Commons:Village pump/Archive/2012/04

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



A question was raised in a Wikipedia FLC review about the appropriateness of the {{PD-UK-unknown}} tag for four images (1, 2, 3, 4). I've got a few questions:

  • Is the tag appropriate for these old photos?
  • If not, do they qualify for any other licenses?
  • If not, is their storage locally in the database of the English Wikipedia allowed?

Thanks for your help! U+003F? 15:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The tag seems appropriate to me. If no individual author was mentioned on the initial publication, and all of them look to be newspaper photos from before 1923, then that template seems exactly appropriate. PD-1923 also applies for the United States, so the Commons requirements seem to have been met. Even if the UK license was not allowed, they could probably have been put on en-wiki under their en:Template:PD-US-1923-abroad template. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying that it can be assumed that the author of a newspaper photo from before 1923 has not been mentioned? Goodraise 23:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The tag says "This tag can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." The question is, what is reasonable enquiry in this case. The immediate sources - books in which the images were reprinted - do not, we are told, give a photographer credit. Image meatadata merely refers to "a newspaper". I tend to doubt that even had the newspaper been identified, that it would be easy or even possible to identify the photographer. On this basis, I think it is reasonable to stop at the identification of the paper by name, if that is possible - which is to say I'd like an assurance that none of the books identify the source newspaper by name (something which I think would be a bit odd). Beyond that I'm comfortable with these remaining on the commons with a UK PD Unknown tag. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The scope of the recent books is not to identify photographers, the book author will only give credit to the newspaper, not to the individual photographer. The uploader knows, from the books, that it is from a newspaper, likely the exact source is mentioned in the books. Reasonable enquiry requires to check this original newspapers. --Martin H. (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments everyone. I've expanded the image descriptions to clarify that one of the books states that all its images come from either newspaper A or newspaper B, but none of the books give any photograph-specific attributions. U+003F? 09:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
... do you think this now satisfies the reasonable enquiry requirement, or should I look instead to moving the images to en-wiki with a {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} tag? U+003F? 13:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

March 30

Unidentified solifugae

Hello, Could someone please help me to identify this beast? (4-5 cm long) Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: New field -Keywords- in Information template

I have been thinking about this for a while and excuse me if it has been suggested before (I did a search but didn't find anything interesting.) I would propose to add a new field to the information template called 'Keywords' . see example:

Description A cow in the sun
Keywords Cow, grass, flowers, sun, sky, blue, horns, summer

In the description one is meant to write a human readable sentence (Like: A cow grazing in the sun). Often there are lots of other things in the image which would be odd to add into the description, but still would be great to add as information to the image like: Cow, grass, flowers, sun, sky, blue, horns, summer. (I don't think its possible to add all this in the description like: A cow with horns on a hot summer day on some grass munching some flowers with blue sky in the background). Most image databases have an tagging system and here on commons we have categories. But cats are also quite limited and we really don't want people to add the cat 'sky' to all images with a bit of blue sky in it. So tags would fit nicely in-between description and cats. So, what do you think? Amada44  talk to me 15:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I would surely support an upgrade of the categorization system, to give it more simplicty, consistency, machine-usability etc. But Adding an additional layer of tags but probably make things even more difficult to maintain. So I think it should be a major revamping of the category system rather than creating a parrallel tag system. It seems to be a view held by quite a few people (see for instance User:Multichill/Next generation categories). But it would require people that are willing to carry out the project to the end, and probably implies quite much work. --Zolo (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there seems to be wide agreement that current search and categorization are not as good as they could be (cf. Commons:Requests for comment/improving search), but little agreement on how best to fix things. But what is needed is certainly far more than simply adding a field to this template. cmadler (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Our current cat system is way to static. As far as I remember we'll need a database to solve most issues and any solution here could take years if not longer. I think that tags would be a great 'supplement' to our current system. It would be self explaining and actually not to difficult to fuse with 'super cats' in future. Amada44  talk to me 17:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
IMHO, if people don't add these keywords in description, they will not add them in keywords field. As soon as this new field is somewhat additional description, it's better to do it in description. We are to move people to make full and detailed descriptions with a complete explanation. In this sample: «A cow in the sun eating grass and flowers under the blue sky. Summer 2010».--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
A big advantage of tags (which had also occurred to me as an approach) is that we can do as a community, without needing any support from developers. However, I think some thought needs to go into designing the tag system, and exactly how it might integrate into both the current category system, and a possible New And Improved category system we might get in future. For instance, one of the problems with categories is that a file is either in a category or not, and there's no distinction between the importance of membership in categories either. To take the example of "sky" from the cow example given by Amada44: here the cow is the important thing, but sky is part of the image too. Somehow we would like to distinguish that from an image that is primarily of sky. That thinking maybe takes us more into a descriptive meta-data kind of area of structured tags, with multiple fields. So you would then have, say
  • |foreground_tags = cow
  • |background_tags = sky, mountain
  • |location_tags = Switzerland
But that takes us into a whole sort of en:Semantic MediaWiki direction... Rd232 (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't forget the little energy that uploaders spend on documentation. One could try to present the information as a "Information and keyword field". See if this will increase the provided information content. On the other hand, the more complete and reliable the search function will work, the more the uploaders will be motivated to improve the provided information. --Foroa (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
If we add such tags than a logical expectations would be that one can view other images with the same tag (that is how everybody else's tags work) until are able to provide such feature I see this as something that will only result in confusion and frustration, but may be that is what is needed to be able to develop working tag system. --Jarekt (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Once it happened I spent much more energy on documentation, and prepared a well-done complete description. Other editors blamed me of original research, on overwheighting the description with the links to the information sources, and on providing my own point of view (with those links to mass-media sources); and ended calling me a chauvinist. How can I make extensive documentation for the image, knowing my efforts will be punished sooner or later?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I like the idea as 'tags' is what most people understand, and the structure or framework that is our category system is constantly mis-used as a keyword tagging system. (Many people disagree with me on this point so don't bother telling me ;-) I expect files to be catalogued in categories relating to the subject of the photograph - So a photograph of a happy cow standing in a field on a sunny day with buttercups around it's feet, mountains in the background and the sun in the sky is catalogued under "cow" - perhaps the breed of cow, the place it was taken, perhaps the photographer (if significant) and date or event (if significant) and the reason for the photograph (if not obvious from the foregoing) (what, where, who, when, why). I do not want the categories "buttercups", "mountains", "sun", or "happy" clogged up with this photo. I am happy for those elements to be in the description and in keywords in case someone wants to find every picture containing a buttercup. </soapbox>
But my first question is what language? This is a multi-lingual project so people want to add tags in their own language, but we don't want 100 different tags for "buttercup". It would be good if the search facility were revamped to look first at keywords (perhaps with a translation and synonyms table), and give a lesser weighting to categories, description and the filename.
We don't want to duplicate structural elements of the category system (eg adding location_tags), and foreground/background isn't quite as meaningful as say primary/secondary. eg The buttercups might be in the foreground, but they're not the primary elements of the photograph. so:
  • |primary_tags = cow
  • |secondary_tags = sky, mountain, buttercups
--Tony Wills (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, multi-lingualism makes it all much more complicated. There is also Commons:Image classification system as an old idea... Rd232 (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

To put it bluntly: who the heck is looking for pictures that incidentally include grass, sky, or the Sun, but don't have that as their main content? - Jmabel ! talk 02:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be more about combinations. eg "I don't want a cow in the rain, I want a cow in the sun. And it would be great if it was eating some buttercups! Well, some buttercups nearby would do.". Rd232 (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Amada44 -- Both descriptive text in complete phrases or sentences, and structured hierarchical categories, would appear to be more useful for image description and classification than unstructured lists of isolated keywords. There's nothing preventing people from typing a comma-separated list of words into the "Description" field of the Information template, but I don't see any real current usefulness in institutionalizing this... AnonMoos (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think tags and categories can be used together. Categories are generally based primarily on the "primary" topic, while tags can describe other subjects in the image that are not as prominent. Uploaders are already familiar with freeform tags from every other photo sharing website and blog on the web. Because search functionality looks at page text, these would be immediately useful, and provided we have a dedicated template field for them and they're in a standard comma-separated format, it would be easy to migrate them to an officially supported software feature later. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for comment/Grandfathered old files

This RFC regarding Commons:Grandfathered old files has been open for nearly a month and no-one commented, supported or opposed it. It has been listed at Commons:Centralized discussion for all that time. I really would like to see if this has any traction as an official guideline as it's about an important subject of what to do with pre-OTRS files. SpeakFree (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather not have a whole extra guideline just to basically confirm community support for the GOF principle. The principle can be mentioned in an existing policy or guideline, and the GOF page be pointed to for background, as just a help page. The principle obviously fits well into Commons:Verifying permissions, for instance, but could probably be added to an existing policy/guideline now, since that's just an early stage proposal at the moment. Not sure where would be best though; maybe COM:L?. Rd232 (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Chrome issue with vector skin

Would someone else who has the Chrome web browser and the Vector skin default please sign in and tell me if there is an ugly blue background for you too? I've deleted my cache but still had this issue on two different computers now (on two different operating systems); it might be a bug with the Google which is being ported via the unified login, but on the other hand it might be a bug introduced into the CSS or JS code by someone here or via the WMF. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm using Chrome long time and I've never seen this (Win 7, and fresh cleaned cache) -- πϵρήλιο 23:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
It just showed up today, and it's really annoying. It's definitely hitting me across Chrome platforms, whether I'm signed in or not. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps related to this Chrome bug? Someone came into IRC about a month or two ago complaining about this. Killiondude (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
@Magog: make sure your zoom level in Chrome is at 100%. If the blue background then disappears, it's indeed the Chrome issue Killiondude linked above. Lupo 09:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Holy moley; that actually fixed it. Noted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dmc75v Portalfräsmaschine 2.jpg

Some comments would be appreciated on this deletion request, the images were uploaded in 2006. Thank you. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


I've developed {{Userlinks2.0}} to help internationalise and rationalise the various user links templates. You can see for example with {{User3}} and {{userlinks}} how other templates can make use of it. (I don't expect people to use {{Userlinks2.0}} directly.) Not all of Category:Username internal link templates are worth fitting into this scheme, as some are unique, but most can be. Comments? Rd232 (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

April 3

Help with uploading new version.

I'm a new user - due to me not being auto-confirmed, I can't overwrite images. Could someone please overwrite File:Azawad_Tuareg_rebellion_2012.svg with File:Azawad_Tuareg_rebellion_2012_-_2.svg, and then just put the appropriate concerning my authorship to the file description page. Thanks, Wigiz (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC).

Please correct the overflowing text before: File:Azawad Tuareg rebellion 2012 - 2.svg (768px) -- RE rillke questions? 18:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Text corrected - please overwrite. Wigiz (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair use

As we know, Commons does not allow fair use. But the primary reason for this is (I think) that fair use does not allow for the storage of material on a general media database such as Commons - in other words, fair use materials can't be part of our general "yes, you can use this!" media repository. What I'm wondering is - couldn't fair use be acceptable for the specific, limited purpose of illustrating particular issues on Commons? For example, it would be much easier to illustrate Commons:Threshold of originality if we could retain some "over the threshold of originality" images as fair use for that specific purpose. We'd need to mark those images very clearly, and we'd need an exemption doctrine policy, but I feel that in principle, we could. Thoughts? Rd232 (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no, let's not open that box. We can find free approximations if we need examples. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Using "approximations" when we're trying to illustrate the borderline of subjective criteria is not really ideal. Besides, we can say "that's what we should do" - but it's just not going to happen. Whereas turning the occasional deleted image into a Fair Use "we can't have this as part of our media repository" example is realistic. Rd232 (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the idea of allowing fair use at Commons. Our content must be available for anyone, for any purpose, period. Like governments don't need to show child porn at their website to illustrate what they prohibit, we don't need to upload examples of what we don't allow to be uploaded. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
"Our content must be available for anyone" - that's the point: these files would not be part of our content, i.e. not part of the Topic category tree. Rd232 (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
If the files are kept here, some people are likely going to find them anyway and won't realise that the files aren't free. Examples could be hosted on an external website, as we are already doing on the COM:TOO page. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
"won't realise that the files aren't free." - how would they manage that? On the use page (COM:TOO, say) and file description page it would be clear. Rd232 (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
They're not "hosted on an external website" in the sense that it's something Commons users have done; it's just linking to an external source. And that's certainly less helpful than having the images side-by-side on one page. Rd232 (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose That would just lead to people trying to expand COM:TOO and similar pages with as many examples as possible, and it would be risky for reusers. No fair use, please. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
"it would be risky for reusers" - the fair use images would have massive DO NOT USE OUTSIDE COMMONS labels, and not be categorised in Topic categories. Any one ignoring that would not be getting any more risk than in the many cases with unclear copyright status (outside the US and the source country, for PD). Rd232 (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The same objective could be satisfied without policy change by developing an illustrated article on the English Wikipedia or other WPs that allow fair use. Dankarl (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
It would prevent translation (many projects don't allow fair use) and it would mean problems with en:WP:NFCC (which normally doesn't allow fair use in galleries) and similar policies. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No. Too many efforts would be required; too much confusion would be caused; too many disputes would arise. -- RE rillke questions? 18:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm. Perhaps. I think it's pretty straightforward, but it might still cause more trouble than it's worth. Rd232 (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg 


Funny what catches people's interest for commenting on... How about some attention for the #Commons:Verifying_permissions section above? :) Rd232 (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  • You know, there are plenty of things over the threshold of originality that we properly host here, based on criteria such as age of the work or release by the creator. If you're looking for examples, why not look to that sort of thing? cmadler (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Because we don't have any mechanism for deciding that a particular work really illustrates a particular property. Deletion debates are the nearest thing we have; individual decisions by people not particularly qualified (eg me) may be worse than useless. Maybe we could have a wikiproject for it, but attracting people - especially people we know to be competent in the matter - to such work is likely to be difficult. The possibility of deletion gets people interested! That's basically why I wanted to use the existing mechanism, and that existing mechanism is deletion debates. Well, even without Fair Use, using deletion debate results systematically would be helpful, so maybe we could think about how to make that happen? Rd232 (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Commons is explicitly forbidden from creating an EDP under the licensing resolution:
"with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project community may develop and adopt an EDP."
At the top it notes: "[This resolution] may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies." Unless the Board changes its mind, we simply cannot do this.
I imagine the justification for this is that once a fair use image is uploaded to Commons, it is very difficult to prevent it from being used by projects that aren't allowed to use it under their local EDP (or lack of one). We'd have to have a bot going around taking them down all the time. There's no reason you can't create a good English Wikipedia article on the threshold of originality and just link to it from here. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Huh, I did not know that. Added a note to Commons:Recurring proposals. Well, you could probably get a "don't permit hotlinking from outside Commons" magic word, but that's getting to be far more trouble than it's worth. Rd232 (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, as pointed out above, there are problems doing this on English Wikipedia with their non-free licensing policy; and obviously that page cannot be translated for some other Wikipedias due to lack of local uploads or EDP. Rd232 (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of giving examples based on actual deletion debates, but I think it would be quite feasible to create a fake free image that mimicked any image that was deleted. Say, for example, the issue was a photo of a public place that included a copyrighted statue. One could use an image editor to replace the copyrighted statue with a similar free image from commons, cropped and scaled to fit. It needn't be a perfect substitution job, the caption would explain what was done and why. (This assumes someone saved the dispute image before it was deleted and the original poster agrees to license the edited version. Alternatively we could find or shoot a similar photo of a public domain statue.)--agr (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Versions of media in different languages

I have been asked to create a Dutch version of a map already on WC, of which I am the original creator. Is there a procedure/policy regarding creating alternate language versions of maps or other media? Or should I just name it something new and different? Keithpickering (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Just name it something new and different. Adding '-nl' to the name would be the obvious choice. - Jmabel ! talk 21:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • There's no standard naming scheme for such things. The main thing is to link related files, using the "other versions" field of {{information}}. Rd232 (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Automated metadata for easier crediting?


A few days ago, User:Ludo29 put up a blog entry [1] on whether it is easier to fix our users (as in "those who use Commons material") by telling them about how to give proper credits, or to fix our pages (with easy-to-find, pre-made credits). By one of these weird coincidences, a few days later one of my images made it to the front page of the Internet edition of Le Monde [2], and I had to help the author a bit on licence and credits.

I realise that the matter has popped up before, and that the nature of this issue is not technological; yet I have a feeling that we could significantly lower the threshold where people start crediting us properly, using a bit of automated suger frosting. As I am certain that we have ample technical know-how to implement these gadgets, the crucial creative step for this idea wold be to define what we would like to have.

  • I think that one possibility could be generating a bar immediately under the image (like on [3]), or possibly a bar that would overlay with the bottom of the image when the mouse pointer linger on it.
  • it would be quite feasible to automatically fill the author, licence and description fields of EXIF tags at the time of the upload. We could make this an opt-in or opt-out option according to the wished of the contributors.

Ideas anybody? Rama (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Also prompted by Ludovic blogpost (indeed! :-), I opened a related discussion on MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-Stockphoto.js#Credit_line_should_be_more_proeminent. Jean-Fred (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

April 4

Tile in the Alhambra, Granada

Question: is there anyone hanging around who could possibly translate this text into correct English? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Received answer, reaction no longer necessary. thnks anyway. Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 15:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Verifying permissions

I've been drafting a new policy, Commons:Verifying permissions. It's still at a fairly early stage, but I need some feedback now on whether this is going in a sensible direction. The draft aims to

  1. Merge Commons:Project scope/Evidence and Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle into a new document (removing them from Commons:Project scope). These two are closely related, and don't actually fit very well into COM:PS. They can be removed from COM:PS, with just links added where relevant (there is some duplication under Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_freely_licensed_or_public_domain - the links can be added there). (Existing shortcuts would be retained, redirected to the new location.)
  2. Integrate with the relevant part of COM:L, Commons:Licensing_policy#License_information, which explains what's actually needed on the file page. That section could be removed from COM:L, and replaced with a link to / summary of the new policy.
  3. Provide somewhere to explain OTRS verification process/standards. See Commons:Requests for comment/OTRS 2012.
  4. Provide a single page that brings together all the evidence/verification/documentation issues.

Thoughts? Rd232 (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rd232, is your proposal Commons:Verifying permissions meant for files where the uploader is not the author or all files ? --Neozoon (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

all files, but I think there's relatively little to be said specifically about cases where the uploader claims to be the author. The documentation requirements at Commons:Verifying_permissions#Licensing apply, but those are standard.... Whatever we can say about such cases, we should say in that page, is my vision. It's an early draft, so it's not very clear; feel free to suggest or make changes about this or anything else. Rd232 (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Are there any substantive changes included or implied by your proposal? If so, are they retroactive?--agr (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Good question. The proposal is really about (i) bringing together existing text in a helpful way and (ii) hopefully explaining OTRS processes/standards - which doesn't currently exist, but would merely be documenting current practice. If I had any proposals for substantive changes (changes to how things work) on this topic, I would try to keep them separate from the process of creating this page. I would mention them, but leave them for future discussion as amendments after the page has been adopted as guideline or policy. I don't currently have any ideas for such substantive changes, but if anyone else does, I would want to keep them separate too. The proposal is quite ambitious enough without introducing substantive change! The aim is just to explain and document the issue better than we do at the moment. A single page to answer the question: how do we verify permissions? Rd232 (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC) license review template

I'm seeing a lot of images coming over from, should we create a specialized license review template for the site like we have with Flickr and Picassa? Sven Manguard Wha? 16:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

If doing so, a few things are required:
  1. Tracking additions of this template to file descriptions with an abuse-filter (like for other review-templates done)
  2. Making license-review scripts aware of the new template
  3. Perhaps creating an own category
If you create such a template, it might be smart to simply copy&paste the picasa review template or the flickr-review template and alter them accordingly. There is already a lot of logic and lots of thoughts inside them.
Kind regards -- RE rillke questions? 18:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like a good idea. /Esquilo (talk) 09:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Google Art Project news


Google Art Project has expanded enormously today, and now they have more than 30,000 works. See here for details.

