Commons:Village pump/Archive/2012/08

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


outside representation of a country

I put a picture of an Austrian station in Ny Alesund (Spitsbergen). This category Austria was removed. Are there no categories of countries embassies and representations outsite the country? Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

outsite => outside, I presume. - Jmabel ! talk 08:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by "an Austrian station"? A link to the image in question would help make sense of this. - Jmabel ! talk 08:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems to be a remote settlement that includes a research station. The image is [[:File:Austrian station in Ny-Ålesund.JPG|here].
Smiley: The Austrian category on Commons is only for images of Austria. Category:Ny-Ålesund is in Svalbard. Category:Science and technology in Austria is a perhaps more relevant. Always remember to keep categories as narrow and focused as possible. -- Nick Moreau (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Or perhaps create a category for Austria analogous to Category:Japanese culture in foreign countries for Japan. - Jmabel ! talk 01:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Embassies are categorized in Category:Embassies by country and Category:Embassies by host country. MKFI (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
To link this image with Austria, I would have a "of Austria" and not a "in Austria" category. Nobody would ever think to look at the category Ny-Ålesund for a Austrian station. The embassies and consulates have specific categories and dont need attention. If I want find a picture of the Austrian Olympian delegation in London, I would probably find it in the Olympian categories. In Antartica there are many country bases and Barentsburg (Spitsbergen) is an Russian base. I wil experiment and try out a few categories and discus if we need to roll out these kind of categories for all countries. It is better to have a few examples first.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I have created the category:Russian bases outside Russia.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremony rehearsals

Several pictures in Category:2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremony pre-date that event, and are actually from the rehearsals. Please could someone with a bot move them to a sub-category, and add to their descriptions, accordingly? Andy Mabbett (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Some pictures need to have the date (from the EXIF) fixed because it's not from rehearsals :) --PierreSelim (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Original flickr sources are tagged as "technical rehearsal" Man vyi (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Can anyone help, please? Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A politically-relative Wiki?

It looks fundamental to me to get the participation of the collective to summon here and assist in working this question which might have farther implications for our environment. The experience shows that in most cases when more editors have their say we get the right conclusions. Orrlingtalk 12:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Translated and autotranslated templates

Excuse my poor English level, I'm a templater (this is the correct term?) with a special interest in Commons's templates. In {{CC-AR-Presidency}} I had a problem with the autotranslation. I used {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} & {{PermissionOTRS}}, but these haven't a parameter lang, only display text in the language defined in the preferences. If I read {{CC-AR-Presidency/en}}, I see half the text in English and half in Spanish. If I want to read the entire text in the same language without having to go to preferences, we should add a parameter lang = {{{lang|{{int:Lang}}}}} to {{Cc-by-sa-layout}} & {{PermissionOTRS}}. A style change like this should apply to all autotranslated metatemplates. That doesn't affect the current use and avoids this contradiction. --Metrónomo (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete image previews

Sometimes an image preview or thumbnail is incomplete. For example: Of File:Peter Paul Rubens - Venus and Adonis - WGA20288.jpg the 600px preview and 1024px preview show up partly grey (at least on my computer). There are other files with the same problem. I would expect that clearing my cache, reloading or using the purge function would solve it, but it doesn't. How do I fix this? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

They show up just fine for me. Have you tried if you have the same problem with a different browser ? Might help figuring out if an issue is specific to a certain browser type. TheDJ (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I installed Chrome and the problem is gone, for these images. But not for the next one. It is only partly displayed both in Chrome and Explorer in the size 800px, and it does not seem to relate to caching of the browser. Why is that?

Father of the Church, by Jan Toorop.jpg

Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

On my screen, only the upper part is shown, very broad. But when I click on the picture, a smaller versiojn but full face appears. 05:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct, the problem is only present in this 800px size thumbnail. Why is that, and how to solve this? I would expect the purge function to do something like that, but that doesn't help. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done: . --McZusatz (talk) 08:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks McZusatz, but re-uploading was not really what I was looking for. There must be a way to kick the machine to generate its thumbs again, instead of this quick and dirty solution. Or the function, if not yet present, should be included, f.i. in the purge function. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Sry, but sometimes the purge function simply does not work and this is the only solution I could think of so far. --McZusatz (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, it shouldn't be the only solution. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It often helps to load the thumb in question and add &action=purge in your browser's adress bar behind the file extension (without space between extension and command). This should only purge this single thumb. --Denniss (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes this works only as long as the &action=purge is appended to the url. After removing the string, clearing your browser cache and reloading the thumb yields the old (broken) result. --McZusatz (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Error retrieving thumbnail from scaling server: empty response . Another one. --McZusatz (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody with a good solution for this problem? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

July 21

File:Baker-Nunn camera diagram.jpg


According to the legend in EN:, this file should be renamed. I do not know how to operate. Thanks in advance. Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

How do we know the user who added the correction is right? The NASA website calls it a Baker-Nunn camera. InverseHypercube 04:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
In this case, my modifications were made in accordance to his comments. At present, the legend of the picture and the tiltle of the page do not fit properly. Must be deleted ? Grrrmmffff ?

Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Text from right of page and Categories bleed over rest of page so I can't understand it

this file shows a little bit of the problem.

I use firefox 14.1. This problem as been growing worse over time. The categories and now the text from the right side of the page bleed over the page so that I can't make out what's there. Is there a fix for this? Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that Gadget-GalleryDetails? Have you tried turning it off? Rd232 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know about that. (Did it turn itself on?) MathewTownsend (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus about PNG thumb vs JPG thumb

There is an question to COM:MFC, which declares seemingly an official rule that JPG is generally the preferred format for ALL graphic formats. Is there any consensus or official given information for this? For example this PNG thumb is nominated for deletion for these reasons. -- πϵρήλιο 21:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Well MFC doesn't quite say that - it just assumes JPEG is the best way to do a thumbnail, which may not always be true. See Commons_talk:Media_for_cleanup#Consensus_about_PNG_thumb_vs._JPG_.28as_standard.29. Rd232 (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes, especially with the previously-used PNG thumbnailing software, thumbnails of PNG images were greatly bloated, and it was recommended to use JPEGs of photographic-source images in Wikipedia article pages. However, I'm really not sure what the basic purpose of File:Karte Stadtstaat Bern 18 Jh thumb.png is -- sometimes a PNG can be less blurry than a JPEG, but none of the text captions are readable at that size, so it doesn't make any real difference as far as I can see... AnonMoos (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Since most Metadata is copied while thumbnailing now, it happens that we've JPEG thumbs > 1 MB. 2 Examples (120×120px thumbnail 1.74 MB) in Category:Pianos by Steinway & Sons. I suggest removing this section. JPEGs should be used for photos, use PNG for non-photographic works. Having ugly compression artifacts using JPEG for non-photographic works seems to be no solution to me. -- Rillke(q?) 18:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

User talk page usage restrictions

More and more people require me to remember how I am supposed to use their user talk pages and if I do not they enforce it. Since 2005 when posting talk page messages I have a habit of keeping the discussion in two or more places such as the following scenarios under normal circumstances:

  • I get a comment on my user talk page,
    • I reply to it on my own user talk page
    • I copy paste the entire thread on that persons user talk page so that he or she is notified that I replied to him or her.
  • I leave a comment on someone else's user talk page
    • I expect the reply on my user talk page as otherwise I will not be notified.
    • I will not be bothered to check that persons user talk page if I have not gotten a reply on my own user talk page. After all, sometimes my comment to them and their reply is days/weeks/months apart.
      • If he or she replies on their own user talk page without bothering to paste it on my user talk page, I used to copy the thread back to my user talk page to maintain the thread, while I am not notified in this scenario I do not forget to whom I commented.
    • I DO NOT and WILL NOT maintain a watch-list of other peoples user talk pages. I do not care about everyone else's conversations with third parties and bots. Furthermore I would be very uncomfortable in doing so since I feel this would be an unneeded invasion of privacy. While legally it is OK to stare at people in public, its not polite.

What is the consensus on user talk page usage? If there isn't one, I will cease making any attempt to notify others that I replied to them and will also cease keep track of my own comments to other peoples user talk pages since I don't have the time to refresh their talk pages with intervals.

-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 08:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Instead of copy-pasting the entire tread to the other persons talk page you could place the {{tb}} template to notify him.
  • You could also suggest others to put the template on your talk page if they answered on their talk page. --McZusatz (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I would say that most users use the watchlist approach and have no problem with that. Many, like myself, note specifcally on their talk page that communication is expected to take place on the talk page where the discussion was initiated. After interacting with you I have learned you do not use the watchlist for user pages, so I have started using {{tb}}, and I think that is a fine approach which I have no problem with. I do see you point with being bothered with a lot of irrelevant activities in your watchlist when watching user pages. And it is a solution for both approaches. I would suggest you to add a note on your talk page that you do not watchliost user pages and would appreciate a talkback message when replying to a post of yours on another talk page. If it is the first time you have communicated with another user you could mention it in your first post as it is likely that the "new user" would expect you to follow the discussion. A third appraoch which is also practised by many (but which I persoanlly find confusing) is that both talk pages are used. In that way you are automatically notified, but the discussion will be fragmented and hard to follow.
Really, these are all workarounds for a not optimal data model for inter-user communication. Really there should be a communication channel data model associated with the users taking part in a discussion and then this single instance should be visible from the talk page of each user involved without having to copy redundant data around. Regarding your privacy concern I must say I do not see the communication taking place at user talk pages as being private myself. Often irrelevant though, and not worth spending your time on. If want to communicate in private I use the email function. --Slaunger (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I like the flip-flop method of answering on their talk page and they answer on mine. The disjointed talk makes it hard for those that do look at others' pages to follow what is going on. Please respond three sections above, because that is where I am going next.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It is quite annoying to be forced to use templates (such as {{tb}}) as well. What advantage does this bring I ponder. Is there any reason why the thread should not be copy pasted (flip-flop method) to both places? If the intention is to save server resources I know for a fact that Mediawiki makes an exact replica of the entire page even if you make a single minor correction of a typo. The only way to save on resources is archiving. Users should never worry about server resources, that is the job of server administrators and they will let us know if something is the source of a problem. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 18:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the problem is that there should be no reason for you to expect other people to follow your strict standards for contact. If someone contacts me on my talk page, I expect them to be watching my talk page and looking for my reply there unless they state otherwise. If you would prefer that they contact you on your talk page, or leave a talkback message telling you they responded, you need to tell them that. As for copying and pasting the thread, that makes discussion confusing, especially to those who don't have both pages watched. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
People are enforcing their standards and requiring me to follow theirs. This is the issue I am having as some users enforcing a "ban" on the flip-flop threading I have grown accustomed to in the past 7 years. People will remove the thread I copied to their talk page stating it is unneeded. I am only trying to contact you when I am using your talk page. This should be a simple task. Few things are as contrived as requiring people to watch your talk page. Mediawiki talk pages aren't intended to be used like this as the notification system isn't designed for this.
How is it confusing if the message is available on your and my talk page? I really do not get this. I copy the entire thread (with my new reply) to your talk page and you copy the entire thread back to my talk page (with your new response as well as the response I left at your talk page). In this method I will receive an email only when my talk page is edited.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 18:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The idea of copying the discussion on both users talk pages is a new one to me. If I start a discussion on an other user's talk page and that user replies and copies the thread to my talk page, then I would understand it that the other user specifically desires to continue this discussion on my talk page. In this case I would not reply (or copy the discussion) on the other user's talk page. I have always been under the impression that the discussion would be kept in one place, usually on the page where it was started. Replying and then copying the discussion on original user's talk page is a gesture which is very easy to misunderstand. MKFI (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Copying a conversation seems weird to me as well. I could understand moving it, but having the same thing in multiple places seems confusing at best. In general, if you don't want to watch a user's talk page for replies, just say so. A user editnotice may help communicate your expectations to others, which can't hurt. Rd232 (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It really isn't multiple threads. We are talking about two talk pages. I do not see how it is remotely confusing since the exact replica of the thread is merely available in two places. You would be updating the thread on my talk page for replies and I would be updating the thread on your talk page for replies. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 08:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I can't speak for the "common" usage on this, but I prefer to continue a conversation where it was started. We do that at the Village Pump, at File talk pages, etc. Why should things be different just because we're in the User talk: namespace? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Because for starters I will not get email notifications from your talk page posts unless I watch it which in that case I get a spam of emails for unrelated remarks on your talk page. How will I know you replied to me otherwise? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 08:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    That's no different from other talk pages, which may also have discussions you're not interested in. (Should everyone commenting in this thread have copied it to the talk pages of everyone else participating in it?) Nobody is requiring you to watch pages where you've participated in a discussion, but all choices have consequences. If you're choosing not to follow conversations where they take place, and others don't go out of their way to notify you elsewhere, you may miss replies as a consequence of your choice. Copying threads is effectively the same as cross-posting and leads to forking and/or messages getting lost if third parties enter the discussion. It should not be used or encouraged (although I am aware that Commons:Talk page guidelines#How to keep a two-way conversation readable mentions it as one alternative). LX (talk, contribs) 11:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The user with the confusing name says: "It is quite annoying to be forced to use templates (such as {{tb}}) as well. What advantage does this bring I ponder. Is there any reason why the thread should not be copy pasted (flip-flop method) to both places?"
An additional reason why this why your approach is a bad idea is that when we sign our comments the system leaves a time-stamp. Copy-pasting comments copies a misleading timestamp. Later readers are mislead as to when the pasted comments were actually left on the discussions where they are pasted. Later readers can be mislead and think your correspondent was ignoring comments on their talk page -- due to the invalid and misleading timestamps.
If you have been here for seven year I trust you know how to use diffs? Rather than pasting the whole discussion, why don't you paste in a diff to the comment you are replying to?
I have got to say your comments in this thread strongly suggests an uncooperative attitude. If you actually feel that you are a cooperative person perhaps you should give some thought about generally expressing yourself differently? Geo Swan (talk) 07:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
As a side note, this whole problem could be averted if we had a more effective forum software solution that allowed watching of individual threads and allowing threads to be displayed simultaneously on multiple pages. The use of wiki pages for discussions is awkward and inadequate. I'm not saying LiquidThreads is the right thing, but something better is needed. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
@とある白い猫:Regarding other users enforcing their standard on you, I can mention that in the +5 years I have been editing here, I have had written correspondence with +300 different users (I have +300 user talk pages on my watchlist, they are automatically added when I edit them). With one exception (you) this communication has taken place in either one thread on the talk page, where the discussion has started (around 4 out of 5) - sometimes supplemented with talkback notices, or where the discussion is flip-flop dispersed to both talk pages each party replying on the others talk page (around 1 in 5). The method of copying the entire thread is one i have only seen from you. So I would say this approach is non-standard. The main problem with the copying approach is the maintenance of redundant data and the extra copy-edit-paste operation involved in each reply. There is always a risk that the two copies drift apart, and this leads to confusion. Moreover, when more users get involved in the same discussion, the system breaks down unless you want to extend the copying to all users involved in a discussion - and this is too tedious. Since you prefer not to user watch lists for user pages, I would propose to add an edit notice to your talk page telling that discussion starting at your talk page will be continued there (noone expects a copy at their talk page, when they have initiated a discussion on your page), and that you would like a tallkback notice for replies to messages you leave on their talk page. In that manner you get the email-notification you would like to get, and other users can do talk page business as usual. None of the approaches are optimal though. As Dcoetzee mentions, what we really need is a Thread system. --Slaunger (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
We all know that replicating data is a source of problems, even more so for discussions. And when white cat discussed on my talk page, he didn't mention anything about his particular ping pong method. --Foroa (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not angry or upset at any specific user. It is just that the method vast majority of the participants of this thread use is incompatible with how Mediawiki notifies users and this ends up being frustrating since I find myself trying to follow unrelated discussions on tens of places with responses weeks to months apart at times. I want to respect other peoples preferences which is why I did not ask any specific user to change how they use the talk page. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 08:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. Is it possible to go to a users main page and create a 2 user page from there? It would create a talk page that would notify each user when it is modified. When they are done they could put a bot delete or bot archive tag on it. Even a total purge may be an option. I don't know how technical it would be and probably need high level approval.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be a terrible method. Alienating and illogical for new users and involving far too much adminstrative work. Really, what we need is the development of LiquidThreads to be resumed. If this worked well, I think it could be a good system. --Slaunger (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
LiquidThreads will not be developed anymore (see mw:LiquidThreads_3.0/status#2012-07-14). We will have to wait for Flow/Echo to come around. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
So we can wait again 2 years and then get something that is terribly buggy, I suppose. -- Rillke(q?) 18:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Some users have radical and extreme "never reply on my user talk page at all, ever, if I've left a message on your user talk page" policies, and in such cases I don't reply to any message left on my user talk page, but just go ahead and do whatever I want, because such users have shown that they have no true interest in discussing any issues, but consider that constructing artificial barriers to communication is more important than anything else; therefore I act accordingly... AnonMoos (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually I stopped discussion after とある白い猫/12 copied everything to my talk page. I found this irritating. But that's just my personal view. -- Rillke(q?) 18:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Radical rewrite of Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia

I did a radical rewrite of Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia today, to focus on the needs of reusers and try for much greater clarity: before and after. Some material moved to Commons:Enforcing license terms, some to Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia/technical, some to Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia/licenses. I think it's a big improvement ( wasn't very good before...), but I'm open to suggestions. Rd232 (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

At Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia/technical#Hotlinking you write "If you must hotlink, then it is still good practice to add attribution". I don't understand. Why would hotlinker be authorised to break licenses? It's not "good practice", it remains a requirement.
Can you provide a reference for "hotlinking a thumbnail is unreliable, [..]; you should copy these to your own server."? --  Docu  at 05:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
1) Perhaps because some images are in the Public Domain, have licenses that don't require links back, or are used under fair use? 2) Probably because "anyone could change, vandalise, rename or delete a hotlinked image." --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I didn't write that text (just copied from the old version), but: 1) I suspect that may be based on the idea that if it's OK for Wikipedia to do attribution by linking to a file description page, it's OK for other sites to do it. Of course, hotlinking (as opposed to InstantCommons) doesn't link to the file description page but to the image itself [well I suppose the site could set it up to link to the Commons file description page when the image is clicked...]. I suspect InstantCommons use can be done as on Wikipedia, but I'm not certain. I've updated the page about hotlinking license issues. 2) thumbnails are cached, and I believe the caches may sometimes be purged of old thumbnails to save space. That may not cause problems often, but it's potentially there because of the nature of thumbnails. At least, correct or not, I suspect that's the logic behind the statement. Rd232 (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure why InstantCommons would be "not recommended". From a technical and copyright/licensing perspective, wouldn't this be exactly the same as using a file on a WMF site like Wikipedia (and in fact, isn't that the very point of InstantCommons)? cmadler (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I've thought about it, looked on a site using InstantCommons, and concluded that is the same as WMF sites using Commons images. I've updated Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia/technical accordingly, separating hotlinking from InstantCommons. Rd232 (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Note on thumb hotlinking: As it stands, if a thumb doesn't exist, it is automatically (re-)generated on the first request for it. (WMF wikis use what's called a 404 handler for thumbnailing. This is different from what many smaller MediaWiki wikis do). So even if the thumb gets deleted, the moment someone (even a hotlinker) uses it, it gets recreated. The only risk that leaves to hotlinkers is someone uploading a new version of the image, someone deleting an image, someone moving an image (the thumb urls do not redirect), or the very very unlikely chance that we could potentially totally change our url scheme for thumbnails. InstantCommons has some mild technical differences from how commons images on the sister projects work, but you would have to dig fairly deep to spot them. As far as I am aware we fully encourage use of instant commons, and the MediaWiki installer even suggests to people that instant commons be enabled. Bawolff (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - I've removed the bit about thumbnails. As to recommending InstantCommons more highly in COM:REUSE - well, perhaps; but I'm not sure how to do it. Maybe someone else could have a go at drafting or tweaking here. Rd232 (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Buildings copyrighted in Bosnia/Herzegovina ?

Does anybody know whether (modern) buildings in Bosnia/Herzegovina are copyrighted to the architect (as they are in other countries)? Regrettably our FOP entry about that country only vaguely mentions "reproductions of artistic works displayed in public places" without going into detail to what kind of artistic works the law refers. I am asking because we have several images of a modern (built 2005-2009) and surely artistic tower in Sarajevo: Category:Avaz Twist Tower by architect Faruk Kapidžić, which might violate his copyright (if it does exist Bosnia/Herzegovina). --Túrelio (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. According to the English version of the law ([1]), "works of architecture (sketches, plans drafts and built structures)" are works of authorship and subject to copyright (Article 4), and "the author of a work is the natural person who created the work" (Article 9). The FOP clause in the law covers "works permanently located in squares, parks, streets or other places accessible by the public" but excludes commercial use, (Article 52) so it's not suitable for Commons. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Mass-DR filed. --Túrelio (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

August 3

archaeowiki images

Someone noted an issue with images from archaeowiki on my talk page and requested a mass DR/investigation. Haven't had time to deal with it, would be nice if someone could take a look. User_talk:Dcoetzee/Archive_2012-07-27#Please_file_a_Mass_DR_on_Most_archaeowiki_images. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Mass-uploading of public domain movies


Is there a tentative to do a mass-uploading of public domain movies from IA? Beside the possibility to use these movies on Wikimedia projects, Commons would offer a much better search interface, custom categorization, etc. This French blog claims that there are 5000 PD movies on IA. I think this requires a team work, maybe involving server-side uploads. Yann (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is a lot of them have complex legal issues (and Commons rules don't help anything). Murder!, for example, was based off Enter Sir John, which is a British novel by Clemence Dane who died 1965, and thus the movie will be protected as a derivative work of that. The Last of the Mohicans (and probably most silent films on IA) have musical tracks that are most likely modern and copyrighted. Bronenosets Potyomkin has translated titles of unknown copyright status, music of unknown copyright status, not to mention it's a 1925 work of a director who died in 1948 and thus was in copyright in Russia in 1996 and is in copyright in Russia now and thus the URAA restored copyright to it. I'm betting the Dick Tracy movies are derivative of renewed comic strips (and we've deleted a lot of stills from stuff found on IA for similar reasons). A Farewell to Arms is derivative of the novel which was renewed. British Alfred Hitchcock films, even if they were restored by the URAA for whatever reason, are still in copyright in the UK. Etc.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Also we didn't have the infrastructure really to do this so far. I believe that the new video scalar servers etc are almost deployed now, and TimedMediaHandler should be on it's heels, so it should be easier to deal with video in the immediate future. TheDJ (talk) 11:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
(Funny to see someone praising the Commons search function after so many complaints about it!) cmadler (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The morass here is vast and all-devouring unless one researches each individual film thoroughly - and the reward to Commons is basically nil. Collect (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, we're looking at this the wrong way. For whatever reason, IA can carry much more than Commons, so we should not be asking how to mirror IA on Commons, but how to mirror Commons on IA. Wnt (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thumbnail refuses to render

File:Fira and the Old Port MC.jpg (50 Megapixels, 19 MB) refuses to generate a thumbnail with the error:

Error creating thumbnail: convert: Insufficient memory (case 4) `/mnt/upload6/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Fira_and_the_Old_Port_MC.jpg' @ error/jpeg.c/EmitMessage/235.
convert: missing an image filename `/tmp/transform_49a09d0-1.jpg' @ error/convert.c/ConvertImageCommand/2970.

What is tripping it up? The source file exists and its smaller than the Google Art gigapixel stuff. —Dispenser (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Progressive (interlaced) Help:JPEG#Large JPEGs demand the entire image to be loaded at once for thumbnail generation, and can cause an insufficient memory error. The file should be saved again in baseline mode. MKFI (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

August 4


Public domain license {{PD-Coins-Krenzer}} is poorly worded. It's presumably written by someone whose native language was German. Since the person who created it hasn't logged in for 5 years, there's no one to ask for a clarification, and I don't know if it's valid to edit the text of a license after the fact. The poorly written part is "This specific image has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, what applies on all images in this gallery without these of Pertinax, Manlia Scantilla und Pescennius Niger." I gather that "this gallery" means (linked elsewhere in the template). I'd presume "what applies on"=>"which applies to", "without"=>"except", "und"=>"and". I would presume Pertinax, Manlia Scantilla and Pescennius Niger are usernames on the refernced site. Can this be cleaned up or is that not allowed? - Jmabel ! talk 00:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The three names seem to refer to the filenames of three images (which themselves refer to the names of the people represented on the corresponding coins). I don't think there's any problem with correcting language mistakes in that template. It does not change the meaning. However, the problem is that in, the website's owner says that he collected images from other people, but there does not seem to be evidence about the template's claim of a public domain release by the authors. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Again a (new?) trouble managing djvu files

I got this server error message, it's new for me:

Error generating thumbnail

Error creating thumbnail: terminate called after throwing an instance of 'DJVU::GException'
pnmtojpeg: EOF / read error reading magic number

while proofreading File:Rivista di cavalleria (Volume IX, 1902).djvu in pages listed into it.wikisource Index page. The strange thing is, that only the thumbnail used in nsPage edit mode is affected, while the server sends a regular thumbnail for view mode of the same page. Is this a known bug? Thanks. --Alex brollo (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It's more likely that you get an answer at WikiSource. Djvu files are mainly hosted here for WikiSource. --  Docu  at 21:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I think its most likely an out of memory error (image converter programs tend to make errors that look like that when they reach memory limits imposed by OS). on the edit page with proofread page, the thumbnail is requested at size 5100px (which is rather big. Presumably so that people can zoom when doing proofreading. Perhaps a smaller size should be loaded initially, and then larger sizes loaded dynamically when needed). When requesting smaller thumbnails (even for as big as 2100px) the thumbnails scale fine. Bawolff (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I confirm. On fr: we usually add width=500px on the index page when this problem happen [2]. ~Pyb (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for suggestion!! We (on it.wikisource) have never stated thumb width nor i know any parameter of our templates to get this result, on the contrary we simply trusted on the running ThomasV automation (producing a 100px width for thumbnails).... has been something changed in past months? It's SO difficult to follow mediawiki software changes.... --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 16:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
You can get a list of all changes to proofread page here. Most recent deployment was on July 25 (See mw:MediaWiki_1.20/wmf8#ProofreadPage for a list of changes in that deployment). [Even if its not new, this is something you should perhaps file a bug about. 5100px seems to big in most cases, should use progressively bigger sizes as needed] We are currently doing lots of small deployments about every 2 weeks, instead of the old way of one big deployment every 6 months, in the hopes of having very minor issues every so often instead of gigantic issues once every 6 months. Bawolff (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Problem solved. In that case, the cause was an abnormal width (5100 px) of the first page (Google disclaimer), conflicting with normal width of book pages (about 2000 px). As soon as the firts page has been replaced by an empty, regular one, the issue disappeared automagically. --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 07:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, nonetheless that sounds like a bug in either proofread page or the djvu handler. In such a case it should only request that size a thumbnail when proofreading the page that is that big (and even then, should perhaps not ask for the full size). Bawolff (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
For those wishing to follow what is going on, see bugzilla:33613. Bawolff (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a known trouble of the djvu base code in mediawiki core, the first page is used to guess the image size of all pages. Phe (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes Phe, you mentioned that issue previuosly in an old talk, thanks to that suggestion I "guessed the patch"; but I think that something better and deeper is needed.... something very far from my skill. I have to admit that I can't open a bug? :-( --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 10:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

July 30

Template for WMF staff uploads?

Hi, guys. Several community members have talked to me about clarity in staff uploads of images taken by other Wikimedia Foundation staff members and particularly when it is difficult to determine by what authority they do so. I mentioned in the last conversation (linked above) that I was talking to some of the staff attorneys, and after clarifying some of the employee contracts I've created a draft template that might serve. There's a little more background at the template mockup (yes, this is linked above, too).

I'd really like community feedback on this. Do you think it's a good template to clarify? Is there a good name for it? A category it should add? Does anyone with decent template-drafting skills know how how to make the first and final sentences optional for those situations where the staff member who produced the work doesn't want attribution? It is well beyond my meager skills. :/ --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

How about {{WMF-staff-upload}}, categorising into Category:Images uploaded by WMF staff (to be a subcat of Category:Image sources)? Rd232 (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
One question: isn't "co-owned" a bit nebulous? Rd232 (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
It's hard to be specific and concise. :) Contractually, WMF co-owns copyright with some of its employees. Not all employees have the same contract, though. The category seems good to me. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure... but I've no idea what "co-owned" means here. I've never even heard of "co-ownership" of copyright between an organization and a person... Rd232 (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I would imagine that copyright could be "co-owned" or jointly owned just as easily as any other kind of property. But does it really matter? Surely, that 1) there is authorization to upload the content and 2) it has a valid free license are all that we need to worry about? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I mean, if a WMF person says they are uploading something "on behalf of the WMF," surely we can AGF about its ownership status? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's the idea. As with any other property, ownership can be shared. I'd have to check with the attorneys to be sure, but so far as I'm aware, there's no difference in co-ownership of copyright between two (or more) individual and co-ownership of copyright between an individual and an organization. Under US law, as I recall (the website is having some problems at the moment), any co-owner has the right to grant non-exclusive licenses to others, provided that all owners get equal share of the licensing proceeds. Interest in copyright co-ownership is "undivided" - all owners have control over the entire work, but have to share equally in any profits and can't exclude the others from making use of it as well. For our purposes, I should think all that really matters is that they have the right to license the material, just as co-owners of copyright with multiple authors do in our wmf:Terms of Use. (Maybe "joint" ownership is the term with which you're familiar?) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
No, it wasn't the term so much as the concept that threw me. Well as long as each co-owner has the right to grant non-exclusive licenses, that's fine. What bothered me was the idea that the consent of each co-owner would be needed for licensing. Rd232 (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Maggie, if what you say about co-ownership of copyrights is correct, then OTRS permission is going to be required for all materials uploaded for which ownership of copyright is held by the WMF and a third party. Whilst the WMF is able to affirm that all of its uploads are done with a free licence (as is required here on Commons), the fact that a co-owner is not going to be able to profit (as much) from their work being under a free licence, we will require evidence that the co-owner of the copyright has agreed to release their jointly-owned work under the free licence that the WMF is going to be required to upload and release under. A simple affirmation from the uploader will not suffice for this purpose. russavia (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Based on what Maggie said, the fact that a co-owner is not going to be able to profit (as much) from their work being under a free licence is irrelevant. You're basically saying the consent of each co-owner is required, whereas Maggie has said the consent of just one is enough. Rd232 (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Consent of each co-owner is not required. If it were, we would have to overhaul our OTRS system anyway, as we do not require release from every joint owner of copyright. We only require license from one. :) (I say that as Moonriddengirl, not Maggie Dennis, based on my experience as an OTRS agent.) I did ask one of the legal interns last night after I posted if I was correctly understanding the situation, and he indicated that I am. People who grant license to Commons are not granting an exclusive license; they can still sell it. It's true that it may hurt their market, but this is true of every other jointly owned content for which we've already obtained and processed releases. There's no requirement in copyright law that an owner seek consent of others for a particular use, only that she share the profits if she sells it. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • What does "WMF staff" mean though, and does this actually imply competence? I'm thinking of the mess last year over the en:WP:IEP project. Many of the problem copyvios involved there might have had this "WMF" rubber stamp applied to them. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • WMF staff means people who are being paid by the WMF; wmf:Staff and contractors. Of course, the students in the IEP projects and the ambassadors were not paid. :) This would not apply to the kind of copyvios we saw there anyway, because this is for work produced by one employee and uploaded by another, not for work produced by an unconnected organization. In terms of competence, naturally if the community thinks this template would be helpful, we will include describing proper use of it in staff training and I will make sure that current staff are informed about it. Documentation should also make clear how it is intended to be used. As an important final note, we have no indication that the employee of GMC who contact us to license material produced by his company is competent, either. What we have is a responsible party. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Update: User:Rd232 and User:Multichill have very kindly put some time into Template:WMF-staff-upload. Unless there are objections to the template, I'll put the word out to staff in a few days about its existence and make sure that they realize that it is only to be used when uploading images that were made by other members of staff or contractors when the conditions apply. That is, no uploading your cubicle-mate's son's birthday party pictures, since the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't share ownership or have license to images made in private capacity. Only work-related materials as appropriate under contract or terms of employment. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Please refer to the OTRS of File:On the role of female Eurasian Dotterel.pdf, which I did myself, in which the release by each copyright holder was required, and was simply done via the OTRS without any overhaul. There is no reason that the WMF should be exempted from the OTRS system. This also applies to files which may be licenced to the WMF by a third-party. We need to ensure that the WMF has the right to make such things available under a free licence. I do not wish to see in the future a co-copyright holder coming here to Commons to dispute the licence of a file that the WMF has made available under a free licence here on Commons. russavia (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Can you please provide me with a link to the policy that requires releases from all copyright holders in joint work, either on the projects or in the documentation for OTRS? If there is such a requirement, I'm afraid that there is quite likely a lot of content on our projects that will need to be reviewed and probably deleted. :/ If there is not, this is likely a conversation that needs to happen elsewhere, since more than just Commons is affected. The English language Wikipedia routinely accepts permissions for content from books and journal articles, for instance, that have multiple authors. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Russavia - what is your source for that requirement? I've always understood that copyright only required one joint owner's permission - at least under U.S. law. And Stanford seems to agree. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Couldn't this vary from country to country? Commons files have to be free in both the United States and in the source country. If we have a file from country X, and if the laws of country X require permission from all copyright holders, then a permission from a single copyright holder won't be enough for the work to be free in the source country. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I can well imagine some countries require all copyright holders to agree. I still find it slightly surprising the US doesn't. Rd232 (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

July 27

Minimum length for filenames

A discussion about renaming files with very short filenames recently ran into the usual problem: renaming files is generally a Bad Thing we want to avoid unless really necessary (and it's hard to agree on when it's really necessary).

