school of medicines nomenclature between Wikipedia and Commons. See en:Category:Schools of medicine by country and Category:Medical schools by country. I think School of medicine is more official and correct. What must be do? غلامرضا باقری (talk)

As a native speaker, they are exactly equally correct. There is one subtle difference, in that when one is talking about the structure of a particular American university, one speaks of its "school of arts and sciences", "school of engineering", etc. and in that context one would almost always say "school of medicine" because of the parallelism. Conversely, one would say "he went to medical school at the University of Washington", but not "he went to the school of medicine at..." (though this doesn't apply to "he graduated from" or "he attended", which can use either). But that's about it. Equally valid article/category names. - Jmabel ! talk 09:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Your rights. Finally, what must be do? We should use a unique format in Wikimedia project. غلامرضا باقری (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WebApp for Picture of the day / POTD

I developed a Webapplication which displays the current POTD from commons in a (imho) bautifull way. I designed it especially for tablets, it supports iPad, Android and any other recent browser. It tries to embedd nicely into the browsers on these devices by supporting swiping. The whole application is open source and non commercial. I wrote it mainly for myself, but is there a place where such applications can be promoted? URL is http://potd.dbruhn.de. On the IRC-Channel someone suggested adding it next to our current "by email"/"RSS feed". Perhaps someone wants to discuss this issue! Thanks! -- Theomega (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could drop a note on the talk pages at en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost or de:Wikipedia:Kurier? MKFI (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice! :-)
A few remarks, if I may:
  • There is a small typo « Wikipedia Commons » instead of « Wikimedia Commons ».
  • It would be awesome if you could display the author name too (not critical since the app links to the file description page, but always nice to have)
  • Any way to have it internationalised – having it display the description in different languages?
Thanks for your work! Jean-Fred (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 5

Commons is fast today

.. "slow", I meant. What is happening? --  Docu  at 09:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...slow as in pages are loading slowly, or slow as in not much going on? Dcoetzee (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the first, the second is kind of normal for this time of the week. ;) --  Docu  at 10:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problems for me, it's quite zippy. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Requests for comment/PD review

This RfC proposes a specific copyright review process for public domain works, in order to ensure our works are in the public domain in both the US and their source country as required by Commons:Licensing. Feedback welcome - please respond at the RfC. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 6

Terraces category

What category should images as File:Markt Brussel Zuid.jpg and File:Terras op Plein.jpg be placed? There must a lot other pictures of street terraces. This has nothing to do with architecture.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to tell without knowing more about them than I can discern from the images. Maybe en:Sidewalk cafe? They don't look like en:Beer gardens from the photos, although there's certainly beer drinking happening. Could be en:Patio, although in the US at least that tends to carry more of a residential connotation. cmadler (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is very common on the continent and certainly in warmer countries for restaurants, bar and other drinking places to have seats and tables on the street. On warm sunny days, clients dont want to be inside. In most countries such places have pay extra taxes to use the street for tables and chairs. Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try Category:Open air restaurant and café areas or a subcategory under that? cmadler (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I wil use this last one.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categories such as "Category:December 1814" marked as metacategories -- why?

There are a lot of categories like this that are in Category:Meta categories. This is apparently done by template {{Monthbyyear}}. To me, these don't seem to fit the definition of metacategories. Am I missing something? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are correct, so I removed the metatemplate from Template:Monthbyyear. Month categories can be further divided by date, by country, or by something else. But it is not neccessary to always do that. And I think there may be files that does not fit into such subdivisions. /Ö 10:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good -- thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Videos from WMF

Hello,

I have seen that WMF posted a video (File:Monthly Metrics Meeting February 2, 2012.theora.ogv). That's very interesting, but much too big to download. Would it be possible to create a smaller derivative? Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe make a 720p version so that we can still see what happens on the screen, and would be easier to download. Techman224Talk 13:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First color image of the earth; Public domain?

First color image of the earth from outer space (Dodge Satellite).png

Are all military images of the United States PD? The first color image of the earth by a military satelite would be great to have on commmons. cheers, Amada44  talk to me 18:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it was a US military satellite. So yes, it is a work of the US government, and therefore, in the public domain. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yea, just wanted to make sure. Here it is. Amada44  talk to me 20:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deploying Swift for thumbnails this week (Feb6-9)

This week (Monday through Thursday), I will be switching over the backend system that hosts thumbnails (scaled images) for all wikis from our existing server to Swift, a clustered object store. This move gets us ready to be able to dramatically increase the amount of data we can hold in Commons and the other wiki projects.

As with all new systems, though it has been tested, the possibility exists that something will go wrong. I would like your help testing and reporting any issues. There are two main methods available to report issues:

  • IRC: join #wikimedia-tech and ping maplebed
  • Wiki: add a section to the Issues page on mediawiki.org.

Today, only files that contain "/a/a2/" in the URL are be affected. More files will be affected throughout the week following a gradual rollout schedule. Though I will take bug reports on other issues, they're less likely to be related to the change I'm making.

More detail is available on the wikitech-l mailing list post I wrote last week.

Thanks for your help, Bhartshorne (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 7

Category:Created with Adobe Photoshop should be hidden

Shouldn't this category be "hidden" as other categories of the same sort, for example Category:Taken with Canon PowerShot A620? Opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like Category:Created with Inkscape, yes. -- RE rillke questions? 11:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done already. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

common category for images to be deleted?

Is there a common category for all images that will be deleted? That contains all images from cats like 'Deletion requests November 2011', 'Media without a license as of 26 January 2012', 'Media missing permission as of 23 January 2012', etc.

So that it would be easier to generate list of images that will be deleted from Commons and are used in local Wikipedia [2]. --WikedKentaur (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This would be Category:Candidates for deletion, though "being requested for deletion" does not absolutely equal "being/becoming deleted". --Túrelio (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allowed

Is there a list of thing which are not allowed to be uploaded? If so, can you give me a link please? Pass a Method (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to upload anything which is within our project scope (ie is educational), and which is freely licensed. If you want a more exact answer, you'll have to provide more information on exactly what you mean. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you looking for Commons:Image casebook? -- RE rillke questions? 11:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube cc license

Hey guys, i would like to add the following video to the Pat Condell as it is currently licensed under CC Attribution. However, it is not specifically mentioned as to which license it was released and so i would like to know whether it can be uploaded on Commons and if so, then under which license must it be uploaded. Thanks.

Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 13:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page, it's {{Cc-by-3.0}}. Prof. Professorson (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding multilingual descriptions to categories/galleries automatically

To alleviate multilingual issues and have the categories searchable in multiple languages, I've been using Sum-it-up to add descriptions and interwiki links to categories (see for example Category:Dacia). But I find the task terribly redundant and repetitive. Can bots like User:MerlIwBot and User:JarektBot do this for each category and gallery, since articles and their leads in multiple languages appear/change all the time? It currently does it for interwiki links which are also followed and generated by Sum-it-up. I think it would be a tremendous feature, and should be basically part of the same process. Note that I started initially this conversation at User talk:MerlIwBot#Adding also multilingual descriptions but then I realized that JarektBot also has similar capabilities, and this is more of a global discussion.--Codrin.B (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that more and more people start to see the interest and are following. Before adding text descriptions by bot, we have to define a collapse rule. Categories with an intro in 270 languages is not very practical. A more elegant and maintenance-free solution would be the display of the initial paragraphs(s) when hovering over the interwiki links on the left. It would be great if the search engine would include the category IWs in its search, which it doesn't for the moment. --Foroa (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure based on which settings, but in my system Category:Dacia displays a pull down box for the languages using Meta:Language select. It doesn't display descriptions in all languages unless you select "Show all" in the pull down box. This seems sufficient to me. I am missing something? --Codrin.B (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For me is the main purpose of the explaining text to know what subject is covered by the category. I don't need all the links in the often long text generated by Sum-it-up. Without shows a "cleaner" text. If people want more information they can use the interwiki links on the left. Wouter (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To me, Category:Dacia shows all texts in all languages, which is probably a bug or maybe related to a show all that I used on a previous selection and that stays on. Anyway, I think that in all cases, the English reference text should always be displayed for reference and the description in the local languages(s) where applicable. Nowadays, I bother rarely to include texts in more than 2 or 3 languages, except where there are many terms in many languages, such as in Category:Mbira and Category:Pedal cars so that they are included in the search engine database (category interwikis are never included in the search). --Foroa (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious to know what setting enables/disables (or rather collapses) the other languages. If you find out, please let us know. I looked in my preferences but couldn't find it. For me it is always collapsed, showing English. Sum-it-up can indeed sometimes generate longer descriptions, but id depends on the leads that people create. Over time, the source articles get copy edited and end up with better leads. A reason why we need a bot to run this on a schedule. And yes, sometimes I had to shorten the generated descriptions myself. But overall, I think it is highly valuable to have that multilingual text since it empowers users to find the information with search engines. You can click on the links to the left, but someone searching in Japanese will never find an English named category, unless these descriptions are added. And if we can reliably collapse all languages and show English by default, it is all we need for a nice solution.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using sum-it-up for quite some time (do check out the gadget). I even used it for batch created categories. Some improvements:

I doubt Magnus will fix it, so someone might want to fork the tool. Multichill (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such improvements would be nice - as would fixing the annoyance that the tl.wp doesn't translate to template:tl, but to template:tgl, which sum-it-up doesn't know! But really, if we're going for improvements, one thing which would be worth thinking about is whether we couldn't persuade the source Wikipedias to provide a custom 1 or 2 line summary (like persondata), stripped of ref tags and images which don't translate to the Commons summary, and hopefully more stable. (If the custom summary isn't available, the bot/script can always fall back to the status quo.) Rd232 (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps that's not worth the complexity. Just a script that does better cleanup (stripping ref tags and images) would do. Rd232 (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 3

Is the logo (top left of this webpage) creative enough that it is copyrighted, or simple enough that it is able to be uploaded here?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right on the borderline, anyone's guess what a court would say. - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Three characters, a comma, and an inverted comma - highly unlikely that the Copyright Office would register it, if one compares with decisions in Threshold of originality#United States. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So ... what's the consensus? To upload or not to upload? :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd lean towards PD-textlogo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, thank you for the input, -- Cirt (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HotCat — Remove Template:Check categories

Triggered by #Hotcat and Category:Media needing category review, I wrote some lines of code doing the following:

  1. Removing {{Check categories}} from files when changing categories with HotCat on this page
  2. Adding a link "Categories are OK!" to the category-section that removes the template.

I would like to add this to our Gadget-Definition of HotCat. Technically no problem. Are there any objections? -- RE rillke questions? 14:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. That one category is changed with hotcat does not mean that all the categories are checked. So Template:Check categories should not be removed just because of that.
  2. A "categories are ok" link is better, since one can look at all the categories together and can say that thery are OK. /Ö 19:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have such a big backlog of check-categories files that I thought it might be ok removing the template if someone had a look at them. -- RE rillke questions? 20:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, be bold and see what happens.
The usage of {{Check categories}} got a bit out of hand and the suggestions get better over time. I'm thinking of just removing the template from Category:Media needing category review with 1 suggested category (69.000 items) and Category:Media needing category review with 2 suggested categories (48.000 items) as these suggestions are generally quite good compared to Category:Media needing category review with 10 or more suggested categories. What do you think about that? Multichill (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That looks a good idea provided one can filter out the ones with only generic categories such as men, woman, people, people by name, paintings, art, ... Same for the HotCat check removal. We might need a template to indicate "generic" categories. --Foroa (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It least there are no or very few "wrong" categories. -- RE rillke questions? 10:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to remove it from all categories, you could add
.checkcategories {display: none;}
to Special:MyPage/common.css. --  Docu  at 06:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's just hiding from the display, not removing. -- RE rillke questions? 10:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with option 2 as an easy way to remove the template; option 1 doesn't sound quite right. I'd also suggest an option 3: on pages where the template exists, if you use the "edit multiple categories" option of HotCat, then by default the template is struck through, and if the user saves, it's removed. That way, the user can prevent the template removal by clicking the little X to cancel the template change; but the assumption is that usually when editing multiple categories, template removal will be reasonable. Makes sense? Rd232 (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "the usage of {{Check categories}} got a bit out of hand", to reduce the backlog it's ok to delete the template after using HotCat by default. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Language mix in category naming