Many of these could be invaluable for Commons. InverseHypercube 06:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

My existing tools should work for extracting and uploading these, although this a much larger collection so things like categorization and placement may need to be done more systematically. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Great. Are you planning on doing a batch upload? InverseHypercube 16:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
what is the copyright status of this high quality images? I mean.. even the content of the image has no copyright.. the high quality image of google art project has copyright or not? Ggia (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
They do not have any copyright on 2D works that are in the public domain; see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. However, photographs of sculptures are not okay. InverseHypercube 21:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I will be a good idea a script that can grab high quality images of 2D works and upload in commons. Ggia (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Many of the new works are modern art or sculpture however, so they will require careful vetting. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A new project for source media: Commons Archive

From time to time, the concern has arisen that some files on Commons are produced from source materials that cannot be uploaded because upload of those types is restricted. Here are a few typical cases:

  • A photographer processes a camera raw file to produce a JPEG which is uploaded to Commons.
  • A photographer generates an HDRI raw image which is tone-mapped to generate a JPEG which is uploaded to Commons.
  • A map editor uses Adobe Illustrator generate a PNG which is uploaded to Commons.
  • An audio producer mixes several tracks and encodes as OGG to upload to Commons.

In all these cases, the possibilities for editing and remixing of images would be greatly expanded if the source materials were available, and generation loss could be avoided. However, MediaWiki has understandable security concerns about hosting such a diversity of types that they can't validate them all, and adding validation support for a new type is a slow and taxing process. Moreover, WMF is not likely to ever allow proprietary formats, out of concerns that it will displace free formats.

To this end I've created a supplementary site called Commons Archives designed solely for storing source media for media hosted on Commons. Its licensing policy, templates and license tags, etc. are identical to Commons, which has a number of advantages: familiarity to Commons users, the ability to copy file descriptions back and forth, and if MediaWiki ever does add support for a new type, migration of files from Commons Archive to Commons is easy. I haven't transferred all the necessary content yet (and none of the translations), but here's a demonstration of how it works:

Currently Commons Archive relies on Amazon S3 for file storage (via s3fs) which is very reliable but relatively expensive (12.5 cents per gigabyte per month - or $125/TB/mo). If it gets too large I might either have to solicit donations or move to another provider, or set up my own solution in colocation. My current plan for dealing with malicious files is manual review combined with big warnings before each download.

Right now I'm interested in getting opinions about the idea and soliciting people to help administrate it and contribute, to demonstrate its value. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

it is an interesting idea.. but is it better to change the policy of commons and allow propietary formats like raw images files i.e. Nikon NEF format? Ggia (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
There are various longstanding requests - see COM:UNSUPPORTED. This would be a medium-term solution until those requests are finally implemented. It's a good idea in principle, but it's a lot of work to manage it and integrate with Commons, and potentially costly. I'm somewhat skeptical that we have the resources to make it work. And if it really takes off, it's a real responsibility to keep that content online. Rd232 (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
If it becomes costly to manage there are various measures I can take to deal with this. If there are too many bad uploads to manage I can create accounts by request only. If storage becomes too expensive I can pretty easily switch to another storage provider, or host files off a seedbox or a colocated server with manual offline backup (which is really cheap even for large amounts of data). And of course, part of the point is to demonstrate to the devs a very clear need for hosting such content here. I don't think Commons integration is a big deal - pretty much just adding links (and InstantCommons helps). Dcoetzee (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, good. Best of luck. Rd232 (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Could you allow SR2 files (Sony RAW format)? Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Yann, all file formats are allowed. Please feel free to create an account, try it out, and upload some SR2 files. I'll keep an eye on it so I can import any necessary templates and messages (I need to import French messages still as well). Remember to add {{Commons Archive}} tags to the corresponding Commons images. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, that was a problem with my browser (Chrome). Using Konqueror works. Yann (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Great idea! I will be uploading some files there. InverseHypercube 23:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Stumbled upon a problem. I want to upload the high-quality WAV files for File:Radio Traffic involving AF-1 in flight from Dallas, Texas to Andrews AFB on November 22, 1963 - reel 1 - NARA.ogg, but they are larger than 100 MB. Can your server handle more than this?
Thank you. InverseHypercube 23:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi InverseHypercube, thanks for your interest. I will raise the limit, but could you also losslessly compressing the audio using FLAC first and see how big it is? I'm assuming the WAV doesn't contain any metadata you can't migrate to the FLAC file. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
It went down to 214.5 MB. There doesn't seem to be any metadata, so no problem. InverseHypercube 00:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Great, I raised the limit to 250 MB. That's still a pretty big upload for a post if you're on a slow, unreliable connection - if you can't get it uploaded let me know, there are other ways to do it. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Hi! I would like to add "(English)" at the end of the file description at File:Example.jpg to signify that the file is the version that is in English. If somebody added a spanish description, it would say "...... (Inglés)" - a French description. "....(Anglais)" and so on. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The file description seems clear to me, if not complete. " This file name (Example.jpg) is used by English MediaWiki installations when you click the respective toolbar button." Or do you mean the file name? --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see, so it does say "English MediaWiki installations " - But is that supposed to include the Commons too, or should it be modified to say "and the Wikimedia Commons" as well? Also I notice some non-English speaking projects use it too, even though the file itself is in English WhisperToMe (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The file is viewed often, but the file-page is not. I changed edit-protection for the file-page to semi and added upload-protection. Without the latter, there wasn't much point to file-page edit-protection. You should be able to edit the description now and the file is protected better, too. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Walter! WhisperToMe (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

April 5

To long a name

Template:dont editwar

I've created {{dont editwar}} as a user warning template on the issue of edit warring. It looks like this:

Before we ask for translation of the template, does anyone have any comments on the wording (or even on the concept)? Rd232 (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

First: Does Commons have a policy on edit wars? Second: This template is likely to be posted by the other half of the edit war. Don't we run the risk of causing edit wars about posting and deleting of edit war templates instead of resolving anything? Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Edit warring is listed as a reason for blocking at COM:BLOCK. Yes, there is a risk of abuse of the warning template, but since people have the right to remove anything they want from their user talk page, there shouldn't be edit wars about the template use itself. (And in my experience on en.wp, such misuse helps identify the real troublemakers...) Anyway, it is a good point, and I've added a clarifying usage note: This template should NOT be used by users on the talk page of someone they are currently involved in a dispute with - this is likely to be inflammatory. It is intended for others to remind contributors to resolve disputes through discussion. Rd232 (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it can be locked in some way so that it is available only to Admins. ACCassidy (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
We could say the template should only be used by admins, but there's no technical way to enforce that. Rd232 (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I think we (admin or non admin) should not use such a template. Accusing templates are not likely to calm down a situation. I would prefer to use a polite personal message. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
A good personal message is better than a template, yes. But a template can be translated (which can be helpful!) and it may be a kinder, less harsh form of words than some people would use. Rd232 (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I basically agree: using templates, especially "in your face" ones that are officious does not actually help communication. Their use often seems to be like belting a child in order to teach them not to use violence to resolve their disputes with others. Anyway the way we should be using templates is to communicate with users where we can't otherwise, due to not being fluent in each other's language. The note about a template having the possibility of being less harsh, which I interpret as less confrontational is certainly a good one. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

How to release rights for corporate/institutional photos

A few days ago, I (Geoff Olynyk) uploaded a photo File:Alcator C control room.jpg. This photo was taken by an employee of my institution in the early 1980s; he no longer works here. So his successor (Paul Rivenberg, Communications & Outreach Coordinator) emailed the OTRS system two days ago to properly release the rights (we are releasing it as CC-BY 3.0). The reply from Edo de Roo came this morning as follows:

Thank you for providing this to us. Please be aware, however, that you don't need to send us in an email permission or use the OTRS pending tag for images and other works that you have created yourself, unless you are specifically asked to send it in or you have previously published the image on another site. To help us process in a timely fashion the permissions we need to deal with, we'd appreciate if you could take this into consideration in the future.

Paul (the person who released the rights) is not actually the creator of the work or the copyright holder (that goes to the institution - the MIT PSFC).

So my question is: how does one properly release a corporate/institutional photo under CC-BY license on Commons? We are going to be uploading a couple dozen more of these and don't want to be wasting the OTRS admins' time, but also want to make sure that the photos don't get deleted later for improper license.

--Geoff Olynyk (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You need a release certified by the person who is legally mandated to release the rights of the copyright holder. If the copyright holder is the MIT PSFC, then you must find the person or board to whom the MIT PSFC has officially delegated the power to take that type of legally binding decisions in the name of the MIT PSFC. Once you found that person or board, and assuming they take the decision to release the rights, have the authorized representative send a confirmation by OTRS. The confirmation can be for a closed list of specified files, or it can be for all files uploaded by your account, if they officially mandate you to upload the files they release. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Asclepias, thanks for the reply. The officially delegated person is Paul Rivenberg, and this is exactly the procedure we followed (releasing the rights via email to OTRS). My confusion was because the reply from the OTRS admin (quoted above) sort of sounded like he/she was telling us not to send them emails for pictures like the one we uploaded – but I think that we actually did follow the proper procedure. --Geoff Olynyk (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
That person was under the impression you created the work yourself, when in fact that was not the case. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Documenting this kind of thing is exactly what the draft Commons:Verifying_permissions is meant for. I've adapted your comment at Commons:Verifying_permissions#Rights_for_corporate.2Finstitutional_media - feel free to improve it. Rd232 (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

April 6

Cutty Sark old pictures

I ordened the Cutty Sark category. I found there are some doubles where the inferior picture could be removed. Are different scans of old pictures doubles? By some there is cropping involved. Could someone look at the cases?

File:Cutty Sark (ship, 1869) - SLV H91.250-162.jpg


File:StateLibQld 1 146359 Cutty Sark (ship).jpg

Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Different scans of the same print might be doubles, but that is not the case here. These appear to be scans of different prints, with differences of density, contrast, and focus. The higher-resolution version is not always the sharpest. I could see a case for keeping all of these.Dankarl (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, think I'd agree. There are enough differences to keep them. Even File:Cutty-sark.png, which is a different crop, and in use to boot (including a wikinews article). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

File naming schemes

We currently have category schemes (Category:Commons category schemes), but not Category:File naming schemes, even though there are examples of recognised standard filenaming schemes. The most obvious example is the one given in Commons:File renaming #6, which permits renaming to "Harmonize file names of a set of images": the BS icon scheme (see BSicon and Category:BSicon).

Some questions:

  1. Should we develop some sort of system to help clarify what file naming schemes have consensus? Such schemes could be documented as part of a relevant category scheme, or maybe we could have Category:File naming schemes. These things can also be documented as part of a WikiProject, if there is a relevant one. But how or where will we determine consensus?
  2. How do we handle clashes between different schemes, particularly where each is accepted in different areas, but there is some overlap? Can we use file redirects to enable a file to fit into more than one scheme?

Specific example:

  • whilst we need to talk about the general principle, it can be helpful to have a specific example, if commentators are careful not to lose sight of the general principle. So here's the example: a clash of two naming schemes (neither of them has demonstrated consensus, but both exist), which a rename of File:Rank Army Hungary OF-10.svg to File:Army-HUN-OF-09.svg brought to a head. The former naming scheme covers Hungarian police, fire, army ranks; the latter scheme covers all NATO army ranks (using the UN country code, here HUN for Hungary). How do we decide between these schemes, and what can we do in the area where they overlap?

Rd232 (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

First assertion to be checked before engaging a file naming standard is: for a unique name, there will be only one image possible that corresponds to the name: there will be no possibility of variants with other resolutions or colour variations. For jpeg files, that seems impossible, for SVG files, I doubt it. In other words, a file naming standard has to define the resolution, colour tints and all possible image details. If this is not the case, a file naming standard makes no sense. --Foroa (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be assuming that a file naming scheme has to uniquely specify the entire filename; it doesn't. It does for the purpose of template harmonisation, but more generally than that, it need not. But in any case, the naming scheme could just say "we need a file that meets criteria X, Y, Z... and as long as there's only one, we use that, and if there's more than one, we use the best for the unique naming scheme, and the other(s) can be named something related". Rd232 (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
It is of great importance to have files such as coat of arms, flags and etc to follow a naming scheme particularly for template use. Rank insignia is no different. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 17:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
If a template can't handle perfectly good descriptive file names, the problem is with the template and not with the file name. If the template can't be fixed to work with good file names, either it can use a redirect or use some other file. We should not be moving files around because some project has templates with incorrect assumptions about file naming. /Ö 18:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I do not agree with you. We should name a set of files similarly so that templates do not have to be overly complicated. We are here to serve WMF projects after all. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 18:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
No policy should be abused for making moves from human readable File:Badge of rank of Grenader of the Norwegian Army.svg to obscure File:Army-NOR-OR-01b.svg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Leaving aside the bad faith, "human readability" is a very reasonable criterion to use for filenaming. But it may conflict with standardisation for template purposes. Rd232 (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Leaving aside the bad faith — Which one? Especially after this and additionally (s)he is consuming my spare-time by causing threads on COM:AN/U. At least as long MediaWiki does not allow to transclude files by ID instead of its name or allows just changing the h1-heading/ a hash-based file storage, I would oppose. Currently it is File name = Name in the database = h1 - heading on file description pages = name in transclusion wikimarkup This is unfortunate but reality. -- RE rillke questions? 11:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Just by looking at the filename Army-NOR-OR-01b.svg I can tell:
  • This is the insignia for an Army branch
  • This is the insignia for Norwegian military
  • This is the insignia for a non-commissioned officer/enlisted
  • This rank is the equivalent of "private"
  • There exists one OR-1 equivalent rank above it
Just by looking at the filename Badge of rank of Grenader of the Norwegian Army.svg I can tell:
  • That it is a w:Badge (Misleading, I would not think of "rank insignia" when mentioned the word badge)
  • This is the insignia for Norwegian military
  • This is the insignia for an Army branch
  • This is the rank of Grenader. (Misleading since all of the text is in English I think of w:Grenader)
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 20:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I can't imagine we need an overall policy on naming schemes for files. Impossible to control. I think the renaming criteria #6 is for situations where a parameterized template needs a particular naming scheme for a group of related images to work. Redirects instead of renames may also work, if there is a conflict. Other than that, I don't think there should be any kind of mandated naming scheme, other than the general "be descriptive". Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, what about use of redirects? Are we happy to use redirects as needed to resolve naming conflicts? What about categorisation of redirects? Rd232 (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean with "Impossible to control." from "mandated naming scheme". Sure, I don't think we can get users to routinely follow naming schemes at first upload. Naming schemes would therefore be for renames for standardisation to make it easier to find similar and related files. Which clarifies that schemes would probably only usefully apply to a tiny fraction of Commons' files, and also brings us back to the issue of redirects, in the form of redirects from the original name. Rd232 (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I too do not feel a policy is not needed for file renaming schemes. Flags and Coat of Arms follow a naming scheme without a policy to back it up. I am unsure of the scope of this thread (it seems rather broad) but I am interested in harmonizing rank insignia which involves about 2500 files (I am probably greatly overestimating the number). -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 18:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Flags and Coat of Arms follow a naming scheme without a policy to back it up. - and where is that scheme written down, and how did it come about? Rd232 (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
NB I don't actually envisage a specific policy. Category schemes (which are about both structure and naming, so they have more work to do, and the naming is more implicit) don't have a policy either. Rd232 (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
File:Flag of Mexico.svg, File:Flag of the United States.svg, File:Flag of Japan.svg. The naming scheme is "Flag of foo". -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 18:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • After working on the Help:File redirect page I am even more convinced that the less file renaming and moving we do, the better. File redirection and the delinker are only bandages to patch up the problems caused by moving content. If a filename needs changing do it as quickly as possible after upload (ie monitor new uploads), if a file has been here for some time then we appear to have coped with whatever problems its bad name has created - a 'fix' of the filename just causes more problems.
I of course have no problems with sets of files being named according to an arbitrary naming scheme (so get people involved in a sub-project that encourages standardisation of uploads). But the existance of such a naming scheme does not mandate renaming existing files to conform with that scheme. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg 


part of the problem here is that it's nowhere documented (AFAIK) how file redirects work. I've created Help:File redirect as a placeholder for doing that - please feel free to add to it. Rd232 (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added to your help page, trying to add information about how and why we use file-redirects without straying to far into the pro/con arguments. I don't know what standards of structure and tone we have for help pages, and I am sure at the very least it requires some copy-editing. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Very well done, Tony.
"flag of xxx" ... is a simple organically grown file naming standard at Commons and its advantages are obvious for all users, so even no need to document it.
The so called standard for insignia is not a standard, it is a complex encoding rule for the first part of a file name, which can still exist in many variations (cropping, resolution, orientation, color variations, ...). It has several restrictions:
  • Many fields are Nato defined, which covers only part of the countries and regions of the world where the NATO is active
  • The rules and concatenation are some loose interpretation of the Nato standard, I know of no comprehensive documentation that documents it, a primary requirement for any standard of such type and complexity
  • The Nato only covers items of the Nato history, so the many thousands of items that are are outside the Nato time-line or activity area are not covered
So even if the scheme had not the restrictions of the Nato as mentioned above, it would be far too complex and incomplete to be practical in a worldwide Commons context.
The nice thing of redirects as used by templates is that a better version, resolution, crop or coloring scheme can be selected without having to remove the original file first or to to overwrite the existing file with a better one. This should avoid many edit wars and discussions as for example the one around File:Army-FRA-OR-01_(alt).svg. --Foroa (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I am uncomfortable discussing rank insignia on this thread as the scope of the discussion is broader. I am going to start another thread for this. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 01:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Fork for rank insignia was started on this page at #Naming convention for ranks and insignia. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 14:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

category navigational templates

There are many category navigational templates in Category:Category navigational templates. On seeing how complex these templates can be, I've developed {{catnav}} to make it easier to construct these templates. I've tested this on {{Districts of Saarland}}, and you can see this in action at for example Category:Churches in Landkreis Saarlouis. It's worth highlighting the difference in the wikitext of {{Districts of Saarland}}: before and after. Comments welcome - if there aren't any, feel free to use the template! Rd232 (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

April 7

Question about "awarding" a bad faith barnstar

This is an issue of violation of COM:MELLOW, usage of fake "awarding" of a barnstar via the mw:WikiLove user tool function for malicious purposes.

Bringing notice to the community here to discuss at link provided below, for wider eyes as to whether or not this is appropriate behavior.

Please see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Drmies_.3D_use_of_bad_faith_barnstar_via_WikiLove_function.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for immediate removal of copyrighted artwork by artist.