So we should try and get filenames that are acceptable at first upload. Per Commons:File naming that means "Titles of media files should be meaningful and helpful in the language chosen." I suggest that this means we can set a minimum file length, which can probably be enforced by MediaWiki:Titleblacklist (just don't ask me to write the regex for that...). We just need to agree on a reasonable minimum for the "name" part of the filename (and add 4 to that for the full filename, to cover the . and file extension in the filename, eg X.jpg is 5 characters).

I suggest that a minimum length of 5 or 10 for the "name" part of the filename would be reasonable; it's hard to give a meaningful description in less than that. We could even consider going as high as 15 or 20 (but the longer the minimum, the greater the risk people will sometimes add useless padding instead of coming up with a better name). Rd232 (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: Ideographic systems (Chinese, Japanese etc) are an issue, but AFAIK they are multi-byte. If we say 5 characters is a minimum for alphabetic languages, that means 5 bytes, and for ideographs that will translate to a minimum of 3 ideographs if they're just 2 bytes each (some are 3 or 4 I think). I don't know enough about those systems to say if 3 ideographs is a reasonable minimum. Alternatively, it might be possible to write regex so that only filenames that include at least one alphabetic character are affected by the minimum length requirement. Rd232 (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Why would 5 characters mean 5 bytes? The regex is written in terms of characters, not bytes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
MediaWiki filename lengths are calculated in bytes (see Commons:File naming); I assume MediaWiki:Titleblacklist respects that. Rd232 (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Note: Some users will add useless padding to meet a minimum requirement; this is fairly inevitable for any system. But this is not necessarily a bad thing: it would function as a marker to help identify problem files. Users who can't be bothered to name files properly are probably not users who've gone to the trouble of taking images themselves, but rather users who've copied it from somewhere they shouldn't have. Rd232 (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Note: Whether the regex in title blacklist considers multi-byte unicode characters as a "single" character depends on if unicode mode is enabled. Currently unicode mode is enabled (going from quick look at [3] haven't tested). Which should mean multi-byte characters are treated as 1 character. However, you can still easily make a regex that only restricts short filenames if that filename only has latin letters in it. Bawolff (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Rd232 (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Based on my own experiances as a file worker here and at Commons, as as someone who (while nowhere near fluent) is familiar with Chinese, I would advocate for a minimum of 6 letters/numbers/characters. Any more and you'll start to cause issues for character-based lanugages. Any less and you won't solve the acronym issues. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
6 sounds reasonable to me, too (not familiar with Chinese, just from the "character-based languages" point of view). Gestumblindi (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

We had this on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 31#[upload=sysop]. -- Rillke(q?) 18:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it wasn't implemented, was it? Can you do the regex for 10 characters minimum (including 4 for period and file extension), but only where there is at least one Latin letter (not numbers, I think)? Rd232 (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Unintened slight

Babel user information
Users by language

I have just seen a user page with this babel box. Telling everyone that the user "trusted on Wikimedia Commons". And that, by implication, the reader is not. Can we find a way to word this more diplomatically? Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The obvious rewording would be: "This user is a reviewer on [at?] Wikimedia Commons." — Cheers, JackLee talk 13:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it is fine as is. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 18:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I would favor "This user is a license reviewer at Wikimedia Commons." The word trusted is incredibly vague and tells us nothing about what their role entails (nor does it describe how trusted they are - certainly not as much as administrators). Dcoetzee (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Babel user information
Users by language
Maybe a "This user is a trusted license reviewer at Wikimedia Commons."? Anyone can license review. It is not a special access. This is why this wasn't created as a "role" since it isn't one. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 08:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Ditto Dcoetzee. The other templates, from {{user autopatrolled}} to {{user steward}} say in what way the user is trusted, so why should reviewers be different? I'd redirect {{user trusted}} to {{user reviewer}}. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

*Pinged Template talk:User reviewer about this discussion. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
*I meant template talk:User trusted, of course. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've made the redirect. Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Rd232 (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

August 1


Hi, this page of bot requests is a very quiet place which means that we have a backlog of bot requests with very few opinions or suggestions against new bot requests from the general community. I would greatly appreciate some more feedback on my request at Commons:Bots/Requests#Faebot which has been under discussion for a year. I would be happy to try and continue to re-write the scope of the bot, in particular my entirely non-controversial work in categorizing the Geograph uploads (our largest Commons mass upload) would be greatly aided if this bot was given a bot flag. You can find a parallel discussion on my talk page at User_talk:Fæ#Faebot. Thanks -- (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I should note that the situation there really has broken down badly - there are at least three people who have been running their bots recently (without a bot-flag) though their requests have been backlogged for nine months or more, and a slightly larger number who appear to have given up all hope of getting approval and lost interest, despite their never having been much objection to their ideas. Wnt (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I should thank Rd232 for starting Commons:Bots/Requests/Status; also Russavia and 99of9 for closing out two stale requests. But community input is still needed to resolve the situation for Faebot and many others. Wnt (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Sort keys in categories

Hi, originally I had placed this question at the Help desk but I think it's better here. I got into a discussion with User:PeterWD about the value of sort keys for categorisation. In this case it is about a number of helicopters made by Westland. Most of them are named Westland ... and are consequently listed in Category:Westland Aircraft under the letter "W" for Westland, Their names such as Lynx or SeaKing would make me feel that they should be categorised under "L" or "S" respectively. The user is of an different opinion. Please look into our discussion here and here. Is there a policy?

I got one reply on my talk page:

I think KuK has a valid point. See for instance at Category:Renault automobiles. HenkvD (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

For me, this example is very good, but what is the general opinion?

Thanks for info, --KuK (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you and with HenkvD. Generally, if a subcategory repeats a term in the parent category, it is best to sort the subcategory by a different significant term in the subcategory name. For example, if the parent category is "Category:X-rays", then "Category:X-ray astronomy", "Category:X-ray diagrams" and "Category:X-ray film processors" should be sorted by Astronomy, Diagrams and Film processors respectively, otherwise all the subcategories will get lumped under "X". — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I saw the question at the help desk but didn't comment, because I don't think "me too" comments really add much (because yes, I also agree). The only thing I might add is that perhaps this should be added to Commons:Categories. I had hoped it was obvious enough that it wouldn't be needed, as that page is already suffering from a rather severe case of creeping instructionism. But I guess not. LX (talk, contribs) 18:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
No need for putting it in an "instruction", which does not prevent from discussions. Utility of the sortkey is as good a guideline; and sometimes a defaultsort is better. --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
What I meant is that the page is already excessively verbose. Help pages and guidelines that are so long that nobody reads them are of little use. LX (talk, contribs) 09:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, if this is an issue that editors ask about regularly, it may be worth documenting the consensus on the issue on a guideline page so that the relevant section can be referred to (perhaps with a shortcut), even if few editors actually read the entire guideline from beginning to end. — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

SpongeBob free license?

A few years ago, photos of Sesame Street shooting in a public park were deleted, as "derivative" of copyrighten characters. Also deleted was an Oscar puppet at the Smithsonian. Similarly, images I had taken showing ads blanketing the wall of a subway station in Toronto were deleted; I didn't photograph them to use in articles about The Simpsons, rather articles about advertising.

Now, apparently SpongeBob SquarePants costumed characters and balloons are okay. How? I've been avoiding uploading images of costumed characters at Canada's Wonderland for articles I've been writing, because I thought they'd be prohibited. -- Nick Moreau (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Photographs of clothing as worn by people are OK for Commons, since such clothing is considered functional or utilitarian under U.S. copyright law. That's why Cosplay photos are allowed (and is closely related to why couture designers can't prevent cheap knock-off imitations of their designs from being manufactured and sold). However, I'm not sure what happens in the case of get-ups which bear very little relationship to "clothing" as commonly understood (as seems to be the case with some of the Spongebob photos). AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Costumes and cosplay remain a very complex area, and separability is an important criterion. See Commons:Image casebook#Costumes_and_cosplay for details. Further adding to the confusion, the community and WMF disagree on their interpretation of the law in this area. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Alright, this is bizarre. I read [4], which talks about the non-copyrightability of utilitarian works even if they have other features. Now to me, there's a specific class of images that sounds like it absolutely should fall into that category -- Windows screenshots. The purpose of the desktop and the dippy little icons is to do stuff, and Commons uploaders usually are photoing them to demonstrate how to do stuff. No, I'm not a lawyer, but to my puny mind this sounds like it should be dead-center in the zone of protection offered by this decision. Instead, we're seeing it used to protect a "utilitarian" costume of a specific character from a cartoon that can barely walk? How about we find a bridge and hold a prisoner exchange - give up the square pants, take the Windows shots. Wnt (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

July 31

Zaragoza questions

Does anyone know something more about this building? Wat kind of steam engine is this?Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC) And I need a Spanish electric loc expert to identify the loc's in File:Casetas station met oud materieel.JPG. Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you say it's a former hotel -- the company website indicates it's still a hotel, though closed from July 22 to September 9 this year. That page says it was built in 1900 as a chocolate factory. As for the engine, not sure. Other photos are here and here, but no further info. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
When I see the name hotel crossed out, I made the wrong assumption. It may be more stylish to cross out the name, but it gives a confusing message for customers. I wil change the category.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Video conversion

Radio Network House implosion

I'm somewhat challenged by the requirement that videos have to be in OGV format. I can't find any free software that can convert my movie files from MOV to MPEG format, which is the first step in the conversion to OGV format. They all fail, always moaning that 'this particular codec isn't supported'. I take my videos either with a little Sony (DSC W210), or with a Canon (EOS 1100D). This particular request relates to one I have taken on the Canon. I have uploaded it to YouTube (it's currently unlisted). Can anyone help with conversion to OGV? The video shows the implosion of a 14-storey building in Christchurch. Schwede66 21:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Software#Ogg_Theora_.28video.29 lists some. Why do you want to convert them into MPEG first? --AVRS (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Colegota suggested this in 2006 on Help:Converting video. Maybe this proposal should be discarded. --McZusatz (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
See also Help:Converting video. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The codecs used by Canon EOS 1100D are MPEG-4 AVC (also known as H.264) video with linear PCM audio, encapsulated in a .mov container. Those are really common formats, which should be widely supported. Some more details on what you've tried so far, including actual input and output, might be useful. LX (talk, contribs) 12:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Problem sorted. Thanks to User:McZusatz for coaching me through this. I was following the advice on Help:Converting video (since amended) and what McZusatz told me to do was something completely different. I suggest that the help page should have a decent overhaul; using YouTube as your video editor along the way is rather useful. Also useful to have a piece of freeware that actually works and can do the conversion to OGV file format. Thanks, everybody, for your comments. Schwede66 19:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Nice to hear that it worked. As soon as I have time I will have a look on the help page and try to change some things. --McZusatz (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

August 6

Database error?

WTF is wrong with these three files? They're not properly uploaded as it seems.


"The database did not find the text of a page that it should have found, named "File:Bruxelles Java Masque Wayang 02 10 2011 06.jpg" .

This is usually caused by following an outdated diff or history link to a page that has been deleted.

If this is not the case, you may have found a bug in the software. Please report this to an administrator, making note of the URL."

Does anyone know what bug this is and if this is already reported to our developers? Kind regards, Trijnsteltalk 12:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 31#System problems is related to what I mention here, but apparantly it's still not solved. Trijnsteltalk 12:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
There are still several in Special:UnusedFiles and Special:UncategorizedFiles (which we never managed to get cleared out) such as File:POSTERMENDOZA.JPG. I guess that they are stil working on it ... --Foroa (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a 8-month-old bug: Yann (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Narrow gauge electric multiple units of Spain

Is the someone with the knowledge and time to subcategorise the category? The broadgauge traintype are wel categorised. I dont have the knowledge. Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Mass renaming needed for "d. Ä." galleries/categories/Creator templates

As noted by closing admin at Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/01/Category:Johann-Baptist Lampi d. Ä., we have a number of articles who end in "d. Ä." rather than "the Elder", do not adhering to Commons:Language policy which says Creator names should be in form most commonly found in English literature. Per his suggestion, I am raising this issue here to verify whether we would have a consensus for mass renaming. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Scale of issue:
  • 21 "d. Ä." Creator templates [5] + 7 "der Ältere" [6]
  • 152 "d. Ä." categories [7] + 41 "der Ältere" [8]
  • 13 "d. Ä." galleries [9] + 7 "der Ältere" [10]
NB language policy for categories, galleries and Creator templates is different, but we like Creator templates to match the associated galleries and categories for that person, so that's a contradiction to resolve. PS that's just for "d. Ä."; if we're going to have this discussion, there are probably a few more cases like this. There's bound to be a few "d. J." (the Younger) at least. Rd232 (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I hope that mass renaming will be done. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that something needs to be done about this. I see there's a language issue, but I would like to bring up a second issue: the Elder and the Younger can only be used for 2 generations (usually father and son), but in some cases there are people from 3 generations or even 4 carrying the same name (for example David Teniers). This could be resolved by using Roman numerals, as you sometimes see in literature. For example: John Peel the Elder, John Peel the Younger, John Peel III, etc. However, this solution is not very elegant and John Peel III or IV or V was probably never called that when he was alive, just as John Peel wasn't called the Elder before his son came off age. The Netherlands Institute for Art History (RKD) has a simple solution for this: it uses Roman numerals in parantheses. So John Peel the Elder becomes John Peel (I), John Peel the Younger, John Peel (II) and John Peel III, John Peel (III), etc. I think this solution is effective (more effective than the Elder and the Younger), it is historically more accurate and, most importantly, it solves the language issue that started this discussion. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
That's a good idea; and we may also want to stick a generic template on all such bios, explaining the various possible names. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I see several problems.