I know that it is OK to have file names in many languages on Commons, but what is the recommended approach for naming categories? I've been working a lot to organize media around the Romanian history and archaeology topics and noticed for example that Category:Museums in Romania by city has a big mix of Romanian and English names for the sub-categories. For example Category:Muzeul Național al Hărților și Cărții Vechi vs Category:History and Archeology Museum Piatra Neamț. Looking at institutions, most of them are in English (not all) and point ideally to categories with the same name. A similar situation happens with Category:Fortresses in Romania and many such similar categories. Now I understand Romanian but I would imagine that it would be hard for someone who doesn't to either properly categorize their own contributions (say they took a picture of the Alba Carolina Fortress while visiting Alba Iulia) or to find media related to a certain topic/category if there is no English name for it. Ideally, it would be great to have both categories, one in English and one in Romanian, and possibly redirect the Romanian-named category to the English one, but I know there are issues with the redirects in Commons. My approach would be to have everything in English (acknowledging that this is a multilingual project), to increase exposure and achieve consistency. What are your suggestions and opinions about this? Thanks--Codrin.B (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The real category names should usually be in English (see Commons:Language policy, and Commons:Categories#Category_names). If there is no real English alternative, the foreign names are often fine I'd guess, if in a Latin script. It's unfortunate as a multilingual project, but the actual category name used in the File: pages has to be all the same so that users of all languages can find the content; category redirects do not work on that level. You can certainly leave a category soft redirect (i.e. use {{Category redirect}}) with the existing Romanian name, which should cause bots to move images placed in the Romanian one, to the English one. Putting the Romanian name in the category description is also a good idea. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Carl mentioned all the category names should be in English, or should be in form most commonly used in English literature (if any exist). In practice it is a challenge with no good solution, since often in case of places little known outside their country local language names are used, which often creates disastrous names using mix of English and local language which is not readable by neither English speaking nor local users. I sometimes use counts of Google hits to try different possible variants of English names which can be used. Also EN wiki is a good guide if they have an article. Finally {{Category redirect}}s, interwiki links and native spelling listed in the category will help native speakers find the category. --Jarekt (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, that is my view as well but wondering what is the general idea. I think there are English names at least for all those museums and castles that I used in the example, even though not all of them have corresponding en WP article yet. I am actually actively involved in creating such articles but will take time. To alleviate multilingual issues and have the categories searchable in multiple languages, I've been using Sum-it-up to add descriptions and interwiki links to categories (see for example Category:Dacia). But I find the task terribly redundant and repetitive. Can bots like User:MerlIwBot do this for each category and gallery, since articles and their leads in multiple languages appear/change all the time? It currently does it for interwiki links which are also followed and generated by Sum-it-up.--Codrin.B (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally find this guidance to be a major problem in making Commons truly multilingual. We have several contributors on ro.wp which say they don't use commons for pictures because they don't speak English. When you try to open up to more people, like it happened for Wiki Loves Monuments, this problem becomes much more visible.
I believe that each user should be free to use whatever language he wants for categories, just like it happens for galleries, with the local language prefered. The category-redirect method Carl described should work just as well from English to Romanian as it does the other way around.
I urge you to consider changing this guidance even before MediaWiki has support for this (as fixing that bug could take years)--Strainu (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't work. There are many cases where languages use the same word to mean different things; is Category:Magazine about supermarkets or periodicals? what about Category:Cat?--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strainu, I wish we could, but as Prosfilaes said, that is not feasible on the large scale. To some degree we already do it on a small scale: we do have about 60k category redirects, and many of them contain alternative spelling often used in different counties. However we can not mix all the languages and be able to maintain our category system, it is hard enough in English alone. As for people who do not speak English: we put a lot of effort into internationalization of our templates and ideally all categories would have interwikis and description in many languages. That way people without English skills can at least use search to identify existing categories. They can also use Galleries written in their language and they can find links from their wikipedias to Commons categories. It is unfortunate that although Commons have interwiki links to Wikipedia, wikipedia do not have interwiki links to Commons, and have to rely on templates like en:template:Commons category. The problem with those templates is that each section of an article can have such template (so there is no guarantee of 1 to 1 relationship) and that those templates are not maintained by the mw:Manual:Pywikipediabot/interwiki.py which is used for maintaining interwiki links. --Jarekt (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese Wikipedia displays category names in either Simplified Chinese or Traditional Chinese depending on settings. For example, zh:分類:美國 and zh:分类:美国 both mean the same thing and so they go to the same page. How they are displayed depends on your choice in a dropdown list. Wouldn't it be possible to do something similar with Commons? I assume that many categories would have overlapping names, but wouldn't it still be possible to fix something with the categories which don't overlap? Chinese Wikipedia mainly converts things algorithmically, but I think that there also is some way to specify a variant manually if the automatic handling doesn't work. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strainu -- I agree with Prosfilaes. Allowing multilingual categories (other than limited endonym use) without a very radical and fundamental change in the basic software setup would be far more likely to cause numerous disputes such as that which resulted in Category:Mélusines in heraldry being set up in opposition to Category:Melusines in heraldry, rather than leading to some utopia of internationalization. AnonMoos (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And don't forget that for the many cities, border areas and countries that have 2 to 4 languages, the English rule is a blessing. --Foroa (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To this end, I tried in the past to suggest the move of Category:Traianus to Category:Trajan but someone reverted this. Now we have subcats like Category:Arch of Trajan (Benevento)‎ and Category:Arch of Traianus (Ancona)‎. Or Category:Trajan's Bridge but Category:Gate of Traianus‎.--Codrin.B (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For popes, emperors, gods, saints and some rulers, we tend to use the original latin name as the root category as those are more "international universal". --Foroa (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add a comment on choice of forum:

The question is about the most controversial category of language choices on Commons. This village pump is read mostly by those that have no problem working in English (others use village pumps in other languages) and I think answers here will be somewhat biased.

If the question had been asked on Commons talk:Language policy, on the other hand, it would have been answered by people interested in language use of Commons, and support for using local names would probably have been stronger (still with a bias, as policy is mainly written and discussed in English).

For categories about things, yes we use English when there is an established English word. For local names, especially less known places, some use a local language, some use English. There is no policy or even guideline discussing the border line cases - because there is no consensus.

--LPfi (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments Prosfilaes put up do not sound insurmountable. First of all, the number of conflicts does not seem that big. Even then, I think that keeping just a few hundred generic categories in English and naming all the rest (like names of places, names of people) in the local language would work just fine. Only when several official names exist for a place and there is no consensus should English be used.--Strainu (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LPfi, that is a good point. I didn't know about the Commons talk:Language policy. I will make a note about this conversation. I also found the Commons:Naming categories proposal and Commons:Categories#Category names. But suggest English for most usage but also mention exceptions and that consensus was not reached. I think we do have to find the best compromise and finalize the proposal. Above all, I think that consistency and search-ability are the most important aspects.--Codrin.B (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 31

$10,000 Donation to the WMF, if ...

File deleted as an emergency request on the Admin Noticeboard by me.  I got worried about banking laws on copying checks! Better safe than sorry. Doug youvan (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

anyone can prove that the attribution of "File:Deep water wave.gif" as "own work" is true. See discussion here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kraaiennest: and what happened simultaneously: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Pi.tif Doug youvan (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I resent any implication that there's a connection. I don't know who Kraaiennest is, nor have I been influenced by him at all. I haven't asked for source code at Pi.tif.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry; it was a coincidence. I was very upset that File:Tasting_a_condom.jpg survives deletion, while I am being deleted here at Commons, and Kraaiennest/Crowsnest has erased the past 10 years of my work (3 e-books) in my biography at .en, while there, I am banned from editing, indefinitely. Doug youvan (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The economic potential is enormous, see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/business/global/21iht-renwave.html?pagewanted=all, and I think the main point of my comment is that Commons needs to set policy for depositing images that have no source code in the PD. We are not talking Photoshop, folks. These are custom programs designed to produce one (possibly a few) images, and it is the programmers, not the Uploader, whose work has been used without attribution. Worse yet, without source code the image (simulation) might be completely wrong. It then goes into the encyclopedia and evades NOR. Doug youvan (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a dispute that has spilled over from en.wiki. Please see en:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive734#Legal_threats_and_spamming_by_Noncanonical. en:User:Crowsnest is User:Kraaiennest. Doug youvan, if you wish to contribute constructively to Commons, you are welcome. But, you are well-advised to avoid engendering drama and conflict here. Anyone may review File:Deep water wave.gif and nominate it for deletion. But because of your history of involvement with Crowsnest/Kraaiennest, it may be unwise for you to do so. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Walter. Thank you. I will do exactly as you say. Would you please start the discussion as to what we should do with images (simulations) that lack computer code? One explanation from some of these Uploaders is that the equations are published and referenced. However, if you have ever coded to simulate a physical system, it is almost always the case that parameters arise which must be set in a logical, but somewhat arbitrary, manner. I've started to recode the simulation in question, and such parameters have arisen immediately. (I can outline those problems somewhere else if anyone is interested.) But the upshot is that the current image / simulation is irreproducible. I do similar work and I always put the code into the PD. I see no other way to show that the image is correct - or at least check it and improve it. So, I will place my efforts into re-coding File:Deep water wave.gif. That image is, in fact, beautiful and informative for people interested in such things. However, if you look deeper, you begin wondering how it was done and how particular parameters were set. This is quite analogous to a "trade secret". BTW, you will be hard pressed to find any legal threat from Noncanonical, a colleague of mine using this same IP address.. That's just a gang that wants us off the encyclopedia because of my religious views. After all, Wikipedia is the atheist's bible, and I need to learn how to show proper respect to this other religion. That is my fault, and as a Christian, I do recognized that I have sinned, and I ask for forgiveness from anyone I might have hurt.
That was not the incident that got me kicked off (a long time ago). That was Hrafn, Aunt Entropy, and Filll over the Young Earth Creationist Article. Some guy in Australia made a physical threat in an edit tag and I reacted. Doug youvan (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I for one don't think Doug youvan has $25000, much less is willing to donate it. He's upset that User_talk:Kraaiennest would not release the source code used to produce File:Deep water wave.gif. The user is under no obligation to do so. If you believe that an image derived from source code not owned by the uploader could make this an illegal derivative work, then by all means nominate it for deletion, but there's no need to dramatically call attention to it here. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
100KDoug youvan (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The graphic image is not derivative of the source code; they are independent works. Depending on the circumstances, the graphic image may or may not be copyrightable (if it is purely the result of an algorithm, with no human authorship of the actual graphic part, it may not be copyrightable at all). But the computer program copyright is in how the program is structured, its actual text, and that kind of thing, none of which is present in the resulting graphic. They are unrelated copyright-wise (no shared expression at all). Even if an author does make two works, one of which is derivative of the other, it is entirely up to an author whether they want to license the original, the derivative, or both. Even if they released the original under a CC-BY-SA license, they are not under any obligation to release their own derivative work that way. Obviously, we'd appreciate as much material as the author would like to license, but it's the author's prerogative in the end. If you think it would be more appropriate to only use illustrations like this on en-wiki which also have backing source code, then discuss it there -- that is a project policy decision. When you bring up something on Commons though, we are mostly concerned about copyright only. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Carl, Thank you. Do you mean Commons will use an image that has violated a license agreement for the use of the underlying program? Or do you mean that if a team of people write some code that produces an image, it is OK for one of them to donate the image here as "author's own work"? Can't be! What about the Industrial Espionage Act of 1996? Has it expired?Doug youvan (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of multiple authors, yes, any one author can do what they want, usually. The other authors are entitled to their share of money made, but beyond that not much. This is spelled out in the copyright law. That would only apply though if some other people were responsible for the appearance of the resulting image itself -- it would not matter if some other code author supplied utility routines which were merely used for the image; I don't think they are an author of the image itself. If someone violated a license agreement by simply using such code, that is their problem. I'm sure we'd delete upon request from the uploader/author if it turned out such an image got them into unexpected legal trouble.
I don't believe that they're independent works. XPM is a image file format that is also valid C code. Surely that must be a derivative of the image. When I'm working on a POV-Ray file, the artistic description that goes into the code is what comes out in the image. It strikes me as like the book/movie divide, where literary expression can be infringed by the visual images.
You say that "if it is purely the result of an algorithm, with no human authorship of the actual graphic part". If what you mean is post-processing, then I disagree as above. Senso stricto, it's false; all images can be produced algorithmically. In reality, I can see a judge using that rule of thumb, but I can also see a judge granting copyright to a CG tornado if it was used in Twister 2, but denying it to the exact same tornado if the meteorology department that produced the simulation sued. I'm not sure where the line is.
I agree that we don't need the source code, that we can just take the derivative.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a book can be infringed by visual images -- can you point to a case? Obviously, a movie can be derivative if it makes use of dialogue, the plot, or characters from a book. The visual images are added expression, unique to the movie. XPM is probably a special case -- since there is really only one or limited ways to write the program to generate a specific image, I'm not sure there is a separate copyright in that type of program. In any event, the image comes first in that case, and the C program would be derivative (or a copy, really). But I'm sure in many cases such as the one under discussion, you could write a completely different program (separate copyright) which produces the same, or very similar, output image. If the program source contains graphics themselves which get placed in the output, that is when you might get into derivative works for me. But if an author is using a program as a tool to generate their desired output image... of course the output should be their own copyrightable work (which I think is the case here, easily). The result is still human authorship, no matter how they went about it. Just not derivative, copyright-wise, of the actual code, which is utterly different expression. You have to identify the actual expression from the original in a derivative work. If you can't, it's not derivative. What I meant by algorithm is... say, take an arbitrary input image and apply some algorithmic transformation to it, like scaling, or slanting. I don't see how there is human authorship in the result, since all expression is really coming from the input image. I don't think the program author can claim any copyright ownership of such images -- it's a mechanical processing of other images, with no human decision-making with regards to a specific image. They may have a terms of use which may act like a contract, but I don't think they could use copyright to enforce it. I suppose there may be examples along those lines which are different, if the processing adds some identifiable expression. But I'm more thinking of these sections from the Compendium: The term "authorship" implies that, for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being. Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable. [...] To be an original work of authorship, the work must not be a mere computation based upon a concept or formula, or be the mere extrapolation or application of an idea or system, which would always produce substantially the same result whenever done correctly by anyone. For example, the computation of interest based upon a particular rate is not copyrightable, nor is the mere transposition of music from one key to another. In the current case, I have no doubt the resulting image is copyrightable, but I'm guessing it does not contain any expression from the source code (the text, or at least program structure, etc.), so I think there are two separate copyrights. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me inject some ethics to see if it copesthetic with copyright law: If you touch it in a significant manner, your name goes on it. As a staffer at LBNL and Cold Spring Harbor Lab, as a Professor at MIT, and as the CEO and CSO of a Silicon Valley company, I put everyone's name on scientific papers and patents. There is a caveat on patents, but I was generous so that the criterion of writing at least one claim was fulfilled. Now, if I see an image on Commons, I expect that everyone who contributed to that image receives attribution. If we are talking software, that would be a programmer, not someone using Photoshop. Do you get my point? Always make all attributions to all that helped with the final product, in this case, an image. How do these ethics fit into your discussion of copyright law? Do we have the same ethical standards? Doug youvan (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are (probably all) in agreement with your ethical principal that if you touch it in a significant manner, your name goes on it; the question is what constitutes a "significant manner". We now have on Commons a finished work, but there were many steps that went into creating it. You (Doug youvan) seem to be asserting (forgive me if I misunderstand the technical aspects, which is not my area of expertise) that the creator of a program that is used to make an image has some degree of ownership/creatorship in that image. It seems to me that is analagous to suggesting that a weaver who makes a canvas is a co-creater with the actual painter? cmadler (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Credit" is not the same thing as "authorship" or "copyright ownership". Everyone appreciates credit, of course, so your ethical approach is sound. For a scientific paper, I'm sure anyone involved in the research would want some credit. In general, I would follow that approach. However, a website which scans old public domain photos and makes them available online also wants credit -- they put forth effort and spent money to make things available -- but they are not an author. They are a source, but have no ownership interest in the copyright, and cannot use copyright to enforce licenses or anything like that. We are especially interested in the author for a couple reasons. First, many countries require the author, specifically, to be named via their "moral rights" laws (which often last longer than the economic rights, sometimes being of infinite duration, and usually cannot be transferred or waived). Second, the author is usually the copyright owner, and they are the only entity which has the authority to license the copyright, and we are heavily concerned about that license -- so we want a clear indication of who has the rights to make the license. I.e., the same person or entity which would be named in a U.S. copyright notice. For a corporate work, this would be the company, even if they may or may not separately give credit to individual employees. For your more general "credit", sure, we want to mention any relevant information like that if we can, but really only the uploader really has an idea of who really touched it "in a significant manner", so almost always we will just let the uploader decide. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't point to a case where an image infringed on a book, but I can imagine it for a sufficiently complex word-picture. I'm having trouble with your distinction between the code and the output of the code. An MP3 or JPEG are in some sense just code for a specialized interpreter. I can't imagine a program that played a copyrighted song or displayed copyrighted artwork would get treated as contributory infringement; they would treat it is a direct copy. I don't know how someone could have a copyright on the output of a program and yet have no copyright on the program, so that anyone can pass it around.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An MP3 or JPEG is really just data, at that level -- there are no instructions in the sense of it being a computer program, and no real human authorship. Two programmers can write separate programs to perform the same task; the copyright is not based on the task it performs but rather each programmer's expression in the way they did it -- it's tied to the actual text, or slightly more abstractly in how they order and group the instructions, i.e. the structure of the program. The BSD Unix systems were able to be released under their license because they gradually rewrote the entire codebase of the original, proprietary Unix system they started with -- even though it performed the exact same function, the code itself had been completely re-written, such that Berkeley was now the sole author and copyright owner, despite the fact that AT&T wrote the original code. To me, graphic images and a literary-based copyright are utterly different types of expression, and it's difficult to me to think of a situation where one could be derivative of the other -- a paragraph can describe an idea, but someone else can write a different paragraph to describe the same idea, and that second paragraph is not derivative of the first. The copyright is in the expression, i.e. the specific words and phrases chosen. Someone making an image depicting the same idea would seem to be even more removed from the original copyright than someone writing a different paragraph. I'm really not familiar with how much coding goes into an image like this, but it sounds like it's enough to carry its own copyright. Someone else could write their own program to generate the same image, and that program would not infringe the copyright on the first (unless they copied the actual text of the code, or something very close to it). But, if the output is also copyrightable (the choice of colors, the specific way they illustrated the idea), the output image of the second program could still infringe on the output image of the first program -- the second person is at that point copying the expression seen in the first image, when they make theirs. If there is really only one way or limited ways to write a program to generate a particular output image, then the program itself may not be separately copyrightable -- that may be a merger doctrine issue. In your example above, you would have to copy the data/expression from the song or artwork in order to embed it into your program in the first place. Image viewer software has its own copyright, of course, and other people can write other image viewers without infringing the first. An image viewer to display a particular, copyrighted image is substantially the same program, except of course they would have to copy the image data into the program instead of being given an arbitrary source, and that part would be infringement, of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would state the analogy as being more like a painter and a photographer. You spend months painting a beautiful picture (the software) and I walk in one day and photograph your work with a digital camera (the image). I upload on Commons as "my own work". Obviously, that is very unfair to you. And again, this software is not Photoshop. It might be called "sole-purpose" software. It was written to produce a few images, perhaps even just one, or a single animation. This is often the case when we write programs to simulate a physical phenomenon. I think I would be correct in saying that most of the examples on www.youvan.com are "sole-purpose" programs - so, I am incredibly sensitive to this issue of attribution when I think I see a photographer ripping off an artist. Thanks for making me think in understandable terms. I am often terse and get people mad! Doug youvan (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a straightforward derivative work (at best) and copyright infringement -- the photograph is subject to the copyright of the painting, as it uses the painting's expression, and we would delete such a photo unless 1) we also had permission from the painter, or 2) the copyright in the painting has expired. It's even possible, if the photo is basically a reproduction of the painting (i.e. a {{PD-Art}} situation), that the photographer is not even an author -- it amounts to a copy of the painting, so they added no copyrightable expression to the end result. Someone writing a separate program to perform the same general task as one of yours is not necessarily the same thing, at all. You may have given them the idea, or maybe both were inspired by a third source, but unless they copied some specific, identifiable, expression, there is no issue under copyright law, which does not protect ideas. If you are saying someone took your program to produce an animation, tweaked it a bit to produce a similar but slightly different output, maybe there is an issue -- it wound depend on many specific details, and I'm not familiar with the level of coding in this area, so I really can't say. But if you are writing a program to reproduce a physical phenomenon, you have no ownership over the phenomenon itself, and it stands to reason that an independent program would produce a somewhat similar image to illustrate the same phenomenon. There have even been cases, I'm pretty sure, where completely independent creation which resulted in substantially the same work were deemed separate, independent, non-derivative copyrights. If other people contributed code to their program, the program itself would be a derivative work and would need permission from that other person to post the source code, but I'd think only if that other person contributed code which directly resulted in creating part of the expression seen in the eventual image (and the code was supplied with that intention), would that person also be considered an "author" of the produced image. If someone supplied utility code which, while helpful, has no bearing on the actual expression in the eventual output image, then no, I would not consider them an author of the image, and maybe not deserving of credit (otherwise, why wouldn't you credit all the authors of Photoshop, if you used that program to help produce an image?). The authorship of the program itself, that's different. Thus, posting the source code may require a different set of permissions than the image alone. There are a lot of fuzzy boundary issues in copyright law, and this gets into some of them to be sure. But either way, it would be incumbent on the people whose actual work is involved to make the complaint. Are you saying that some of your work is infringed by this other image? Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carl, No I am not being infringed, but you did hit on one of the scenarios: "If other people contributed code to their program, the program itself would be a derivative work and would need permission from that other person to post the source code, but I'd think only if that other person contributed code which directly resulted in creating part of the expression seen in the eventual image (and the code was supplied with that intention), would that person also be considered an "author" of the produced image." Quoting from from User_talk:Kraaiennest / Crowsnest: "Dear Doug Youvan, I do not intent to make the code available, since it is (in part) the property of others." Now, let me try to reduce your sentence to a shorter one for this specific situation:

If other people contributed code which directly resulted in creating part of the expression seen in the eventual image that person also (must) be considered an "author" of the produced image. Carl - Please tell me if I got that right.

Hypothetically, consider that shorter italic sentence to be true in the case of Kraaiennest for File:Deep water wave.gif, so my questions is now: Did he need permission from the other authors to deposit this file?

Also, I seriously doubt that we are complying with all of this: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ or other contractual agreements that authors have with their employer or research granting agency. Doug youvan (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there were more than one person working on producing the final image, then yes, there are probably multiple authors, and it's a joint work. I think they had to intend to produce the image together. Any one of the authors usually can license the work (at least on a non-exclusive basis) without asking any of the other authors, I'm pretty sure, at least in the U.S. Some info from William Patry here. Also, contributions to the computer program itself do not necessarily mean they are an author of the eventual image -- that would depend very much on the nature of their contributions. Really, the only case where he may have needed someone else's permission is if the image contains copyrightable expression present in some pre-existing work (i.e. another image or graphic work), and is therefore derivative. It seems rather unlikely that such an image would be derivative of another. The computer program is a separate copyright, and if chunks of code from other programs were used, then indeed that may not be able to be uploaded without additional permission. I don't see any reason at all to think there's any kind of an issue here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why this all creates such a fuzz. The physics behind the animation are computed with a program I am licensed to use, but of which I am not the copyright holder (and so cannot place it in the PD). There are many programs and methods around which can produce effectively the same physics data for the wave dynamics. Further, the software to create the images underlying the animation I programmed myself, and I used a series of open-source tools to create the animation from the images. So all the "creative work" in making the animation as it looks is my own.
Why not ask me first, instead of starting this section at the VP (without informing me) insinuating the animation is not my own work, and waving with money? -- Kraaiennest (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite funny, given the discussion above, that User:Doug youvan marks the check (File:Donation to the WMF.PNG) as "own work" and being the "author", without any further attributions. -- Kraaiennest (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Crow, Even funnier: I put up the first image without voiding the check and then had to ask for an emergency deletion! I don't know how to attribute the check, and now that it is in the mail to the WMF its even more complicated.
In reply to your other comments: Your Talk Page has a 3-week long discussion on this topic that ended the day before this discussion started when you said: "Hello Doug, good luck and fun with your project! Regards, Kraaiennest (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)".However, I will now give you credit for anything good that has come of our interactions, and I will take the full blame for everything else. I ask you to forgive me for my bad behavior, and let's move on. The parameters I need to re-do File:Deep water wave.gif will themselves be redone and all code will be published. If I am in gross error, you can point it out if you want.
I think the main point of the current discussion here on the Pump is how we should be depositing graphics (particularly animations) that are generated by customized programs of the type you and I use. The WMF has stomped on the toe of the giant textbook industry, and I am afraid some of what we are doing is going to come under attack. We just saw law change extending the copyright of certain materials that caused hundreds of images here on Commons to be threatened with deletion. I can see how the textbook industry could cry foul over over a 5+ million article encyclopedia with figures of questionable origin. You know that I have been through rough litigation on intellectual property. I have an idea of what kind of attack they would mount. I trust the GC / Foundation is aware of this potential problem and some new plan for graphics deposition is being made. What you have deposited would be some of the easiest to attack, while my contributions would be difficult to attack. You use a pseudonym, and I use a real name. You maintain code as secret, and I publish code. You have no contact information (email), but I do. We are relying on your reading of an undisclosed "open software" license, while I clearly use Mathematica and its well known license for nonprofit work. My resume is published, yours is not. Please be aware that I am not criticizing you, I am just pointing out our weak spots if an attempt is made to shut us down. Doug youvan (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes helpful at deletion discussion

  1. More eyes would be helpful at this deletion discussion.
  2. Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) has apparently canvassed offsite at Wikipedia Review.
  3. Subsequently one user has showed up to deliver inappropriate rhetoric, likening the uploader (myself) to: "lunatic fringe".
  4. Would appreciate additional input from the community at this deletion discussion, to hopefully help to tone down the rhetoric.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this commons deletion request and other like it are likely to be filled with rhetoric, as the guidelines at COM:SCOPE contain too many exceptions - you could drive a wagon and horses through this policy. Following on from the debate about what is and what is not within Commons' scope at Commons:Deletion requests/File:British lion and Union flag.jpg, my complaint is that there isn't any clear defintion as to what images fall within the scope of Commons or outside, whether they be education, political or otherwise. Current policy is too wishy-washy, and provides no clear guidance, so participating in debates is almost pointless, as you are sure to come up against another editors whose views are entirely opposed to yours, yet they can still point to the same policy for justification of their views as you can. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated category adds?

Is there a way to do this? The specific case is the new Category:Photographs by Doc Searls, and the files I'm trying to add this category to are here. 57 down, 213 to go, pretty tedious by hand! TIA, Tillman (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some batch task tools. I'm not sure about whether they are available to everyone (I'm an admin, & I have these for myself, but it's not something I know a lot about). Rillke (talk · contribs) maintains them, so he'd know the details. - Jmabel ! talk 05:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Use Help:Cat-a-lot. These tools are available to everyone; however IPs encounter problems due to API restrictions. -- RE rillke questions? 08:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Cat-a-lot did the trick. Cheers, Tillman (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be more careful with automated tools. You now added Category:Photographers from the United States to many images that just happen to be taken by someone from the US. Please revert. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my bad. Will do. Thanks, Tillman (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 9

I've been tagged

I just noticed that an edit I made was tagged with "manual deletion request by new user" as if that is something to be alarmed about. I have a couple questions about this:

  • Do I meet the definition of a new user here? I registered nearly two years ago and have made several hundred edits and uploads.
  • There was a speedy deletion tag on the image, I followed the directions on the tag itself for how to contest a deletion, and found that the software tried to get me to do it the automatic way anyway, and then I got tagged as if it was a problem. Shouldn't that be fixed? Isn't there some way to integrate that functionality into the template so it is more user friendly and doing what it says to do doesn't bring up all these bells and whistles?

Beeblebrox (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is something to be alarmed about. You did it wrong; you failed to list the DR properly on the deletion request page. It's not something to be ashamed about, but it's the reason the automated procedure was made and doesn't happen when it's used.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it didn't tag it as "manual deletion not done correctly" it tagged it as "manual deletion request by new user." Beeblebrox (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's because we don't have filters that can detect a manual deletion not done correctly. We apparently have filters that can detect a manual deletion request by a new user. I'm not sure we can always trust an old user to do it correctly, but manual deletion is frequently used in mass deletions, and flooding this message was probably not considered wise.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't know what you mean by "flooding this message." And if manually adding deletion notices is a bad thing (I readily admit I screwed it up, I got called into work in the middle and of doing it and didn't follow through with some of the steps) then why does the speedy deletion template tell you to do it? I may not be new, but I admit I don't edit here that often other than just making uploads, so I don't know all the jargon used here. As a matter of fact, the image in question has now been deleted with the rationale that it was "clearly DW." I don't know what that is supposed to mean either so it's not very helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this is simply a poorly titled tag we can fix it easily at MediaWiki:Tag-manual deletion request by new user. Unfortunately, I am not sure which abuse filter is using this tag because somebody left the description blank. I'd like to know what settings the abuse filter is using prior to making changes to the tag wording. Killiondude (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's this one: "Recommend the 'Nominate for Deletion' gadget to new users in an effort to reduce the incomplete nominations". Jafeluv (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncategorized drive?

Hi everyone, the the number of uncategorized files seems to have increased over the last couple of months. Who would be interested in doing a drive to lower this number? Multichill (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would help, but I do not have a bot.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some people trying to categorize old uncat files (including me), but it's a long way. There are thousands of images with unclear rights and sources, not to talk about all those pics and diagrams and portraits which only the uploader may know details about. I guess most of them could go to DR without bothering, but that would also mean a big overhead and admins work. And there are always some pearls in the trash that can be used in wp articles, worth to be sorted out manually. OK, you can go the fast way and do one category per image, like "Unidentified ..." or "Diagrams in ..." to get it categorized, but that's not really satisfying at all, because those categories should also be cleaned, not filled up. I really don't know what the best solution should look like, to get rid of those uncat images. I did about 10k old files in the last months, but with each stone you take away from the bottom, 10 new grow on top.--Funfood 08:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be already a great help if a bot could categorise them per subject or country. It is much more efficient to categorise in a limited context and people tend to be more motivated to discover images pertaining to their country or area of interest. Even categorisation per language would already help. Frankly, if I have to process tens of images described in Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese, Hebrew, ..., it takes much more time and one gives up quicker. --Foroa (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I try to find a few hours per week to assist in reducing the number of uncategorized files, but it's not easy. In many cases, you just have no clue as to what it's about... I don't know whether a bot would be helpful. Perhaps we should consider "weeding out" the collection of uncategorized images: images of poor technical quality, no description, not in use in any project and uploaded months ago if not years ago, could be deleted safely IMHO. Regards, MartinD (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List view as an optional alternative to the default thumbnail view of categories?