I have just been made aware by the editors of Le Point Magazine here in Paris that my coprighted artwork appears on Wiki Commons an is mis-identified as being in the public domain (created circa 1900), even though I am listed as the co-artist, "American, 20th century." Obviously I am very much alive, and quite unhappy about this as well.

This is my website:

This is the offending file:,_20th_Century%29_and_Edward_Andrew_Zega_%28American,_20th_Century%29.jpg

I also have a Wikipedia biography page (!) here : which obviously no one on Wikipedia consulted before transgressing my copyright-holder's rights.

With Dr. Bernd H. Dams, I have initiated several legal proceedings in the US, Canada and Europe to protect the copyright of our artwork. We take copyright violations extremely seriously, and are horrified that this image, one of our three most important artworks, has been uploaded to Wikipedia and mislabled as public domain. You have caused us untold legal headaches.

I have edited the page to reflect my ownership rights, but I request that the image be removed except for a watermarked thumbnail and the page edited to explain that an error has occurred, the image is fully protected by copright, and that it must not be reused except with express written permission of myself and Dr. Dams.

Please use the email registered with my account to contact me at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EAZega (talk • contribs) 2012-04-07T11:04:26 (UTC)
I have deleted the file as an obvious copyright violation. The image can be found on the web several times, always credited to you, e. g. here at your own website, so the case is clear. I'm sorry for the inconvenience caused. The uploader, who obviously didn't research very thoroughly before uploading, was already banned, and I'll have a look at his other uploads to see if they are ok or not. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 11:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
[Edit conflict]. Looks like an administrator has already dealt with your request for the file to be deleted. In future, you can nominate files for speedy deletion by clicking the "Report copyright violation" link in the left panel of the web page. You can also leave a message requesting urgent administrator intervention at "Commons:Administrators' noticeboard". — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both for your extremely swift handling of this problem; I greatly appreciate it. EAZega
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy Easter to all!

Easter bunny
Easter bunny

Happy easter to all Face-smile.svg -- 16:15, 7 April 2012‎ User:Lotje

Thanks, you too! Dcoetzee (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes! -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 16:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Happy Easter everyone! InverseHypercube 17:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Collaborating with other institutions

Wikimedia Commons has the potential to become a central repository of creative commons content. There are a large number of other sites running both Mediawiki and non Mediawiki software to partner with. If we could allow users of other sites to simultaneously upload to both Commons and the other site in question we could increase the rate we are expanding out image content and hopefully bring more people into the WM movement.

This is an idea a number of organizations, I have spoken with, have agreed to in principle. They would alter their websites to allow simultaneous uploading to both Wikimedia Commons and their own site. All these sites need is the software which would allow their users to do this. Since some host both NC and non NC content the upload tool would give people the option to simultaneously upload to commons if people are willing to release under our license. This may also encourage people to release under our license.

Organizations that are interested include The University of British Columbia ( about 50,000 students and staff ), Medpix which hosts more than 50,000 medical images and is based at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences with about 5000 students and staff, ECGepedia and family of websites

I guess what we need is people on this end who are willing to help create such a program to run on others websites. Anyone interested? --James Heilman, MD (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

  • We crawl other websites such as Flickr for freely licensed images already. I see merit in doing this in a more structured manner. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 15:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This could be very interesting, but I'm not how feasible it is at the moment as conceived. For instance, right now we're still waiting for the ability to upload to Commons directly from another website. So I'm not sure how easy we can make the "simultaneous" part (ideally people would just fill in a form on the external website and tick a "upload to Wikimedia Commons as well" box). It might be that the best we can do without substantial development work is simply an advert on those websites' "upload completed" pages: thanks for uploading here. Would you like to reach an even wider audience? You can do so by uploading to Wikimedia Commons sort of thing. Anyway, it would be good to have some comments from the Wikimedia Foundation on this, so I've asked for some (given Easter, a response will take a few days). Thanks for raising this! Rd232 (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Need filesize exemption for Ogg FLACs

Hi all, I have a couple Ogg FLACs from Commons Archive I need to upload here:

These are actually not much larger than the existing OGG files on Commons, presumably because the OGGs were encoded at really high quality:

I'm wondering who I contact to get a filesize exemption to get the Ogg FLACs uploaded here. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently meta:System administrators have to be contacted through IRC to get it done. Don't have time at the moment but one of them might see this post. InverseHypercube 21:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
You can make such requests in Bugzilla:. See Help:Server-side upload. /Ö 21:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Naming Categories by place - when to use in or of

Is there some guidance somewhere on when to name a category "Things of Foo" as opposed to "Things in Foo"? Dankarl (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It depends largely on what "Things" are and to some extent on what "Foo" is. See Commons talk:Category scheme countries and subdivisions and Commons talk:By location category scheme. Very generally speaking: use "in" for things physically located in or taking place inside the borders of Foo (e.g. Events in Foo and Sculptures in Foo), and use "of" for things associated with Foo or its government (e.g. People of Foo and Culture of Foo). Also try to maintain consistency with other similar categories. For example, if Gadgets of Bar exists, use Gadgets of Foo rather than Gadgets in Foo. LX (talk, contribs) 10:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

April 8

What to use for mp4?

Well, instead of doing research of my own, this time I will rather play a simple user who has come to upload something useful to the project and is basically walled. I believe it will be of help to the project to point out the following weak points.

So, lets say I would like to upload videos to the WM commons, but am at least too lazy to look up into the (best) ways and practices of processing and converting mp4 into something commons comprehensible.

It is shame that upon a try to upload mp4, users only get message that "this Wiki does not accept mp4 files" and not also what they can do about it. Also, maybe they would hope to get some help by seeking mp4 or Help:mp4, but nay. I believe the community here must be having some experience on converting videos, so why not make the help pages and share them? Maybe the pages already exist, so they just need to be wired up. Lets do it. :) 巡 Mihajlo [ talk ] 10:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you're looking for Help:Converting video. I agree that the error message should link to that information or information like that, but we're probably not going to create and maintain individual help pages for each and every conceivable combination of video container formats and codecs. LX (talk, contribs) 10:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Microsoft Certified Professionals

I sense that this category might be inappropriate as some kind of advertisement:

Category:Microsoft Certified Professionals

I don't know the rules here, I'm mainly active on Wikipedia, but I'll explain why I think it is a bad category:

  1. first, associating a kind of "certification" with a company, however influential, might risk an inflation of number of "certified professional" categories, why not Category:CompTIA Certified Professionals, why not Category:Cisco Certified Professionals, and so on?
  2. secondly Certified Professional is nothing like say an academic Bachelor of Xology, which is much more advanced, we don't have any category of Bachelors or Masters, but there are categories of Professors – a Certified Professional is something like a knowledgeable professional with extensive (but superficial) knowledge of administration of a category of programs,

I propose deleting according to the procedure of Commons. Rursus (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The "procedure of Commons" in this case is Commons:Categories for discussion, which is actually rather broken (since the current setup seems to guarantee that many discussions on category changes languish since few people know about them -- though many people become annoyed when the categorization of images on their watchlist is negatively impacted as a result of discussions they didn't know were occurring)... AnonMoos (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, useless cat. --Denniss (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


I uploaded a higher resolution version of this image (from the same source). It's preview looks fine, but when I click on "full resolution" I get the old version. Did I do something wrong or is this a bug?--agr (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Have you cleared your cache? - Jmabel ! talk 15:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Works fine for me. There are much larger versions at the source, btw, if you can convert from TIFF to JPG. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
    • It could well have been a cache issue. I didn't think of that. It looks like other editors have downloaded the still higher res file and done some clean up, so thanks to all. --agr (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Naming convention for ranks and insignia

No higher resolution available

Small SVG files like File:Dialog-information_on.svg say "No higher resolution available." even though it's not true. Is this worth filing a bug about, or is this something we can fix with parser functions on the system message MediaWiki:File-nohires? This, that and the other (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Open a bug. It should be fixed by MediaWiki. Platonides (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. ✓  Done : Bugzilla35821 - SVGs state "No higher resolution available" on file description page. A temporary fix we control would be possible; the line has class "mw-filepage-resolutioninfo" and this line could be hidden if the filename ends in .svg. Doing it in parser functions on every page might be pretty heavy on the servers though. Javascript probably wouldn't be so bad, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort. Rd232 (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

New version upload but old thumbnail resists purging

I'm trying to crop File:Alexander von Humboldt - Geographie der Pflanzen in den Tropen-Laendern - stacked.jpg, but despite purging the page, null edits, and reloading, the Wiki still shows the uncropped version in its thumbnails. I don't understand what's going wrong there. --Morn (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Often, what you have to do in these situations is view the actual image file (by clicking on the image on the file description page), and pressing Ctrl+F5 in your browser. This, that and the other (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Directly opening the image in the browser shows the latest version as expected; but the MediaWiki thumbnails are still stuck at the original version. So I think this is a Wiki issue, not a browser caching problem. (Also, I've checked the page in multiple browsers.) Which version are you seeing in the image preview? --Morn (talk) 10:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
P.S., I notice the image thumbnails in the WP articles have updated, but if I click on them I get the uncropped preview image. --Morn (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Basically, I'm seeing this for the different thumbnail sizes:

So the question is why the purge doesn't work for the 800px and 1024px thumbnails. --Morn (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Now the 1024px version has finally been updated too. So maybe this is all just a weird Squid issue and will resolve itself completely on its own after a few days. Haec olim meminisse iuvabit. --Morn (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Charts using JS, not images

Is there a way to create charts in wikipedia using Google Chart Tools or some other JS script? I tried to create a column-chart using wiki-tables in the hebrew wikipedia but needs a lot of work. If i convert it to image, every year we will have to edit the image manually. I need a simple and automatic tool to convert data to chartes, that can be easy to update. Ramiy (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia doesn't really allow ordinary editors to have direct control over scripting code to be executed by browser software, but there's an entire "Timeline" graphic language which might be useful in some cases: en:Help:EasyTimeline_syntax... AnonMoos (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
If you suggest adding a gadget for accomplishing this task (you will be responsible for the code, making it RL compatible and document it properly), I would review it and if there are no opposes, add it to our gadget-definitions. There are plenty of possibilities for JS (SVG, Canvas, plain old HTML, ...) to create a chart. I think this is quite useful but should be coded with care (not allowing DoS attacs at the client, ...). -- RE rillke questions? 20:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
You can create bar graphs on the English Wikipedia. Don't know about the Hebrew one though; you might want to try the Village Pump there. InverseHypercube 20:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons images not appearing in Google Images Creative Commons search


I noticed that Commons images do not appear in Google Images searches filtered by usage rights; see This is a shame, since all Commons images should be "free to use, share or modify, even commercially". Any idea what to do about this? InverseHypercube 20:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

bugzilla:9666 (linked from Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2012/03#Author information on file pages must be clear and machine-readable, even with user customisation -- RE rillke questions? 20:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Uncredited use of File:TheBus Nova Bus LFS (206) at Ala Moana Center 2011-01-04.jpg

I've recently learned that a candidate in Honolulu's 2012 mayoral elections appears to be using a photograph I uploaded to Commons on his campaign website, but the website does not credit the photograph as required by the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. Is there any way anyone here can help with contacting them to ask that they add the credit? I'm personally worried about having my real name attached to this pseudonym I upload under.

Campaign page with photo in question

Musashi1600 (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Contact the website directly and let them know about the crediting and the licensing issues. Most of the time, that works. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
You could just create a throw away email account (hotmail et al) and post a message on that webpage, you don't even need to say that it is your image, just point out the source and that the license requires attribution otherwise they are infringing copyright. --Tony Wills (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Consider adding {{Published}} to the file talk page to document the use of the image. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
see Commons:REUSE#Enforcing_license_terms. You don't need to give your real name if you contact them - you can use a musashi1600 hotmail/gmail/etc account. Rd232 (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Good news: I've been in touch with their campaign staff (per Zscout370's suggestion), and they've corrected the page to include a credit in compliance with the Creative Commons license. Musashi1600 (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge of review templates

We currently have 5 Commons:License review templates. Code-wise none are all that much different.

I created {{LemillReview}} today so the count is 6.

I think we can merge the templates without merging the category structure used by bots (different code is needed to review each website).

-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 15:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

If it can be done in a way that dosen't mess with the categorization, I'd be for it. I'll even help with the implementation. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Please do not touch/change/merge the Flickrreview template unless you find someone actively maintaining the Flickrreview bot. Fiddling with this template may do more bad than good - the bot is a bit fragile if someone touches it's known templates. Picasareview is also used by a bot, the others seem to be templates for manual usage. --Denniss (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
A complete collection is at Category:License review tags and there are additionally some redirects.
Fine, とある白い猫, there is still confusion around the new parameter in {{rename}} that is not reflected in most pages, e.g. the welcome template and the translations of COM:FR. Please do not open a new site before the old is not complete.
Generally I would support this. It requires changes in our license-review scripts and abuse filter. It would be also smart to make the template aware how the review/passed review/failed form has to look like so scripts don't have to "know" this.
Also, you must be careful not to break the bots. User:FlickreviewR is very strict regarding to the syntax that has to be used in the template; otherwise it will throw an error to User:FlickreviewR/Images never editted by their reviewer. Thanks. -- RE rillke questions? 22:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
"editted" should be "edited". - Jmabel ! talk 00:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I guess we can't change that, either, because it would confuse the bot. Lupo 15:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Also note that Flinfo also uses these templates; if you change them in significant ways, Flinfo would also need updating. Lupo 15:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

April 10

Unpatrolled marker in revision histories

Can we add the red ! that denotes unpatrolled edits in Special:recent changes on the revision histories of each page. Sometimes older edits to the same page are unpatrolled. It would be easy if this was visible in the page history also.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Misidentified image

It appears that File:Soyuz-tm8.svg had been a misidentified image for about a year (see File_talk:Soyuz-tm8.svg), and has incorrectly made its way into several Wikipedias of various languages. Could someone help in fixing these mistakes? Thanks, 16:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've filed to have the .svg (and its parent .jpg) renamed. DS (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Geocoords question

Is there any correct way to make reference to a geographic location by latitude and longitude in the description of a photo when the geographic location is not the location of the photo? If I use {{Object location dec}}, it will think it's the location of the photo. (I want to use coords in a caption in a gallery, showing a sequence of related images.) - Jmabel ! talk 00:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You can indicate the direction (NE, E, N, etc) of the picture. This helps to place the picture. An object in a picture is never very far from the place where the picture is taken. And in the picture there are strong indications of the distance. The viewer can locatie the precise position of big features with google Earth. I dont see where the problem is.Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Europeana database and search portal

Today, while searching for some images, I came across Europeana, a search portal and database that (to quote them): "enables people to explore the digital resources of Europe's museums, libraries, archives and audio-visual collections. It promotes discovery and networking opportunities in a multilingual space where users can engage, share in and be inspired by the rich diversity of Europe's cultural and scientific heritage." Another quote from their FAQ says: "Europeana is an internet portal that acts as an interface to millions of books, paintings, films, museum objects and archival records that have been digitised throughout Europe." Examples of the resources they co-ordinate include images, texts, sounds, and videos. It sounds like a version of Commons and Wikisource, aimed at museums, libraries and archives, but not limited to freely licensed materials.

More information here and here and some articles here. Still trying to work out when it was launched, in about 2009 it looks like. Some facts and figures here. Down the bottom are links to initiatives on Public Domain, Linked Open Data, APIs and User-Generated Content.

What I was wondering was how much public domain material they host or link to? Has anyone here had experience with this site (I did notice a link on their home page to "Wiki Loves Art Nouveau", but didn't follow that up)? Is there any documentation here (with other listings of search portals and archives) of this resource and how best to utilise it? Oh, having just written the above, I see we have Category:Images from Europeana and Category:Europeana and Commons:Europeana. I'll go read those pages then! :-) Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There has been discussions about the site at the VP of Swedish Wikipedia. My understanding is that they link to very much valuable material, but with not too good search engines; the sites of individual museums and archives are generally much more usable. --LPfi (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Jack Stuef article

Jack Stuef has contributed an article on Buzzfeed called "Wikipedia's Kiddie Porn Problem", originally titled "It's Almost Impossible To Get Kiddie Porn Off Wikipedia". I left a response giving a brief explanation but it's either in moderation or deleted. It appears all the images he was concerned about have already been recently deleted.

Although there's plenty of stuff that's wrong in this article, it does raise the legitimate point that sometimes actual child pornography does sit around for a while before we find it. Are there steps we can take to identify it more quickly? Or is it more a problem of recruiting more admins? Dcoetzee (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

We have a new files-patrol gadget/ toolserver interface (by Krinkle) that allows coordinating the work on them but it is only used by less than 10 users. We also have not enough manpower to check all new files. WMF decided to make the upload easier (someone called the comic-strip overly simplistic because it does not mention lots of problems) without caring about the Commons-community. But, if I read Jimmy's comments concerning Commons, I am not surprised.
This is also a serious issue and we are not educated in dealing with it (I think it is not only important to delete such files but also to prosecute the uploader), while I think all Commons admins should. I wouldn't oppose if WMF invests some cents to help us. -- RE rillke questions? 20:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I do think real child pornography is a real problem and that we should try to get the uploader prosecuted in those cases. We might have a problem, but the article does not convince me.
The article starts by talking about images uploaded by the subjects themselves, who are close enough their 18th birthday that nobody sees the difference. I wouldn't call that child pornography (it might be called so legally and there might be a legal problem, but let's talk about it in terms of legal responsibility then).
M_penis.jpg described here as "A boys penis. erected" is the main ("most egregious") example. It may very well fit into our scope (I havn't seen it but the description could be a caption of a 19th century medical textbook - would anybody question the image if that was the source?). 1996 in the user name might mean the user was born in 1996 as the author suggests, but it might as well mean the user began collage that year. Quite bad evidence. Legally a boy's erected penis is not child porn unless intended for such use. I would of course be worried if the boy is still a boy and might be identified (or if the image was taken in an inappropriate setting), but otherwise I do not see the problem - which probably makes me the problem of Commons, in the eyes of the author.
Then there is the Fox news thing, which I understood was made out of thin air (but the actions of Jimbo made it seem there was a real problem). We do have sexual images. We have penises. The author thinks it is a problem (was this about child pornography? why does it always start out with that and then use ordinary sexual images as examples). Should we exclude human sexuality from our scope?
The author goes on to suggest that [maybe] "the only way the image would ever be deleted, despite it clearly being child pornography, was if it was done on the grounds that this child porn wasn’t of high enough quality."
I think this last quote at least shows the article is rubbish. The author might be well intending, but in that case he is very much uninformed, and thus not worth taking seriously.
--LPfi (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
@LPfi: Amerikansk lag ser ganska annorlunda ut mot svensk och mycket sannolikt även finsk. Det räcker i princip med att vara naken hud för att det ska kallas porr, vilket vi inte är vara vid. Att då visa ett barn nakna hud... Jag skulle kunna säga mycket här, men avstår...-- User:Lavallen 08:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Jaså? Hur kommer det sig då att Commons har en massa gamla foton från 1800-talet och tidigt 1900-tal som visar barns anatomi? Ta Category:Men by Wilhelm von Gloeden till exempel. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Image on Commons but Fair Use on Wikipedia

Hi, this image File:D. G. Pavlov.jpg is on Commons, and it's "in the public domain in Ukraine, because it was published before January 1, 1951, and the creator (if known) died before that date." (image description) But on the English and Russian wikipedia, en:File:DmitryPavlov.jpg and ru:Файл:Pavlov dg.jpg, the image is used with copyright, maybe using Fair Use. What to do in these cases? --UAwiki (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If it really was taken by the Ukrainian SSR, as the local tag states, then it is PD in the US per the text of the template on Commons. Therefore we'd keep the Commons file and we'd have the two local project files (or at least the en.wp one, I don't know ru.wp's rules) deleted, replacing the local version with the Commons version. If it's not actually the Ukrainian SSR that took the photo, then the Commons file is mislicensed. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
A lot of images that were PD-Soviet were mass changed to PD-Ukraine regardless if they were Ukrainian works or not. However, what I did was I relicensed the image as {{PD-Russia-2008}} since we have no clue who the author is and was taken before 1942 and have no clue who the author is. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks; so, I suppose I have to tag the image for deletion on English wikipedia, and point there is another image on Commons, no need for Fair Use? Greets --UAwiki (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

walking like an Egyptian

Hi there. I'm from Wiktionary, where I recently created the page walk like an Egyptian. I'm looking for a picture, presumably from this category, that illustrates walking like an Egyptian. Can you help me find one? --Yakky snacks (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of images of walking people (like this one). But none of them seem to be "Walking like an Egyptian". I assume the iconic pose is not based on the actual hieroglyphs. See also Category:Hieroglyphs of Egypt: man and his occupations. --Jarekt (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised we don't seem to have any modern examples of people doing the pose; the closest I can find is File:Madonna-music-sticky.jpg, and maybe you could crop something useful from that? Or take one of yourself or a friend doing the pose? cmadler (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
There's A32 "man dancing", but actual hieroglyphs (as opposed to artistic portraits of people) are not your best bet... AnonMoos (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Flickr has lots of images you can use. InverseHypercube 06:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

April 11

Image of Orson Welles and Dolores del Río

Could someone assess whether this image is licensed correctly for use on the Commons? No source is given, and it is a photograph, not a 2D work of art. Thanks. — WFinch (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Nearly all of the uploader's files have equally uninformative source information. - Jmabel ! talk 01:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Made me look. I see that a screenshot from the film High Noon was also uploaded in the same way by this user. That image was tagged on April 12 as having no source information. Could an administrator do the same for the Welles-Del Rio image? — WFinch (talk)

WMF blog profiles

WMF have recently started a quite interesting series of articles profiling the featured images on Commons - each one is the POTD, plus a few hundred words talking about the image, a short interview with the creator, etc.