First the "d. Ä." notation:
  • we try to avoid abbreviations as they tend to be language specific and it creates all sorts of punctuation problems (periods or not, spacing or not)
  • the "Ä" character is not available on most of the keyboards
  • and say for your self, for a native Arabic writer, "d. Ä." must look, well, like Chinese
Secondly, I have my doubts on sequence numbering (elder, younger, I, II, III, IV, (I) (II) (III), ...)
  • almost every day, a new artist pops up in Commons that is not having an article in any Wikipedia. Obviously for less known artists. Artistic talent tends to run in families, so ones discovers that one of the family members got a couple of paintings, engravings, ... If we discover that the father of David Teniers (I) was an artists too with for example one painting, all the others have to be renumbered. So, contrary to most museums, naming schemes must accomodate for additions of members.
  • when a nephew of David Teniers II appears to have made two paintings too, will we call him David Teniers IIbis ?
  • to select the right sequence number, people are supposed to know all the others to select the right one.
  • the name Teniers is still a bit used in Belgium, what to do if a young David Teniers pops up ?
And say for your self, would you find easily your way in Brueghel and Category:Brueghel family ?
So I think that it is time to forward some sort of improved international standard (I suppose that it does not exist).
I don't like disambiguations that contain birth and death dates as they are far too complex and sometimes one of the dates is unknown or uncertain; mostly the birth dates as people tend not to be famous when they are born. Moreover, the death date is in general closer to the most productive period of the artist which is important to find the match between a work and a non disambiguated artists.
So that leaves us with a a possible disambiguation such as "David Teniers (1690)" or "David Teniers (-1690)" (Em dash is to be avoided because that is not available or different on country specific keyboards). --Foroa (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this is reason for concern. If a new artist is added to commons, I don't think this artist hasn't aleady been noticed by the art historian community. In other words just like the Elder/the Younger, the numbering (I), (II), (III) etc. has already been determined. There are a couple of exceptions (for example Category:Jan van Kessel), but these are very rare. Besides, the Union List of Artist Names also uses Roman numerals. So you could always look thing up there too. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Those are reasonable questions and comments, but I think they can be addressed. First, as Vincent Steenberg says above, most cases will be known by the academic community, so people who pop up and suddenly break an existing numbering scheme should be very rare. Second, those exceptions can be handled by disambiguating differently; I think your -(deathyear) solution may be the best. Third, I don't actually like the numbering system - I think it's unfamiliar to too many people. However, given the multilingual nature of Commons, I think it's the best. (And you're certainly right about avoiding abbreviations.) In the case of Creator templates, we can freely create redirects from other forms, so eg Creator:Who von Where (i) can also be accessed via Creator:Who von Where the Elder and Creator:Who von Where der Ältere. Unfortunately we can't do that for categories at the moment (until, sometime after the heat death of the universe, someone makes category redirects work...). Rd232 (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Over last several years we have many renames of those categories and creator template. There were also several discussions about them (do not remember where). The convention used for those renames was to names ending with "(I)", "(II)", and "(III)". As I recall the arguments were that those names are the most international. --Jarekt (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A link would be nice (but I'll believe you without one ;) ). Surely we should record this somewhere so that we don't have this happen again. How should we do this? The naming scheme affects Creator templates, categories, and galleries... Rd232 (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes links would be nice, but I was on vacation and only checked in here for a moment ;). After some searching I did not find much: this VP discussion seems to disproof my previous claim. I guess I just observe that most of renames go from d. Ä./d. J. , the elder/the younger, sr./jn. styles to (I)/(II) style. That is partially because that is style favored by a small group of active users cleaning up and validating creator templates and people categories. You might also notice that most of the d. Ä./d. J. styles were created very early on (many by user:Eloquence in 2005) and most of the recently created creator templates uses (I)/(II) format. I would support the mass rename of d. Ä./d. J. names (and full versions like der Ältere) to (I)/(II) format. I also agree that if do the rename than current documentation should be altered to explain the preference (Template:Creator, Commons:Creator, Commons:Category scheme People). --Jarekt (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Accordimg to Vincent Steenberg and Rd232 above: "most cases will be known by the academic community, so people who pop up and suddenly break an existing numbering scheme should be very rare". To avoid new artists breaking the scheme we should use such a numbering scheme in accordance with the academic community. We should not invent the numbers on our own. I think there is a real risk of breakage if a grandchild of an unknown David Teniers uploads parts of his production mechanically allocating a new number - or if some helpful contributor creates the template/category/whatever after stumbling over the files. There will be famous artists missing from Commons, unknown to the editor who happens to come by, and works by unknown artist uploaded by friends, relatives and owners of their works. --LPfi (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

August 5

Permission: no

What do we do with files whose {{Information}} template contains permission = no (or "none"). I seem to recall that at one point, we had some text near the permission field on the upload form that essentially asked if the file had been published before, which caused some people to enter "no". That would suggest that the statement should simply be removed.

But then you come across a file like File:Salecina-with-view-to-Val-Maroz.JPG by a user who also uploaded File:Maloja terminal-moraine from Torre-Belvedere-to-Val-Forno.jpg, which seems to be restricted to non-commercial use only. In that case, I'm not so sure the user really didn't mean "no, I don't want to give any permission – I just want to upload the file here." I wouldn't be comfortable removing it from that file. At the same time, nominating all such files (last I checked, there were about two thousand) for deletion doesn't really seem like a good idea either.

So I guess that status quo is that we just leave these statements in there. Which means that when a potential reuser sees the file, they probably think that the statement means that they do not have permission to use the file, which they should, because that's what Commons is about.

Any ideas on how to overcome this? LX (talk, contribs) 14:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well... Nicely ask the uploaders to change the permission statement; if they don't want to or don't respond, nominate for deletion? Gestumblindi (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I ran the following command:
grep -Ei "permission\s*=\s*no(ne)?($|}})" /mnt/data/commonswiki-20120730-pages-articles.xml | wc -l
on a recent database dump and got 2367 results. That's a little too much to handle manually. I think a task like that might need bot assistance. From experience, I would guess that over 90 percent of any contact attempts would yield no response. Using an autotranslated message might help somewhat. LX (talk, contribs) 12:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Notice that when some people complete the Information template, they interpret the "Permission" parameter as if someone needs his/her explicit permission to use the image, so they write "no" when they really mean that anyone can use it. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Subtitles with TimedText & Multimedia beta

We used to have beta support for subtitles using the Multimedia beta (aka mwEmbed library) (example), but it does not seem to work anymore.

Would anyone know more on this?

Jean-Fred (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been in stalemate for quite a while, but they are now doing a final review and cleanup to get it deployed. Possibly that caused the beta to break. TheDJ (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Here is the reason. -- Rillke(q?) 18:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I remember that ; but I do load mwEmbed using ?withJS so it should work, should’n it? Jean-Fred (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Gadget-mwEmbed.js withJS=MediaWiki:MwEmbed.js at least loads the player but subtitles are broken. -- Rillke(q?) 12:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
My point, yes ;-) Jean-Fred (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

July 28

Multiple different uploads on the same file

See File:UCA President Rev. Prof. Andrew Dutney.jpg. Is it appropriate to overwrite a file with a completely different picture or should those be split into 3 separate files? Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

A new name should be used for the new file, so the old image can still be used. Alpertron (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It's an odd one, because they were all uploaded at exactly the same time. And the last picture is much more useful than the first two. I'd be inclined to leave it as it is. Rd232 (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Normally they should be different files, though the original author making a change may be different, unless it was in wide use already in the previous incarnation. But as mentioned these were all uploaded in the same minute -- was the author trying to upload them all separately? Pretty odd case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll ask the author. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Also odd is that there is no mention of new version uploads in the users contribution log. Not even in the file history: [14]. Is it a known bug? Robot Monk (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
There are entries in the upload log though [15]. Perhaps something to do with them being uploaded within such a short time (The first two take place both at precisely 2012-08-07T02:00:10, the third one at 2012-08-07T02:00:11). The no user contrib and no history entry are probably related since both the history page and the user contrib page get their information from the same source. Bawolff (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Possibly related, it appears image is uploaded with uploadwizard. I thought upload wizard didn't do re-uploads (Maybe I'm mistaken on that. I've never used the thing). Bawolff (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with above, but just to point out that there are some cases, eg museum objects and the museum label, where it may be appropriate to have 2 different photos under the same file name. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I have done this with artefacts rather than creating an rather pointless separate image page for the identifying label, and it was also recommended to me as good practice for old postcards where one might upload the text side first (potentially giving evidence of publisher and date but otherwise not likely to be of sufficient educational content for Commons) before uploading the picture side. As an example, here's a statue from the National Gallery of Art in DC where I uploaded the label on the plinth first in order to verify the details File:Neapolitan Fisherboy.jpg. -- (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there are exceptions like that, where the other images are more for documentation rather than usable separately. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Checkered boxes in background

I've noticed a lot of images with checkered boxes in the background like this one. Is that intentional? If so, why? If not, should these be brought up at the graphic lab? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that is a transparent background which is supported by png and svg files. There is nothing wrong with those images. --Jarekt (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Precisely. This is simply an indicator on Wiki (and in most graphics programs) that the area is transparent. I thought that the checkers only showed up when your mouse hovered over the image, but it's not doing that now. Oh well. If you want to verify that the checkered print is not actually part of the image, (at least in Firefox) just click on the image to open it in its own tab. The checkers should be replaced by the background colour (usually white). Huntster (t @ c) 00:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it does that on en-wiki (and probably others) as I started noticing it a few months ago, but the checkered background is always visible on Commons for images with transparency. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, thank you Carl, that explains my confusion nicely Face-grin.svg Huntster (t @ c) 12:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
If you don't like it, you can override it in your custom CSS (monobook.css if you use the Monobook skin, vector.css if you use the Vector skin etc.):
#file img, #file img:hover, .filehistory a img, .gallerybox .thumb img { background-image: none; }
Leave out the #file img:hover, part if you still want to see it when hovering the pointer over the image. LX (talk, contribs) 08:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all of the useful explanations. And thanks for the css code. Does commons support a common.css page rather than a specific skin? Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
It is a MediaWiki feature; and yes, it is enabled on Commons (and other Wikimedia wikis). A direct link is available in your Preferences. odder (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The code that is responsible for permanently chequered background is in MediaWiki:Common.css. Your common.css is always at Special:MyPage/common.css and works if you didn't put invalid CSS inside. -- Rillke(q?) 18:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

August 8

Uploading screen captures from 1960s TV shows

Hi, just a question: can I upload a picture taken from a screen capture of a 1960s TV show? The person died in 1980. It's an interview.

BTW, does the answer vary depending on the TV channel? (Eg. If it's American or European). Thank you very much!!--Fauban (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Probably not. Your screen capture would be a derivative work of the show, which should be assumed to be under copyright (unless you can provide specific documentation that that particular show is PD or free licensed). -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • See COM:FAIRUSE for details. Torsch (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Go Penguins

The categories under Category:Go Penguins in Merseyside claim to be covered by the freedom of panorama exception in the UK. It was discussed on Village Pump at [16]. However nobody pointed out that this was a temporary exhibition, so if I'm not mistaken FoP doesn't apply. Ghouston (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:CowParade is something similar, in this case in various countries. Ghouston (talk)
Yes, if the display is in the UK, it has to be a permanent display, not a temporary one. — Cheers, JackLee talk 05:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Cross-categorization of Category:Student housing

User:Ghouston recently informed me that there is "an unwritten rule that [images of student housing] go in Category:Student housing alone" and are not cross categorized by the type of housing (e.g. apartments, dormitories, etc.), and that I should seek consensus for changing this rule. If such a rule exists, I disagree with it. It seems to me that "student housing" describes who lives there or how residents are selected, while "apartments" or "dormitories" describe the style or manner of the housing. cmadler (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Unwritten rules", particularly if they exist solely in the minds of individual editors and are not evident from the content of categories, are not terribly helpful. Editors who work regularly on particular categories should document such policy choices, if any, in a usage note on the category page so that they are obvious and can be discussed, if necessary. As to the question proper, I see no reason why a particular file can't be categorized both in "Student housing" and, say, "Dormitories". If there are many files that fall into both categories, a new subcategory with the parent categories "Student housing" and "Dormitories" can be considered (for example, "Student dormitories"). — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The problem is that I removed a file from Apartment buildings, since it was already in Student housing, because that's how the category seems to work (the unwritten rule, based on how most of the files are categorized). And then Cmadler moved it back, because the file is an apartment building, after all. So unwritten rules don't work, and there should be a note on Student housing explaining how it should be done. As to the question proper, the question is whether somebody looking in the Apartment building, House, or Dormitory categories would expect to find student accommodation there, and I'd say yes, it's no problem. The same goes for retirement homes. Ghouston (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I changed the description on the category as suggested above. I also moved it from Category:Accommodation buildings to Category:Housing, on the grounds that it's not a separate building type anymore. Of course most of the existing contents are not categorized according to the new description. Ghouston (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"It is unlawful to falsely claim copyright or other rights in NASA material."

I found this statement at [17]. But w:Copyfraud doesn't seem to say this. What law would prohibit someone falsely claiming copyright on NASA stuff? (not counting the recent incident where someone shut down their live feed with a DMCA [18]...) In particular, can we rule out impact on "derivative works"? Wnt (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the 17 USC 506 section mentioned in that article, there is 17 USC 403, which is specifically about misattributing U.S. Government works. The penalty is basically that whatever copyright notice is present is considered void, which prior to 1989 meant that the potentially valid copyright in any derivative portions was invalidated, but since then the penalty is not as severe. But it's still unlawful to not label the USGov portions ;-) It's perfectly fine to make derivative works of NASA stuff; you just have to make clear which portion is public domain, and which portion is additional and (potentially) copyrighted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmmmm.... if it requires attribution, is it still public domain? I know, it's public domain because the government says it's public domain ... but is it public domain in the way people here usually think when they hear the term? Wnt (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
It's public domain from a copyright perspective. There can always be personality rights, etc. which could apply to particular uses. Basically, the government gave themselves some moral rights (primarily to combat users who appeared to claim ownership, thus preventing further usage of what should be public domain). Anyways, falsely claiming ownership is a form of w:misrepresentation anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Time length of a deletion nomination?

How long should a deletion nomination notice should stay on an image and who closes the nomination? I am referring to File:The Three Stooges.jpg which was erroneously nominated in May 2012. Majority voted to keep as this was used as a promo picture for several films. — User talk:Ineuw 22:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion notice stays as long as deletion process is not closed by administrator or in some cases by non-admin user. It's worth mentioning that deletion discussion is not a "vote", but just an information and expression of opinions for the judging administrator who must take decision based on policies, own knowledge and presented facts. Commons are know for very big deletion request backlog, so notice may stay for a while --Justass (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. — User talk:Ineuw 22:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems that the deletion request has closed as "delete" now, so it seems that the file wasn't erroneously nominated but correctly nominated. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

August 10

Photographer reverted on Wikipedia, yanks CC-BY license on Flickr

Flickr user Thomas Hawk, as User:Thomas Hawk, created the article Davis Freeberg on the English Wikipedia, which was promptly deleted within a minute with no notification. Much later, the photographer made a link to his photo set of ladybugs on Zooomr, a site he works for, and was reverted shortly. He made his last edit, also reverted, a few days later to add another link to a photo set.

A bit put off at having all three of his contributions reverted, Hawk removed his CC-BY license from his Flickr account, which now has over 73,000 uploads, in favor of a CC BY-NC licence Commons can't use.

Here is the subsequent deletion discussion from July 2009.

In 2011, Hawk mentioned the incident on his blog, perhaps mis-remembering a few details.

I can tell from my email exchanges with him that he is still angry about this. So how do we win Hawk back? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Commons:License revocation - all his works on Flickr uploaded before his date of conversion to NC are still available under CC-BY. But having his future works would be nice too, if they're good. Getting a few COI edits reverted on enwp is kind of a fact of life there and it's not going to stop - but we might suggest he could contribute in other ways like getting our assistance to upload his photo sets to Commons, which could then be made accessible from articles (along with contributions from others) using the commonscat tag. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure he has the time. Doesn't Commons have a page somewhere with a bunch of tips on how to get photographers to re-licence their photos? I was thinking someone might like to help draft a compelling rationale for Hawk. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Children submitting photos with parents

I'm working on Wiki Loves Monuments - US and we got the following question - which is GREAT.

"I would like to participate in the "WIKI loves monuments U.S.A." promotion. I am a partially disabled vet with a passion for photography and live in the greater Phoenix, AZ area. I also have two children who would love to take part. Their job would be to get photographs from a child's perspective for this event. Let me know if you need assistance from this area, thanks."