Would it be possible to have an alternative list view for categories? For instance, some categories consist almost entirely of audio files, so the thumbnails are all the same, and the file names are often truncated, omitting important distinguishing information (for an example, see Category:Audio files of classical music by Martha Goldstein). If there were a list view without thumbnails which did not truncate file names, I think it would be an improvement. (Actually, I think this might be a useful option for all image categories.) I am thinking of something like the different views available in Apple Macintosh Finder windows, where one can easily switch between viewing a file directory as icons or as names in a list. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could use the API :-) But I agree, would be great to have such an option for the user. There is only __NOGALLERY__ which affects all users. There is also a gadget for full file-names. -- RE rillke questions? 22:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see an editor added __NOGALLERY__ to the example I mentioned, but obviously that only solves the problem for this one particular category. And not many users will know about "gadgets". --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:WikiProject Romania

For those already contributing content related to Romania or who might be interested to, I created Commons:WikiProject Romania to better collaborate and organize the content. In addition to actual images, the project aims to help coordinate all aspects of Romania-related content on Commons, including categories, galleries, templates, licenses, Wiki Loves Monuments, transfers from Flickr and other sites, etc.. Any help or feedback would be appreciated. --Codrin.B (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with this. One thing to do is to correct the spellings for places. eg Category:Reșița not Category:Night in Reşiţa. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If you refer to the diacritics issue, i.e. Ș and Ț vs Ş and Ţ that indeed is a problem. It is addressed on ro Wiki but not on en Wiki and probably not on Commons. I will take this item and work with those involved on ro Wiki to figure out some guidelines and solutions. Thanks for pointing it out.--Codrin.B (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Commons uses English names first, then falls back to local names I recommend use of Ș and Ț for categories with Romanian names. None of Ș, Ț, Ş or Ţ appear in English, AFAIK. Just my 2p though. There was mention on en wiki of a bot for making the change over, but the author is taking a wikibreak. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commons categories are mostly in English, but place names are a possible exception. I think using English names for bigger towns but local names for smaller towns (or the like) creates confusion that is totally unnecessary. The search engine will find the categories regardless of diacritics. I think more Romanian speakers than English speakers will upload images from Romania, which means correct local spelling will result in fewer red category links having to be corrected. --LPfi (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 8

Ta-dam! Come help rename

Hallo all,
Following the blessed spree of category-cleanup sessions around Commons we started about a month ago, it would be great if you find the spare moment to come - as many of you as poss - to voice your support or dissupport for the rename proposals all made with much sense & vital care for the consistancy across Wiki's cats (meow!). The pages you may want to start with are, to date, Category talk:Victims of war (Proposed: War fatalities) and Category talk:Slavic people (Slavic people by country or Slavic people by region). So... See you there loud! ;) Orrlingtalk 13:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also:
Category talk:Cities and villages.
Category talk:Palestinian culture
Category talk:Culture of Palestine --Timeshifter (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed Siebot move initiated by User:Foroa. Category:Palestinian culture. Foroa moved categories via the Siebot bot without discussion first. See User talk:SieBot which points to User talk:Siebrand which points to the edit history of User:CommonsDelinker/commands. That edit history shows his initiation of the bot move. See this diff from there. It lists this:

{{Move cat|Palestinian culture|Culture of Palestine}}

See: Category talk:Palestinian culture. Foroa has not yet commented there on the move. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload tools? Toolserver?

I've noticed that the Flickr2Commons upload tool has been unusually unreliable and slow in the past several days. Magnus has posted a note there: "Some of my tools are currently not fully operational due to a broken database server (affecting commons and ru.wp, amongst others)."

Is there a guesstimate of when this problem might be fixed?

Bryan's upload tool is working, though it is also running pretty slow.

Is there a long-term problem with the Toolserver? Both upload tools run slow (or stop dead) pretty regularly. TIA, Tillman (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a report of intermittent hardware problems on the Toolserver on 8 February - it was impacting Steward election eligibility checker as well. The notices about that problem seem to have disappeared so I would presume the problem is now fixed QU TalkQu 22:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 10

COM:REVDEL

I've threatened it, and here it finally is:

Request for comments on making Commons:Revision deletion (COM:REVDEL) an official policy.

Rd232 (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using translatewiki

Some template like {{Information}} and {{Creator}} rely on translatewiki for internationalization. This allows to get many translations, but the process is not well documented. It would be convenient if we could add new messages there (for instance for the new "authority control" paramater of {{Creator}}) but I dont know how to do it. So two questions:

  1. Who can request translations on interwiki ?
  2. Could we have some documentation about the process on Commons ?--Zolo (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
+1 - this would be very helpful. COM:LOC would be the place to either have this info, or have a link to it (if it's somewhere else). Rd232 (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol keep vote.svg Agree We need some documentation of how to introduce new translatewiki parameters and how to make them work on Commons. To my knowledge at the moment only User:Multichill knows the process. --Jarekt (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Siebrand or User:Raymond also know how-to or whether-to but are very busy as well. But do not expect a message being created just for Commons. -- RE rillke questions? 13:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Translatewiki messages like those used {{Information}}, {{Acreator}}, and I think some license templates have been translate-wikied for Commons, or at least are primarily used on Commons. --Zolo (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Downloading tile sets for very high resolution files

A few dozen of my largest uploads (e.g. File:In the Conservatory.jpg) had to be downscaled in order to upload at Commons, due to the 100 MB limit and due to the fact that the largest size is so huge that it can only be represented (or usefully manipulated) as a set of JPEG tiles, rather than a single image. I'd like to distribute the tile sets too, but there's no way to do that through Commons, so I've set up a seedbox and I'm linking the files on Commons to it using the new template {{Tile set download}}. Here's an example: Template:Tile set download I'm also listing them at Commons:Very high-resolution file downloads. I realise this is less than ideal, but don't see an alternative - I'd appreciate any feedback on this approach. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Can you add some documentation please? The template says "Special software is needed to view and process images stored in this form." and implies more info at Commons:Very high-resolution file downloads - but there's none to be found there. And: I'm unconvinced about relying on an external website in this way. Fine as proof of concept, but it's surely not a long-term solution. Rd232 (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer not to rely on an external website (or pay for it) - what I'd really like is to persuade WMF to host it. I hope if it's established as a useful feature that people use, they'll consider taking them on. I'll add some documentation, but unfortunately the software to process images stored in this form is currently, well, nonexistent. The metadata file info.xml is a (very simple) nonstandard XML format used by Google. I'll paste my notes from README.txt - the most I can say about it is "I have a fairly good idea how it could be done," and I have a prototype of a viewer but it's not ready. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm! I see, thanks. Well I'll have a look in bugzilla tomorrow if there's any existing bugs that are relevant. Clearly this "very high resolution" stuff does fit within the Commons scheme of things; it's just a question of when the 100MB limit will be lifted, which depends on ... something techy (I forget what). Rd232 (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even if there were no upload limit, Commons still wouldn't permit upload of ZIP files (for security reasons). So I'd either need some kind of special exemption, or the server would have to open up the ZIP and see that it only contains JPG and XML files. Additionally, it can be quite challenging for people with unreliable connections to download multi-gigabyte files over HTTP, which is why I'm setting up the BitTorrent option (with web seeding). Dcoetzee (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the problem that a JPEG image can't be larger than 65535 x 65535. --Carnildo (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: all 27 of the very high res images currently in my possession are now linked from Commons:Very high-resolution file downloads and have {{Tile set download}} tags. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Office hours on the new "Legal and Community Advocacy" department

Hi, guys. Some of you may already know that the WMF is carving out a new department, promoting User:Philippe (WMF) to Director of Community Advocacy working under General Counsel Geoff Brigham. As community liaison, answering to Philippe, I'm tagging along as well. :) As per meta:Legal and Community Advocacy/LCA Announcement, "This new alignment will carry forward the Foundation’s goals of advocating for the community in new ways, ranging from fighting for content online, to facilitating community discussions about critical WMF initiatives that affect the community, to better supporting Wikimedia administrators and functionaries, to providing information about legislative initiatives worldwide that impact online content and censorship."

I understand that there is some confusion about what the department is meant to do, and I wanted to be sure that as many people as possible know that office hours are being held today in about 2 hours on IRC to discuss things. (See meta:IRC office hours if you need to know more about how to participate in that. If you can't participate in it, a transcript will be posted after.) I'd really hope to see good turn out there, because I'm honestly pretty excited about the possibilities. Being still an active editor (at least on weekends!), I'm a shameless cheerleader for community, and I'd love to see high participation in making this department function well to serve community needs. :) Even if you can't participate in the office hours, there are plenty of ways you can help shape this department at its ground level. Please read meta:Legal and Community Advocacy/LCA Announcement and play a part! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Watermark policy

The Commons policy on watermarks (specifically attribution watermarks) is weak, ambiguous and troublesome. The basic problem is this: an uploader puts a visible credit in the image figuring that's his right of attribution. This however conflicts with the watermark template and Commons:EXIF which says in effect that a visible watermark in the image is "discouraged" and a non-watermarked image should be uploaded in its place. This sets up a conflict between an editor removing the watermark and the original uploader attempting to keep it in. Here is a recent example of such a conflict.

There is a proposed Watermarks policy that attempts to address this issue (along with assorted other topics). While the need for some of it is debatable, the following paragraph would go a long way towards putting the attribution issue to rest...

Authors who are concerned about attribution will often be alarmed when visible watermarks are removed from their images. In the past, some of them have claimed that Creative Commons licenses forbid the removal of these watermarks, since they are a form of attribution. The community has explicitly rejected this interpretation of the license, adopting instead the interpretation that attribution statements can and should be re-located to the image description page and/or image metadata while remaining in compliance with the license. See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:CC-Dont-Remove Watermark.

I would like to add the above statement to Commons:EXIF#Watermark after the bulleted paragraph that begins "Personal tags impede..." We should have a clear guideline that watermarks are an unaccepted form of attribution and may be removed. Use of ambiguous terms like "discouraged" should be avoided.

Opinions? Objections? Jbarta (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that paragraph so of course I'd agree with making it more prominent. :-) I think the deletion request already expresses a consensus on the issue. On the other hand, I would be very careful not to imply that "if your image is watermarked, we will not accept it." Rather the message should be "if you upload a file with a visible watermark, it will be removed - so don't bother." Dcoetzee (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I changed the wording of your paragraph slightly. And I agree with your comment except for "so don't bother". That's a little harsh (even for me). While I'm interested in discouraging the upload of watermarked images, I'm MORE concerned with being able to remove them and having firm ground to stand on while doing so. Jbarta (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Commons:Watermarks nor Commons:EXIF look like policy or guideline pages (despite the "draft policy" tag on Commons:Watermarks). I suggest there must be some other policy that could clarify this watermark issue in a paragraph like this, and those pages left as explanatory/info/help pages. Rd232 (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that as well. This is how I arrived at my proposed insertion point — A section of official guidelines is Commons:Image guidelines. At the bottom of that page it says "See Commons:EXIF for EXIF metadata guidelines." I would assume that too is part of Commons official guidelines. It's on that page that I would like to add the proposed paragraph. Is that not an official guideline and suitable insertion point? Jbarta (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, thanks for the explanation. I've fixed that "see also" - COM:EXIF is just a help page, and I think has never been intended to be more than that. It was just a loose usage of "guideline" by the person who added the see also. So we have to try again to find a policy/guideline to put this paragraph. Rd232 (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jbarta -- The word "discouraged" was used because while watermarks can freely be removed, there's no requirement that they be removed... AnonMoos (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 11

Global file usage not working

Global file usage is not working for some files, for example: File:Etobicoke.ogg is linked in w:en:Etobicoke and w:en:Etobicoke Creek but [3] reports "File:Etobicoke.ogg is not used on other wikis." I wonder whether it's stopped working recently, because it works for most .ogg files linked by the IPAc-en template, for example File:En-us-Alabama.ogg ? -84user (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC) File:Mississauga.ogg is another example, uploaded this year, usage in w:en:Mississauga not shown on Commons. -84user (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has always been like this. File:En-us-Alabama.ogg is linked with en:Template:IPA-en which is different from en:Template:IPAc-en. In IPA-en a link like
[[:Media:En-us-Alabama.ogg]] (Media:En-us-Alabama.ogg)
is created, which is counted as file usage. But IPAc-en creates links like
[[:File:Etobicoke.ogg]] (File:Etobicoke.ogg),
which is counted as ordinary wiki links (see en:Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Etobicoke.ogg), and another link like
[[Image:Speakerlink.svg|11px|link={{filepath:Etobicoke.ogg}}]] (Speakerlink.svg)
which counts as external links (see en:Special:Linksearch/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Etobicoke.ogg). /Ö 15:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, they both look like IPAC-en to me: Alabama has this code: {{IPAc-en|audio=en-us-Alabama.ogg|ˌ|æ|l|ə|ˈ|b|æ|m|ə}} ; Etobicoke has this: {{IPAc-en|audio=etobicoke.ogg|ɛ|ˈ|t|oʊ|b|ɨ|k|oʊ}} . What am I missing? I made a test post at w:en:Template talk:IPAc-en#Global file usage and IPAC-en but the usage for etobicoke.ogg is still showing nothing. -84user (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been noticing severe delays in the update of global useage, sometimes in hours... maybe it's just that. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 17:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But global usage of File:En-us-Alabama.ogg does not include en:Alabama or the test post you made, only en:Outline of Alabama and other pages where other templates than IPAc-en are used. /Ö 18:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I request an image be cropped?

This image specifically. Thanks.--Metallurgist (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't, you just do it yourself :) If it's a substantial crop, better upload it under a new name, but if you just crop a little bit (to remove a border for instance) without significantly altering the composition, you can upload it over the existing image. Prof. Professorson (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With Cropbot it should be really easy to do it yourself. -- RE rillke questions? 11:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is this person doing?