These definitely seem like they'd be of interest to people browsing the images, and so I've knocked together a quick template to link these from the image description page:

- this is the example from the first one, File:2011-09-15 13-20-34-eglise-st-maimboeuf.jpg. I haven't yet set it up with translations, mainly because I'm not sure how!

Any thoughts? Shimgray (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well {{Assessment}} can be expanded to include it. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 22:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
You mean {{Assessments}} - {{Assessment}} is a very different template. :) Anyway, I wouldn't add it to {{Assessments}} - the template is quite confusing enough (and the documentation is even worse). Rd232 (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
{{WMF blog}} looks good to me. I've added {{LangSwitch}} for localisation. Rd232 (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
{{Assessments}} is simple. Its code is complicated but the use of it is simple. I intend to simplify the code at a future point. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 01:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks both. I originally intended to base it on {{Assessments}}, but the code scared me a bit ;-). Shimgray (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The coding of it is horrendous. I intend to simplify it today. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 17:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the template looks fine. Template:Assessments was created to reduce the size of the many different large templates used by different quality projects. But this WMF-blog template is already very small so that is not a problem in this case. It also has clearly named parameters. Assessments already has similar parameters (dates for POTD, urls/pagenames/subpages for nominations) for different projects and trying to add more will make the template even more complex and confusing. /Ö 11:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
It can and should be simplified I am working on this now. It is even more confusing everywhere if our best files are drown under a large pile of templates. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 18:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I simplified the code losslessly and it has been halved. I'll simplify more later probably. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 18:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Nice. Well done. Rd232 (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I have added code to {{Assessments}} for WMF blog and updated the 5 uses in a bold manner, I hope that is ok. I kept your code as is as I am unsure how you want it to appear. Probably we can get rid of the blue border and white background. {{Assessments/wmf/blog}} controls the appearance. Also would you mind if I broke apart the date into individual year, month, day components as then the template could be simplified a parameter. I would also suggest a category for all images that are featured on WMF blog. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 19:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this! A tracking category would certainly be a good idea, and please feel free to do what you wish with the date settings and visual appearance - perhaps drop the border and background but keep the little WMF icon? I mainly just wanted to get a proof-of-concept in place so that we had something to work with... Shimgray (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll fix the appearance right away, do you have a preference for the name of the category? Category:Files featured by the WMF blog or Category:Files featured by the Wikimedia Foundation blog comes to my mind. Furthermore using the date value you can also categorize monthly/yearly etc if you desire. For example this can be used to sort files chronologically where the oldest item first.
Also I don't think "profile" is the right word there perhaps the word "featured" would work better. "Profiling" can be interpreted derogatory by some particularly depending on the content.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 15:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I deliberately avoided the word "featured" because this isn't really the same thing as we normally use the word for - on most projects, "featured content" implies a community process. "Profiled" also makes it clear that the image was talked about, rather than just shown, but I'm open to alternatives... Shimgray (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this content hand-picked by the Foundation? What is the selection process? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 16:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
My thinking in starting the new features is that I'd like to promote the excellent work of the Commons community both on our blog and through the WP/WMF social media channels. We've reached out to scheduled POTD photographers in April and many have not responded or been interested, but we intend to keep focusing on the photos and adding profiles about particular photographers or categories (pictures of animals, elements, architecture, etc) depending on the interest and the ability to get interviews. I'm hoping the result will be to get more photographers to consider donating high-quality images to Commons, especially those who might not readily understand CC licensing, or understand the value of giving an image to an encyclopedic work for all to benefit. Happy to answer other questions and happy to get recommendations for profiles/angles. Thanks! Matthew (WMF) (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for comment/Grandfathered old files

Would like some more input on this as the discussion has gone stale again in the last week. SpeakFree (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

April 12

opaque use of undocumented templates

Today I saw on my watchlist another contributor was filling in a "failed" field on the {{PD-Afghanistan}} template. This field is new, and it is undocumented.

When instantiated the template now says

This image has been reviewed on 20:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC) by contributor, who found it not public domain but under a license which isn't compatible with Commons. If this image was recently uploaded, it may be speedy deleted.

In the last three dozen images the contributor was marking these {{PD-Afghanistan}} images as having failed their reviews, they didn't provide any explanation of what kind of review they performed, or how they thought the images failed. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]

I also couldn't help noticing that they were averaging about 30 seconds for these reviews.

I wonder -- should this feature of the template be used, prior to it being documented? Geo Swan (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

  • This field should be deleted as it is useless - file should be left alone or nominated for proper deletion rather that marked "may be nominated for deletion" Bulwersator (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • We do need a review of the Afghan photos. Most of those look to be Pajhwok Afghan News photos, which are pretty easy to determine -- those would fail the criteria. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Review is good, but wherever this 'reviewer' failed to give a reason, his/her edit is completely useless. I agree with Bulwersator files should be nominated for deletion or left alone, not something between those options. Ices2Csharp (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • People have complained about bulk deletions without individual review; the parameter would seem to be a way of marking which ones have been reviewed. I'd agree that a reason for the failure would be good to document, but in many cases it will be obvious -- photos less than 50 years old can't use the template. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • There are some very simple things which can be checked:
    1. Is the photographer a citizen of Afghanistan?
    2. Is the photographer a resident of Afghanistan?
    3. Was it first published in Afghanistan?
  • If the answer to any of the questions is no, the photo is copyrighted in the United States (unless it is {{PD-USGov}}), so it needs to be deleted. For 1 and 2, a photographer needs to be identified. For 3, a publication needs to be identified. If photographers and/or publications aren't identified, I assume that photos should be tagged as having no source, giving the uploaders a week to find a photographer and a publication. Checking these three things could be a first step to sort out clearly wrong images. It is my understanding that some people have added lots of photos from Afghanistan without confirming the citizenship and country of first publication.
  • There are also some harder things to check:
    1. Was it published outside Afghanistan within 30 days?
    2. Does the photo count as "simple" according to the copyright law of Afghanistan?
  • If the answer to question 1 is yes, the photo is copyrighted in the United States (unless it is {{PD-USGov}}) and needs to be deleted. I suppose that we should assume that the answer to question 1 is no unless we have any indication that it is yes. If the answer to question 2 is no, the photo is copyrighted in Afghanistan, so it should be deleted. However, it is currently unclear how Afghanistan defines a "simple" photo, so it may be impossible to find an answer to question 2 for the moment. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "People have complained about bulk deletions without individual review" - it is possible to prepare deletion nomination on separate page in his/her userspace, it is not useful to place unexplaned "reviews" in file namespace Bulwersator (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I think we had a couple of Farsi speakers say the words translated as "simple" were basically identical to the wording in the Iranian law, which is more along the lines of "original". At this point, unless we have some further guidance from somewhere, I think I'd assume that most photos are copyrightable (other than things like PD-Art). If photos are under 50 years old, it should be a pretty easy determination. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should be looking to farsi-speaking volunteers for clarification of the meaning of Karzai's decree. Some of us havinge been calling for half a decade for the WMF to pay for the professional opinion of a lawyer or lawyers who specialize in intellectual property law to clarify the copyright status of images from Afghanistan. I think it was you, Carl, who drew our attention to a memo finally showing the WMF's lawyer was paying some attention to our need for professional clarification.
That memo was inadequate -- several of the most important issues with Afghan images were simply not addressed. And it was drafted a week or two before we became aware of Karzai's decree on intellectual property.
Personally, I won't be satisfied with the interpretation of any volunteer, as almost none of us our lawyers. And I think we should put limited trust in the legal opinions of the limited number of volunteers who say they are lawyers. I think these issues are important and we should only rely on professional legal advice from lawyers who were paid a fee, and who are putting their professional repuationn on the line. I agree we need clarification about this "simple" image issue. But I think we should have the IP lawyer rely on a professionally prepared translation when they offer their professional opinion to us. Geo Swan (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • We have always relied on volunteers on commons since the start of the site. We do not have the budget to seek professional legal advice. In the absence of proof that something is freely licensed, we assume it is fully copyrighted. The 30 day option is irrelevant since Afghanistan has local copyright law. Most of these images were stolen from commercial websites. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 12:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Please don't make discussion more difficult by using inflammatory language, like "Most of these images were stolen from commercial websites." Afghan websites, like Pahjwok, whose images weren't protected from re-use in Berne-world, did not have their images "stolen". It was legal to re-use them. And Pahjwok and those other Afghan sites had no legal requirement to liscense images from the rest of the world. Legally that wasn't theft either. Calling the upload of these images theft is tantamount to a personal attack on anyone who uploaded them.
The WMF projects rely on donors and volunteers. Donors who pay the bills would not have anything to support if it weren't for the efforts of volunteers who spend their valuable finding validly liscensed in scope images to upload, or who spend their valuable time organizing those images. We should value the input of both donors and volunteers. If, for the sake of argument, I was Bill Gates, or some other donor or potential donor with deep pockets, and I saw the waste of volunteers' time wasted because WMF failed to support volunteers by getting that legal advice I would chew out the WMF directors for wasting my money, because squandering the volunteers' donation of time by failing to pay for that advice squanders financial donors' donation of funds. Geo Swan (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Stealing (call it permanent borrowing if you like) freely licensed content from websites is allowed - I do it all the time. Transferring copyrighted content without permission to commons is not allowed. This is due to ethical and legal reasons. We have never relied on professional legal advice when making decisions on this website. At best it is a non-binding opinion from an expert as no one wants to take legal responsibility if they turn out to be wrong if challenged in court. There is nothing to discuss here unless you are able to assert these files are freely licensed. People donating to wikipedia and commons realize this is a non-profit venture with limited funding. They do not donate to WMF so that WMF can fill the pockets of lawyers. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 16:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • When these images were uploaded from Afghan sites like Pahjwok Afghanistan had no domestic copyright protection -- so it is simply not accurate for you to call our use of those images "transferring copyrighted content without permission to commons..." It is wildly inaccurate for you to describe those images as "stolen". While, during the time Afghanistan had no copyright protection, sites like Pahjwok couldn't protect their images from being re-used, balancing that the lack of copyright protection meant they had no reason not to freely re-use any image they wanted from the rest of the world.
  • You write "There is nothing to discuss here unless you are able to assert these files are freely licensed." Wrong, there is your behavior to discuss -- including your insulting language.
  • No one is advocating wasting funds on lawyers. What you aren't acknowledging is that your interpretation is not universally held, that there are unresolved issues that require professional legal opinions. Geo Swan (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • They were fully copyrighted since 2008 (when law was enacted by Afghan president) even if you did not know about its existence. They were stolen from the start since all of these files were uploaded or tagged after 2008. I am implying you or anyone did anything wrong, but the end-state is that these files have been copyrighted since 2008.
  • You are welcome to post your complaint under user disputes. This is not the place to discuss user problems.
  • I am not interpreting anything. In the absence of any reason to believe the content is freely licensed, I assume its fully copyrighted as per standard practice on commons.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 06:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Since you have weighed in in all the recent discussions I am sure you are aware of the memo that our lawyer (finally) drafted on Afghan images in February. Inadequate as it is the memo makes certain points. In particular the memo informed us that we may choose to extend protections over and above what we are legally obliged to.

    You assert that the images "were fully copyrighted since 2008". I question this. As you know, countries have to sign on to an international IP rights agreement before citizens of the other signatories are obliged to protect their images. It is called "reciprocity". And it requires the signatory to have an effective enforcement mechanism. Legally, it doesn't matter if a country has signed on to international IP agreements -- if they don't set up an effective infrastructure for enforcement. Reciprocity requires a signatory nation, like Afghanistan, to enforce protection of the images of other nations within its boundaries, or its images are not protected in other nations, without regard to whether it has signed an international IP agreement. As you know, Afghanistan has not signed any international IP rights agreements. Until Afghanistan signs that international IP agreement, and until they comply with that agreement by setting up infrastructure to police their IP protections, we are under no obligation to protect their images.

    So I question your blithe assertion that Afghan images "were fully copyrighted since 2008..." I question your repeated descriptions of these images as "stolen". As per our lawyer's advice, we can collectively chose to extend greater protections to images than we are legally obliged to. It is your interpretation of this situation that in order to follow a defacto precedent we should extend further protections to this images than we are legally obliged to. As part of your effort to get your way you described these images as "stolen" even though we continue to be legally entitled to use these images. It has been pointed out to you that your use of inflammatory language makes it more difficult to have a calm discussion of the underlying issues, and yet you continue to use that inflammatory language? Geo Swan (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

  • As far as Afghan copyright law is concerned, as of 2008 all files created in Afghanistan enjoy copyright protection going back 50 years. This includes works previously not protected by copyright of any kind. They ARE copyrighted in Afghanistan. Therefore, files violate commons policy because we do treat local copyright law as if it was legally binding even if there is no intellectual property agreement between the US and the second party which in this case is Afghanistan. We have decided to extend the protections more than we are legally required to long ago here on commons and this has been the standard practice. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 16:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Afghan images

User:Beria speedy deleted a bunch of Afghan images today. I referred him to the discussion above, and offered my interpretation of it, that these image generally require deletion discussions and suggested summary deletion was a mistake. Geo Swan (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Although deletion of a part of the files may be unavoidable I agree that speedy deletion isn't the best option. We would better take some more time, to establish a more tenable conclusion. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Can you assert to me that these files are freely licensed? There has been enough discussion to assert the existence of Afghan copyright law which is based on Iranian copyright law. What exactly is here to discuss? Any file that does not assert a free license can be speedy deleted. Do not force people to COM:DEL stuff that are clearly copyrighted.
Question is simple, is the file older than 50 years since its publication or Authors death. Special care was given to establish images "old enough" to make sure they do not get deleted. Special care was also given to images that were "failed" so that they undergo a secondary review before being deleted.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 12:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
It's clear that there is no consensus about PD-Afghanistan at the moment. You seem to completely ignore that. Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The law is clear. Just because a few people have consistently tried avoiding this does not mean these files aren't copyrighted. The argument is over the incorrect "simple" word that was corrected as "original" by native Farsi speakers already. A good deal of deleted images even had a commercial watermark. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 13:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Positiveness by an individual user doesn't establish a consensus. As soon as there is clearly no consensus, speedy deletion is inappropriate and the outcome of the discussion must be awaited. Ices2Csharp (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I do not see a clear "no-consensus" you talked about. The discussion was stale for over two weeks on all of the COM:DEL discussions. Past discussions were so stale, they were archived. Additionally we already have consensus on how these kinds of images are to be treated on commons as visible on how {{PD-Iran}} is handled. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 13:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
We had years to deal with PD-Iran, so we know what to do with those images; PD-Afghan quote not so much. I feel this is almost like PD-Soviet territory where we just need to deal with the images one by one and delete after a discussion, not speedily (unless it is a blatant copyright violation, such as taking an AP photo). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Certainly and the experience we had there can be applied here. Anything not over the age of 50 from Afghanistan is copyrighted. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 16:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Asserting copyright

Nothing tagged with {{PD-Afghanistan/review}} should be speedy deleted for that reason alone. If the file is not salvageable given the giant water mark, they can be deleted (like AP photos). -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 17:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You cite "AP photos" as speedy delete candidates, but does AP clearly mark the origin of its photos? I suspect they often cite a source that is not the original one and may use PD photos without marking them as PD. --LPfi (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
That may be the case but there is no reason for us to be taking chances when we do not know if the original is really PD. Also images taken in the last 10 years for example cannot be considered PD-Old. If these files are free for some other reason that that should be cited instead. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 16:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way to view just the annotation text for a file?

John lilburne is claiming at Jimbo Wales' talk page on Wikipedia that a picture is child porn. As there have been "a few" disagreements between us regarding censorship of ordinary materials on Commons, and the image provoked no other such complaints in its deletion request, I am more than a little skeptical. Nonetheless, I don't want to open this image for full examination, because if I keep opening stuff like that even to argue with people who I don't think are reliable judges, sooner or later something bad could happen. (Dang it, someone needs to sort this out though! We can't keep having allegations like this and not have a firm idea about them) Anyway though, what I'm wondering is, is there a way to get just the annotation text, apart from any and all versions of an image, for purposes of safely reviewing the uploader's comments without having to deal with potential legal entanglements? Wnt (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't know about a way to view just annotation, but the image (now deleted) was a pretty useless vanity image, and while it's very hard to judge age in images like this, the subject was probably somewhere between late puberty and mid-20s. - Jmabel ! talk 00:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Come to think of it, you could turn image viewing off on your browser, then go to a given page. Or access the page with lynx, which does not download images. - Jmabel ! talk 00:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 00:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Mass replacement

Is there any way that File:Tibet in China (all claimed).svg used on most Wikipedias which is politically biased can be automatically replaced on all Wikipediae by this image here File:Tibet in China (undisputed + other de-facto hatched) (+all claims hatched).svg ?