My only question is whether there are any special rules for children submitting photos. With the father helping out in the uploading, I'm sure there are no ethical issues, but have there been any procedures used for submissions by children in the past? I'd rather not invent some new rule for this, since this case is so clearly ok. Smallbones (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't know if this issue has been discussed before, but in some jurisdictions minors either cannot enter into contracts at all, or may revoke contracts entered into during their period of minority when they reach full age. I'm not sure what the US legal position is. Neither situation is terribly helpful for us, as it means that licences apparently granted by minor uploaders are either invalid or revocable (despite claiming not to be). If this is an issue in the US, then we should require the children's legal guardians to upload and issue the relevant licences on their behalf. Not sure how we are going to ensure that the uploaders are in fact the children's legal guardians. — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Because contracts made by minors are usually voidable, I don't think we can consider a license from a minor to be irrevocable. However, from what I can find, voiding a contract requires a positive action while they are still a minor or in some cases within a short time after reaching the age of majority, so with no action from them it eventually becomes irrevocable. cmadler (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all the feedback. I've checked around a bit and from what I understand the foundation considers ALL relevant free-licenses on Commons to be irrevocable, so I will consider that question closed. It really would be a can of worms to open it (should we check fingerprints with the FBI?). Any other legal concerns would be for the organizers of WLM-US, but I'm totally comfortable with those for this particular case. For folks who want to discuss further, please send me an e-mail from my user page. Smallbones (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
If Cmadler is right about the legal position in the US, then it is not legally correct to make the assumption you wish to make. A minor or a person under a mental disability simply does not possess legal capacity to enter into a contract (such as a licence), so even if they purport to do so it has no legal effect. It is one thing if we can't determine the age of an uploader and therefore assume in good faith that he or she is of full age, but quite another if we know for sure that the copyright holders and uploaders are children and yet do nothing to address the potential legal pitfalls. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I assume that many of our contributors are minors, however since "on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog" also nobody knows who is and who is not a minor. Some of our most active users are underage, even some admins I have met. And every time they edit wikipedia they agree to release their writing under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL Licenses. Somehow the age of the contributors and the fact that they might not be able to legally enter into any contract was never an issue before. I assume that uploads under the same license are no different. --Jarekt (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
"A minor or a person under a mental disability simply does not possess legal capacity to enter into a contract (such as a licence), so even if they purport to do so it has no legal effect." I don't think this is actually true. My understanding is that, at least in the US, a minor can enter into a contract, but that a minor isn't necessarily bound by a contract because s/he can unilaterally void it later (while still a minor or in some states within a limited time after reaching the age of majority). This has potential to create big problems for anyone who's a counterparty to a minor, which is why many people will refuse to enter into a contract with a minor, but it doesn't legally prevent a minor from entering into a contract. cmadler (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Yes, I agree that a contract by a minor (as contrasted with a purported contract by a person with a mental disability) is voidable rather than void. Setting aside the situation where we don't know the age of the uploader and assume in good faith that he or she is of full age, if we know for sure that a potential uploader is a minor, should we not have some policy in place to try and avoid the possibility of future revocations? — Cheers, JackLee talk 20:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that this hasn't come up in the 10 years of Wikipedia's life, and the low likelihood of it ever coming up (we're talking about a few photos after all), and the ease in which the problem could be addressed if it ever did come up (the Foundation could simply have the offending files deleted), then I'm not comfortable making a new rule for this specific case. That's what's called "instruction creep." As I said above "I'd rather not invent some new rule for this, since this case is so clearly ok." I just wanted to know if there were procedures in place already. No procedures, no problem for me. Smallbones (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more of an issue for somebody using Wikipedia photos in a project of their own? I'm not sure if they can expect to be protected by the DMCA clause, that allows Wikipedia to simply delete an offending file and have to pay any further penalty, when they have selected the image themselves from Wikipedia and don't have a user of their own site to blame. The same problem would occur if the upload information on Wikipedia was incorrect. But isn't this idea of 3rd party use the reason that Wikipedia bothers to proactively delete files where the copyrights aren't in order, instead of simply waiting for the copyright holders to complain? Ghouston (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It's important to note that licenses are not contracts. Although superficially similar, they are in fact very different. In the US, contracts are governed by state law, while copyright licenses are governed by federal law. It is of course possible that similar principles apply; I don't know whether or not that's the case. LX (talk, contribs) 06:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, as everything in law, this, too, depends on the jurisdiction—and you seem to take into consideration only the United States jurisdiction, which in this specific case is obvious, but on a more general note, it isn't; there is at least one jurisdiction that I know of (the Polish one, specifically) that considers licences to be nothing more than contracts. What if, in an example situation, the uploader/copyright holder is a minor coming from a jurisdiction that defines licences as contracts? :-) odder (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
License or contract – what really matters is whether it's voidable. I was just pointing out that we shouldn't look at contract law for this case, but again, the same principles may still apply. LX (talk, contribs) 08:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

My gut reaction is that we should continue to accept minor's contributions, but accept the fact that their jurisdictions may allow them to revoke the license after majority. I think this may have happened before, but it is easily dealt with in a DR (or by DCMA if it comes to that). So then the remaining risk is a small risk to our reusers who may already be relying on the license by the time it is revoked, but then get sued by the grown-up Wikimedian. I would hope that generous children don't turn into litigious adults. Given the mass of copyvios uploaded here every day, I think this relative risk is small enough to be worth it to be inclusive of all ages. --99of9 (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Or generous children with litigious parents. But if it hasn't happened so far, it's probably not worth worrying about in the meantime. Ghouston (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Although it wouldn't do any harm to have another non-copyright warning template that could be added to files uploaded by minors. Ghouston (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Would anyone object to asking a member of the WMF legal team? That could clear things up from the foundation standpoint. In addition, since the law appears a bit fuzzy to us, a member of the legal team might be able to draft a template. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I have. It's important to remember here that Foundation lawyers only give legal advice to the Foundation. They seem very comfortable with this individual case. And while I can't speak for them, it seems they are aware of the general situation and would be prepared to inform us if they thought there was an important issue in the general case. Smallbones (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that licenses issued by minors are voidable according to the same principles as contracts, it should be noted that they're generally only voidable before the age of majority. LX (talk, contribs) 08:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The reverse is also posible: A child uploading a picture taken by a parent who has died. I suspect many uploaders dont bother with the correct attribution in the family to avoid all the hassle. (certainly when al the descendants have to give their approval) We have no way of knowing or checking, who really took the picture in the family. The only proof is the possession of the original negatives or slides. For digital pictures it is hopeless as these can be copied endlessly in the family. I suppose we can always delete when there is a dispute. Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"The only proof is the possession of the original negatives or slides." - my thieving brother nicked my slides! Proof is hard to come by in this sort of area; only a court can determine balance of probabilities. Rd232 (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Often the original negatives or slides are left in the household of the late parent and mentioned neither in the will nor in any agreement between heirs. If there is more than a few heirs, the situation is usually unclear (is copyright really supposed to be inherited by whoever gets the copies?) and one either has to lie or leave the photos unuploaded. I would very much appreciate a page on the issue, as such photos would be a valuable source of illustrations to 20th century history. --LPfi (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
(responding to general discussion) Minors are permitted under the law to revoke licenses as mentioned above, and presumably if a case arose in which a child executed the necessary legal processes, we would simply delete their contributions. The cleanup problem it creates for us is essentially identical to the problem created by discovering latent histories of copyvio by established contributors, which has occurred many times and been dealt with adequately both here and on enwp (see en:WP:CCI). I believe banning minors from contributing would be destructive to the project, to minor contributors, and to the broader movement in favour of more legal rights and economic opportunities for children, which is more important than avoiding a little cleanup work in the rare event of the voiding of their license. Additionally, such a ban would be impossible to enforce in practice as it would just motivate all minors to hide behind pseudonyms. I don't want to minimise the damage such a revocation might do to content reusers, particularly in print, but compared to the danger of everyday copyvios on Commons, such cases are exceedingly rare. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Adding on to this: I've recently been reminded about 17 USC § 203, which basically says that any license in the US may be terminated for a period of five years following 35 years after it was granted. So basically all contributions are voidable for a duration, and minors are not a special case. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This discussion only reflects the copyright situation in the United States. However, Commons files also have to be free in the source country. I am not sure how we would define the source country in this case (the country in which the photo was taken?), but the laws in the source country may differ from those in the United States, for example by saying that the licence is invalid. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

August 7

Linking to same or similar topic on different version of Wikipedia (e.g., another country or language)

Hi all, What is the convention for directing readers to pages on the same topic that are on Wikipedias in different countries or in different languages? I just created an "external link" for such a related page, but wondered how else one can link to complementary Wikipedia information with perhaps different sources and perspectives, and what the rules are regarding this. Smm201`0 (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  • It would help a lot to give some context here: what page are you talking about? Is it a gallery, an image, a category? - Jmabel ! talk 01:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think you'd use an inter-language link, for example w:en:Hydrogen or w:es:Agua. 03:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Help:Interlanguage links ? They show up in the sidebar; they are typically used on gallery and/or category pages here, as those are Commons' version of a "topic", and they link to the corresponding topic article on the various wikipedias. It's also fine to make an external link in the language-specific short description, or in image descriptions. Help:interwiki links shows how to link to different projects in general. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

August 11

Attribution question

If I wanted to use an image on Wikimedia Commons, could I just attribute it as "Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons" (as newspapers commonly do with Getty Images)? 03:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The images on Wikimedia Commons are available in a number of different licenses, with different requirements. Many of them require you to attribute the author, which is not Commons, but usually the user who uploaded the file. Also, the name of the license must often be included. See Commons:Credit line for credit lines to be used for a number of licenses. COM:REUSE has further information on how to reuse files from Commons. --rimshottalk 08:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Did you see the "use this file on the web"-button that creates such a nice copy and paste code in most cases? -- Rillke(q?) 10:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I kind of saw it. What if I wanted to use it in a book cover and hyperlinking isn't practical? 15:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Put the name of the artist/photographer on the back cover or the back of the title page (as has been very often done for a long time in the publishing industry), accompanied by the text of the Wikimedia Commons image description page URL (not usually very lengthy). AnonMoos (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
You could also ask the author personally to pull off a specified deal. --McZusatz (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleting a non-working file and its link along with deleting a duplicate file.

I am trying to re-load a file that is no longer working in the Wiki database, but, you computer system forces me to delete the old Wiki uploaded file. I also have an older version of a file that I would like to delete because of some errors within it.

The duplicate file that I am trying to have deleted is called "Cognitron.pdf" (this file is case sensitive) and the other case sensitive file that I am trying to get corrected is called "TEXT TO SPEECH PROCESSING.pdf". Can you help with this problem and also let me know what I'm doing wrong that the file is not properly listed in the Wiki database..?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmarcobitetto (talk • contribs) 2012-08-11T11:55:17 (UTC)

  • Neither File:Cognitron.pdf nor File:TEXT TO SPEECH PROCESSING.pdf seem to exist, so this is very confusing. Could you provide links to what you are talking about? Also, please sign your posts by typing ~~~~, which will be turned into account & date. - Jmabel ! talk 15:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Both files used to exist, but it says that they were speedily deleted today because of deletion requests. Check the deletion log. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Photo of a gravestone made by somebody I don't know

Hi, I want to put a photo of a person's gravestone in his Wikipedia article. The person died in 1980, and I don't know who made the photo. I found the picture on the internet. Can I upload it since what's being photographed has no copyright? Thanks.--Fauban (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Photos on the Internet are normally copyrighted. In many cases, copyright lasts for a very long time, for example for life+70 years. Since the person in the grave died in 1980, there is no reason to believe that the photo is in the public domain, so you need explicit permission from the photographer in order to use it. If you can't identify the photographer, too bad for you.
If you wish to use a photo of a gravestone, you also need to look at rules related to Freedom of panorama. In some countries, it is illegal to use photos of gravestones if the gravestones contain artistic elements, because it violates the copyright of the gravestones. Thus, even if you were to go to the graveyard yourself to take a photo, it might be illegal to use that photo. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, ok, so even if the gravestone has only letters (no artistic elements), if the photographer doesn't consent, I can't put it. I mean, is the photographer the main problem? (Anyway he doesn't own what's been photographed. The gravesite is in America) --Fauban (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
You could do that if the gravestone was only two dimensional (which does not apply to most gravestones, since the letters are engraved or extended from the plate). Every photo of a three dimensional object is copyrighted, since the photographer is able to generate originality by virtue of a choice of viewpoints and lighting arrangements. --McZusatz (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Alternatively put: yes, the photographer's rights are what is at issue. If it's a simple gravestone in the United States, you could take a picture of it yourself and upload that here with no problem. - Jmabel ! talk 15:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
To explain this more clearly: when a photographer takes a picture of a gravestone, their choice of time of day and year, angle, lighting setup, how much of the background to include, etc. affect the appearance of the resulting photograph. Even if the gravestone itself is not copyrightable (and many simple ones are not), these creative choices are still protected by the copyright of the photographer. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Frida Kahlo with gun fake on wikimedia

Moved from Commons talk:Village pump - Jmabel ! talk 15:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

it's my photoshop creation (see interview below) - I'm fine with it being shared, but people should know it's fake -

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 11 Aug 2012 (UTC)

I nominated File:Frida Kahlo 1.jpg for deletion. If the author wants to freely license the image ("fine with it being shared" is not specific enough; commercial use and derivative works must be allowed), it may serve as an example of an internet meme, and how to make a vintage-looking photo, but must be clearly labeled as a modern creation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted it. For this file to be free licensed, the modern forgery needs to be specifically released under a free license by the artist, AND the older photo of Kahlo which used as derivative work needs to be documented as free licensed or PD (and Mexican copyright terms are rather long). (This is besides any consideration of whether this modern forgery is within project scope.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Mexican terms, in reality, aren't *that* long. They had a 30pma term until 1983, and I don't think they've ever done a retroactive extension. Furthermore, all works published before the early 1950s needed to be registered in order to keep copyright beyond a few years, though I have no idea how to ever prove that something wasn't. However, as you say, a good chunk of the forged photo is a modern photograph (by the same photographer apparently), and at least the derivative work must be licensed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Does Commons only accept code which can be used for evil?

I'm not sure, but I think the licence of MediaWiki:JSLint.js and MediaWiki:JSHint.js is not compatible with CC-BY-SA because of this restriction:

// The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.

See bug 26791, this thread and this video for reference.

Does Commons allow software (scripts and gadgets) which are not licensed under CC-BY-SA? Helder 12:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily incompatible with CC-BY-SA - it seems like a non-copyright restriction, and an unenforceable one at that. Rd232 (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It looks like a copyright restriction to me. Tricky to enforce, yes. That video is hilarious though. Ghouston (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The statement has the same prominence as one a couple of lines down in the opening of the script, // WARNING: JSLint will hurt your feelings. Both seem like nonsensical non-copyright blather. (Literally nonsensical because Good and Evil are not, I think, legally definable terms.) Anyway, if we're not going to just ignore this (and it seems from the video IBM's lawyers were concerned), I suggest asking the WMF legal department what they think. Rd232 (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The legal department was probably concerned because the statement appears directly under "subject to the following conditions:", implying that it's intended as a genuine restriction. The warning about your feelings appears later, after the other warnings, those are only disclaimers and not copying restrictions. The author seems to me to be a crank for putting a condition like this in his licence. Then he suggests in his video that the people who query it are cranks: surely in the present environment where people have been imprisoned, fined millions of dollars or had all their assets frozen or confiscated in the name of copyright, you don't have to be a crank for taking licence conditions seriously. Ghouston (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The statement appears after the line // The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in // all copies or substantial portions of the Software.. This suggests the part above that line is a copyright notice, the part below a non-copyright permission notice, and the Good/Evil line is part of the permission notice. Rd232 (talk) 11:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The way I read it, it says "Subject to the following conditions:" followed by two conditions. Ghouston (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Here is at least an indication of Douglas Crockford's meaning of "good" and "evil". I was not sure while importing these scripts. Since the WMF is a charitable organization, I believe hosting these files and using them on WMF-projects wouldn't be considered "evil" by any court, whatever "evil" is. Of course this does not answer whether the The JSON License is free. -- Rillke(q?) 16:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
See also the proposal made at w:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proper licensing of gadgets and user scripts and wikitech about allowing other licenses in the new "Gadget:" namespace which will be available in the next version of the extension. Helder 14:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Several notes.
1) Commons allows any works which are freely licensed. CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are examples of those, but they are not the only ones. The GPL is a free license. The BSD and MIT licenses are free. See Commons:Licensing.
2) The scripts are in the MediaWiki namespace, and are for local usage, not necessarily for wider use, and so may not be subject to the normal restrictions of Commons:Licensing. Not sure on that. But I'm definitely not aware of any restriction on the licenses in that namespace beyond those of Commons:Licensing, at the very least. Although if they are intended for use by outside projects as well, then I'm sure Commons:Licensing would apply. If we get a Gadget namespace, also not sure there would be a further restriction on those licenses either, unless mandated by the WMF.
3) It's not clear that the "Shall not be used for Evil" restriction makes it non-free by our definitions. It might, but that may be more of a community decision -- the fact that the FSF considers that incompatible with the GPL may well have bearing, as might the Google Code decision to disallow it on projects hosted there, but it's not definite. It's an obviously silly restriction, made in the wake of 9/11 (per the author), and something like "you can't use this to commit a felony" would not cause something to be unfree. But yes, the legal world has a way of ruining any fun someone tries to have in licenses.
3) The compatibility of these licenses with each other are not an issue unless text from both of them are combined in a derivative work. Whether that is possible depends on the particular licenses involved. The GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses are not compatible with each other but we host many works under each license.
4) Dual licensing means the work can be used under the terms of either license. Both the MIT and GPL licenses are free, so users can choose either one (or both) for any situation it is used. Also the MIT license does not restrict the license of a derivative work.
5) You can't license something purely under the GPL where the original was CC-BY-SA. The work must at least be licensed under CC-BY-SA; the derivative author can license their additional expression under the GPL as well if they can demarcate it.
6) You don't make clear why you think all those other scripts are dual-licensed. If they *are* dual-licensed, sure, it's best to mention that, but the author only seems to have applied one license.
Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
(6) It is because of the footer which says:

By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

The author agree with these terms when saving a page. Helder 21:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
So the extra licence only applies to the additions made to the file, not to the original which is still GPL only. The copyright statement is misleading if it implies you can choose one licence or the other for the whole file. Ghouston (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I would consider a "You can't use this to commit a crime" clause to be unfree. Have you seen the stupid laws some countries have? An essential part of freedom is not restricting what someone can do with the work. Bawolff (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it would apply, if you were allowed to save the page to begin with. But the item 7c of the terms of use says:

You may import text that you have found elsewhere or that you have co-authored with others, but in such case you warrant that the text is available under terms that are compatible with the CC BY-SA 3.0 license

Doesn't this prohibit us from importing content which is GPL-only due to its incompatibility with CC-BY-SA? Helder 12:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The cc-by-sa && gfdl - restriction only applies to text published, not to software, at least if it is explicitly stated otherwise. This is also noted at the bottom of each page. In my estimation, JS and CSS pages are "files" in the MediaWiki-namespce, not text. Some people of course like reading JavaScript like e-Books so we could obfuscate them in order to make it entirely impossible to read them. CC-BY-SA, is, however not a software license and as such not suitable for software. The parts in VisualFileChange that were from AjaxQuickDelete are by DieBuche and if you like I ask this user for permission or I simply explicitly add cc-by-sa as a licensing-option. But I doubt the concept of a task-queue is eligible for copyright. Everything else has been replaced or outsourced. -- Rillke(q?) 16:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
No; someone's additional expression can always be dual-licensed GPL and CC-BY-SA (and others if desired). The license in the editing window is more an artifact for editing articles and talk pages anyways; I don't think it holds for content imported from elsewhere, and I don't think anyone would hold them to that. At most, it would only cover any original contributions made by the person editing. For example, the editing clause also mentions GFDL; even on en-wiki, it should be possible to import CC-BY or CC-BY-SA text from outside, and that text would not be licensed under the GFDL. Likewise, PD text imported from elsewhere is still PD; it doesn't gain a license. The user can only license works where they are the author (or copyright owner rather), so in the case of using works from elsewhere, the editor has no authority to make a license anyways, so any such "agreement" they make has no effect on the license of the material itself; it's simply meaningless. The license of content authored by others remains as-is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Shall not be used for evil is certainly non-free; at least one of "can not be used by Disney", "can not be used by mercenary units", "can not be used in nuclear power plants", "can not be used in baby-mulchers" or "can not be used to prop up totalitarian regimes" is implied by that, and any one of those restrictions is non-free, and the uncertainty of which are implied doesn't make it any more free.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Please don't forget you are talking about a script that tells you whether your coding style was good and if not, where it's wrong. No nuclear power plants. Something I couldn't imagine about how to "use it for evil". Other links provided in this discussion are about a JavaScript "minificator" by Crockford and I could imagine that Google's or IBM's lawyers are concerned because, one the one hand, the job of lawyers is being concerned and on the other hand I could imagine that they sometimes "do evil". Personally I can live with restrictions like must be attributed, may not used in a way that suggests the author gave consensus to reuse or don't do evil. -- Rillke(q?) 18:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
It certainly can be used on code for nuclear power plants. It can also be used on code for a Neo-Nazi or gay marriage webpage. If we talking about a standard license, we might be able to assume that it's a no-op, but it's not. We have to assume there's some usage out there that it bans, and that means it's not free.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
And what should the "Neo-Nazi or gay marriage webpage" do with a code quality tool? Let's assume they check their code with the tool. Would this be "us[age] for evil"? Certainly not because the code would work even without the tool. It would be used to improve the coding style and de-obfuscating which is generally good. And even if there should be a way to "use [it] for evil", 1) Crockford must sue the culprit, which in turn he only does if he judges his code is abused. 2) A court must accept legal action. 3) A court must rule — based on one country's law — that someone did evil. This will be only the case if someone violated this country's law, which will also lead to a "criminal process" (anyway).
Conclusion: There are no further restriction but a more severe punishment in case of violation of law is possible. -- Rillke(q?) 16:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The odds of a lawsuit is never a factor in the freeness of a work. The license claims to restrict usage, which makes it trivially non-free; I don't think we should rationalize our way around that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
"The odds of a lawsuit is never a factor in the freeness of a work." — I fear you have to explain this to me. -- Rillke(q?) 10:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
If FSF [28], Debian [29], Fedora [30], and Google Code [31] consider something non-free, it's not free. --Trycatch (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
These are all general statements without any regard to a particular code or regarding to JSMin. I could write a two-line code, claim copyright over it and tell you, you shouldn't use it for evil. Still not convinced. BTW who donates to FSF? -- Rillke(q?) 10:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Works that restrict the use of a piece of code aren't free. This goes double, if you can't tell whether or not your use is restricted. Period, full-stop, that has been universally agreed upon by free-content groups for at least 25 years.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
You still did not answer where the restriction exactly is in this case. Copyleft would be a much harder restriction than this vague statement. Period, full-stop. -- Rillke(q?) 13:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Works under this license are, explicitly, not usable for any purpose as evil purposes are excluded. The fact the term "evil" is vague is beside the point, and the fact that definition of evil is vague makes it worse. The fact IBM felt it necessary to get permission for them and their clients to use works licensed under this license for evil, suggests their legal department is concerned that restriction may cause real problems. WMF modified MediaWiki to remove JSMin dependencies due to this dubious restriction. All this amounts to strong indicators that the license is not free - can you provide any evidence that notwithstanding the views of groups like the FSF this is a free license?
More fundamentally I question why we need these scripts on Commons, a media repository, in the first place. Its purpose is quite removed from Commons' role, and you could test JS elsewhere. Building gadgets using this code is not a good idea either - its not GPL compatible. Its not really free and its not really in scope,so why is it here?--Nilfanion (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Just if you didn't notice, I didn't add them for my pleasure. -- Rillke(q?) 21:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyleft is explicitly free. Usage restrictions, no matter how minor, are explicitly not free. That's the rules of free content. Again, interpreting a vague custom license clause as being null strikes me as a poor reading of the license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I am also convinced that based on a straightforward reading of the license that this amounts to a license restriction, and it is reasonable for any reuser to be concerned about it. However, I would also question its enforcability - if he brought someone to court for a use of the work he perceived as evil, would he really expect a judge to rule on whether or not that was the case? Or would the judge more likely rule the provision was too vague to reasonably interpret? Dcoetzee (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Royal Monogram of Prince Harald of Denmark & Princess Helena of Slesvig-Holsten-Sønderborg-Glucksborg.jpg

I uploaded the wrong image. I should have uploaded the svg image that I created based upon this image, but I grabbed the jpg instead, and it won't let me upload the svg over the jpg. How do I get this corrected?--Glasshouse (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You can upload the new image under a .svg filename and then tag the .jpg one with {{speedy|reason}}. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
If you were successful in uploading an SVG file to a name ending in ".jpg", then that would create a filename/filetype mismatch, which someone would have to come along after you and clean up... AnonMoos (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

August 13

Error message when trying to upload a new version of a file.

I've created a new version of the image File:Screws.jpg (my only change was to add a scale), but when I try to upload it, I get the following error message: "The file "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/4/4c/Screws.jpg" is in an inconsistent state within the internal storage backends." What the heck is going on....? c y m r u . l a s s (talk me, stalk me) 23:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussed at end of section "Zero pixel JPEGs" above... -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

August 14

Child travel

I created this category, because I couldnt find any good categories. But there must be a lot of pictures of travelling children in groups or with parents.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Move failure

The file File:Děčín, Dlouhá jízda, pivovarský komín.jpg is not able to be moved. Move action is broken with the error message: "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: The file "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/1/15/Děčín,_Dlouhá_jízda,_pivovarský_komín.jpg" is in an inconsistent state within the internal storage backends"

Do you know where is the problem? --ŠJů (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is presumably bugzilla:39221. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Reporting problem users?

Is there any system in place for quickly and clearly reporting users who have clearly misunderstood licencing requirements? I'm not active on Commons very much, but occasionally hop over from Wikipedia when I notice someone using a blatant copyvio image. I've gone through and flagged some of User:Weezermanic94's images this afternoon, but haven't been able to track down verify all of his uploads as copyvios, so don't really know where to take this next - I wouldn't want to walk away leaving half of his uploads unflagged, when it seems fairly clear that the user is innocently uploading whatever he finds on Google Images. What's the best thing I can be doing in this situation? --McGeddon (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

For this situation you could do a Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request using the one-click tool available. Or you could report the user at COM:AN/U. See also Commons:For Wikipedians. NB I've now deleted all the user's uploads as proven or likely copyright violations. Rd232 (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Rd232 (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

OTRS email address: spam the "@" sign, and the need for a reliable email address

At Commons:OTRS, the permissions email appears in several places, some with the proper email address, vulnerable to spiders, and others using the nospam template. In the case of the latter, the "@" vanishes when pasting in many browsers. This obviously results in permission emails not arriving. To reduce spam, and prevent emails going to "", I suggest, in all locations where nospam or the hardcoded email is used, something like this:

permissions-commons (at)

What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

{{@}} is useful but I know exactly what you mean. I sent an email the other day and only caught the missing @ because outlook gave me a warning message. Typing (at) out certainly wouldn't make it more difficult. Have you raised this on It may be useful for those OTRS links as well. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The good bots are able to read the " (at) " because that's a rather common trick. Mind you it's rather easy for a well programmed bot to get around the nospam template's solution as well. I think, and this is going to sound strange until you think about it, that the best solution would be to change the nospam template's image to an image of " (at) ". That way people will notice that the address needs changing and it will still allow for nobots to work as intended. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Sven. A simple little regex such as .*?(@|at).*? combined with clever placement of non-word character strippers could do it, but that's enough bean stuffing for now I think :3 For the record though, an image is already in use at Template:NoSpam. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Someone at IRC suggested a JPG for the address. A possibility? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
That won't make a difference AFAIK. The issue we're having is that an image of '@' isn't converted to text when copied to the clipboard. Using a different image format wouldn't change the current behavior because it is still an image. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Converting the whole adress into jpeg would force everyone to type it into their email program . The probability of typos would be very high. --McZusatz (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Spam bots have already farmed the address from the innumerable places it is cited in discussion, and are also smart enough to detect "obfuscated" e-mail addresses. We should simply avoid these ineffective and obsolete antispam tricks and put the real e-mail address right in there. All the other "support" comments seem only concerned with mails arriving safely, which would be facilitated even more plainly by directly including the e-mail address. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: Use the plain text email with the plain text @-sign. --McZusatz (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support. Agree. This is probably the simplest and most sensible thing to do. Moros y Cristianos 10:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I brought it up at meta: --Canoe1967 (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose using (at). Almost useless against spam-bots. -- Rillke(q?) 14:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
One could create a JavaScript that automatically opens the e-Mail window like Gadget-Stockphoto does or Gallery tool (the OTRS-permission-letter-feature in the export-dialog). It's also possible to decrypt the e-Mailaddress of elements with special classes or IDs or the like or simply insert the @ into beforeNoSpam<span class="nospam"></span>provider.tld or just replace the @-image with a real @. Most spam bots don't care for JavaScript/ are unable to execute it. But JS should be sparingly used; we've already enough payload. -- Rillke(q?) 14:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment All that I suggest to keep in mind is that the contact page reads as easy as possible for someone that wants to email us. Limiting spam is important, but not as important as making the address clear. We need to be willing to one-click spam if it preserves honest emails. I'm not convinced that (at) is clear considering it is English whereas @ is a recognized symbol for email. Keegan (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm just going to agree with Keegan. OTRS gets a lot of spam and changing the contact addresses to use an actual "@" is unlikely to lead to a significant increase proportionally. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
FYI this also being discussed at en.wp. I'm with Keegan on this one, it is easy enough to click away the spam, which gets through despite this anyway. I've run up against this when trying to email arbcom, it is very annoying even if you do figure it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Have opened broader discussion at en.wp regarding whether to use this at all on that project, see here if interested. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support. Dealing with spam at OTRS is pretty easy. I've spent far more time trying to explain to a barely computer literate frend how to send an email, as the explanation to simply copy-paste the address won't get the job done.--Sphilbrick (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. An oversighter at en:wp said that spam is not a problem there and recommemds making copy/paste work. There is a discussion started there with a link to this thread. Can you say 'Mobius Loop Links' --Canoe1967 (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support. After reading comments from others, it seems like the best plan. Ultimately, OTRS emails landing is safely is paramount. All other considerations revolve around that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Note. I have eliminated use of the {{nospam}} template on the OTRS template, for the simple reason that Commons:OTRS has featured the plaintext e-mail at the top of the page since 2006. This antispam measure accomplishes nothing. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Splendid. Now, what about other language forms? Does this vanishing @ still appear elsewhere? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Still present in {{Noticket}} and subpages. --McZusatz (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like they're all taken care of now by User:Russavia and others. There was a revert at Template:Email_templates/Consent/fr (understandably given the lack of edit summary), but I re-reverted. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Should we remove the @ from all "" adresses? --McZusatz (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I think so, yes. Like I said before, this mechanism is ineffective against modern harvesters. Template:Nospam appears to have no remaining uses, which is good. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is also Template:NonSpamEmail. I removed the template in this edit notice, but I think it is used on other places as well: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:NonSpamEmail. Trijnsteltalk 23:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

August 8

How to handle 60 identical images?

Hello, I have just found out that File:Protein_H2AFX_PDB_1aoi.png is identical to File:Protein H3F3A PDB 1aoi.png (checked the difference image with Corel PhotoPaint). The problem is that there are 60(!) images which seem to be all identical (all histon images "Based on PyMOL rendering of PDB 1aoi"; search for that string).

How to best proceed which such a large amount of identical images? Proposing deletion or setting the duplicate template for all images seems to be too much work if done by hand. But I also do not want to create a bot request without a prior discussion.

Can the bot also do the deletion / delinking? And is it possible that a bot checks whether all images are real identical? The files differ by 7 bytes in the header (probably creation time), so a comparison by hash code does not work. Torsch (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is not duplication as such, it's that 1AOI and H2AFJ (for example) are different PDB codes and should show different content (2AFJ, 1AOI, and neither of these is the much-duplicated image. These 60 files are in use and showing wrong content. Something has gone very wrong here! The only thing stopping me from deleting them all immediately is that the uploader, User:Emw, is still active and has a lot of contributions; I've left him a note on his Wikipedia talk page, and I hope he'll fix this (or possibly explain how my conclusion is wrong - I've never heard of PDB before today...). Rd232 (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about this, Rd232. For context, the file names produced by PDBbot are of the form Protein_(HUGO gene identifier)_PDB_(PDB identifier).png. So in an image like Protein_H2AFJ_PDB_1aoi.png, H2AFJ is the HUGO gene ID and 1aoi is the PDB ID. In some cases, there is a many-to-one mapping of HUGO IDs to PDB IDs. So while this redundancy perhaps might not be ideal, the images aren't showing the wrong content. A MediaWiki extension I'm working on (see here) addresses the issue of this type of redundancy. I won't have time to look into this more until at least this weekend, and then will only be able to do so briefly. I'll be busy over the next few weeks and don't anticipate being able to fix the redundancy issue in the immediate future. I'd suggest moving this thread to Gene Wiki if the redundancy is deemed to be a significant issue, or if you've got more questions. Best, Emw (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I see. Well if you're sure the content showing is correct (even though it doesn't seem to match the PDB image), I guess it's fine, and the redundancy can wait if the extension will address this. Good luck with it. Rd232 (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

August 9

Category disambiguation style

I recently closed Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/07/Category:Castle (Gorizia) and renamed Category:Castle (Gorizia) to Category:Castle of Gorizia. Foroa reverted this, pointing to some other examples in Italian castles that are named either Category:Castle (X) or Category:Castello (X). Whether in English or Italian, this seems an entirely non-standard naming scheme - it should be (and usually is) Category:Castle of X, Category:Castle X, or at least Category:Castello di X. How should this be handled? There are maybe 30-40 categories to be renamed. Rd232 (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"Castle (Otranto)" seems rather strange to me, and certainly isn't any type of ordinary English-language style. "Castle of Otranto" is fine; if there's any use of parentheses, it seems to me that "Otranto (city)" vs. "Otranto (castle)" etc. would be more plausible than "Castle (Otranto)"... AnonMoos (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but I was more wondering about how to propose renaming these categories all at once, rather than asking for views on what the outcome should be. Rd232 (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

August 14

Upload help needed

Hello fellows!