Fly01025 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg

Does anybody know what this guy is doing? Are they taking air samples? Shooting at whales? Spying on Irak? Thanks for the help. Amada44  talk to me 18:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The direct NOAA source is here, where they just say "Flying With NOAA Collection". The NOAA operates weather planes, so I imagine it has something to do with that type of specialized equipment, but beyond that I don't know. Hm, from this page that would be from one of their WP-3D Orion weather research planes. Not sure which instruments though. By this page, that might be the dropsonde deployment mechanism, but not sure. The photo at the very bottom of this page does show that the item on the right side of this photograph is the dropsonde deployment mechanism, but not necessarily the one showing being used in this photo -- that may be something different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh -- this image shows that same bit of equipment being used to deploy an "air-launched probe". I think that was during operations after the Deepwater Horizon thing to determine where ocean currents might push the oil. So, that may be for probes meant to relay water conditions. Some info on NOAA probes is here; they mention several different types and no clue what this one is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
good work! Tanks allot! Thats definitely it. Now there is one more question remaining: which cat should those pics go to? :) Amada44  talk to me 19:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is similar: He is releasing a probe. On the other photos on flickr you see a NALC (Navy. Ammunitions Logistics Code) 8W59, thats for shallow probes. Produced by Sippican Ocean Systems Inc. Probe is released from the aircraft, drop 300-1000 m to the water surface and transmit data when sinking to the ocean ground. See AXBT Observations or en:Expendable bathythermograph. --Martin H. (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Presumably the thing in this photo is the same item, just taken out of its case. The cases in the other photos say "sonobuoy" on them, so that is probably what this is. Unless a sonobuoy is just part of the setup. So... perhaps add Category:Sonobuoys, Category:Oceanographical instruments, and Category:WP-3 Hurricane Hunter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Copyright for Government Documents

Can anyone on advise on this image File:Dux Russian ID.jpg please? It was tagged as {{CC-zero}} but the authorship was given as "Russian government" and it's a scan of an identity card from 1989. I can't believe it should be licensed cc-zero, but I'm not sure from the information in Commons:Licensing what is appropriate for Russian stuff of this era... Thanks QU TalkQu 20:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is {{PD-RU-exempt}}. Have added it to the file page. russavia (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you! QU TalkQu 21:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help please

Hi, I have cerently uploaded following files. I used the classification Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh How ever all files are showing as unclassified. Can someone please help me to classify?

Not sure what you did wrong, but I have now categorised all of them. However, I think that you should read COM:FOP#India and COM:DW. For example, photos of other photos don't seem to be allowed. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 12

PD-USGov-NOAA?

www.nws.noaa.gov >Global Regional Climate Maps > Europe, are theese {{PD-USGov-NOAA}}? W!B: (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be. LX (talk, contribs) 13:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ah, thanks, I had problems understanding the Disclaimer, I uploaded one to File:NWS-NOAA Europe Temperature Anomaly JAN 29 - FEB 4, 2012.gif tell me if I did somthing wrong
maybe somebody here knows, how to get previous week's map Jan 21 to 28 from NOAA W!B: (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else experiencing upload problems today?

Hello,

When using the upload wizard today, I'm getting either "The server did not respond within the expected time.", "http error" or "unknown error". When the upload does occasionally go through, I'm getting a message like "still checking the image for uniqueness" and it just hangs.

Anyone else seeing similar problems? Everthing was OK for me yesterday and also earlier today. This just started happening in the last 10 minutes or so. Thanks for any possible info. Rept0n1x (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have similar problem. Both Commonist and the upload wizard fails. Haros (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Now I know it's not just me then. Best regards Rept0n1x (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I noticed in "Latest Files" that images are still being uploaded to commons. I just managed to upload an image myself, using the conventional "upload form" rather than the wizard. Although it was very slow to upload and also I'm finding HotCat.js to be unresponsive with "504 gateway timeout" errors. So I think something is still not right. I will leave it for now, and check the site again sometime later. Rept0n1x (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried it again and the upload wizard is working fine for me now. Although, I'm finding that HotCat remains slow and unresponsive for the time being. Rept0n1x (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everything seems OK again for me now, including HotCat. Rept0n1x (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki 1.19

(Apologies if this message isn't in your language.) The Wikimedia Foundation is planning to upgrade MediaWiki (the software powering this wiki) to its latest version this month. You can help to test it before it is enabled, to avoid disruption and breakage. More information is available in the full announcement. Thank you for your understanding.

Guillaume Paumier, via the Global message delivery system (wrong page? You can fix it.). 14:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File not in its categories =

This file File:CTR census machine.JPG is in two categories, Category:Keypunch machines Category:Hollerith census machine per its file page, but when I click on the categories themselves, it does not appear in either. Any ideas what is going on?--agr (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I succeeded in moving it to the categories page. But there is no source of the image, so I think it has to go to DR.--Funfood 23:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uploader gave source as own, so everything seems OK now. --Funfood 00:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing this file, but I'm more concerned about how this happened and whether there other files that whose category tags are not being recognized. --agr (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added the description-header-tag and removed an empty line below the categories, that did the trick - to prove if there are more files afflicted with this issue I think there has to be set up a bot that searches files for similar errors in their description.--Funfood 15:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename file?

Made a dumb typo when uploading File:Daniel Jarple.jpg....it should be Daniel Harple.jpg. Can I mod the file name without re-uploading? Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to ask that it be renamed. Commons:File renaming -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done - renamed by User:Materialscientist. Rd232 (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 13

Category:21st-century photographers from Russia

Can the category Category:21st-century photographers from Russia include the category with photos made by XXI-century photographer from Russian town? The answer is not obvious, because User:A.Savin removes it from such a category explaining as «not notable». See the edit [4]. Please help me to clear the question and to understand, if I need to prove myself being a photographer with some governmental license or what WikiCommons need for this. Thanks.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, a category like this would be for someone famous as a photographer. If this is just a normal contributor to the Commons, you could set up something in Category:Hidden categories and Category:User categories. An example of someone doing this is Category:Uploads by User:NatiSythen. - Jmabel ! talk 06:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can I distinguish if a photographer is famous or not? By the samples I cannot decide.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much, go by Wikipedia notability standards. If they don't merit a Wikipedia article, they probably don't merit a category as a photographer. You can always create something like I suggested, and if later it becomes clear that the person is more famous than we thought, we can fix the matter by fixing that category. - 15:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Public speeches in the UK

Please could somebody have a look at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sir_Christopher_Bullock's_Memorial_Service_Address.pdf. I would like to keep the file, because it is used as a source in an enwp article. Question is about the copyright law for public held speeches at political/military occasions.--Funfood 10:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help from an admin

I moved a lot of files from category:XVIIIème siècle to Category:17th-century architecture in France but actually the correct category is Category:18th-century architecture in France. Sorry. Thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 11:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So why do you need help from an admin? You can move the files you've mistakenly placed in Category:17th-century architecture to Category:18th-century architecture in France, it doesn't require admin rights. Prof. Professorson (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks. I was asking for a massive undo. I think admins can do it with one click--Pierpao.lo (listening) 21:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I didn't know that was possible, sorry. Prof. Professorson (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'm an admin, and I have no idea how I'd identify which to revert. But you might make this request at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Or rillke (talk · contribs) my know something, he's built some pretty cool tools for batch edits. - Jmabel ! talk 22:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified spiders

Hello, Could you please help identify these beasts? There are huge: 20 to 25 cm long! I added geocoding. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try to contact User:Mhohner. Maybe he can help you. --Pristurus (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is Nephila pilipes, see also w:en:Nephila pilipes. Lupo 10:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, N. maculata is a synonym for N. pilipes. Lupo 14:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oui, merci. J'ai corrigé. Yann (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friesian Stallion

A Wikipedia website (File:Friesian Stallion.jpg) has a picture of a trotting Friesian stallion. How can I find the name of this particular horse and any other specific information; e.g., statistics, location, etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.128.228.91 (talk • contribs)

Really, you can't, other than if you can track down the photographer and ask her. But there's a fair chance that the owner of the horse would prefer not to tell an anonymous stranger where to find his horse. - Jmabel ! talk 22:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I don't know why it is so funny to me that someone is requesting personal info on a horse, but it is. I'm not posting anything here but Google-stalking should give you all the info you need. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 22:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apology to the community

Recently I've come to realize that some uploads I'd added relating to the donkey punch phenomenon were not directly related and therefore not applicable to the topic or in scope. I'm glad the community voiced its opinion at related deletion discussions with regard to these images, and I've taken that feedback onboard and deleted them as self-requested by uploader (myself). I acknowledge the concerns of the community, and I thank you for the civil and polite way in which these concerns were brought to my attention by the majority of those that raised them.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 14

Create a wiki for academic purposes.

I am tired of not being able to use wikipedia for school work. I suggest that wikipedia opens up a branch that can only be edited by employees. This information is collected from the employees from regular wikipedia and then the correct info is posted onto "academicwikipedia.org" which would allow people to use as a reliable source. This is just an idea, but i think it could be very successful for wikipedia if done properly.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.38.207.154 (talk • contribs)
  • Wikimedia is short on funds as it is, and also rather short on people. And if you would open up this position to volunteers then chances are your school would still disallow the use of the material from there as they'd not see it as 'creadible' enough. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 08:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 108.38.207.154 This is not quite the right place for your suggestion (Commons is just a repository for media used by other wikimedia projects). But may I suggest that the problem is not the accuracy or otherwise of an encyclopedia, but how you use it. If you want to cut-and-paste information from an encyclodedia into your project then you get caught out by errors and omissions (even classics like Britanica have those). You can use an encyclopedia as a place to start, somewhere to get an overview, then follow up the references (that point to where the information came from). If those sources look good you can quote those sources directly in your work. If there are no sources for the information, then it may be suspect, time to look elsewhere. If there are sources listed, check them out and evaluate whether they are primary/authorative sources - or does it look like they've taken their information from elsewhere. --Tony Wills (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That could be done as an external project, though whether it would succeed is anyone's guess; it sounds somewhat similar to the initial concept behind en:Citizendium. cmadler (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand correctly the proposal is to create a team of professional experts whose job is to maintain an error-proof academic wikipedia, so that lazy students can copy and paste even more confortably from their sofas. Wow! I fully agree with Tony Wills (who is much more mellow than me) in that it is the student's responsability to evaluate the credibility of the sources. Wow again! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I think you're jumping on the kid way too hard. Why do you think he simply wants to copy? I've heard of schools where a citation to Wikipedia earns an automatic F on a paper. 108.38.207.154 I don't think a professionally edited encyclopedia is going to come out of Wikipedia, but there are a lot of people concerned with quality. You could try asking about the credibility/reliability issue on the Wikipedia Village Pump (different from this page, which is for commons); you may get some useful answers.Dankarl (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I was harsh in the way I expressed myself but not in the message I wanted to pass. Wikipedia should be the beginning of an academic research, not its end. And I'm not assuming that 108.38.207.154 is a kid. On the contrary he/she is most probably a college student giving the first steps in serious research. And the worst message that we can transmit to a college student is that there is some kind of warehouse where error-proof scientific information is waiting for us. That will help killing their skepticism and growing their laziness. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I suggest you try Wikiversity. It is citable and contains original research as well as uses primary sources. Marshallsumter (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can actually use Wikipedia for school work, just not in the way youu expect. Text from Wikipedia articles are free to use, but your school may not accept Wikipedia as a reliable source. That's why most articles have citations for all important facts with links to their original sources. Articles that does not have citations are not to be considered trustworthy and should not be used for academic work. /Esquilo (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania trainstation

I discovered two pictures (File:Bethunionstation2010.JPG, File:Bethlehem PA 3-11-78.jpg) with messy year categories. I removed these by the first picture. In the en:Bethlehem, Pennsylvania article I cannot discover any railway history. I guess that the station was closed and that the uploader didnt know the date.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong display of thumb format

Could someone kindly check what is wrong with this file File:Statue 1 GM Morlaiter Chiesa dei Gesuati Venice.jpg. It does not use the thumb format of the last uploaded image... Thanks--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a transient caching problem -- such caching difficulties can occur at a number of locations (on the Wikimedia server, in your local computer's browser, or somewhere between)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :-) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greek railways in 1979

I have loaded File:Metro Athene 1979.jpg and File:Station Athene 1979.jpg and I have some questions: 1) wich metro station? 2) What kind of railcar is this? I am not even certain if it is metergauge or normal gauge, as at this time both where active at the station. Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a file

Could someone show me how to delete a file? Thank You! --Nknudsen (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only administrators have the rigths to delete a file. This happens after a delete procedure, after community discussion. You can nominate a file for deletion by placing the {{delete}} tag. Read the instructions that you see by placing the tag. (incomplete request) Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, only administrators can delete files. You can request deletion if you think the file meets the criteria for speedy deletion or one of the reasons for deletion listed in our deletion policy. How you request deletion depends on the reason for your request, and the details are described on those pages. LX (talk, contribs) 20:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename move change thingy - not sure where to request

File:Wide_Periodic_Table.svg and File:-TableImage.svg are duplicates of each other, and the former is clearly the better named, but has much less usage. I'm not sure where (or exactly what) to request. Preferably, the usage of TableImage would be changed by a bot to Wide_PT and then deleted, but I'm not sure how to proceed. Thanks! NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 16:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can use template:duplicate to tag the file to delete.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(via edit conflict) To tag a file for replacement by an exact duplicate (or higher resolution duplicate) use {{Duplicate}}. In general, to replace global uses of an image with a better image, use User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. - Jmabel ! talk 16:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 18:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a bot that could help?