I don't have the patience to go and change it on every Wikipedia.. --Rvd4life (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the previous edition was completely favorable of one of the two parties. I replaced it on en:Wiki and no editor of either party has complained. It now presents a completely neutral, de facto scenario. --Rvd4life (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 00:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons copyright issue help for Monmouth Museum, Wales


I run a Wikimedia outreach project called Monmouthpedia, I'm working with the local museum, they have uploaded many images but have lots of copyright messages on their images. User:MonmouthMuseumWales is the account. They have sent a permissions email to but am worried they won't get addressed in time and the images will be deleted. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  • One needs to put the {{OTRS pending}} templates similarly to how I have just done here. However, the problem might be that the permission is actually needed from the photographers, and not from the museum.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki 1.20

The Wikimedia Foundation is planning to upgrade MediaWiki (the software powering this wiki) to the latest version (1.20) on Monday, April 16, 18:00-20:00 UTC (11am-1pm PDT). — MarkAHershberger(talk) 01:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


You can find a fuller list of changes on the 1.20 page, but here is a short list of the most noticible changes:

New diff styles
The biggest thing you'll notice is the new diff style (example on, designed to improve the experience of colour-blind and partially sighted visitors.
Improved "show changes" functionality in the MediaWiki namespace
Also, clicking the "Show changes" button when creating a local override for an interface message in the MediaWiki namespace will now generate a diff against the default system message value. When such page is created, the edit box is preloaded with the default value, so it makes sense that the diff is based on that (previously, the "previous" side of the diff was just blank!).
Hiding redirects in page lists
There is a new option on Special:Prefixindex and Special:Allpages to hide redirects (addressing Bug 30963).
Redlink customisation preference removed
The preference to display missing links as “link?” (instead of just redlinks) has been removed (Bug 27619). the same effect can still be generated via user CSS, however.
Deletion log on redlinked file pages
The deletion log will now be shown on redlinked file pages, if applicable (Bug 34863).
  • New edit emails for watched pages will now always provide a link to the edit which triggered the mail (Bug 32210).
  • “Creating” is now given in the page title instead of “Editing” when you are creating a page (Bug 22870).
  • Special:Listusers now includes a link to the user's talk page and contributions (Bug 12021).
  • When selecting large areas of the page, section edit links and TOC hide/show links are excluded from the copied text on supporting browsers (Bug 34445).
  • Two new messages (sharedupload-desc-edit and sharedupload-desc-create) are now displayed when editing the local page for a shared file (Bug 18062).

Help Report and Triage Problems

MW Bug Squad Barnstar.svg

To help make sure problems with this and later updates do not go un-noticed, I'm asking interested people to take part in the bug squad. This project is just starting, but I hope to get a group of people from Commons (and other wikis) to help make sure that their issues are reported to bugzilla and triaged appropriately. Please join us and help keep the Foundation aware of problems. — MarkAHershberger(talk) 01:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


Notification of reversal of takedown

I'm thrilled that today I reversed the OFFICE action on the Loriot signature to restore it. It now lives at File:Wohlfahrtsmarke Loriot HerrenimBad cropped.jpg. Thank you. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

missing if

there seems to be a mistake in the Template:PD-user-w/en, see Template_talk:PD-user-w#Broken -- Cherubino (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I think a lot of these auto-translated templates are broken in the same way. The templates work fine if you append any lang code (eg ?uselang=de) to the pagename but the translate buttons do not operate properly. So if you come to an image with such a template via an "other language" wiki, the templates works fine. For another common example of the same behaviour check the template used on users pages as "Notification about possible deletion", as far as I've noticed these autotranslated templates have always misbehaved in this way. I expect it is only a real problem when it is an IP editor (ie not logged in) who views these templates and tries to read it in their own language - this may explain why such editors don't get the message ;-). Yes about time it was fixed :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
It's simply because they are not properly designed. de and en work now (you must start with one of them (uselang=de or en)) More infos at Template:LayoutTemplateArgs. Purged example -- RE rillke questions? 23:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
(later reply) Ok, proof of concept has worked, de and en behave as expected for me now ... ah but so many more language versions and more buggy templates to fix :-) -Tony Wills (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Even for your example de still doesn't pass the username. I see no action to fix one of the most commonly used templates eg {{Autotranslate|1=File:63 volcansauvergne 3.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}}:
File:63 volcansauvergne 3.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

. Click on a language and be confusingly taken to the template page, without the parameters in the translation. Not quite useless but very poor. Is there a better place to post this? --Tony Wills (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

My example worksforme. The delete template does not pass args. MediaWiki:AjaxTranslation.js is the code that allows inline-translation. Do you have errors in your javascript error console? If not, could you please run Commons:User Scripts/Diagnostic, search the output for AJAX INLINE TRANSLATION and post the 3 lines here? Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 10:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Has something just been fixed? The language links were just taking me to the template's page but have all now started to behave as I would have expected - they translate the box inplace on the current page. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I've "modernized" the according code. Good to know that it works now. Please notify me, User:DieBuche, User:Lupo if something like this doesn't work or start a new topic on Commons:User Scripts Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 11:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast work :-). I take it that the comment above "The delete template does not pass args" is an aknowledgement {{idw}} needs fixing, I have dropped a note into that seldom seen backwater. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

April 9

A problem with the Sardinian Flag

I would like to point out that the official flag of Sardinia region is this (check here) and not this (just an artistic rendition). The first one should be renamed Flag of Sardinia.svg while the second one should be renamed Flag of Sardinia alternative.svg or something similar, but this could cause some problems with redirects. I already posted that question here but I got no reply.--Carnby (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  • does indeed look official, so I believe you about which is the correct flag; on the other hand, I'm very confused by the claim of copyright on File:Flag of Sardinia region.svg by User:Xander89. If it is an uncreative rendering of the Sardinian flag, how can he hold copyright. I'm not sure what we should do here about the naming issue, but first let's sort out the copyright issue. - Jmabel ! talk 00:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
    • It is more of his rendition than anything else he is citing the license on, since the flag has been around for almost 800 years and was based from a traditional coat of arms from the region. The licensing is fine. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
    • A vectorization could very well carry its own copyright -- the result looks similar, but there are many small decisions to be made when doing that kind of thing. There has been a court case where merely making a mezzotint of a painting was enough to create its own copyright over and above the original painting. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Couldn't an SVG file also be seen as a literary work? The files can be created in text editors and you can include long comments in the SVG code. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
That's kind of the law on fonts in the U.S., where the abstract outline shapes of font characters which represent symbols used in writing systems are not copyrightable, but the computer code which generates such character shapes is copyrightable... AnonMoos (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

April 13

Rename category

Hi. Even when "Plaza de los 33 Orientales" is name by people as "Plaza de los Bomberos" 'cause is a square front door with the Fireman Headquarters of Uruguay ("Bombero"="Fireman", "Plaza"="square"), the real name is "Plaza de los 33 Orientales", so I think Category:Plaza de los Bomberos, Montevideo should be renamed as Category:Plaza de los 33 Orientales, Montevideo and keep the redirection. Is it possible? Here an official source named "Plaza de los Treinta y Tres" ("Treinta y Tres"=33) --Andrea (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: I'm ready to add a couple of pictures more. --Andrea (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, MediaWiki developers forbade moves in "Category:" space even by direct links such as . You can resort to the procedure described at Commons:Rename a category. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

April 14

Photographer name in title

I know that there are no sharp edge rules about renaming but I need to ask. A lot of files are like this "File:1562 - Archaeological Museum, Athens - Head of a 2nd century kosmetes - Photo by Giovanni Dall'Orto, 2009.jpg". Since we have specific categories:photographs by user:... it's better or not removing photographs names from media titles? --Pierpao.lo (listening) 07:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It's better not to move things at all, if there is no really serious need for this, and in this case the original title is perfectly fine. Renaming considered harmful. Trycatch (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
+1 with Trycatch. Jean-Fred (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Renaming shouldn't break things, but it does. See some of the points at Help:File_redirect#Indepth_notes_about_the_operation_of_file_redirects - especially the last one. Rd232 (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The general rule is to avoid renaming files.
Photographers names are ok in filenames. --  Docu  at 10:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Giovanni Dall'Orto has uploaded thousands of photos, and puts his name at the end of the filename (not the beginning, as some others annoyingly do), so the gain/pain ratio involved in renaming his files would be rather small... AnonMoos (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Noted. Thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 18:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


Currently we have various templates that have autotranslations available at the bottom of the template, I am thinking of things like the FP boxes on image pages. For image pages, Is there some reason that we should not have lang links across the top (or other prominent place) that redisplays the whole page with ?uselang=fr or whatever is chosen. Or perhaps a button on every page to set one's default language for the duration of the visit (or until changed). --Tony Wills (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're logged in, you can change your preferences, and if you're not, you've got the language select in the left toolbox on every page, provided by MediaWiki:AnonymousI18N.js (loaded via MediaWiki:Common.js). If you want that language select as a logged-in user, just add importScript('MediaWiki:AnonymousI18N.js'); to your Special:Mypage/common.js. Rd232 (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I am seldom logged out when viewing images, so forgot about that. A couple of problems: It requires javascript is turned on, and has the catch-22 for users who do not know about it, that both the label for the select box and button are in the default language, so if you don't know English, you won't know what it is for. Aren't there standard ways of presenting such language options on other websites (eg pictorial such as flags?).
  • Anyway, that's great. But what it says to me is that the language links on image page templates are totally redundant, and of clunky utility even when programmed 'correctly' (they take you to a translation of the template). They would actually be far more use if they just wikilinked to the current page with ?uselang=xx appended. Would anyone object if we just dispensed with them altogether? --Tony Wills (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
    • They are useful to show that translations exist. The default fallback language is english in most cases but if e.g. a user is francophone (langue maternelle, langue choisie) and deutschsprachig but does not understand English and the translation is not present in French, the template is shown in English; not in German. I am not entirely sure about the uselang-suggestion: Users with limited bandwidth might have to wait too long. Also, if you just want to swiftly check all translations, the Ajax-inline-translation feature might be better. -- RE rillke questions? 11:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
(re the low bandwidth point, the graphical elements will all be cached, the reload delay will only be for downloading the new text, not much for a image description page, no? --Tony Wills (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC))
(I have the terrible feeling that this has been discussed recently elsewhere) In the context of people browsing the image pages, what is the utility of the translation lines ('Ajax-inline-translations' if that is what they are)? It's only people who are maintianing the page who are liable to click on multiple translations, it also gives the impression that these are the only elements of the page for which a translation exists. It would be far more use to have the language options for the whole page more prominent, and dispense with offering box by box translations. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I suppose I am thinking of the fun I have when I visit other language wikis, and have to guess what the labels are until I have managed to find the login, then the my-preferences tab, and the language choice box, and then the save preferences button (all in a foriegn language). I have enough experience to find those quickly, but thinking about my experience there, I can only assume it is similar for visitors here. When the average person comes across an image page here they'll be looking for something straight-foward, like a single click language option for the page. The nearest thing to that is these language name options at the bottom of templated boxes, which are similar to what is offered on the main page. I expect that the translation of only the box would not be what they're looking for. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I too feel the language links should work. I travel a lot and I have grown to resent Google and other websites that "determines" my language through my IP. In the case of Google they have a link if you go to their main site but otherwise you may have issues. We should keep things simple, nothing is simpler than clicking on the name of your language in your language. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 13:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It's often better to determine the language by from the browser language. Anon users also get a blue bar on top of nearly each page that suggests switching to their language. -- RE rillke questions? 13:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Is there consensus to abolish the language links? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 13:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Talking about MediaWiki:AnonymousI18N.js, I think it should be localised. If I'm not logged in, I might see "View Wikimedia Commons in
      ". However, if you don't know what "View Wikimedia Commons in" means, you won't know what the message means. A fully localised "
      " would be better. Are you really sure that Google geolocates your IP? I have always thought that Google uses the browser's language settings instead. If I go to Google: without cookies on my own computer, the Google language doesn't match the language spoken in my country. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
AFAIK everything in the script is localised - eg "View Commons in" is localised via the msgSuggest array. Rd232 (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Classifying electric UK trains

I have great problems in identifying the correct type of train in (Electric multiple units of the United Kingdom) category. Why cannot someone make picture gallery to identify the types? I'm trying to find a home for File:Lewisham crossover II.JPG, File:Surbiton train sunset.JPG, File:Lewisham. - - 104387.jpg, File:Lewisham. - - 103531.jpg and File:Lewisham. - - 104386.jpg. Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, on it. The Lewisham ones seem identified already. I suggest you use the {{ukt}} template in future. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

April 15

Multiple-track railway lines

I have created a new Category:Multiple-track railway lines. This is for three or more track railways. (double and single track are to common). Could this be complemented? Dont include railway lines subcategories wich are only partialy multitrack (3 or more). Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Files not uploading

I have edited a number of images taken from the UK Geograph project, mainly to remove borders. Each time, a first attempt at uploading fails; a second attempt is fine. Images include:

For earlier images, see User_talk:Cropbot#Several_cropped_images_not_appearing. On manual uploads I receive the error "Could not store file /tmp/php33wuJH at mwstore://local-backend/local-public/e/e0/The_hulk_of_the_"MSC_Napoli"," Any suggestions? Finavon (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Gadget for opening search results and suggestions in new tab

Please see the discussion here:

There is more info here:

Can we surpress "Image title" field Filmitadka metadata?

In case no one has seen it, the Image title field in images uploaded from Filmitadka says

"FilmiTadka, the Big Daddy to tame all the bitches and pompous assess has arrived. We are about the bluntest journalism Indian Film Industry has ever seen. We will reveal every secret of Indian stars, their scandals, all the goods and bads of the world of cinema.We are not about dumbass journalism, where Kal se lekar Aaj Tak all have shown how Aishwarya is pregnant at least 100 times every day as ‘breaking news’, NO, Never. But yes, we will be asking questions like why it happens that scandals never leave our stars why it happens that they all condemnit still become a part of it every time? After all it is showbiz, they like it, they won’t be paid if their faces are not out here in the media. Well they want it, right? We will give them what they want, but the rules are not set out by them this time it is the other way around. From their waste sizes to their sexual fantasies and career fears, from Rakhi Sawant to Aishwarya Rai, from Emraan to Amir, no one’s safe now, watch out kids run to mommies, FilmiTadka is here."

Now I'm not for censorship, but this is totally unnecessary, contains attack text, and is... well... mindbogglingly moronic. Can we prevent the field from showing in any way? Sven Manguard Wha? 13:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The message is not present in all images in Category:Images from FilmiTadka, but many of them contain the message. It looks highly promotional, so I support the removal of it. Note that the statement appears in three different fields in the EXIF metadata ("Description", "Image Description" and "Caption-Abstract"), but only one of the fields is shown by MediaWiki.
Some images, e.g. File:Aanchal Kumar posing with her back at Tassel style lounge launch.jpg, contain wiki code. The "Copyright Notice" and "Rights" fields contains the code {{cc-by-sa-3.0|FilmiTadka}} and the MediaWiki software displays this as any other wiki code ("Rights" field not shown at all by MediaWiki). Isn't this a security risk if users can include any template in the image metadata? --Stefan4 (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
It's in bugzilla - Bugzilla25707 talks about preventing HTML in EXIF metadata, and Bugzilla28954 is explicitly about this sort of problem, but never seems to have been resolved. I'll note this report there. Shimgray (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
As a short-term solution, you can edit the metadata of the photographs in question to remove the meaningless text using a program like GeoSetter. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
That program only seems to be available for commercial operating systems and besides I think that it is more convenient to use Exiftool to read/change EXIF values. The thing is that there are so many files (and the unsuitable EXIF values are kept in multiple fields in each file although some of the fields aren't shown by MediaWiki), so it would probably be more convenient to use a bot for this task, asking it to operate on all files in the whole category. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure. I was just pointing out an interim solution for the more egregious cases, since it might take a while for the issue to be resolved, as Shimgray pointed out. As for the point about GeoSetter – ummm, no, I don't think so as I've got GeoSetter installed on my laptop ... — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
"Isn't this a security risk if users can include any template in the image metadata?" - Just to clarify, there is no security risk there - users cannot do anything they can't do in normal wiki text (With that said its not really a desired behaviour and probably needs to be fixed). Bawolff (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Should I ask a dev to come and stop by? Sven Manguard Wha? 19:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Bawolff is a dev (don't know if paid or not). BTW, thanks for extracting more information from the images, especially IPTC tags. -- RE rillke questions? 19:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm an unpaid volunteer :) Bawolff (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I think those fields should be parsed like comments: Allowing Wikilinks but not more. -- RE rillke questions? 19:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Personally I think we'd want to allow a couple other things. External links - since often the metadata is of the form "By so and so, here's my website", or a link to a license, etc. I also don't see any problem with simple html <b>,<i>, etc, although we should be making sure it cannot have any unclosed tags. Bawolff (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Rubanij Mist, Cherkas'ka oblast', Ukraine. : An addition of knowledge to this site concerning ancient artifacts.

i am so new here that i may be overly timid in how to proceed because to myself as a person making a mistake is never acceptable. my main interest here is Trypilian Culture which is named after the village of Trypilia on the Dnipro River, where remains were discovered of artifacts and settlements over a century ago and over 2000 Trypilian settlements have so far been discovered. i would prefer being able to send my documentation to an established contributor, allowing them to proceed where i may view the results as a work in progress and understand the process properly. i could really use some friends here. slayerwulfe cave aka or vice versa

  • Are you sure you've left this message on the correct site? This is Wikimedia Commons. We are a repository of images, sound recordings, video, etc. It sounds like you might have intended this message for some portion of the English-language Wikipedia. - Jmabel ! talk 23:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Categories for Discussion template with no discussion

Category:Transport has a Categories for Discussion template, but the nominator never started a discussion. Should I just delete the template of should a discussion be started and closed? Dankarl (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Bag that for now I left a note for the nominator.Dankarl (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

April 16

Is there a Commons Reference Desk?

Is there a place on Commons to discuss semi-off-topic questions not directly related to Commmons, like the Reference desk on Wikipedia?

I want to ask for recommendations regarding cameras, and I reckon Commons should be an excellent place to find some experienced and helpful photographers who are willing and capable to answer my questions. :) --Tetris L (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not aware of such. Here, at VP, would likely be o.k., but as you are de-N you might find the German-language Commons:Forum an easier place for communication; also it's less busy. --Túrelio (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

COM:PEOPLE and subject consent


Because of the expectation of privacy, the consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place, whether or not the subject is named. Even in countries that have no law of privacy, there is a moral obligation on us not to upload photographs which infringe the subject's reasonable expectation of privacy.

This is in line with the WMF Resolution:Images of identifiable people, which states We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our special mission as an educational and free project.

There is the template {{consent}}, which provides these options to declare that consent was given, or consent isn't needed.

There is also {{Personality rights}}, which warns that even with consent for publication, some (non-copyright) personality rights may apply.