Here is a flickr stream which contains photographs (of outstanding quality) of the London 2012 Olympics. I have started to upload some of them. Maybe somebody is willing to help and uploads some of these images. Two flickr bots can support uploading: [32] and [33]. Thank you! Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

May I point you to User talk:AFBorchert#File:2012 Olympic Cauldron.jpg? All in all this doesn't sound good that the IOC claims wanting to protect the personality rights of the athletes pressing other people not to freely license their files. -- Rillke(q?) 19:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Personality rights is not a copyright matter. AnonMoos (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
tools:~magnus/flickr_mass.php with limited number (=number of last images) seems to work as well. -- Rillke(q?) 19:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Coords as degrees and decimal fractions

On en.wikipedia, a user can control how geographical coordinates are displayed irrespective of how they are defined in the article. Eg. showing 33.82418°N 118.23835°W instead of 33° 49′ 27.05″ N, 118° 14′ 18.06″ W. Can someone please tell me how this is done and whether the same is available on Commons. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

On the English Wikipedia, it's done with CSS classes for controlling the displayed format of the coordinates (see Template:UF-coord-classes); however, I haven't been able to replicate this behaviour here on Commons (and we have separate templates for location provided in the DMS or decimal format; see {{Coord}} for an example.) odder (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
On Commons user have control of how the information is passes so he/she can use either decimal or DMS form, however to ensure uniformity the coordinates are displayed in the same way despite the input format. User have no control over formatting and style of {{location}} templates. Unfortunately users can place the template in various locations so there is no uniformity over the location of the coordinates, but there were several proposals to correct that as well. --Jarekt (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Slightly off topic, but in case anyone cares, formatting for GPS information embedded in the metadata of images (Aka the stuff in the box at the bottom of an image page) is controlled by MediaWiki:Exif-coordinate-format (See MediaWiki:Exif-coordinate-format/qqq for description of parameters). Bawolff (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

url parameters for a toolbar buttons?

Yes check.svg Resolved

Can someone provide or point to information on how to construct the url for the toolbar edit buttons when adding images to custom toolbar edit buttons? This is one example in which I have no clue about the address elements: Thanks. — User talk:Ineuw 21:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ineuw, could you please be a bit more specific with your question? I am having trouble understanding what exactly you want to know with regards to the edit toolbar. Thanks in advance, odder (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I thought that I had to design the link to the image and didn't understand from where the segments /8/8b came from. Didn't realize that the information is available for each image under "Use this file." — User talk:Ineuw 22:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

August 16

The User since template and the bold tag

Howdy all. I recently added {{User since}} to my user page. I was curious about the html/css behind the template so I checked it out. I noticed something odd though. When I inspected the element in Firefox, I noticed that it put the image inside a <b> tag. This is kind of odd because I don't think bolding really does anything to images. Is this a quirk of MediaWiki, or is the coding for the template a bit off? I understand it probably isn't very important, it just seems a bit odd.--Rockfang (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

it's because it relies on {{userbox}}, which applies bolding to the id parameter, as it doesn't know whether it's text or image. It's harmless... NB wouldn't it be cool if bolding did do something to images? A drop shadow, perhaps? :) Rd232 (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Overwriting existing files

The guideline proposal Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files has been around a while without making it to guideline status (but in the way of these things on Commons, is still referred to as if it were a guideline). I think the problems with this proposal, including the lack of clarity, come from being all about avoiding something. But that something is something that happens all the time, and should. So Commons:Overwriting existing files is my attempt to be much clearer about all this.

I'd like to put up a watchlist notice with a view to approving Commons:Overwriting existing files (with Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files becoming a redirect) - but first I'd like some more feedback here, to see if there's any obvious issues to fix. Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Didn't see any obvious issues. Seems like a good guideline to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've seen one issue just up the page though: the example of File:Neapolitan Fisherboy.jpg - providing a related but completely different image in the file history for documentation/completeness. This could be covered most neatly if we come up with a template along the same lines as {{unedited version}} - assuming that people are generally OK with this approach. (I do wonder slightly if the few times it's OK to do this are worth the many times it may be misused/misunderstood or lead to copyvios like photos of extensive museum descriptions.) Rd232 (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
That's a good point. We often do the same thing with old postcards or publicity photos, uploading the back first to show the date and/or lack of copyright notice and then uploading the actual image over that. cmadler (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that has been fairly common practice for uploading backs of postcards, etc., or other uploads which provide copyright evidence but aren't really usable on their own. Usually though the primary upload is done right at the same time by the same uploader, or otherwise the real version is reverted to immediately, so it's not really the same thing as permanently overwriting a file. Probably good to make mention of the practice though. I've done it once or twice myself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
We don't need this guideline. As long as the description is sufficiently elaborate, so that it is clear what the purpose of the file is, possibley combined with an optional template in the description explaining with reasons why a certain file should not be overwritten, we don't need to restrict the "feel free and improve" motto of wikimedia/wikipedia. I don't understand this urge to restrict the overwriting of files with guidelines. If there really is need for that, if we can't do without, why don't we just delete the "Upload a new version of this file"-link in the file-page? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
All too often, people overwrite a widely-used file with a new one, rather than upload a different file and change a lot of references, removing the old file from circulation (it can no longer be put into articles, when often it was the visible version for years). The "improve" part on Commons is to add other alternatives, not to prevent old versions from being used. By all means, if it's an iterative improvement, upload a new version, but if some may prefer the old version, upload under a new name, making both versions available, and let other editors choose. Having the guideline will give editors something to point to if they need to split files. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
See Category:Media requiring a split up for some examples of improperly overwritten files. There are probably also lots of other files which haven't been discovered yet. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
If there would have been a category with appropriate overwrites, a comparison might give an idea of the impact of the overwrites (if the categories would be representative for the extent of this so-called problem) But just stating, "Look at this cat, and maybe it is not even complete" does not mean anything. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not in favor of the procedure used with File:Neapolitan Fisherboy.jpg. I prefer a separate upload of the two. For example what I did with a flower in a botanic garden with File:Dahlia 'Bishop of Llandaff' A.jpg. I took a separate picture of the info with the flowers and added this image in the field "other versions" as a thumbnail. The purpose is to show that this flower is indeed as mentioned in the description. Wouter (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with that either. Pictures of statue inscriptions etc. are often interesting on their own. But if the second file really isn't usable by itself (maybe it's just to corroborate the copyright license and not the description), I don't see an issue with the practice of using the same image. Some of those secondary images may otherwise be subject to project scope arguments. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Either is OK, I suppose; the less plausible that an image might be useful in itself, the better to put it in the history rather than clutter up categories with something no-one will want. I think a {{secondary image}} template is worth having, modelled after {{unedited version}}. NB where the secondary image can clearly show the link to the primary one (eg in your example, show a bit of the flowers behind the flower label, rather than cropping just to the label) that would be better, IMO (to more clearly link the primary and secondary images, and help assure reusers that you haven't, for instance, got mixed up about which label goes with which flower image...). Rd232 (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
{{Secondary image}} now exists, and I've added a description to Commons:Overwriting existing files. Rd232 (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
@Jan Arkesteijn: I've added a note about the motivation for the basic rule to the intro of Commons:Overwriting existing files. (Basically, Wikimedia projects and some external reusers rely on files being reasonably stable - and remember they're not even notified of changes.) Rd232 (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I suggested an alternative to reach what you aim for. Descriptive filenames, descriptions that state the purpose of the file and and an optional template in the description with a motivated request not to overwrite is sufficient to revert an overwrite without any lengthy discussion. This proposed guideline will allways lead to a polemic. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
"you can always revert" is a Wikipedia attitude, not a Commons one; as explained, stability matters here in a way it doesn't on Wikipedia. See also COM:4WP. Rd232 (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Just a guideline doesn't help to bring stability, I'm affraid. You will nevertheless run into situations where you will have to revert an upload. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Having a guideline will help people understand what to do in different situations, and help people explain issues to others. If you're not interested, fine, but I'm not sure why it bothers you. Rd232 (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The ineffectiveness of a guideline that tries to weaken the wiki-functionality (i.e. the use of "Upload a new version of this file"-link) bothers me. The creation of rules, rules, rules, all to often voted for by only a few, bothers me. A guideline that will lead to more discussion bothers me. We don't need a new rule. Anyone who doesn't want his upload to be overwritten, can take care of that by himself, by giving a descriptive filename, and/or by giving a good description, and/or by giving a motivate request not to overwrite. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
By that definition, every guideline tries to weaken the wiki-functionality. I don't care about my uploads; I care about every image on all the pages I'm watching on Wikipedia that I don't want silently switched out for new images. The "wiki-functionality" does not work well when people can materially change what's on a Wikipedia page and it doesn't show up to people watching the page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, that is the point to improve. A bot that places a administrative minor change on all pages where overwritten file is used. This guideline will not prevent overwrites and therefor does not help. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
A notification bot for image changes is superficially appealing, but risks flooding Wikimedia projects with trivial changes, and doesn't help external reusers at all. And your statement "This guideline will not prevent overwrites and therefor does not help" is too silly for words; by that logic, we shouldn't have any laws either. Rd232 (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Think before you start to belittle people. This guideline will not prevent overwrites, yes, it can only be used to smother up discussions after an overwrite was reverted. Your expectation that a bot will flood the projects is not based on facts. In fact, this traffic will be comparable with the traffic that is generated by removing file-links from project pages, after a file is deleted. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't belittling you; I was employing en:argumentum ad absurdum. As for the bot traffic - you're wrong, because images are normally only deleted once, but can be changed many times. (You've also ignored external reusers again.) Bot notifications of image changes is worth exploring (it's number 6 in the todo list on my user page) - I'm sure there's something useful that can be done there. But it's no substitute for this guideline. Rd232 (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The phrase "TSFW" "to silly for words" gave me that impression, though. As for the bot-traffic, some files are deleted more than once, most files are never overwritten. The bot-traffic will merely be in the same order of magnitude, flooding is an unrealistic exaggeration. As for the guideline, a guideline is not a law. Very few visitors are aware of the content of our guidelines. I don't understand why you think that a guideline will prevent overwrites. The casual uploader will not read that guideline beforehand, they will only be confronted with it afterwards if the overwrite is reverted. We have a rule not to upload copyrighted material. Only because we warn for that in the upload procedures, we are able to reduce those copyrighted uploads. So, that is the way to go; if you want to prevent overwrites, it must be clear to the uploader beforehand, and only a notification, clarification, motivation, warning - whatever - on the file-page why a certain file must not be overwritten will trigger people to not overwrite that file. (See f.i.: File:00179u unprocessed.jpg, Category:Photochrom pictures in their original state or File:Longines Chronicles with Sir Percy Spender 1954 ARC-95914.ogv, although the notification should be uniform, more pronounced and the motivation clearer.) Finally, we can't be responsible for the deep-linking of external re-users. That is not our concern. If they want to use one of our files, they'd better download it. I can understand that you are annoyed that I criticize the proposed guideline, since you have put a lot of work in it. But you must understand that we don't need a bureaucracy, especially when it is easy to point at the pitfalls which will make it to fail, or strangle our freedom. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(i) TSFW? Never heard that, had to look it up; I don't know how that came into this discussion. (ii) this isn't really the place to discuss the practicalities of a bot. We disagree, let's leave it at that. (iii) Actually, casual users can't upload over existing files at all, if they're using Special:UploadWizard; and if using Special:Upload, they get not one but two messages if uploading over an existing file, MediaWiki:UploadFormPreviewOverwriteError and MediaWiki:Fileexists. However, using the "Upload a new version of this file" link currently suppresses those; I've just submitted Bugzilla:39344 as a result. (iv) we can't ignore direct external reusers - see COM:REUSE. (v) Commons doesn't just have "casual" uploaders, it also has people who upload more than "casually" and are sometimes not sure about whether to overwrite and willing to look it up. Rd232 (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(iii)That is not a bug, that's a function. Why would you generate a "file exists" error message when you use the function "Upload a new version of this file"? It's trivial. (iv)COM:REUSE says "It is possible, but not recommended, to use files directly on Commons within another website". Anyone who builds his site on deep-linking, whether it is Commons or any other site, is aware of the risc of link change or link loss. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Fileexists isn't an "error message" - an error message is when something goes wrong. It's a warning/information message. Also the COM:REUSE remark about "not recommended" is discussed in a thread elsewhere on this page; I think it's out of date, and/or refers to hotlinking more than to InstantCommons. In any case, ignoring direct external reusers doesn't solve the Wikimedia issues. Rd232 (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Error message or message, you dragged in MediaWiki:UploadFormPreviewOverwriteError, but it doesn't matter, it's trivial anyway. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The bug, and the comment of mine you're responding to, talked about MediaWiki:Fileexists. Rd232 (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what the issue is or how this is to be handled. There are times when a file needs to be updated and replaced. For example, I'm creating Area Code maps of North America. Take, for example, Area Code 213. If we go back about 20 years, it consisted of the areas now split off as Area Codes 310, 424, 562 and 323. It's now a little box entirely surrounded by 323. This particular area code needed to be revised both every time it shrank, and to show where it is within the state, every time a new code was added to California. The idea is, or should be, that when new area codes are added to California or existing ones change, that the old map can be updated and replaces the prior map. As I see it, there's no way to mark these files as "mutable," i.e. may be replaced when the map changes. If there is a field added to say that a file may be replaced according to the current rules, then I don't see a problem. But otherwise I don't understand the issue or why there is an issue, because as far as I know, one can always revert an upload; the upload remains but the version shown can be rolled back to a prior one if the new one is wrong. Or I thought it was. Rfc1394 (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look at Commons:Overwriting existing files. Unless your concerns are addressed clearly enough you should comment at the talk page. I think the file(s) you are talking about are typical examples: when creating such a file for the first time, the template {{current}} should be used. Otherwise somebody might use the file for illustrating the area at some specific time. With the template, the user should instead split off that version to a new name. If such use is to be expected it is better to use a new filename every time the area is changed and have a redirect point at the file illustrating the current situation. --LPfi (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


Well, unless there are any objections or further issues arising, I'll put up a watchlist notice for an RFC in a few days. Rd232 (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I did put up an objection. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Your objection is to the principle of a guideline, and has been rejected by several people. I meant objections to the content of the proposed guideline, or the proposed timeline/procedure for moving it forward. Rd232 (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
No, my concerns apply to this guideline in particular. Several people is only a very small group of the in-crowd. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
One person is even fewer... If we stopped doing things every time one person said "we don't need to do that", we'd never get anything done around here... It's not like we're flipping a switch in this thread here, I just wanted some more feedback before taking the process the next step. Rd232 (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Rd232, I found the page well-constructed, and it’s a clear improvement from the "Avoid" page. Ariadacapo (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

RFC now live at Commons_talk:Overwriting_existing_files#RFC (with a sitenotice; I'd forgotten the translation issues with watchlist notice, where users with non-English interface don't even get the message in English). Rd232 (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you all take a look at Category:Humbeek and give your honest opinion? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Well there's three versions of the Humbeek coat of arms - I guess you mean that? One is nominated for deletion now by the creator. (There's also two very similar images - one with a boat on the canal, one without - nothing wrong with that.) You should be clearer about what you're trying to say or ask... Rd232 (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

August 10

Categories for past administrative divisions

Hi community,
I am looking for some comments to a topic that was brought to my attention earlier today, due to me being not an expert in the subject, and also for the sake of consensus and clarity.