I'm wondering if there's a bot that can search out file usage, but instead of deleting the reference (like CommonsDelinker), it simply changes it to a new filename, useful for vector versions of files (and for updating names of SVGs). If so, assuming this would be an admin privilege, are there any admins willing to perform this action regularly for the Graphics Lab? It'd be a great help if this was semi-automated. NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 16:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing .png/.jpg/.gif files to .svg is rather controversial and should not be automated. Technically the replace could do this, but we disabled this on purpose. Multichill (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where the image is a faithful recreation of a raster, or even a superior version of a simple diagram, most uploaders (like myself) routinely make the changes manually. I understand that with something like this, where the vector is highly simplified and stylised, a routine bot change would be controversial. However, with a little discretion, I don't see why using a bot would be a problem. NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 17:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bots don't do it to avoid getting blamed in the event of a dispute. I think the right solution is an automatic or semiautomatic tool that a user can run under their own global account that does the same thing. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be even more helpful if it were possible to know all the independent wikis which use any given file, so that if a file is renamed or deleted then a message can be sent to that wiki or a bot triggered. You could not expect an independent wiki to put a note on every file it uses (there would be many millions) but if Commons held a list of frequent external users, on which list a wiki could lodge its contact details, then it might be possible to detect a listed wiki's use of any Commons file as we do WP usage and send a message. I do not know the technical requirements to have such a system or if it is at all possible. Hogweard (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Files on Commons already list the global usage, but whether a bot could parse that, I don't know. Either way, some kind of tool would be excellent. NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 15:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Commons:Transition to SVG#Bots--Sadly, there aren't any bots that do this job. Either make one bot or remove that section from Commons:Transition to SVG#Bots.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Files on Commons list any usage in the WikiMedia family, but that is not quite "universal"; Commons cannot know where a file is used elsewhere, on an independent wiki. Any wiki with an up to date copy of MediaWiki (or the right extension) can import a Commons file: on Wikishire, for example, every image is a Commons file and direct uploads are blocked. More wikis should be encouraged to do that, to encourage users to build Commons up for everyone.
It is a one-way traffic, so there is no way for Commons to spot use by an independent wiki, unless there were some "come and look here" list. Hogweard (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I wasn't aware of that. Could we not follow a similar procedure to renaming or file moving? *Is* there a similar procedure? NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 17:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update files

How can you update files? With the old update procedures this was no problem: you uploaded the same file, got an error that the file already exist and then you instruct the procedure to ignore the warning. The system has now no problem with to files under the same name: File:Roma Fiuggi hillside.jpg Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my mistake: File:Roma Fuiggi hillside.jpg I have asked for a rename. The new scan is sufficiently different that both pictures can be used. The scan was with a different method. (Colour correction differential with low and high illumination)Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
S.t, is there still an open question here? - Jmabel ! talk 15:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the issue is resolved. I should apply te same renames as applied to wikipedia to my PC files. When a rename happened on wikipedia I inadvertantly "updated" the file with the old name and created a new file. Other than that we could discus ways to scan discoloured old slides. It is not a simple colour correction. Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 01:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request: delete a category on a protected image

This image (NSFW) seems inappropriate for Category:Nails, which it doesn't really fit (the nails are even out of focus). Having the image not listed there would probably go a long way from quelling future controversies about this image (3 deletion requests since 2008), since people viewing any of the other categories are less likely to take offense to this specific image. I'd have deleted the category myself, but the image is protected. If an admin could delete the Nails category on my behalf, that'd be great. (If this is the wrong place to ask, I'd appreciate a pointer to the right place.) --91.97.106.217 23:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that NSFW or not should determine categories, but the point with the image doesn't seem to be the nails, so I think that it is misleading to categorise it as "nails". --Stefan4 (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done by Jmabel. Btw, we also have an administrators' noticeboard for issues which require admin assistance. Jafeluv (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 01:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs by topic

This should be a central metacategory for about a half of Commons, but we see it severely underused. Go to bind various topical photographs’ categories to the centre, folks! Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, I agree, that's a great idea! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please use restraint when creating subcategories in this part of the category tree. As mentioned in Category:Photographs, this should be primarily be used for special kinds of photographs (such as aerial photographs). A very large portion of the files on Commons are photographs, and adding one more layer below every topic category in the category tree would usually leave an empty parent category without really making it any easier to find content. LX (talk, contribs) 21:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what this proposal is about. When we open the main page we see the whole hierarchical system of categories under 'Content'. For example, for finding a certain species of animal we start at Nature, go to Animalia, etc.. Why create a parallel system? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not parallel, it's orthogonal, because our categorization is not a simple hierarchy but a matrix. Sorting by what is depicted is one way to categorize, but not the only; it's equally legitimate to sort by medium (photograph, drawing, etc.). This metacategory is part of the intersection of these distinct categorization techniques. cmadler (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Intersecting but hardly orthogonal. As soon as you put "by topic" in you wind up in most cases paralleling the existing net. Dankarl (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. How much better if the system could could allow searching or filtering, to avoid creating these sorts of duplicatory issues... Do we really want to duplicate the entire topic structure for Photographs, Paintings, Drawings, Videos, Sounds, etc...? Rd232 (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, it would be nice if CatScan worked for Commons. cmadler (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, it does. Jean-Fred (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I got an error when I tried to use it, and then I noticed that, right at the top, it says, Due to database server issues, some projects (Commons, ru.wikipedia, and others) don not work at the moment. How do you make it work for Commons? cmadler (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That i a temporary error that occures from time to time for all Wikimedia projects. Just wait until the database lock is released. It usually doesn't take more than a few minutes. /Esquilo (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, there was a bigger issue this time (corrupted database or something), so the tool was temporarily unusable (hence the warning). To use it, just put "commons" as the language and "wikimedia" as the project, like in this example. Jean-Fred (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable, but to enjoy any such "filtering" each image must have some tag, identifying its nature. What set of tags to use? Photographs and drawings are not all we have. There are also screenshots, scans, computer generated landscapes, and also various retouched and montaged images. Some heavily retouched images look like technical drawings, but other look like photographs. There are drawings, which technically are scans, and there are scanned analogue photographs. It is not easy to make a good classification of millions of pictures. Categories have an advantage that the technology is already in use. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

View the code of a Template

Hi there, i had the Template:Talkback on my talkpage and i like the small photo with the rolled document. So i wanted to know which image that this. I tried to click on it to come to the commons page of the photo as it works usually. But I had to learn that this doesn't work in the case of a template. So i went to the the Template:Talkback page to view the code. But here I neather could see the code/source. I'm in the Matrix, help, help....:) How can I see the "real" code of the template with the name of the inserted image?? Thanks a lot!! --W like wiki (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is File:Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg. You can just let display the image in your browser (right click) then you should be able to extract the image name from the URL.--Funfood 12:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because of autotranslation many templates in Commons have a separate layout section, in this case Template:Talkback/layout where the actual layout code is. MKFI (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Funfood, MKFI, thanks a lot for your answers!!! Especially the layout section is what I was looking for. --W like wiki (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template Natural earth?

What about to create a template for Natural Earth based maps (using this logo)?--Carnby (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a problem finding an overview of the available maps. It looks as mainly US focused.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem right to me. The project might be American but the maps available cover all the world (check [5])--Carnby (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It must be me, I seem to have problems getting to use the website. I do have a problem getting a listing of the maps in a area. There doesnt seem de to be search function. For example south Belgium. How do I get there on the website? Why not zoom in to a particular area? Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with adding description in another (4th) language

Concerning: File:Pseudorhabdosynochus_morrhua.jpg. Could somebody explain to me why I cannot add a fourth language to the description of a file? The page is good with three languages (English, French, Italian). I uploaded with two languages and then added later the third (by editing the code) without problem. But when I add a fourth language (Czech) then only English is visible! Is that a bug or did I miss something? I tried several times with minor changes but the 'show preview' button always shows only English. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanloujustine (talk • contribs) 18:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's normal and MediaWiki:Multilingual description.js is responsible for this. The user can pick a language from the select directly below the image. The default language is determined by the script from your settings or your browser so a Czech user would see only Czech. This behavior prevents cluttering the file page and presents the relevant information to the user. See also: {{Mld}} (javascript solution), {{Langswitch}} (server side switch of languages). -- RE rillke questions? 18:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I understand now. Finally I discovered that Firefox shows me only the English text while Google allows me to see all the five versions. However, both are set to fr-fr, I suppose.Jeanloujustine (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. The script also saves what you choose last in a cookie. If you want to see all, simply select "show all" in the language-select directly below the image. -- RE rillke questions? 14:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FeaturedFeeds redux

As a follow-up to Commons:Village pump/Archive/2012/01#mw:Extension:FeaturedFeeds/WMF deployment#Notes to site administrators, we've finally deployed updates to FeaturedFeeds that solved its problems on Commons, and I've fixed POTD and created a MOTD feed. If your community wants these links on sidebar (main page only), you can create MediaWiki:Ffeed-enable-sidebar-links with any non-default text to activate this feature. Max Semenik (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. But for some reason when language=de for example (anything other than en), we get edit links for both de and en. I don't think we should have edit links in the feed, and I don't see why en description should be linked if the specified language is available. Rd232 (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's how those templates work - I've tweaked them[6][7] not to show edit links if requested. If someone thinks that the "Problems playing the file?" link in MOTD feeds is also inappropriate, they can add |nohelp=1 here. Max Semenik (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work. In alterate languages the dates is not i18n (eg in French "Image du jour de Wikimedia Commons pour le 8 February"), any way to fix this ? Jean-Fred (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, fixed. Will take effect when MediaWiki 1.19 will be deployed on Commons, i.e. on 21st or 22nd of February. Max Semenik (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Whether we want the links in the sidebar, I'm not sure - it's already quite crowded. But we definitely want to update Commons:Feeds and the RSS links from COM:POTD and COM:MOTD. The existing Toolserver RSS tool allows different sizes of images; if the Extension doesn't, we'll need to provide both options. Any volunteers to do the update? :) Rd232 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The licence for the picture file:MADBANK.png doesn't seem to be appropriate. Is there anybody that has knowledges in malagasy laws and is able to know what to do ? Thx. Best --Abaddon1337 (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. There's nothing that would obviously suggest that Malagasy banknotes are free, so I've sent it to Commons:Deletion requests/File:MADBANK.png. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to SVG tags now template loop error?

IDK what happened, but now all the files with a convert to SVG tag are showing the tag as a template look error, as you can see on File:Missouri Public Service Commission Seal.jpg. Fry1989 eh? 23:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it. Template:Convert to SVG/en got destroyed, probably by a confused editor. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There we go! Fry1989 eh? 23:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 17

Category:Freedom of speech - Crosswiki Sister Link project coordination

Commons Village pump/Archive/2012/02 on sister projects:
Wikipedia Wikipedia

en:  
See more at interwikilinks (?)

Wikinews
Wikinews

en:  fa:  

Wikiquote
Wikiquote

en:  da:  et:  es:  fr:  nn:  pl:  ru:  sv:  uk:  

WiktionaryWiktionaryWiktionary
Wiktionary

en:  de:  et:  fr:  pl:  fi:  ta:  

Wikisource
Wikisource

en:  

Wikibooks
Wikibooks

en:  

Wikiversity
Wikiversity

en:  


  • I've added the above Sister Links template to Category:Freedom of speech, as a way of coordinating Crosswiki sister Wikimedia projects together along the topic. If anyone knows of any other Sister Wiki site links in other languages, and/or other websites, that aren't yet included, please feel free to suggest them at Category talk:Freedom of speech.
  • I'd be most appreciated to anyone interested in this topic who'd like to help out!

Thanks for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i don't quite follow what this is. Is it just a collection of all the articles on Freedom of Speech? VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 13:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Radbod Commandeur

Dead in 1955. Can we maintain? Thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 16:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong. It looks like a clear example of COM:FOP#Israel: the interior of the building seems to be a public place. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FOP:noticed. We must use some kind of template? Thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 16:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that they all have {{FoP-Israel}} now. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 18:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New files in a category

Is there any way to browse new files in category:X? Special:RecentChangesLinked/ doesn't show new files... 19:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.27.221.71 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

tools:~magnus/commcomm/index.html seems to be down. I tell you another way if you login ;-) -- RE rillke questions? 19:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an account here. Tell me if it's not a secret. 83.27.221.71 20:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you activated SUL? If not, try to see if you can get your account here by just going to Special:MergeAccount and entering your username and password. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 18

Number of unused images on commons/in a category

Is there a tool around to find out how many unused images (that is, that do not appear in any wiki) are there on commons or in a certain category?--Strainu (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Only usage on Wikimedia wikis is logged, so it is impossible to prove that an image is unused. Proving that an image is used is sometimes possible, though. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To review the usage of single categories in Wikimedia wikis you can use glamorous: example (you need to be lucky to have a working toolserver...). --Saibo (Δ) 01:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WW2 US government funded cartoons

Are cartoons such as this[8] in the public domain? The animation studios were hired by the US government to make them, yet on this page[9], a still is included only as fair use. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Works made by the US government are in the public domain. I think that someone pointed out that these films are made for the US government and that the situation may be different (notice the different preposition). See also COM:VPC#Disney characters deletion requests. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is whether the person making these became an employee of the government or not. If there was some "propaganda officer" position, then they would be in public domain, however, if it was a contract to create these or if they were created and then bought, then the government will have copyright of them. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 13:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The specific cartoon you point to clearly says COPYRIGHT MCMXLII / WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS / ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 25 seconds into the movie. However, I would be stunned if there was a copyright renewal on these.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The license on Archive.org says PD, not sure what it's based on. FunkMonk (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably PD due to lack of renewal; can't be anything else really. Contract situation are case-by-case; some are effectively works of hire, but many are not (doubt this would be). However, if the video contains any of Disney's copyrighted characters, those frames or clips would generally be considered derivative works, so those should not be uploaded here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Education for Death contains no characters from any earlier films. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that may be OK then. I did not find a renewal in the online pages for 1970 and 1971. Be careful though; I did find a renewal for Defense Against Invasion which is also marked as PD on the Internet Archive. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where am I to look on that site? Only specific years? And regarding copyrighted characters, isn't most of the stuff in this[10] category problematic? FunkMonk (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Category:Bugs Bunny seems to have problems. A deletion request in Category:Mickey Mouse was recently started and I assume that more character-specific deletion requests need to be started. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Macro publicity stills without specific evidence of no notice/non-renewal

Wikimedia counsel has stated, in response to a query about early publicity stills, "It is essential to confirm that the exact image uploaded to Common was released without a copyright notice." (see w:Wikipedia:CCI#Attorney_reply). In view of this, what are people's feelings about a batch deletion request for Dr. Macro images (and potentially other publicity images) with no specific evidence of no notice/no renewal? There are a ton of questionable images that have been uploaded (generally with a generic statement that any pre-XXXX publicity still is PD) by a handful of users. See e.g. File:Swanson-portrait.jpg. This obviously would not apply to images that have the complete front and back scanned, and it is clear that there is no copyright notice. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two files with same filename?