Problem: there does not appear to be any particular process for ensuring that the consent of the subject has been given. Confusingly, Commons:PEOPLE#Consent_template says Use of this template is not required for compliance with these guidelines or other Commons policies. I think it would be rather logical to say that the template should be applied to all files where consent is potentially an issue. We could create some new parameters for the template to cover more situations (eg "public place" as an explanation of the consent status does not apply just to media created by the uploader). We could also do more to tell uploaders about the issue; remind users who review uploads scraped from Flickr and other sources, and ensure consent review is part of the import process; or actively seek out and tag and potentially delete photos that lack statements about consent and ought to have it. How to verify consent is also clearly an issue (if/when we come up with an answer, it could go in Commons:Verifying permissions...). We should really have a bigger conversation about how to handle these issues. Rd232 (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a timely comment. Missing subject consent is a particular problem in Flickr-scraping. As there are apparently plans to step up imports from Flickr, this is something to bear in mind. Basically, no images or videos recorded in a private place should be imported from Flickr without first obtaining the consent of the persons depicted. --JN466 17:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. COM:PEOPLE clearly indicates that consent should be sought and obtained before uploading the photo, not afterwards when the subject of the photograph makes a complaint. While not as "sexy" as ensuring copyright compliance, in my view personality rights should be considered equally as important as the licence an image is published under. Lankiveil (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC).
I hope this does not mean that I am expected now to go back and explicitly make this assertion about each of the several thousand pictures I have uploaded of people in public places where they had no reasonable expectation of privacy. - Jmabel ! talk 07:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
If, in the words of COM:PEOPLE, the images are "straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place", and it seems like they are, then no permission is required. It's only when they are not or there may be a "reasonable expectation of privacy" that the existing requirements require permission. That said, these aspects of the page have been stable since at least 2007, and if you've been uploading violations in the meantime then that's really your problem. Lankiveil (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC).
  • One of the options listed is "public: I personally created this media. All persons were photographed without deception, in a place where they had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Because identifiable persons are shown who have not consented to publication of this photograph or video, re-use of this media may be prohibited or restricted in your jurisdiction. See Commons:Photos of identifiable persons." This applies to virtually every picture of identifiable individuals I have taken. It appears, if I read this correctly, that uploaders will now be expected to state this explicitly. What I am asking is whether I am to be expected to go back to several thousand images and state this explicitly. I have not been "uploading violations", thank you. - Jmabel ! talk 22:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, in an ideal world, every image would have the consent status clearly stated. But that's not really practical, especially since it's probably millions of Commons files that feature identifiable people! So we need to focus on cases where consent is potentially in doubt. For example, there are cases where it's not clear whether the image was taken in a public place or not; it would be helpful to tag those, but it's probably not practical to require that. But I do think we should try to make sure that every case of an image taken in a private place is tagged. Rd232 (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
IMO we need a 'consent' field just as much as we need a 'copyright' field. The default can be 'taken in a public place, no expectation of privacy' -- but then where that is clearly not applicable the image should be reviewed or removed. --SJ+ 17:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
There is not much of a difference between Flickr and other publications. We do not have proof of model consent of the people in photos by the US military. I remember at least one case where the subject objected. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Should happen (indeed should have happened long ago). Public places are not something that should be affected by this however private places should have subject consent. I can remember a number of quasi porn images where there was no consent apparent and that to me is very wrong. The content is not an issue however there have been a number of well publicised cases in the UK recent of cyber stalking and the publishing of private images. We should ensure Commons is never involved in such issues. --Herby talk thyme 08:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
At some point we should consider reviewing existing images, but your comments support my view that we should begin by thinking about how to enforce subject consent for new uploads. The difficulty is that verification is not easy. If we demand a declaration of consent with upload ("does this image contain identifiable people? if yes, was it taken in a public place? if not taken in a public place, did they consent to publication?"), what value does that declaration of consent really have? What happens when someone challenges it? Verifying identity as the subject may be difficult and burdensome. But that might leave us accepting just about any challenge to declared consent, unless that consent is verified to an acceptable standard. That makes deletion of media subject to subject consent a lot easier than some can accept, but I don't see how that's avoidable: we can't impose higher standards to challenge a declaration of consent than to make one. Rd232 (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure - it is a can of worms but not opening it doesn't make it go away.
I have felt for years that we should be more rigorous in allowing uploads - email verification at the very least but I already hear the squeals of protest... --Herby talk thyme 09:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this review has difficulties - just as (c) review does - but it is important. We don't accept "any challenge" to an uploader's copyright claim; but where there is reason to doubt we shift the burden of proof to the uploader. --SJ+ 17:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Done, in part. I've added to {{consent}} two specific options suggested in the conversation above: query, and appearspublic. Feel free to refine them. --99of9 (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The question remains what the subjects consented to. Yes, "publication", but where and in what contexts? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
      • The parameter "full" allows you to specify the consent equivalent of public domain. But at the moment any assertion of publication consent is a big step up from where we're at for most Personality Rights files. --99of9 (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Question: are there legally degrees of consent to publication? If a subject gives consent for publication on Flickr without specifying the license, and the photographer gives a free license, does that make the consent for publication invalid elsewhere (contradicting the free license, which the subject didn't agree to)? If consent is given but limitations are not made clear, is it assumed that consent is for publication everywhere, under any terms? Example: I might have a weird medical condition and consent to publication in a medical textbook. Can I give that consent without also consenting to the image being used on the front page of a newspaper? Rd232 (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
          • *barf* *gack* it isn't the responsibility of the photographer to get consent for anything, though not getting consent may limit the opportunity to sell the image. An image posted by a photographer on flickr generally won't require any model consent. Any subsequent use by a 3rd party may need consent depending on how it is used. See this section, but probably the whole article ought to be read. Whilst someone may have given permission to use the photo as an advertisement for X they probably haven't given permission for their image to be published on a page depicting obesity for example, and who ever does that may well find themselves at the wrong end of a pointy stick. John lilburne (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Help me find this Bird's name

Could someone tell the name of this bird


--எஸ்ஸார் (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say they're Black-headed Ibis or something closely related. --99of9 (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Look Category:Threskiornis here, the exact answer may depend on where the picture was taken.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
This photo was taken somewhere near western ghats near Theni district of southern Indian state, Tamil Nadu. Thank you 99of9 and Ymblanter --எஸ்ஸார் (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems that the Black-headed Ibis is the only member of Threskiornis that lives in India, so I think you can safely assume that it is that species. I also looked through other members of Threskiornithidae, and none were similar. Would you mind if I added the photo to Category:Threskiornis melanocephalus? InverseHypercube 17:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure. User:InverseHypercube You can freely use this image without any hesitation. --எஸ்ஸார் (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:License migration redundant

Does anybody know if that category is still used for anything by anybody. It contains 2.7M images and is growing. Is anybody still working on "License migration"? Even if so I would imagine that whatever can be done with that category one can also do with empty {{License migration redundant}} used as a tag. --Jarekt (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

People are still working on licence migration. Once in a while, files are moved here from other projects where licences haven't always been tagged as "migrated" yet, and so the migration tagging happens here after the transfer. For example, I'm sometimes moving files from Japanese Wikipedia where files usually haven't been tagged as migrated. Besides, if someone uploads an image as {{GFDL}} without further tags, licence migrators change that into {{GFDL|migration=redundant}} after some time. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks - I did not know that. But I wander if they need to keep 2.7 million files in a single category. I suspect that looking up files with {{License migration redundant}} template would be equally easy and would not spam the categories of 1/5 of our files. --Jarekt (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Update the Flickr upload interface

The Flickr upload interface does not have a CC BY-SA 3.0 LICENSE in the drop down menu of "Licensing" section, it has only the CC 2 version. Please update it. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 03:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It is urgent because many of the files are licensed under CC 3, which is the latest and recommended version. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 03:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
but flickr still uses CC-BY-2.0 and CC-BY-SA-2.0 not the 3.0. Bidgee (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I can also not confirm what you say. In my flickr account I can only select 2.0 versions, not 3.0 versions. Also the license of your last upload File:Darjeeling Toy Train at Batasia Loop.jpg is not 3.0 but 2.0. Flckr is still CC 2.0. --Martin H. (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
That is true. Flickr does not have option for the latest version in its "Owner Setting" section. But if you chose, you can publish your photo under the latest version. I have published my photo under CC 3. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 04:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The flickr license-field says that photo is CC-BY-SA-2.0. The description-field says something different. A contradictory and invalid license-scheme if you sak me. /Esquilo (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't look invalid to me. You are perfectly free to dual license a photo as both CC-BY-SA 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0. However, it seems unnecessary to do so since CC-BY-SA 2.0 allows reusers to increase the version number to any higher number. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 04:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The main Flickr interface still only uses 2.0 so that is what we are going to use on the Flickr upload. If you decided to put it something different in the description text of the image, that will be reflected on that specific upload page (and we link back to your file). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, forms for uploading Flickr files to Commons should never contain any CC 3.0 licences as long as Flickr doesn't allow users to select them. If any additional licences are listed in comments on Flickr, the file information page source should be edited manually. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed; a user who uploads to Flickr with something different in the text description is an unusual occurrence. This should be avoided as it will cause more mistakes than problems it fixes. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, so I had to change all the licenses to the previous CC 2 version. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 14:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

How eBay could help Wikimedia Commons get more open-licensed images

I've just written a blog post which may be of interest: "How eBay could help Wikimedia Commons get more open-licensed images". Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Be careful with coins. The coins themselves might be too old to fall under copyright, but as of the last time that I saw it come up on Wikipedia, coins are considered 3d objects, meaning photographs of the coins can be copyrighted; even if it appears to absolutely everyone that no original work went into photographing the coins, permission is needed to use the images. I'd strongly advise sending a copy of the permission you mentioned in your blog to OTRS, if you haven't already. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I think Mabbetts proposal is to have eBay to enable and encourage sellers to release the photos of the objects they are selling under a free license. A photo tagged with an apropriate license on eBay does only need to be reviewed and verified, not OTRS:ed. /Esquilo (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Quite. No different to an open-licensed Flickr pic. Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree, this would be awesome. At least where such photos are not derivative works (utilitarian objects). Dcoetzee (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Why would they want to do this? Ebay has no motive to get involved. Sellers have no reason to do this; many sellers go out of the way to watermark images so other sellers can't just use them as stock images. (That's more than just anti-competition; it discourages the use of pictures that don't accurately depict the item for sale, which Ebay doesn't really want, either.) You can ask sellers one by one, but I don't think you're going to get a system of freely licensed pictures from Ebay.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The business justification is clear to me - if people are encouraged to attribute CC-BY works with a link to the author's eBay profile or a listing of their items, that means more links and traffic for eBay and more bids for that seller. You see a photo of an item you want, you see it's from eBay, you go there to buy it. Watermarks may discourage misrepresentation of items, but lots of unscrupulous sellers just grab product shots off the web elsewhere - I don't think this is an effective strategy for dealing with that issue. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please subjugate theft

09:18, 17 April 2012, Rangkhapkhenh1988 uploaded this file. and used it in That file is mine.,000_user_or_above.png

I uploaded it to substitute an old file by DHN. Proof:

Date/Time Thumbnail Dimensions User Comment current 16:43, 12 April 2012 2,000 × 1,015 (213 KB) Arist Tara

So please block his username and IP. Thanks. Arist Tara (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You gave the image a CC license therefore the only thing Rangkhapkhenh1988 has done wrong is to not supply an accurate attribution. But it does look like that they have attempted to give one with them pointing out that the source was Facebook. So it seems to me that they weren't aware that you were the author and that they found the file somewhere on Facebook. Have you tried discussing this with Rangkhapkhenh1988 prior to coming here with it? Or even let them know that you were satarting a discussion about them here? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
File:Color-coded Vietnamese language distribution world map counting from 10,000 user or above.png is credited to Arist Tara and used in two articles, while File:Map distribution of Vietnamese around the world.png is a different map not used on any WMF project. It does appear that some of the description text has been copied, but the images themselves are different. cmadler (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
That map is just a rotation of my map and clearing out the black areas. The description is not just "copied", it's exactly the same. I think if my map exists, there is no need of taking it and upload like it's his, although I'm aware that he's not done anything wrong, I've not published that map on facebook, maybe someone else did, but he did edit those two articles and insert his own map, which is clearly stealing, there's no need to do that.Arist Tara (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
1) Go to his/her talk page and ask them what's going on. 2) Do some reading up on what Creative Commons licenses allow other people to do with you creation. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes, one more thing. On "your" artwork, did you create the map outlines yourself or did you just colour in the relevant sections? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I colored a map of a Russian because it was released under CC. Btw, you need to see this:
that's his edit
that's my old version.
He changed my map into his without any good reason, knowing that that map is mine, he attribute it to facebook.Arist Tara (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
So basically, you have done exactly the same thing, ie used someone else's work, changed it and claimed it to be yours. Where on your version is the attribution for the world map?
You released your artwork under a CC 3.0 license, this means that people can take your work, change it as much as they like then release it as their own work. All they are required to do is attribute the original artwork to you, which of course hasn't been done. Having said that though, you haven't attributed the original world map you used to create your image.
So now we've discovered that you are just as bad as Rangkhapkhenh1988 (talk · contribs) why don't you start a conversation on their talk page to attempt to discover the true facts of what happened instead of coming to the VP (instead of the correct place COM:ANU and trashing someone for doing the same thing you've done. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Please reread my passage before further discussion, particularly the links. I didn't attribute the author of the blank map (now I did), I did color the countries there, he didn't change my file in anyway, he just uploaded that file to subsititute my file, which is totally unconstructive. The problem of mine is not him not attributing me, but him changing my file on that page into his without any good reason. If you take a look at the history page of that you'll see that he didn't gave any reason too. That's theft. Arist Tara (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
May I ask why you are complaining on Commons for something that has happened on vi.wp? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Translation assistance requested

Feel free to jump in to translate the template. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 04:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


Does anyone know what should be common upload name for flags throughout commons? FLAG townname.svg? Flag of townname.svg? --WhiteWriter speaks 16:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The second one (Flag of whatever.ext). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

material from US-Gov-websites may not be PD

As a reminder of the well-known fact that material presented on USGov-websites, considered to be public domain, may not be PD, but belong to third parties and be fully copyrighted, see the case Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fetus amniotic sac.jpg. The medical image of a fetus was uploaded in 2010 and sourced to a NIH website. A week ago an US-internet-provider-based IP posted the warning "I WAS SUED BY GETTY IMAGES FOR USING THIS IMAGE - IT IS NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN ..."[40]. As the IP filed no deletion request, the posting was discovered only incidentially. At that time the image was no longer available under the original source URL, but was found to be offered for sale by F1 photo agency. A thorough research at (no result at!) showed that they offer it as "Rights-managed" and credit it to "Steve Allen", thereby confirming the IP's warning.
In order to protect re-users from such kind of damage in the future, we should be more critical in accepting PD-USGov-claims from such sources and eventually should consider to review all Commons-hosted images copied from US-Gov-websites. --Túrelio (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Also a bad example for direct linking to the image instead of the page containing the image. --Denniss (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
True. Whenever possible, we should generalize having IDs to all PD US material, in the spirit of Category:Files created by the United States Armed Forces with known IDs or Category:Library of Congress media without a digital ID. I’ll start with the USDA/ARS ones. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
At first we should try to improve the warning message given on some/many of these {{PD-USGov}} templates. I already made a small step and changed to wording from works of the Federal Government to original works of the Federal Government. We may need another bolded warning to verify the uploaded content is indeed a FedGov work and not just hosted work of other agencies. --Denniss (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
What about going a step further and using the actual definition from 17 USC § 101 ("a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties.")? cmadler (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that would be a very good idea. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
That "official duties" part may cost us a lot of images. There are a lot of images on federal websites (NOAA comes particularly to mind) that were taken by their personnel but were not necessarily produced as assigned work. I take their presence on agency websites as an indication that they have been donated to the agency with the expectation that the agency will use and publish them as its own. In some cases the donation is contemporaneous with the picture, in other cases it is much later. The agencies usually credit the photographer and/or the donor but say nothing about the terms of the gift. The images I am thinking of are in agency library collections that usually have a blanket statement that the images may be freely used; topical websites that may include contractor or licensed images are a different issue.
If we put "official duties" into the template then I think we need a couple more templates, to cover images produced by federal employees that may be incidental to their duties, but then donated to the agency, and for third-party images donated to the federal government.Dankarl (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
"Official duties" is part of the law -- there is no getting around that. It's also mentioned that way on most of the PD-USGov-* subtags. For special cases like the one you mention, yes, there should be more explicit tags -- {{PD-NWS}} is there for the one you mention (they specifically require that photos must be released to the public domain when submitting, if memory serves). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
So how do we interpret "official duties"? I've seen a couple different arguments; one says if you've taken your camera on-mission and took the image on government time, it's PD; another says it's only PD if you are assigned as a photographer, using government equipment, etc. Presumably a scientist or engineer photographing specimens, etc is included. What else? Dankarl (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The concept is the same as "work for hire". If someone's boss asked them to take pictures for that day, I'd say that is their official duties for that day. If someone takes a camera along of their own accord and takes pictures while doing their (separate) job, I'd say that is not their official duties. If the photo was taken using government-owned equipment, that would probably usually qualify as well (companies have claimed ownership of works where company resources are used before, if I'm not mistaken). If you're at work and take personal pictures with your own camera, do you own the copyright, or is it considered a work for hire where your company owns the copyright? I'd usually guess those are not works for hire. There is a lot of case law surrounding "works for hire"; the determination would usually follow those lines. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
FYI, following-up on this: I started reviewing USDA ARS images. 30 done, 800 hundred to go. Jean-Fred (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, most government stuff would not have associated IDs. Some photo series do, but that's a relatively small percentage of government output. I don't think there needs to be an overall review of PD-USGov images (there must be over a million), but special scrutiny for sections where the government is publishing works authored by others would be good -- that is what happened here; the government is just the publisher of the journal, not author, and so most all images from that particular government site should probably be removed unless it can be shown that it was a government author. Also things like has lots of non-government content (and {{PD-USGov-VOA}} warns about that). I'd spend time finding those rather than a general PD-USGov search. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that we should require review of licences often known to be problematic, such as {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. However, it makes less sense to require review for licences such as {{PD-USGov-money}}. If someone uploads a picture of a hoax coin or note, users from the United States are likely going to find out about this quickly. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Just another example : a US federal judge picture Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nannette Jolivette Brown.jpg . Teofilo (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Tech problem in "upload new version"?

I've tried to upload a new (brightened version) of File:Kreuz auf dem Erpeler Ley.JPG, twice. It seems the new version is injected right _after_ the current version. The practical result is that the dark version is still 'current', but two lighter versions exist. Dates are also shuffled about. Can anybody say anything sensible on the subject? If so, thanks... Kleuske (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Likely to be just a caching problem affecting what you are seeing. It would have sorted itself out, except now you seem to have reverted to the darker version. - Jmabel ! talk 15:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

license-checking bot dead?

File:English-Amharic-Spanish sign.jpg was uploaded 19 days ago without any license tag, but hadn't been tagged for the missing license (only today manually). --Túrelio (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I say a few bots are not working since Category:Media with GPS EXIF has 307 photos that need the {{location}} tag added. Bidgee (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

{{Cc-pd-mark-footer}} makes little sense for files that have multiple licenses

Many files have multiple licenses. Our Licensing policy gives example of a music recording where we might need separate licenses for:

  • The score of the music (rights by the composer)
  • The lyrics of the song (rights by the writer)
  • The performance (rights by the performers)
  • The recording (rights by the technical personnel / recording company)

Also all photos of sculptures should have one license for original sculpture and a separate license for the photograph. {{Licensed-PD-Art}} template is for images of public domain objects with CC or PD digitization depending on country. This creates situation where many files have both PD and CC templates. The problem is that many PD licenses add {{Cc-pd-mark-footer}} which claims that "This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law" which is clearly incorrect if other parts of the artwork are released under CC or other non-PD licenses. No files should be in both Category:CC-PD-Mark and Category:CC-BY-SA-3.0 but there is probably some overlap. What can be done about it? Ideally {{Cc-pd-mark-footer}} message would only show up on the page if ALL license templates on the page are PD. This might be possible with some java scripts but not with templates (AFAIK). We can also add yet another parameter to all PD templates adding {{Cc-pd-mark-footer}} to suppress it and a bot can occasionally add this parameter to all the files that have both PD and other licenses. This solution is especially tricky since we seem to have over 1500 license templates transcluding {{Cc-pd-mark-footer}}. --Jarekt (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


Per standard practice, cross-posting this link here. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

April 20

Deletion not working?