I think there are two files with the name "Lybia edmondsoni.jpg" . The one I observe when I look at category "Lybia" in Commons is a small crab on a gravelly sea floor. The one I get when I use this filename in the article I am writing in Wikipedia is a small crab resting on an outstretched hand. Can anyone help, please?Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of, yes. File:Lybia_edmondsoni.jpg is the Commons version, and shows the sea floor. However, the English Wikipedia has a separate image at en:File:Lybia_edmondsoni.jpg, which is the other one you mention. The local projects can have images uploaded directly on their projects, and those will "override" the Commons version for any use of that name on their project. That one should be moved to Commons as well so that both are available for all projects, though obviously one or the other will have to be renamed. I'm not sure it's possible to reference the Commons version on en-wiki while the other one exists... Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not possible to use Commons file if it is masked by a local Wikipedia file with the same filename: COM:FAQ#I want to use a Commons image, but there is already a file at my local wiki with the same name which is blocking it. How can I access the Commons file?. MKFI (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the one on English Wikipedia to Commons (File:Lybia edmondsoni 2.jpg). Hopefully, someone will remove the image from English Wikipedia soon so that you can use the blocked image. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that it helped to use en:Template:Db-f8 instead of the usual en:Template:Now Commons: the file has already been deleted there. You can use the Commons file on English Wikipedia now. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New template for printout copyright information for all countries

After a considerable amount of work, I've created a new template where a user can simply input the known values, and it will output the copyright status for a multitude of nations.

So for example, we have File:Edward S. Curtis Collection People 003.jpg, which will take the following values:

  • {{PD-in|work_type=photograph|publication=1927|creation=1927|author_death=1952|US_formalities=0|US_published_first=1|PD_home=1}}

It will output the following:

Is this work in the public domain in my country?
Asia
China Public domain
India Public domain
Iraq Public domain
Iran Public domain
Israel Public domain
Japan Public domain
Pakistan Public domain
Philippines Public domain
Taiwan Public domain
Vietnam Public domain
Europe
European Union, all countries, unless listed below
  1. defaultNot public domain until 2023
Finland Public domain
Italy Public domain
Sweden Public domain
Spain
  1. defaultNot public domain until 2033
Albania Public domain
Andorra
  1. defaultNot public domain until 2023
Russia Public domain
Switzerland Not public domain until 70 years after author's death
Turkey
  1. defaultNot public domain until 2023
North America
Canada Public domain
United States of America Public domain
Insular Oceania
Australia Public domain
New Zealand Public domain
South America
Argentina Public domain
Chile
  1. defaultNot public domain until 2023
Peru
  1. defaultNot public domain until 2023
Venezuela Public domain

I think this should assist end-users in determining if material is free in their country of origin. While I realize it would be difficult to tag every image with this template, we probably should tag high-volume images with it.

It is not perfect: it only works with years in round numbers, so it will miss some subtleties (e.g., any works published in 1917 are treated published in the USSR, although it is actually only after works October 1917), there are many countries which haven't been added yet, and it still probably has coding bugs.

Please let me know if you think this is of use. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I realize it could use some formatting (e.g., making it collapsible, making the list of countries i18n-able). I'd certainly like to listen to suggestions on how to do it if people have any. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks useful. I found something which I think is a bug: the comments in the code state that Spain is 80, 60 or 70 years p.m.a. depending on the year of death of the author. As far as I've understood, EU rules changed the 60 years p.m.a. works to 70 years p.m.a. so that it's 80 years p.m.a. until 6 December 1987 and 70 years p.m.a. since 7 December 1987. The template doesn't seem to implement all possible exceptions related to the rule of the shorter term either. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what w:List of countries' copyright length says about Spain's copyright length. As for the shorter term rule, I'm not even sure how it works: do US formalities factor into it, or are they ignored because they're not duration based? Are things like PD-USGov and freedom of panorama factored into other country's assessments? I'd need to understand more about how it works before I factor in more logic. Also, there is a ton of stuff dealing with copyright, and it just wasn't very high on my priority list. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that en:List of countries' copyright length contradicts with COM:L#Spain. My understanding is that the EU directive on copyrights requires at least 70 years p.m.a. but that countries may choose to honour longer terms under some conditions. This would allow 80 years p.m.a. but probably not 60 years p.m.a., so COM:L#Spain is probably correct.
I'm also wondering how formalities work in relation to the rule of the shorter term. The Berne Convention says that copyright terms may not be based on fulfilment of formalities, but at the same time, another section in the Berne Convention states that countries do not have to offer protection for a longer term than the one in the source country. Here it sounds as if the Berne Convention contradicts itself, so I'm not sure what happens. In a discussion, I learnt that Mexico used to have copyright formalities and that fulfilment appears to affects the eligibility for URAA restoration.
I was in fact thinking of some other aspects of the rule of the shorter term. The Berne Convention does, as far as I have understood, state that if a work is first published in a foreign country and then published domestically within 30 days, it is to be treated as first having been published domestically. I can't find a clause stating exactly this, so I guess that it would be the result of the combination of several different clauses. that it is a combination of several different clauses. My understanding is that this 30-day rule disables URAA restoration and the rule of the shorter term for specific works, so it would be necessary to know in which countries it was published domestically within 30 days. Finding recent prints in various countries would probably take way too much time to be useful in most cases. Probably too complex to implement, but I see that you have already implemented the 30-day rule in the US case.
Some countries apply the rule of the shorter term on certain countries but not on other countries. en:rule of the shorter term#Situation in the European Union explains the complex in EU countries. For example, Germany doesn't apply the rule of the shorter term on EU countries, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein or the United States, but does apply the rule of the shorter term on all other countries. Fully implementing this would probably be too complex. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could implement Germany and Canada (Canada observes shorter term unless it is the US or Mexico - i.e., NAFTA) pretty easily; we could change the PD_home variable from a boolean to instead "first published in X country", and insist that X is a two or three letter acronym for the country. Then the page could check that. Still, there would be occurrences where the template wouldn't read it perfectly: for example, if it was published in the US on January 1, then Philippines on January 21, then Australia on February 22. Australia would check if it's PD in the US, but the Philippines would not, because it was published in the Philippines within 30 days. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's more complex, because for Australia, the country of origin is determined as the country of the shortest term out of those where it was published within 30 days. Let's assume that it's published in the United States on 1 January, then in Canada on 21 January and then in Germany on 22 February. Germany would check this:
  • Is the US term (95 years since publication) shorter than Canada's term (life+50 years)? → First published in the US, so the rule of the shorter term doesn't apply and the standard life+70 years applies instead.
  • Is the Canadian term shorter than the US term? → First published in Canada, so life+50 years applies per the rule of the shorter term.
  • Are the US and Canadian terms equally long? → No idea what happens.
This is at least how I would interpret s:Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works/Articles 1 to 21#Article 5 4a. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly it's reaching a place where the complexity is getting pretty heavy, and it might be better to just fork it out into a sitewide Javascript which could read the template's parameters directly (in the same way as PERSONDATA works at English Wikipedia). This would have five advantages:
  • the processing is done much more quickly using a functional programming language rather than template logic, so the long page loads we're getting wouldn't exist
  • we could set a cookie on the user's machine stating their home nation, should they want to specify one (much like we already do with language preference, if I'm not mistaken)
  • the nature of JavaScript would make it much easier to write complex explanations like "Fell out of the public domain in the US due to failure to renew copyright" or "Still copyrighted in Germany until 2034 (70 years after the author's death) because Germany doesn't recognize rule of the shorter term for US-based works" or "Author's date of death is unknown, so this work's status is unknown".
  • the page could load the information only after the user has clicked the "is this free?" box, so we wouldn't even have to waste processing time for a template that a lot of people wouldn't even look at.
  • the page could implement the more complex logic for things like PD_home with barely any effort and without a large increase in load time.
But it would have one disadvantage: people without JS enabled could not view the information - but this is already a problem for the language preference, and it hasn't caused a lot of problems. I'm leaning towards the JS option. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the JS option would be a good idea. Most people are mainly interested in the copyright status in their own country and it would be nice if that country could be identified and presented at the top. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm amazed that you managed what you did using templates without ending up in a straight-jacket! However, in the long term, I think it has to be JS to be maintainable. Using JS, it would be possible (I think?) to design a way that the copyright logic is separate in a way that is understandable and updatable by people who don't know much JS. Whereas the templates are already nearly-impenetrable even to relatively experienced template editors. And if the JS can extract existing data (rather than relying on processing a template), so much the fantastically better... By the way, I think a rather important part of the functionality needs to be explaining how the template/script reaches its conclusion: data relied on (i.e. parameters like publication date used), and copyright logic employed. Once again, though, an amazing first effort for what is potentially an incredibly valuable tool. Rd232 (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not JS -- Lua ;-) I agree, once that feature arrives, this type of thing will be infinitely more doable. That is a pretty darn impressive undertaking; even with a language backing, the blizzard of needed information may almost be too much. It really should be able to deal with missing information. For example, someone may not know a creation year or publication year, but would know it had to have happened before the critical X date because of some other pertinent information. Or, marking some information as "presumed" (i.e. was something published during an author's lifetime, and not posthumous). But it would be great, eventually, to have stuff like this where we could ask for pertinent information up front, and have a much more consistent set of tags and licensing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Posthumous: I assume that you mean determining US copyright status for PD-old-100 and UA copyright status for PD-old-70, [...], PD-old-99. Probably useful.
Another thought: let's assume that Nisshin Foods gets the idea of writing the words "CUP NOODLE" in a standard font on a cup and let's assume that the Tokyo High Court rules the cup as not being copyrightable,[11] what would then happen in the UK? Would a UK court then decide that this cup with the words "CUP NOODLE" written in a very artistic font, way above the threshold of originality, isn't copyrighted in the UK because the term in the country of origin (0 years since creation) already has expired? --Stefan4 (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Several countries give a term of X years from publication, if a work is published after death. For example, just discussing the Ukraine recently, they have a term of 70 years from publication if something is first published in the 30 years after the author dies -- which is longer than 70pma. India I think has a 60 year from publication term, if first published up to 60 years after the author dies. The UK had an infinite copyright for unpublished works until 1989 (photographs are mostly exempt from that, but otherwise, 2039 is the earliest an unpublished work from before 1989 can expire in the UK, no matter the 70pma). The EU has a 25-year publication right from first publication, no matter when the author died. Those can be derived from the existing parameters as given, but it can take time to get it right -- even the Hirtle chart for the U.S. still gets corrections. Some countries make terms based on "making available to the public", which is often a distinct concept from publication (e.g., exhibition I think would come under that, even if not considered publication). This stuff gets exceedingly complex; there are going to be holes. I think I would ignore complications about the threshold of originality; this is going to be hard enough as it is. Other things I don't see are possibilities for different terms for government works (e.g. Crown Copyright) -- maybe change the USGov parameter to just be "government_work", and pass in the country of origin (or country of first publication, which would also eliminate the need for a separate "US_published_first"). Also, there seem to be inputs like PD_Home, PD-NZ, PD_Poland, PD_URAA, which basically mean that people have to navigate the complexities themselves to come up with those values -- ideally, those are things which could be determined internally, since otherwise that seems to require the user to determine an awful lot, which is what we are trying to avoid by having these templates. User:Teofilo was attempting to write a template to determine the French status based on parameters (including the different types of wartime extensions, and musical compositions potentially have a different term) -- it was pretty complex itself. I sort of liked his idea of having a template for each country, possibly implementing both "current" and "on URAA date" determinations (and some other countries have their own versions of URAA dates); at that point perhaps we could join together those templates into something like this one. Still, we have to start somewhere -- so major props regardless :-) A bit odd on the "general EU" section in the example -- since those countries usually apply the rule of the shorter term, why wouldn't that one be green? Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Rd232: explaining how the script comes up with a determination is doable but would require adding a level of complexity which would make the head swim of the most experienced programmer, and which would probably place a burder on the server resources which is unacceptable (i.e., adding this template to the page would mean it takes 20 seconds to render; this is not a viable solution for mass tagging). It would require duplicate logic, or a template calling itself and returning different data types depending on whether the template is calling itself or if it is being called from the outside.

@Stefan4: One step at a time. In my years of programming, I've learned that if you try to put in everything at first, then you'll never get done. Instead, you make the code functional, and then you add on bit-by-bit. In a template logic system, this is probably too hard anyway.
@Clindberg 1: I haven't implemented a lot of the shorter term logic yet. I condensed all of the EU countries into one line because the template was taking upwards 10-15 seconds to load; we're now down to 5 or 6 (which is still unacceptably high IMHO).
@Clindberg 2: Look at PD-NZ: it is a very specific scenario and it nearly impossible to get the user to input otherwise. It is this: Was this first published abroad (and not published in New Zealand within 30 days), and public domain in its home country on 15 Dec 1994? Using template logic, it would require unthinkable distortions of code to come up with that information on its own. If we had hundreds of manhours, it might be doable, but it would be a severe drain on the server and it would involve a lot of duplication. Template logic just isn't a good enough programming language. The same goes for other things, like crown copyright - which is different in every country; fortunately, the anon variable covers that well enough, as they can have the same timeframe.
@Everyone: what sort of timeframe are we talking about in terms of Lua? Because I can throw together a JS system in a month or so (depending on my free time), but who knows if I'll be around to program this in 2.5 years when/if they finally implement Lua.
Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One other note -- Europeana has published a bunch of research, in the form of flowcharts, for a lot of countries at http://outofcopyright.eu/media.html . Those could certainly help, as they were used to implement other calculators.
This is really cool. I agree with Carl that we'll want to eventually make it Lua-based (for performance/maintainability) and customised automatically to a logged-in user's country, but most of our readers still aren't logged in and this is a great first step we can start using right away on files whose copyright status varies widely between nations. I'd also like to discuss the impact this will have on the proposed systematic review of PD files at Commons:Requests for comment/PD review. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese pronunciation

Hello,

I'm one of the more experienced administrators on the English Wiktionary. Due to a community decision pinyin entries should only have the minimum of information to get to the Chinese characters form of the word/phrase. There's a bot called DerthBot which adds pronunciation files based on the language code (zh in this case) and the PAGENAME. In my experience, these files are only used on Wiktionary. Ergo what I would like to do is move all of these files to the hanzi form so the bot adds them to the Chinese characters form, not the pinyin. NB I don't propose a way of doing this, given the number of files involved, I just want to know that if I or another editor does this, there are no objections. Thank you, Mglovesfun (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Implications of CC-BY