Today User:Russavia deleted several files from a category. Some of them still exist, like File:DCNG-assis.jpg, File:DCNG-tribadisme.jpg, and File:Trio-FFF.svg, despite the fact that nobody has restored them, according to the logs. Could this be an issue with the new upgrade or something? Dcoetzee (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why the files remained but I ended up doing and the files have now been deleted by seems the log of me deleting it didn't show up. Bidgee (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
This worries me - I wonder how many other deleted-but-not-hidden files are hanging around. If we find more, let's leave at least one for investigation. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Well looking at the log so far, I've found one that still has the file File:Nhà Đại tướng Võ nguyên Giáp.JPG which was deleted by Morning Sunshine (talk · contribs). Bidgee (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok found more, File:Tramrabat.jpg, File:TramRabatAvril2011 place unité africaine.jpg, File:Frequency screen rabat tram.jpg, File:Test Ride of the Casablanca tramway.jpg, File:DCNG-a-genoux.svg, File:Quetzal dragon.jpeg, File:Duffy rain on your parade.jpg, File:Égypte.jpg, File:Bodega 15.JPG, File:Humphrey Bogart4-final.JPG, File:Bodega 16.JPG and even a few redirect file pages (User:Leit's deletion log) seem to have the same issue (e.g. File:Pokrent Kirche Glocken 2009-01-05 002.jpg). Bidgee (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I recall seeing a bugzilla report on this awhile ago, so it is being worked on. Can't find or remember the exact bug number though. -FASTILY (TALK) 11:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Was it bugzilla:35047? -- RE rillke questions? 16:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
By the way, this is pretty easy to fix; just undelete and re-delete any affected files. -FASTILY (TALK) 11:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I've seen it several times lately: someone has deleted a file I've proposed for deletion, but the file has still been there. Add "?action=purge" at the end of the URL and the file will usually disappear. If it doesn't work, add "?action=purge" again until it disappears. Some files have to be purged multiple times for some reason. Some caching problem I believe. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly the same behaviour as on the MW 1.19 deployment and they took a long time to fix it, maybe they changed something for 1.19 and forget to add-back the fix into MW 1.20? Yesterday I had a lot of API timeouts upon closing DR and deleting images and today's deletions are still rather slow. --Denniss (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding GPS-location manually to picture data

If I will have picture where are GPS-coordinates.


  • 60° 23′ 5,14″ N
  • 23° 7′ 53,21″ E

and I use location template, how I can calculate right values to template--Motopark (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Just use this {{Location|60|23|5.14|N|23|7|53.21|E}}. Bidgee (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for help.--Motopark (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll try but location goes wrong place

In one picture are

  • 60° 23′ 20,5″ N
  • 23° 8′ 16,12″ E

and {{Location|60|23.3417|0|N|23|8.2687|0|E|alt:24_source:exif_heading:?}} so problem are how I convert location to right value.--Motopark (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. I did a typo with the above code as I added W which is West rather then E. Bidgee (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Two clicks needed to play media player ?


I tried playing the media of the day on the main page, and discovered that the video started downloading, but was not starting to play after clicking on the large horizontal button below the video screen/thumbnail. I thought something was broken on my computer, but I later discovered that the video plays fine, subject to the condition that you must click on the triangle (U25B6.gif) play button. It looks counter-intuitive as most players such as youtube start at once with only one click. Teofilo (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible bug with file uploader.

I've been encountering this lately. When you click "upload a new version of this file" when you want to update a file, you normally get two boxes. One to select the file from your computer, and one to add and edit summary of your changes. But in the last couple weeks, sometimes when I click "upload a new version of this file", I get THIS!, asking me for author information, a license, and other stuff you're only supposed to be asked when you're uploading a completely new file. It's especially annoying because sometimes I have to refresh my window, or go back and click to upload 10 or more times for it to finally go back to normal. Fry1989 eh? 20:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The advanced upload form-script should not run there. Could you please give an example of a full url (in the screenshot we do not see the parameters) where you encountered the problem? Thanks in advance. -- RE rillke questions? 09:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll certainly try. It comes at random. Fry1989 eh? 02:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I guess it's my lucky day, happened to me on my second try. This ( is the URL (screenshot), but note that if I copy and paste the URL into a new window, it goes back to the normal one. Fry1989 eh? 02:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Anybody? Fry1989 eh? 01:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Categorization by variables in the template

Category:Requested moves (new) contains many old move requests which should be still displayed in different categories (like Category:Requested moves (50+ days)). The categorization is not updated automatically but only when somebody does at least an empty edit of every included category. Would be possible to update automatically in some adequate period all pages which contain any template with some changing variable? --ŠJů (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There are python code to "touch" (empty edit) pages so they are evaluated again. Those can be run when needed, like before working on Category:Requested moves (50+ days). --Jarekt (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how to use such python code. If there is no way how to resolve this bug systematically, would be possible to "touch" all content of Category:Requested moves (all) every day? --ŠJů (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Similar cases are categories like Category:Non-empty category redirects and Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories. They are not correctly working because the categorization doesn't react to changes of their content. --ŠJů (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Dummy edit move template and wait 1 hour. --Foroa (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Would somebody instruct some bot to make dummy edit of all related templates ({{move}}, {{category redirect}}, {{disambig}} and maybe many others) once per day? However, this is an makeshift solution only. Can be this bug resolved properly? --ŠJů (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Transfer this PDF File to the Commons please

I made a pdf version of the english wikibook on blender. I herewith publish it under Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) . For technical reasons I can not upload it to the commons. So I please transfer to commons that file so I can link it in wikibooks. The File can be downloaded from the following url. Dirk Hünniger (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that this file looks completely pointless. Use b:Special:Book instead. Furthermore, there are licence issues:
  • You seem to credit all Commons images to Wikibooks users with links to Wikibooks user pages. Did you check that SUL is activated and that there is no SUL conflict on Commons and/or Wikibooks? Otherwise, the image attribution is wrong.
  • Your list of images includes lots of images licensed as GPL and GFDL. Are you aware that you are required to include a copy of those licences in the PDF file in order to comply with the licence? I can't find any copy of those licences anywhere.
Finally, there seems to be a bug in the software generating the file: the images on page 1761 are not displaying. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You should not judge whether a file is pointless just because you know an other way of creating a file. The missing images were delete because of license issues. But the authors of the book decided to keep the references to the non existing images in the book. Thus they appear also in my file. You may discuss about these references on the discussion pages of wikibook respectively. It is easy for me to include a copy of the GPL. I will do so and reupload as soon as all other issues are sorted out. So in my opinion the only remaining point is SUL. What do you mean with SUL. I found single user login. The attribution of the images is based on the author entries of the information templates respectively. So it is not at all evaluated who was logged in. Dirk Hünniger (talk)

I hope my last post resolved your questions, with the exception of the inclusion of the GPL. I made a new version it included the GPL and the GFDL. So issues, especially all license issues are resolved now. And I ask you again to transfer the file to commons. Dirk Hünniger (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

April 21

Dancing among categories

We have: category:Dance in art, inside category:Dancing people in art, inside after category:Dancers in art. I think one only it's enough since dancers are dancing people and dance is performed only by people. Which? This is the question.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 13:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

To be fair there is also Category:Dancing bears which includes a number of works of art :-) But regardless I agree that these should be consolidated. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Logo of Website

Hello, since comics site Digital Comic Museum, now I have a doubt: the logo of the website [41] consists of images was done in the public domain, I can post it in the Commons or need an OTRS?Hyju (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Needs OTRS, derivative works of public domain images can be copyrightable. --Claritas (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

April 18

Offsite discussions

Please see Commons:Requests for comment/offsite discussions. Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Right now the discussion is mainly dominated by the WR users (not all of whom are even Commons users) who obviously oppose any restrictions. If uninvolved Commons users do not care, this is perfectly fine, but if there is someone who has an opinion in either way it is probably a good time to add it now, before the RfC gets closed.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)



The above file was uploaded by me long back but in spite of several times changing and editing by me it could not be visible on the screen. Only a small X is visible on top left corner and nothing else. Kindly see the file's history and help me to solve my problem. It will be so kind of you. Thanks, :Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma (talkEmail)Krantmlverma (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Duplicate of a similar posting on the help desk. And I have no idea what appears to this user to be wrong with the image, it looks fine to me. - Jmabel ! talk 08:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The image has CMYK-colors. Convert it to RGB or change the save-setting of your optical device/ Photoshop. And please refrain from CRYING. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 10:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Did you actually take the photo, or just scan it? Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Make search default to searching category namespace

Please see Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Make_search_default_to_searching_category_namespace. Rd232 (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Mbdortmund deceased

Today I got the sad information that User:Mbdortmund is deceased. Even that most of his work for the Wikimedia universum he has made on Commons, I opened a condolence book on the German Wikipedia. I know that he visited the meet ups often and many people knows him personally. Raymond 16:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

"Red Eye Photography" images

I've found a few images like File:Chris Webber NBA Asia Challenge 2010.jpg and File:Chris Webber laughing NBA Asia Challenge 2010.jpg that have the words "Red Eye Photography" in the bottom right corner. These images have been uploaded from Flickr, but the Flickr pages say, "Request to license inboundpass' photos via Getty Images". Are such images usable here? Thanks. Zagalejo (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Provided the Flickr account is the copyright owner, then yes, under the terms of the CC-BY license, which is still listed there. They may have subsequently licensed them through Getty, but that cannot override the existing license (which they still provide anyways). Although, if the "inboundpass" organization (which is the Flickr source) is someone different than "Red Eye Photography", then there could well be a problem, as the CC-BY license would likely not be valid in the first place. I do see other photos with different author watermarks in the inboundpass photostream. I do see this page have an image credit of "Red Eye Photography for inboundpass", so they likely do have a business relationship. Hm. Not sure, on that score. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Unlicensed reuse by a site with no contact information

Does anyone have any idea how I might follow up with unlicensed reuse of one of my photos by a site with no contact information? They've apparently scraped a lot of images from Commons.

The photo of mine is File:Seattle Hempfest 2007 - Dominic Holden.jpg, which they have reproduced here. I ran across this because this article credits the photo to them, not to me. Since corrected. Thank you, - Jmabel ! talk 06:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC) are obviously using a scraper of some sort since the description is verbatim, but they have apparently chosen not to scrape author and license information.

To their partial credit they do say "Photos offered at Free-Photos.Biz come from Wikimedia Commons and from other sources. The pictures are published under free licenses and can be used by you free of charge for commercial and non-commercial purposes. See more at: here and here. If you want to be sure of the concrete free license of a picture - look for the same picture at and see the license conditions there - but remember not all pictures come from there," but to their larger discredit, they don't conform to those license terms themselves. - Jmabel ! talk 17:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

They also have many images with license and author information and links back to Commons description pages: [42] [43], [44], ... So if you find a way to contact them it is possible that they will try to follow the licenses for your image too. /Ö 09:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
There's Whois, which tells you the detail of their domain registration. It gives you an email address, if you believe globalbusinessmail@gmail is going to get you anything. I don't believe that phone number is valid, but there's a land address for snail mail.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

April 22

Request for template instructions

How can I request that instructions be written for Template:Oldffdfull-en. I tried to find a maintenance template for this but found none. __meco (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the syntax exactly the same as on English Wikipedia? If so, just copy en:Template:Oldffdfull/doc. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Corrupted featured picture files

Hi, dropping by after a long hiatus--there appears to be a serious corruption in a couple of images that are featured pictures on some of the WMF projects. Nothing has been subsequently uploaded under the same filename; the original uploads themselves look radically different from how they appeared at the time they became featured pictures.

Has such a thing happened to other images? Possibly the developers should be notified. Durova (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, What do you mean by "corrupted"? I don't see any problem with these files. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
In the first pair: the left one is green, the right one is colored.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
On my system the first pair both left and right are pale green; right looks normal when you click in to the image hosting page. The second pair appear flat and washed-out. Durova (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Not sure how it should be, but the File:Mirror writing.jpg looks normal (brown at 800px) all others seem pale green. Maybe thumbnailing broke. This doesn't explain why the full versions look greenish as well. --  Docu  at 18:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
they look fine to me as well; I don't see the corruption. A couple months back, there was a problem with the thumbnailer which corrupted a bunch of the thumbnails, but I think that was fixed and most of the broken thumbnails would have been purged by now -- but maybe there is a cache which is causing the problem (or maybe someone just purged these images here). If you reload the pages a couple of times, does the problem go away? It's also possible there is just a problem with the particular browser in use. But the restorations above look perfectly good to me, at least in those thumbnails, and on the image pages. I don't see the green; they look similar in the thumbnails and the image pages. On the second one... the image page seems to be a *little* lighter than the thumbnail on the linked LoC page but not much, and it seems basically identical to the original file when downloaded locally and viewed in the browser. Which browser are you using? There was a recent MediaWiki upgrade, but I don't know if they upgraded the thumbnailer or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I guess Help:JPEG#Color profile -- RE rillke questions? 18:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
They are both RGB, but yes, they do both have embedded profiles. Perhaps some browsers treat them differently. We could try purging the images to see if that helps. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
That's why I linked to Color profile. I think one has to remove the profile. If you purge it everything will be green in FF. -- RE rillke questions? 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks Carl. These images must be showing up differently to different users. If similar problems have been a browser issue in the past, then it's worth saying I'm on Firefox. Durova (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Most all the thumbnails seem to have the profiles. The 800px thumbnail of the original, unrestored Mirror writing one did not (despite being generated in March). I did a purge, and now that does have a profile in the thumbnail. Which probably means it now looks green to you :-/ Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. I tried on Firefox on Mac, and I now see the corruption (Safari works fine). It definitely has to do with the profile -- just not sure if the profile is wrong, or if Firefox is wrong. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I am on FF as well, and we seem to see the same.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
According to bug 30214 and 30249, Firefox has problems with some specific profiles. Both Safari and Firefox work fine with and, which tests for basic color correction, but there must be something about those profiles which Firefox chokes on but Safari is fine with. They could be converted to use another profile, I guess. Probably just want to do that on the restored versions if you go that route -- it may be better to not rely on some less-common profiles. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
LoC uses some weird embedded profiles on its rare book collection, which is where both of these came from. Did this work years ago; wasn't aware of the bug until today. If memory serves, both of these restorations were done at a time when the maximum upload was 20 MB so it wasn't possible to upload the TIFF version of the restoration. Both of the TIFFs should be in my collection so it would be possible to change the color profile (but cumbersome to hunt down the old files after several years). What do you recommend as a solution? Durova (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
It looks like Durova's right about the weird colour profiles. The mirror writing image is listed as "Phase One P 25 Product Flash", and the latter image as "Phase One P 25 Product Tungsten". Not exactly standard, but it is simplicity to change the profiles to standards such as sRGB, Adobe RGB or even better, ProPhoto RGB.--Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Prior to late 2010, the thumbnailer here basically stripped out the profile in the thumbnails, so presumably browsers would just use either nothing or what their default is (sRGB?). So, simply removing the color profiles may well work, if it looked OK before. That should be a non-lossy operation for the existing JPGs, so you wouldn't necessarily need the original TIFFs. I think "convert input.jpg +profile '*' output.jpg" will strip profiles with ImageMagick, for example. You can also use ImageMagick to embed an sRGB profile, with a -profile argument, if you have the profile lying around (or download it). But I think we need to modify the files themselves, unless you want to leave them alone and wait for a Firefox fix. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. Stopped editing actively in early 2010 so that seems to explain it. I don't have ImageMagick; would someone be willing to assist? Durova (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Turns out ImageMagick is lossy, so I used exiftool instead. I did the restored mirror writing one; does that look better? I could also add an sRGB profile, if you think that would be preferable to just removing the old one. I'm not sure if I should alter the original versions of those two or not. I doubt they are in near as much use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that one looks perfect now. Thank you very much! Durova (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, did the second restored one. I'm not sure I should modify the originals, but could if you think so. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

April 23


Hi there people,
'Somebody can delete these files : File:Image201012110002 (2).jpg, File:Mike Coppolano.jpg ? Thanks. Mike Coppolano (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

✓  Done . Bidgee (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Mike Coppolano (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Error creating thumbnail

"Error creating thumbnail: convert: Output file write error --- out of disk space? `/tmp/transform_1026d3-1.jpg' @ error/jpeg.c/EmitMessage/235." after uploading a new version of File:Lith-print Largo Beach.jpg Hope this means something to someone. Finavon (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Autodelete tab disappeared

1. The autodelete tab seems to have disappeared (Monobook)

2. The delete icon in User:CommonsDelinker/commands (after rename/Move cat) does not work in one step any more. It takes 3 times more time to clean up. (Chrome) --Foroa (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It was considered being a security vulnerable. I did my very best to announce its removal. See MediaWiki talk:Gadget-autodel.js and Commons:Deletion requests/MediaWiki:Gadget-autodel.js (also the link there). I could write an Ajax-Solution, if required, that would - on the top of this - being even faster. I was just not aware that it was still in use. Sincerely -- RE rillke questions? 13:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
No problem, I stop my daily work of cleaning lists of broken redirects, category moves in the delinker and File description pages without an associated file. I have plenty of other things to do. --Foroa (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your Picture of the day (April 24th)

To whom this may concern,

I wish to bring your attention to the image of "The Mummy" movie poster which you currently have displayed on the front page of Wikimedia Commons. Whilst there is no question that this is indeed, a beautiful image, I'm sorry to say that in my eyes at least, there appears to be an issue with its use on the site.

I looked at the link to Los Angeles Public Library denoted in its description, and besides the website itself being Ⓒ Los Angeles Public Library, there is a notice at the top of the page which reads "All images are for press use for this exhibit. No other use is permitted.".

Now I know you can claim PD for its age, in that it is effectively out of copyright, but are the notices attached to the website legally binding? What they're saying in essence is "Our site is copyrighted, and by the way, don't use these pics anywhere else, you're not allowed to."

Is it possible to source from elsewhere, or should LAPL be contacted about this, if there are indeed no copyrights on the images? Surely they cannot claim rights which they don't have the authority to use. MarkBurberry32 (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

To sum up what I told you on IRC, while being no american copyright expert.
  • The image was taken from the site mentionned.
  • it is, as far I know, not copyrighted anymore, published in 1932, between 1923 and 1977, without a copyright notice, hence Public Domain. If someone knowing the american copyright cases more than me can confirm the image is truely under DP, that should be for the better.
  • the source cannot really make any claim for owning the scan, the image is now in the public domain, the restriction are bogus.
Esby (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
If a work is in the public domain, no amount of notices will change that, and if the work were not in the public domain, sourcing it from elsewhere would not help. It's unfortunately very common for museums to attempt to limit the public's use of public domain works; see en:Copyfraud. The LAPL has the authority to use public domain works just like anybody else, but they don't have the authority to limit other people's use of public domain works. And stop calling me Shirley! ;-) LX (talk, contribs) 13:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Magnetic wall

Here are some hints on how you can digitize large maps and illustrations. --LA2 (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite interesting --Jarekt (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

April 26

Cascade protection of Main Page

Could the cascade effect be lowered particularly for file description pages? While I understand the point of preventing people from modifying the image itself that appears on the main page, it is a shame I cannot edit the file description page.