May be of interest: <advert removed> --84.62.68.124 15:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. I wonder, though, why someone would license an academic article using a Creative Commons licence. Presumably the writer would not mind people distributing it as is, but why would they want anyone "remixing" it, which a CC-BY licence allows? — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jack: For exactly the same reasons Wikipedia does this. - Jmabel ! talk 17:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I upload photographs to the Commons and license them under CC-BY-SA-3.0 because I don't mind others reusing and modifying them so long as I'm attributed as the original author. If I wrote an academic article, I might not mind if it was freely distributed, but I'm not so sure I would want people to mix-and-match bits of it with other material. Anyway, just my view. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reusing an academic article just takes a little creativity. :-) People reuse charts and diagrams from previous articles all the time, and background/related work sections can also be valuable for encyclopedia articles and background sections of future papers. Even summaries of papers which follow the original too closely may be a copyright violation if derivative works are not explicitly allowed, and paper summaries are published all the time in major magazines, etc. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have removed the advert. Histo, if you want to discuss copyright with direct implications to Commons you are welcome to do it e.g. at COM:VPC. But please do not just throw-in links to your blog everywhere. --Saibo (Δ) 17:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, this is not really an issue with the CC-BY licence. The issue described on the blog is an issue with someone not following the licence and that's a copyright violation. That's no different from using an "all rights reserved" work without permission. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category refuses to display

For some reason I have been unable to display Category:Revue des Deux Mondes. Other categories do not seem to be affected. Is this a problem just for me, or is it more general? --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't load for me either - and I've no problems with anything else. I've no idea why! >:( Rd232 (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very weird. Same for me, but http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Revue%20des%20Deux%20Mondes&action=edit looks perfectly normal. - Jmabel ! talk 03:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably has to do with the large MB size of the files in such categories? I can't get a search page to display a large number of them (ex. search "Revue des Deux Mondes" with limit=250). -- Asclepias (talk) 03:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:67.70.147.72 in Centre Étienne Desmarteau

Bonjour at the male ice hockey players and male supporters [12]

Caution:User talk:67.70.147.72 These 3 computers ( 2 in first floor and one computers in the second floor in the office of direction) are connected in the en:Centre Étienne Desmarteau at Montreal , Canada: it means that several users can write on these computers. I do not want to be implied and involved with this IP community address. In the pass , I have some very big problems with many people in the same IP im Centre Étienne Desmarteau ( see french wiki http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Genevieve2 )
Bonjour aux hockeyeurs masculins et aux supporteurs masculins [13]

Attention: l'adresse IP 67.70.147.72 est une adresse communautaire de 3 ordinateurs. Ces 3 ordinateurs ( 2 sont situés au première étage dans les vestiaires des équipes et un ordinateur est situé au deuxième étage dans le bureau de la coordination de l'aréna) sont reliés au fr:Centre Étienne Desmarteau  : Cela signifie que plusieurs utilisateurs peuvent écrire sur ces ordinateurs. Je ne veux pas être impliquée avec cette adresse communautaire. J'ai eu suffisamment de problèmes dans le Wiki francophone avec l'utilisation communataire d'une même adresse IP du Centre Étienne Desmarteau par plusieurs utilisateurs (Faux-nez http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Genevieve2). --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might more usefully leave this message at User talk:67.70.147.72. But I'm not at all sure why you think you are being associated with this address (you haven't clarified that here, and there are no edits to Commons attributed to that address). In any case, if you are using those computers and are logged in, you will be readily distinguished from any non-logged-in users at the same computers. - Jmabel ! talk 03:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 20

Triggertrap

Hi,

I uploaded three pictures on Wikimedia to use on a Wikipedia page named Triggertrap. They were not my work, but the author and designer of those pictures and the inventor of the device gave me permission to publish them in written. I e-mailed the written permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Now all the three pictures have been deleted. May I ask what is the problem now?
Inlandmamba (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you receive a ticket-number, yet? What is it? If you've sent permission, you can add {{subst:OP}} to your images in future preventing their immediate deletion before the e-Mail is processed. -- RE rillke questions? 23:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, File:TodiCastle behind.JPG (did you send a permission for this file?) is in CMYK. In order to get a proper thumb, you have to save it in RGB. Help:JPEG#Color model. -- RE rillke questions? 23:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convenience link to the en-wiki page in question: en:Triggertrap. - Jmabel ! talk 01:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Related question copied from Commons:Help desk:
Hi all,
I am facing two problems here on Wikimedia. I have contributed 3 pictures on one topic and 12 other on the other one. Basically, I had contributed 3 pictures on a device called triggertrap. They were deleted from Wikimedia. I had sent the written permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org for the three pictures of triggertrap. I created this article on Wikipedia and then asked the owner of the pictures and the inventor of the device for their permission to use those pictures on Wikimedia and Wikipedia. But they have been deleted.

Secondly, I have uploaded 12 pictures on TodiCastle. I have re written the whole page on Wikipedia because it needed a lot of improvement. I have even taken permission from the owner and sent an email of the permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, but still I got the same message. I really don't understand why the pictures are now being deleted even after I have sent the permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org for both the topics. I really need help. Can anyone please guide me? I have seen the instructions on the guidelines and have added categories to the pictures but I don't understand why are they being deleted. Help Needed !!! Thank you
Inlandmamba (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
END copied from Commons:Help desk - Jmabel ! talk 01:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone with access to the OTRS system please weigh in on whether the email has been received and a ticket issued? - Jmabel ! talk 01:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Received 1/29 as ticket number 2012012910006273 User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

Thank you for the help. My problem has been resolved. I am really thankful to all the community and the people who helped me in this problem.
Inlandmamba (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 07:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global licensing policy enforcement

In connection with Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ZogSokoli, it's come to my attention that the Shqip (Albanian) Wikipedia edition is by and large ignoring any and all responsibilities when it comes to image copyrights. The project currently allows local uploads without any copyright information at all, and many users who do add copyright information appear to rely heavily on very liberally applied fair use claims, despite the fact that the project does not have the required Exemption Doctrine Policy in place. I'm sure this is in no way unique. It's probably a common situation at several small Wikimedia projects.

This problem spills over onto Commons when files are transferred here, and large-scale copyright infringement on any Wikimedia project reflects poorly on us all. As a result of this situation, I have a few questions that I have not been able to find answers to:

  1. What processes exist for educating local projects about the global licensing policy?
  2. What procedures exist for enforcing the global licensing policy?
  3. Who has the authority and responsibility to enforce the global licensing policy?
  4. Is it possible to forcibly disable local uploads for projects that are unable or unwilling to adhere to the global licensing policy?
  5. For new Wikimedia projects, what considerations are made to determine whether or not local uploads should be enabled?

What's worse is that I have not been able to find out whom to ask. I've looked around at the Foundation wiki and Meta without success. Any ideas or answers?

LX (talk, contribs) 17:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe these these things are up to the local project (and most of that should stay on that level, for example it's the local project should be deciding whether or not to enable local uploads). However, we should have some sort of a transfer policy on Commons, which says that if some source is violating copyrights way too often, it should be excluded. Just like currently some uploaders to Flickr are not mirrored here regardless of the licence they put on some image. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 18:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no point in the Foundation enacting global policies if local projects are entirely free to ignore them at their own will. It can't be up to the local projects to inform themselves about policies that they don't know about, nor can local projects be expected to sanction themselves if they fail to live up to their responsibilities as a project. LX (talk, contribs) 20:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you that several small wikis have a poor record regarding copyright issues. I have seen this on several Indian languages Wikipedia. I don't know what is the solution for existing wikis other than direct forced deletions, but I would suggest to disable local uploads for new wikis until they have a community able to manage copyright issues. Just my 2 Rs. Yann (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen issues with this myself too. For example, a few months ago, I remember a discussion on English Wikipedia about a possibly unfree file. It was deleted on English Wikipedia, but I could also find it on many other language versions of Wikipedia, sometimes with nothing on the file information page. I don't think that Commons should block moves from any Wikimedia project entirely, but if a project has bad records, it would definitely be necessary to check things more carefully, unless it is known that the original uploader is reliable. It could maybe also be an idea to block tools such as Commons Helper and en:WP:FTCG from moving files from those projects. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocking transfers from the wiki to here shouldn't be used, but restricted so that only users that know what they are doing can do. Ebe123 (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't we just block the TUSC account of anyone who is blocked on Commons? That way Commons admins have a way of blocking automatic transfers by particular problematic users. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a good idea (blocking Commons Helper and other TUSC-based services). And en:WP:FTCG is blocked if the uploader is blocked since the uploads are made from the users' own accounts. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Yann that in the case of a community that lacks the expertise to manage its own copyright issues, local uploads should be forcibly disabled by the Foundation. They will have to make do with Commons. That may lead to more of them uploading directly here, but we can block individual users if they upload copyvios and are unable to learn. With any luck, some of them will start to develop expertise by interacting with the Commons community. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an issue to be discussed on Meta, I think. Shall I try and take it forward there, and report back? Rd232 (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Please do, and let us know where on Meta you do it. I couldn't find any Foundation staff members responsible either for practical copyright issues (as opposed to legal advice) or global policy compliance. I also couldn't find any pages on Meta devoted to coordination of such matters. That was really my main question: where should I have taken my concerns? (But while we're sharing war stories, I just came across another example, this time involving the Ukraine Wikipedia accepting uploads with no license and no fair use claim.) I also appreciate the suggestions for how to limit the damage here on Commons. LX (talk, contribs) 17:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      And I have proposed a few other images by the same uploader for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Igor1409. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The starting point for new/small wikis should be using the Commons so uploaders and users get familiar with the Commons.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Half an image

The 800 x 600 px version of File:Frozen waterfall beside the Seward Highway between Anchorage and Girdwood, AK.jpg appears to hang halfway through displaying, leaving a checked pattern below. Other sized ok. Clearing my cache on my end did not help. Does anyone else see the same problem, and does anyone know how to fix it? Dankarl (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same problem and I have had the same problem with other Commons images too during the past few days. However, the full resolution version (Media:Frozen waterfall beside the Seward Highway between Anchorage and Girdwood, AK.jpg) looks correct. Maybe a temporary software bug? --Stefan4 (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To purge a cached image, go to "Page History" and change "history" to "purge" in the URL. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Worked. Thanks Dankarl (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By default we also have a "purge" tab if JavaScript is enabled. This is caused by the Swift deployment. -- RE rillke questions? 20:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Purge is not helping for an image that I have the same problem with: File:St Joachim Old Mines 1.jpg. Tried multiple times in multiple ways, and ensured my browser is not caching an old version. Kbh3rd (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:St_Joachim_Old_Mines_1.jpg the 800px thumb was broken (only ~75% of the image visible) and purging the file page did not help. In JS error console: Fehler: Image corrupt or truncated: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/St_Joachim_Old_Mines_1.jpg/800px-St_Joachim_Old_Mines_1.jpg Shortly accessed a *wrong* (wrong directory) thumb URL: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/St_Joachim_Old_Mines_1.jpg/800px-St_Joachim_Old_Mines_1.jpg And now it also works at the right thumb URL?! Have asked in IRC tech channel Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonfree logos

Hi! Isn't this File:Logo AeroPeru.jpg a nonfree logo?

It seems like there are a few people on the Spanish Wikipedia can't locally upload, so they try to illicitly upload nonfree logos on the Commons so they can be used on the Spanish Wikipedia.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Local uploads are disabled on some projects, including the Spanish Wikipedia. I frequently find copyvios here, often with Spanish descriptions (and used only on Spanish Wikipedia). Just mark as copyvio or request deletion if you feel that a file is illegal. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's that common, maybe a bot could identify high-risk files for review? Rd232 (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also I would ask the Spanish Wikipedia to put up a notice to the effect of "Don't upload logos to the Commons to circumvent the ban, as your images will be deleted there" WhisperToMe (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that sense, I think that sv:Special:Upload is better designed than es:Special:Upload. Neither project allows local uploads, but the Swedish upload page has a simplified explanation of what you may upload (including specific notes on freedom of panorama and similar for Sweden and Finland) whereas the Spanish page only has a notice saying that you must upload the images to Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to post about this in the Spanish Wikipedia cafe? I would have to have a way for your comments to be translated into Spanish. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I´m very concious this is a serious problem. I send to delete every logo or suspicious picture I find. However, as I already says, in es:WP not only are banned nonfree pictures, but all pictures since upload locally option is not operational since 2004. Cheers. --Andrea (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Stefan4 suggests adding "a simplified explanation of what you may upload (including specific notes on freedom of panorama and similar for Sweden and Finland)" - So on the notice saying "upload to the Commons" you can add something stating what the Commons permits and does not permit. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) Just an observation. en.wikibooks disabled local uploads (it's granted to a limited number of contributors working on books that require fair use material) a while back. One of the reasons given was to take advantage of the greater knowledge and experience of Commons contributors re. copyright. I did wonder at the time if we were just passing the buck to someone else who would then have to clear up "our" mess. Looking at the number of bits of media going through for deletion every day, the backlog on categorisation, etc., I feel we have added extra load to an already overloaded project. Sorry! QU TalkQu 21:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! Maybe putting notices on the Wikibooks upload page could help mitigate the issue there WhisperToMe (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@WhisperToMe:To do that I need more info. How and where should be added? I'm admin in es:WP, but my knowledge on software is limitated. --Andrea (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for replay. I think best is to put a message in es:WP Village because text you suggest it´s not just an adjustment but a hole redesign. I can add one line or two explaining pictures should be free licence and logos are mostly not free, but not take that decision on my own. I let you know about community's decision. Cheers. --Andrea (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get this. When clicking on "Subir archivo" (upload file) at eswiki, you just get redirected to the upload wizard here, and it is suposed to do the same thing that this message would be intended for. Why should we repeat the information? Lobo(howl?) 00:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC) EDIT:Ok, my mistake, it just redirect now to the simple upload form. Why don't we redirect to the upload wizard then?[reply]
Thanks, guys! I posted my desired message at es:Usuario_discusión:Ignacio_Icke#Request_for_help_regarding_the_Spanish_Wikipedia_Cafe - I'm asking advice from a user, checking to see if I need to translate it first before posting to the cafe. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ignacio does not edit since june 2011, so I put a message explaining the situation and requesting comments. Cheers. --Andrea (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Now I see it is in "SpecialPage" space. Is not possible edited, only by a very few users (one or two, actually) so I´m not sure if we could do any change, no matter what. --Andrea (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The content comes from MediaWiki:Uploaddisabledtext, which any administrator can edit. Rd232 (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for starting the discussion, Andrea! WhisperToMe (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One thing about the new upload form: Is there an easy way to link to freedom of panorama policy listings from that form? Or on ES the upload page could mention the policies of various countries, including Spain, Spanish speaking countries in the Americas, the United States (for residents of the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico), and/or Equatorial Guinea WhisperToMe (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[