Perhaps my suggestion is the separation of "file upload" protection and "edit" protection. Such a thing probably needs software update but devs will not work on such a thing without consensus first.

Edit: Bugzilla:22521 Filed by Happy-Melon on 2010-02-14 18:58:42 UTC deals with this issue.

-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 23:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I strongly support this proposal. When any file get to the centre of attention, such occasion should be used for maximal improvement of the description, categorization etc. Protection of description pages is needlessly counter-productive and frustrating. --ŠJů (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I have wanted to edit files featured on the main page many times, but have forgotten about most of the edits I wanted to make due to the protection. InverseHypercube 01:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
This is what {{edit request}} (placed on the file description talk page) is for. If Category:Commons protected edit requests were frequently filled with such requests, it would be a more convincing case that something needs to be done. Rd232 (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a real problem because {{edit request}} requests are not handled in a timely manner. Chances are the {{edit request}} request will expire because the page will come out of protection before an admin can carry out the edit as it happened with File talk:Portland Japanese Garden maple.jpg. I will be putting {{edit request}} on image talk pages multiple times a week to keep WMF links up to date as I am trying to link to the WMF blog featuring commons featured images through the {{Assessments}} template previously discussed in Village Pump. A bot cannot handle the task either as the page is always fully protected.
  • There is no benefit of keeping the image description pages fully protected. I can understand semi-protection against simple vandalism but I do not agree with full protection. Preemptive protections that have no added benefit should be avoided. Wikipedia articles featured on the main page are not protected for a reason. Sure the mainpage itself is protected but not the linked page. The highlighting of the article gets lots of views but also enjoys great improvement. I also want to improve the linked file page. For instance wouldn't it be great if we encouraged people to contribute to file description pages such as translation of the descriptions, categorization and other tasks?
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 03:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I thought the point of cascading protection was to prevent modification of elements which are *transcluded* on the main page, not merely linked from there. The image description page would seem to be one that is simply linked from the main page. I guess semi-protect if it could be deemed a target for vandalism, though I'm not sure of even that, but full protection does seem a bit over-the-top, unless maybe it is the only way to prevent someone uploading a new version of the image. Which, I guess, would be the request -- make it possible to prevent new image versions while allowing editing of the description page, which makes sense to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good.
If you want a file description of an image on Main page edited in the timely manner, currently you'd need to use Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections. --  Docu  at 09:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
So I take it that there are no objections? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 09:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

April 19

Category:License review needed

Help needed, page have backlog of over 200 pictures... --WhiteWriter speaks 22:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:License review needed

Thanks in advance. --WhiteWriter speaks 22:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  • An enormous number of these seem to be perfectly OK CC BY-SA 2.0 from Flickr account, so someone inclined to put an hour or so into this could make enormous progress in that time. - Jmabel ! talk 01:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I have a hard time believing that even a third of those fall within our scope. Hence my unwillingness to touch them. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I suppose. I don't see any that would be a detriment. It seems to me we can sort out the licensing matter first, then deal with whether we think any of these are out of scope. - Jmabel ! talk 05:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
        • And I do not see why they wouldn't fall into scope. At least the images on the first page of the category seemed to be in scope (some of them might not be, I did no thorough investigation). --LPfi (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

April 24

New York City image archives are posted online

As an uploader of great interest in historical archives. I want to share this link for those who are interested. The New York City image archives were placed online recently Enjoy — User talk:Ineuw 18:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Many/most of these images are only for educatonal/noncommercial usage. --Denniss (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
See also en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Copyright status pf photographs prior to 1923. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

April 25

SVG fonts for matching LaTeX

LaTeX using <math></math> such as

uses Computer Modern font which is not available for svg on Meta:SVG fonts.
w:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Mathematics#Graphs_and_diagrams says that fonts used in diagrams should generally match the text. Since text for proofs is in LaTeX and computer modern font is not available, which font should be used.
File:Associatividadecat.png is an example of computer modern font(italic).
So, which font should be used as a substitute?(serif)--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia Manual of Style says that diagrams should match the conventions used in the text, not the exact typeface. Any plain serif italic typeface will suffice for your diagrams. Powers (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Spammer in Spanish Wikipedia

Yes check.svg ResolvedTiptoety talk 18:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

RaptorJDM (talk · contribs) is a spammer in Spanish Wikipedia. He uploaded many non encyclopedics images in Commons then use in Wikipedia for advertising. Can any administrator to review your contributions? Thanks, Metrónomo (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I pestered someone on IRC to do some deletions. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

1.20wmf1 deployment complete

We now have deployed 1.20wmf1 to this site. See Commons:Village_pump#MediaWiki_1.20 for details on this deployment. Please let us know if you spot any new issues related to this deployment. Thanks! -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I had an option in preferences to exclude the improved panel. Now the option is gone, and the improved panel which irritates me is back. Also, I got white diffs instead of green ones (I am not sure whether the two issues are related).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, how to turn off this advanced-edit panel (ext.wikiEditor.toolbar/jquery.wikiEditor.toolbar)? Never used it because it's too slow. -- RE rillke questions? 19:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Hrm, that should have been fixed. See Bugzilla35879. Roan is looking at this now. -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I have the problem that there are no longer links to speedy tag files in the toolbox. - A.Savin 19:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Hmm, for me they work (no source, license, permission, copyvio). Did you try to purge your cache? -- RE rillke questions? 20:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Works. - A.Savin 20:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • In the watchlist, the enhanced changes preference is not displayed properly. The arrow icons to expand the changes are not displayed, which makes it impossible to uncollapse the list of changes. Dodoïste (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Please purge your cache. That helped for me. Raymond 20:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks, worked for me too. Dodoïste (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Purge did not solve the problem on Chrome. --Foroa (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
          • I was using Chrome too. I had to open the Options menu, go to some advanced system option, and empty the cache. Tedious. Dodoïste (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Toolbox completely disappeared; short-links to speedy-tag copyvios etc. are no longer available, really great when you're doing admin-work, same problem in IE8, Opera and Chrome; purge didn't help. --Túrelio (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The toolbox lost all tags for proposing things for deletion (copyvio, no source etc.) for me too (using Seamonkey), but they reappeared after I had restarted the browser. My browser is set to clear all cache, cookies and history upon exit. Not sure if that affected anything. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Hm, it seems that the links are present at insecure Commons ( but not at secure Commons ( --Stefan4 (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
      • How do I get the pre-beta toolbar back? The beta toolbar sucks. I see no options to set it back again... Romaine (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Was bug, is solved now. Romaine (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • In the last few days I was getting A LOT of "Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data" errors. And quite a few Log outs. Today I even got an edit conflict with myself, when trying to save something. --Jarekt (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I am also getting a lot of those "Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data" errors today when I try to upload files or edit pages. For example, I've been trying unsuccessfully to upload a file for the last hour. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I've been at it for hours now and the problem persists. All my attempts at uploading are countered every time with that "loss of session data" error message. Will that system ever let me upload again? -- Asclepias (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Been happening to me for the last five days and has been random (ie: no patten). Bidgee (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I linked a bugzilla ticket that seems related to this problem. Doubt it has anything to do with 1.20, probably more likely one of the servers that's having a problem. TheDJ (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Links to non-existent pages shown in blue, not red, in 1.20

Screenshot-fragment blue-link-to-nonexistent-talk-page MW1.20.gif

See image for an example link to a non-existent talk page which is shown in blue, not red; it's kind of annoying... AnonMoos (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Is that the nostalgia skin ? Shows red for me... TheDJ (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
It's the "Classic" skin, which I've been using continuously since late 2005 (no distracting gray background swirls, and a little lighter on the scripting code). AnonMoos (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
That is strange. It shows just fine for me both on the left side and at the bottom of the page. There is no "discuss this page" option at the top right ??? At least there isn't for me. TheDJ (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The image actually shows the "discuss this page" option at the bottom of the page (the screenshot is highly selective). This now seems to be fixed, but it was definitely broken during most of April 16 and a significant part of April 17... AnonMoos (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Disappearing images

I don't know if it's related to MW 1.20 or 1.19 but since early this year we seem to loose a lot of images on upload (or sometimes long standing image revisions are gone for no apparent reason), they are listed on the filepage as uploaded but you can't access them and there's no thumbnail. See examples here and here. Pay a special attention on the truncated link to the lost image revisions. There's an urgent need to fix this issue ASAP and to restore the lost images. --Denniss (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

They seem restricted to uploading a new version of the image in the same minute as the old one. In both cases, they look like a reupload of the same file, though. Platonides (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Log on with DotNetWikiBot

Yesterday and today I tried to log on to Commons with my DotNetWikiBot-bot, but failed and still is failing. "Internal server failure", (no such message when I log on to a 1.19-project). I did not intend to edit here, just check that interwiki to this project doesn't end up in dead links. -- Lavallen 10:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

My bot works fine. It's using the API and it's setting the cookie-request-header (session id, ...) and the User-Agent-request-header (custom string). I am using URL-encoding, UTF-8 for the login. Is your bot using https or http; API or not API, ....? -- RE rillke questions? 15:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I assume that Commonist uses the API as well, since I'm getting the random "Internal server failure" while uploading. The uploading errors are becoming a huge pain in the rear end! Bidgee (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Tried both http and https now, both fails. And I use API. I am failing already when I try to log on to the project. I never comes as far as doing anything else. (Like reading pages to see if they exists, in my case.)
AFAIK, AWB is based on C# (like my code) and it looks like it still works. And I cannot imagine that it uses anything else than API. -- Lavallen 19:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
You could try to monitor your http-requests. There are free solutions available (some show the whole request=convenient, some show each packet) and the DotNetWikiBot is opensource, I assume. -- RE rillke questions? 21:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Pictogram voting keep.svg Solved - Deactivated line 615-627 in the code for version 2.99. -- Lavallen 18:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I had same issue, will try this workaround. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

My bug report

I reported this bug[45] a few days ago with 1.20, but as of yet no one has responded. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Please elaborate what you think is wrong after saying "Go to". I don't see a difference between the files you say are wrong and those you mention as being OK, but perhaps I did not look closely enough. You may attach a screenshot to your bugzilla report in case the bug happens on your computer only. Teofilo (talk) 11:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Latest Version 1.20 glitch (no styling)

It isn't pretty

In the last day or so, the User contributions "special" page has consistently failed to load any styling or CSS etc. information, so the page is displayed with completely generic browser default style... AnonMoos (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess the lack of styling affects most "Special:" pages, with the conspicuous exception of "Special:ListFiles" and "Special:NewFiles" (I first noticed it only in the contributions text listing)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Has been fixed... AnonMoos (talk)

Deletion not working sometimes

See #Deletion_not_working.3F below. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Database corruption with file usage/global usage and long deleted articles

Both global usage and File usage of File:Candydate_Jobs.gif show it used on two articles in en wiki although one of them has been deleted as far back as December 2010. May just be a database hickup at en wiki though. --Denniss (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a fairly long-standing old bug (not new with version 1.20). AnonMoos (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Rotation issue again?

I'm not sure about blaming 1.20 for that, but please give it a check. The thumb of File:Bildstock und Pesthuegel Feldkirchen bei Graz Wagnitzstrasse.JPG (exif: Rotated 90° CW) is correct in orientation, while the full image is not (FF on Mac). Or is it the other way round? regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Bug in Firefox (and all other web browsers). Firefox displays many images using the wrong orientation. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

April 17

Aren't DoD images supposed to be assigned just a single VIRIN id?

I uploaded an image today, that looks like a duplicate of an image I uploaded a year or ago. I'll put a {{duplicate}} on it, later. But first I wanted to get additional eyes on something that surprised me.

This image was assigned two VIRIN ids. How often does that happen? Geo Swan (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If you see it happen again, then it might be something worth investigating. If it's just one case, I'd chalk it up to human error (two copies floating in two separate piles of files to be processed, maybe?) Sven Manguard Wha? 18:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
If I had to guess, it's because VIRIN numbers used to contain part of the photographer's social security number. That was changed due to identify theft laws, and VIRINs no longer do that. It's possible they went and changed the VIRIN numbers for older photographs as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah. Thanks for the info! Geo Swan (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

April 27


. It's a company logo. Maintain or delete?--Pierpao.lo (listening) 05:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  • There are no examples of images from the Republic of China at COM:TOO, but it could easily be too complex. The uploader claims own work, so maybe it should be tagged as "no permission". --Stefan4 (talk) 08:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC).
    • It's a bit-for-bit copy of an image on a facebook page. Definitely not "own work". As for originality... if the figures in the box are Chinese characters, it's probably OK in the U.S. Seems like mainland China (and maybe Japan) have had cases where calligraphic characters were deemed copyrightable... but not sure if that applies to straight-line stuff. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Error upload, help

Unable to send a file .ods (spreadsheet open office) with the Commons site. What works for the extension sends? (Impossible d'envoyer un .ods (feuille de calcul open office) avec le site Commons. Quelle extension fonctionne pour l'envoie ? ) MerveillePédia (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

April 28

April 29

  • Hey, via BoingBoing I found this large cache of public domain photos from the Mercury and Gemini space programs. It looks like the majority of the Gemini photos (and probably the Mercury ones as well) are not uploaded to Commons yet. There are really too many of these to do by hand in any non-painstaking way. Does someone maybe have a bot that can grab the images? There's a bit of useful metadata as well along with each high res photo. Steven Walling • talk 00:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Arabic copyvioler

See Special:Contributions/دكتور_مانهاتن please, thanks.--Threecharlie (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

All files tagged as no source. Some logos might be OK as PD-textlogo, if a source is provided. Yann (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

SVG thumbnails not displaying on image description page

Just uploaded new versions of File:Labrys-symbol.svg and File:Labrys-symbol-transparent.svg, and I don't think that there's anything wrong with the SVG files themselves. The syndrome is that thumbnails of every size of these two files now display except the 493px-wide thumbnails on the image description pages themselves. I've tried purging and reloading, and it doesn't seem to help... AnonMoos (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

They display fine for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
They really do not display in my browser. I'm not sure if it's MW 1.20 or what, but the 493px-wide images seem to start to load for a split-second, and then are immediately replaced by blue text of the name of the image displayed on a small rectangular transparent background... AnonMoos (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I've had this problem before as well. It's an odd caching quirk of some sort or other in which when you upload a new version of a file you have trouble seeing the new thumbnail, or see the old thumbnail where the new one should be. When this happens, go onto IRC and ask someone else to look at the thumbnail, or if you have a second PC use that one. It should be fine for everyone else, and fine for you after 48 hours or so. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I've experienced a number of caching glitches before, but never one that seemed like some kind of scripting error... AnonMoos (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Now affecting File:Palestine-Mandate-Ensign-1927-1948.svg. I really don't think it it's a caching problem -- it looks like the image is trying to display for a split-second, then something intervenes to prevent it from displaying. Seems a lot more like a scripting problem. AnonMoos (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

They display fine for me too. What browser are you using? Jarry1250 (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Fixed now anyway (File:Palestine-Mandate-Ensign-1927-1948.svg quickly, the Labrys files after a number of days). AnonMoos (talk) 06:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

500 Internal Server Error


I get this while looking at [46]. Yann (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"Internal Server Error
Guru Meditation:
XID: 1473875618
Varnish cache server"
  • Hmm, I don't get the error. Could you try again and see if you still get the error? - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Yann -- that doesn't look like a Wikimedia error; more likely to be an error message issued by something intermediate between you and the Wikimedia servers (programmed by a fan of the Commodore Amiga, apparently). AnonMoos (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

An easy or best way to separate multiple image uploads

I've come across this image File:Datalink USB Dress Edition.JPG, and most of the versions in history are actually different photos. Can an admin move the images apart, or is there a tool that should be used here? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 19:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You can request the seperation by adding {{split}}, or a request at Commons:History merging and splitting/Requests for more complicated cases. Personally I'm not really sure that it is needed in this case unless you think a particular version in the history is useful as a seperate file. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for that. Yeah, I know there isn't a lot of variety there, but we don't have very many images of that make of watch. If we already have the free images, we may as well have them usable. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 21:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Image annotator colour change?

I recently added 7 notes to this image: File:Arecibo message.svg. There are two border colours that look very close to each other. Orange for mouse over section, and yellow for the others that are not under mouse over. I don't think it is a really big issue, but some may consider it hard to tell which section the note is for on images with notes that overlap.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data

Tonight, the upload process extremely often fails and displays the message "Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again. If it still does not work, try logging out and logging back in.". Where is this problem from?

Btw., when the process fails, the upload form keeps the content of almost all fields, except for "Source filename". It is very bothering to seek the filename again and again for every new upload attempt. Would by someone able to fix this problem? --ŠJů (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The whole systems is becoming unworkable; tens of seconds to open or add a cat, minutes for some others or a complete cat display. I stopped already many times working on Commons as it just generates too much waiting time. --Foroa (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Likely related to Bugzilla35900. Killiondude (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I have had lots of problems with loss of session data lately, mainly on Commons but to a lesser extent also on English Wikipedia. If I press the preview button, I might notice that I'm no longer logged in, although I might mysteriously become logged in again by just pressing the preview button a second time. The save button often fails because something thinks that cookies have been changed or sessions lost, and I've often had to press the save button multiple times before it works. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I had a message an hour or so ago that the whole WF site was down (commons and en:WP I tried). It only lasted a few minutes then both sites were back up. It may have been techs doing a fix?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


Is this sculpture actually 2 thousand years old or is it a recent reconstruction? Pass a Method (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, I believe it is 2K years old. Do you have any evidence pointing otherwise?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

undo deletion request

I have accidentally added a photo on Wiki Commons to deletion request. How do I undo this? DarkKomodo (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You want to undo the deletion request? If no one responded, and the image is not yet deteleted, you can just remove the template. If the image is deleted already, you can do an undelete-request. Edoderoo (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
And if the deletion discussion is underway, post there as nominator saying you withdraw the nomination. Dankarl (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


User:CategorizationBot went down some time ago because of toolserver problems. The bot did three tasks

  1. Find uncategorized files
  2. Try to get files categorized
  3. Notify users

I'm thinking about restarting the bot, but I'm only doing this if I get enough positive feedback. So what do you think should I restart the bot or not? Should I run all tasks or just some specific tasks (for example no notifications). I'm looking forward to your replies. Multichill (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support No need to ask... Ofcourse you should restart the bot. In many cases the bot find really good categories. And even in the cases where the categories are not perfect in many cases it is a step in the right direction. --MGA73 (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support unless you plan to do it manually ;) --  Docu  at 16:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Categories are important and users should be aware of categories. The bot is the only one making new users aware of categories since the dev of upload wizard decided to hide the inputs by default. -- RE rillke questions? 16:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support --Foroa (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support with all features. Thanks! - PKM (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support --Wouter (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support with all features, including the one that processes {{intersect categories}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support with all features, thanks! --Jwh (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support for all three tasks. Btw., for the task #2, some more intelligent and sophisticated algoritms should be devised sometime. --ŠJů (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Yes, I think this would be a good idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support We need the bot urgently. --GeorgHHtalk   20:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)