In the past few days, Tohma (talk · contribs) has created several categories for administrative divisions of pre-1945 Germany (these include, for instance, the following categories: Category:Landkreis Elbing, Category:Landkreis Graudenz, Category:Kreis Preußisch Stargard and a few more). The alleged problem with those categories is that the territories which they were created for are currently located in Poland, and hence those categories should rather redirect to categories with names for the Polish administrative divisions (powiats, or counties) than exist on their own. The other argument that was raised on my talk page (in Polish) is that Commons, unlike Wikipedia, does not necessarily have to have categories for past administrative divisions, as this (as I understand) would merely double the amount of categories that pages or files are located in, without much of a gain.

This subject would potentially be, by extension, related to thousands of categories, not only related to Poland, but to all territories that changed hands in the past (including, for example, the current German state of Saarland, the French region of Alsace, and even former colonial territories!). Do we have any formal guidelines or de facto standards as what to do in such situations? Are we supposed to create categories for all past administrative divisions, create redirects, or use any other approach? Please let me know what you think! Thanks in advance for your involvement and all comments, odder (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I think these categories can exist and can contain symbols, heraldics pertaining to the administrative units and other stuff. Adding there real existing localities is not appropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
These categoryies can exist. Adding the real existing localities may not be a priory inappropriate. There has to be a connexion between the former and the present-day situation either by well-choosen sub- and parent categories, or by putting text with links on category pages. The crux is to avoid a a category-loop: parent cat=>subcat=>parent cat. One could consider putting a bilingual texte-list on the category page. See f. i Category:Soule. --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
These categories aren't new. They are subcategories of Category:Former districts of Germany, created 2009, and some of the subcategories were/are missing, because there were no files. For files of the 19th century they are necessary and the articles of these administrative divisions are available in de (some of them in other languages).--Tohma (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
What about a category like Category:Kingdom of Westphalia? It is definitely impossible to classify the individual files completely under the names of recent territories. --Mazankius (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

August 15

Users with one uploaded file

Is there a search option, or tool, to find only users that have only one uploaded file on Wikimedia Commons? --Smooth_O (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You might want to enquire about using toolserver ( Aaron Schulz (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think such a thing exists. It might be doable as a database report, if you can persuade someone. Why do you want it? Rd232 (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not so important, I am just curious if that option is possible, because i saw that lot of users with one uploaded file upload copyrighted image somewhere from the web. --Smooth_O (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Tower and Stockade" or "Tower and stockade"?

Your comments are welcome at "Category talk:Tower and stockade". — Cheers, JackLee talk 13:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Guys and girls, native English speakers more favoured – come and drop your say here at Category talk:Tower and stockade so this somewhat-ridiculous argument can end before growing. Some other renames are also on the wait still due to lack of participation, for example 1, 2, no reason to keep away from helpful decisionmakings. Orrlingtalk 13:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No need to be unnecessarily abrasive by characterizing discussions as "somewhat-ridiculous". :) — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Marsha Sue Ivins photographs

Very recent 32 photographs of Marsha Sue Ivins were deleted after a long discussion here. May I know the exact reason(s) for the mass deletion? -- Biswarup Ganguly (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

  • The rationale is clear on the page you link: people thought there were too many similar images. I don't necessarily agree with the rationale, but I don't see anything unclear there. If you want to appeal it, see Commons:UNDEL. - Jmabel ! talk 15:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • However, I would remark that in the future if you want to avoid this, when you have plenty of good photos of a person, don't also upload such obviously flawed shots as File:Marsha Sue Ivins - Kolkata 2012-05-03 0145.JPG (subject partly obscured by something blurry in foreground). I didn't look through too many of the deleted photos, but if many were like this, then the deletion would be justified. - Jmabel ! talk 15:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Still, in general I'd defend these, especially because technology now coming in allows the creation of 3-D models of people's heads from having numerous photos like this. - Jmabel ! talk 15:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
My heartfelt thanks to all of you for restoring the 32 photographs. -- Biswarup Ganguly (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Photo of vulva is mislabled

The woman in this image (like most women) does not have an exposed clitoris. Her clitoral hood is covering the clitoris and it is not visible at all except perhaps the very bottom. Certainly, the main body of the clitoris (the glans) is not visible. Additionally, the arrow is pointing to a region which is not the clitoris. The arrow is about 1/2 a centimeter off the mark. Anatomically this mistake is comparable to mislabeling the underside shaft of the penis as the glans. -- 23:21, 11 August 2012‎

Thank you, Anonymous Editor! I have copied your comment onto the files' talk page and also informed the original author of the image; hopefully he or some other person would be able to answer. odder (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. odder (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

August 13

Several hundred images of Europe before World War I

I have just noticed that the Swedish Tekniska museet has uploaded several hundred pre-war (1901 to 1912) images of numerous European towns and cities to Flickr; mostly Germany, some France, Switzerland, Austria and other countries. The collection is at They were photographed by sv:Sigurd Curman (1879–1966), who headed Sweden's National Heritage from 1923 to 1946. The museum says that what they uploaded is just a selection, they write they have about 3000 photos by Curman.

The museum uploaded the images with a CC-BY-2.0 license, so we could transfer them to Commons (by some bot move preferrably). I'm not sure however if the museum is entitled to put the images under this license It is of course entirely conceivable that they don't only own the physical photographs, but also the rights to them. But does anybody actually know more about this? Accd. to Template:PD-Sweden-photo, one could of course always say that those are simple photographic images (Fotografiska Bilder) created by a Swede before 1969, and that would be sufficient for Commons. But in that case some wikipedias like the German wikipedia perhaps could not use them, so the CC license would be preferrable IMO. --Rosenzweig τ 18:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

In Sweden, the copyright holder would be the photographer (or in this case his heir), so Tekniska museet shouldn't be allowed to choose any worldwide licence. All photos are pre-1969, so {{PD-Sweden-photo}} should apply in Sweden. However, I get the impression that these files are private (and likely unpublished) photos from his travels. Unfortunately, {{PD-1996}} requires that the photos have been published, so the photos may be copyrighted in the United States for life+70 years (see {{PD-US-unpublished}}). --Stefan4 (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, Tekniska museet could have received the exclusive rights from the heir, so that they are indeed able to release the pictures under a CC license? This is the case for many images from the German Bundesarchiv, for example. If they have the rights, it's no problem if the pictures are not in the public domain - they would be correctly licensed as CC-BY for the U.S. too. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
That was indeed the question: Do they have acquired the rights? I was hoping somebody knew more about this. --Rosenzweig τ 19:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
If he took these photos when working for Swedish National Heritage (RAÄ), RAÄ maybe claims the copyright to the photos. And RAÄ are today using CC-BY for everything that is not in PD. -- Lavallen 20:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
He started to work there in 1923, but the photos were taken from 1901 until 1912 during his travels while he was still a university student. --Rosenzweig τ 21:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The crucial point is probably if Curman (or his heirs) wrote any kind of contract giving the rights to the museum when the photos were donated. / Achird (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if we need to investigate RAÄ legal claims that deeply. That is the job of their layers, and if they claim that they have rights to release the images as CC than we should take their word for it. After all Bundesarhiv claim the same for 100's of photographers and we were not scrutinizing all the photographer-archive legal papers. --Jarekt (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that in Curman's days Sweden had a much shorter term of copyright for photos than today (the present legislation is from 1994). In Curman's times most photos were only protected for 25 years after they were made (50 years if they were considered of special artistic value). Thus the copyright for all these photos had already expired at the time of Curman's death in 1966, and if he actively donated his work to Sweden's National Heritage or to Tekniska museet he probably wouldn't have considered copyright an issue - this only became a matter for us and others several decades later. /FredrikT (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
There are no RAÄ legal claims. The images in question were uploaded to Flickr with a CC license by the Tekniska museet. --Rosenzweig τ 10:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
If it would have been RAÄ, then I would have no worries at all. They have released everything they know they own to CC-BY. "Tekniska Museet" is cooperating with RAÄ, but that does not say anything about their know-how about copyright and CC. -- Lavallen 13:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

File usage not indicated

The article en:Initiatives and referendums in the United States uses File:US initiatives, referenda map.jpg. However, both Commons and Wikipedia report that the file is unused. Would anyone happen to know what's wrong here? --Stefan4 (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's because Initiatives and referendums in the United States uses File:I&rmap.JPG which is a redirect to File:US initiatives, referenda map.jpg and for some reason, MediaWiki does not list places that a file redirect is used in; see also bugs 18017 and 27621. odder (talk) 10:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
You can get usage of the redirect at Special:GlobalUsage/I&rmap.JPG. Bawolff (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. odder (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Category name for Filaments?

What would be the most appropriate and best comprehensible english name for a category for images of the filaments (such as this) used in light bulbs? Simply Cat:Filaments would be ambiguous as there are cellular structures also called filaments. --Túrelio (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

How about [[Category:Light bulb filaments]]? Google search for the phrase suggests it's used quite often. odder (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. odder (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Please upload a new version of site logo of elwikinews

I ask someone with rights to edit protected pages to upload File:WikiNews-Logo-el-2000.png on the target file File:WikiNews-Logo-el.png, which is our site logo. Or it may be a simple redirect. Thank you in advance.
Previous changes [34] and [35]. Γλαύκος (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC) el.wikinews sysop
✓ Done; please let me know when the celebrations are over so I can revert to the usual logo. Thanks, odder (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I will leave a notice. Thanks Γλαύκος (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. odder (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this image skewed?

For some reason File:MN-62.svg looks like it is at a bit of an angle to me. Can anyone confirm this or are my eyes just off? Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks quite fine to me, although the supposed blue rounded corners are a bit not-so-rounded, as far as I can see... odder (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
That problem (which I agree exists) appears to be endemic to all images in Category:Minnesota State Route markers. Powers (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate spamming with "no permission" template

Please your comments to this case. I think, this practice needs any fundamental discussion. Thank you. --ŠJů (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

where many files are affected by the same issue, they should all be discussed at once, eg via a. mass deletion request. It's quite simple really. Rd232 (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

August 18

Move Category

The Category Ballot Papers in Spain includes more of 100 file. All of this 100 files are scans of Ballot Papers taken from the City of Valencia. What does that mean? That all files can be included in the Category:Ballot papers of the Land of Valencia, which should be included as a sub-category of Ballot Papers in Spain. Right now there is no problem with the Category, but if in the future, Ballot papers from other territories are included in the Category, We would find out that We must order and re-categorise hundreds of files manually. So, Can some-one do an automatical change of Category to all files in "Category:Ballot papers in Spain" to "Category:Ballot papers of the Land of Valencia"??? Thanks.--Coentor (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added the move request to the cat-page. Should it be ..of the ... or the... ? --Havang(nl) (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I never can figure the ..of the ... or the... out. Some meta categories have both in them. Is there a rule somewhere? MathewTownsend (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure we have a guideline or policy on this yet. From a linguistic point of view, ... of XYZ has the sense of something belonging to country XYZ, while ... in XYZ the sense of something being located in country XYZ. However, in many cases it probably does not make much of a difference which one is used (e.g., "Lakes of XYZ" v. "Lakes in XYZ"). — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit count out of order

The (only) link which is provided by Commons is not working since November 2011. Could someone put in another working link, e.g. ? Thanks, --Mattes (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It works if you editcount is not too high. ;o) Yann (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Mozilla logs me out

I logged in using Mozilla, but whatever I do automatically logs me out. It isn't Commons, as this is being typed using Chrome, and that doesn't log me out. I restarted Mozilla, in case there was a glich, but still happening. Any thoughts?--Sphilbrick (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

A bad cookie, perhaps? You can manage cookies from the Privacy tab in the browser's Preferences. LX (talk, contribs) 14:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like that was it, thanks.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Problem renaming "Děčín, Dlouhá jízda, pivovarský komín.jpg"

Any idea why attempts to rename "File:Děčín, Dlouhá jízda, pivovarský komín.jpg" keep ending in an error? — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried a few things, and got the message:<< You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason:

The file "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/1/15/Děčín,_Dlouhá_jízda,_pivovarský_komín.jpg" is in an inconsistent state within the internal storage backends>>. Deleting the first file and reupload under the new name is not an answer to your question but solves the problem. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Guess it's just one of those files that has got corrupted in some way. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

August 21

Commons:Threshold of originality largely deficient

Throughout the years, the Commons community has put together a very nice freedom of panorama page, with detailed listings for each country. Can we do the same for COM:TOO? At the moment, when presented with a borderline logo from somewhere like Bulgaria or Finland, I have no idea what to do. I realize it will be more difficult as we'll be relying mostly on case law rather than published copyright law. -- King of ♠ 07:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Expanding TOO is a matter of adding bits to it as you learn about countries that are not currently listed on it - this is how FOP grew and I think it's the most practical way to go. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Upload Wizard: Upload starts then fails w/ "Unknown Error : Unknown Warning"

Hey everyone, since past few days am facing an issue, am unable to upload any files using Upload Wizard, whenever I start uploading a file, the progress bar shows the file being uploaded and after sometime it shows as finished and later it shows as "Unknown Error : Unknown Warning", can someone please tell me what exactly is this error, or is it really Unknown. Thanks. --Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I am also getting this error. InverseHypercube 01:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
It looks like this was caused by a recent change to the way the MediaWiki API handles errors and warnings; we'll try to get this resolved ASAP. In the meantime, this specific problem seems to occur when you're using filenames that were previously deleted, and shouldn't occur if you're using unique filenames (please report if you're getting this issue otherwise).--Eloquence (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, that worked. To clarify, since this error occurs before you are prompted for a filename, you must rename the file prior to uploading it. InverseHypercube 05:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

We've now been rejecting uploads for well over a week solely based on the local file name on the uploader's computer without giving them a chance to fix it and without giving them any hint as to what the problem on our side is. Can we please change the upload link to point to Commons:Upload instead of the Upload Wizard until this defect is corrected? LX (talk, contribs) 08:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This might frustrate many potential uploaders. InverseHypercube 02:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
change the upload link you mean the sidebar "upload file" link? This is controlled by MediaWiki:Upload-url (which points to Commons:Upload) plus MediaWiki:Gadget-UploadWizard (which is on by default and retargets the link to the Upload Wizard). I don't know if we should really be breaking the link though. It's so annoying that admins can't edit the Wizard at all - a little warning note on the upload page would help here, til the bug is fixed. Would a site notice for this be overkill? Rd232 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Breaking the link? As far as I'm concerned, it is broken in the current state. To answer your question, no, I don't think it's overkill at this point. We're getting an increased number of reports here, at bugzilla:39303, at Commons:Help desk and at Commons:Upload Wizard feedback. (And who knows how many users just give up? There also seems to be an increase in "it doesn't work" type reports in various languages, particularly at Commons:Upload Wizard feedback. Although there's not enough info to determine the cause of those, I have a pretty good guess.) LX (talk, contribs) 17:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what an appalling bug - which probably wouldn't have happened if UploadWizard didn't insist on uploading the file before asking any info beyond the source filename... which I think is silly and unhelpful as an approach, but YMMV. Rd232 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, this has nothing to do with the sequence of actions in Upload Wizard. In principle, because UW uses MediaWiki's upload stash functionality, the filename is completely irrelevant from UW's point of view in the first step. The problem here is that the API is now returning additional info (as of a recent core change) which UW doesn't yet fully know how to deal with - and it defaults to just dying if it encounters some warning or error it doesn't know. For the most common case it's fixed now, and we'll deploy generally improved error/warning handling shortly.
You can see the desired behavior here: mw:Extension:UploadWizard/Error behavior (which can definitely use more eyeballs).--Eloquence (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Temporary measure

OK, I've removed the default status of MediaWiki:Gadget-UploadWizard, which means the gadget will be off for users that haven't specifically enabled it, so the the sidebar "upload file" link will go to Commons:Upload for most users now. I've also added a note to {{UploadWizard}}, which is shown at Commons:Upload. Rd232 (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. The bug should now be fixed and I've restored the gadget.
There are still some error cases that are less cleanly treated than before the core API change (e.g. an invalid filename will now fail on the first step, whereas it should just be ignored until the third step). We've actually scheduled an Upload Wizard development sprint from 8/20 to 8/31, so we'll work through these and other remaining issues and improvements.--Eloquence (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the information, and I hope the uploader will rock for WLM 2012! --PierreSelim (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, works perfectly at least for me now. Thanks. --Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Rd232 (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

August 19

Category Naming Convention

Aloha everyone! :) I got stumped while doing some housecleaning in Category:Lakes of Washington (state). How do we handle duplicate names for towns and lakes? We already have a category for Category:Moses Lake, Washington (the town) and we need another Moses Lake category for the lake. According to enwiki the town should be in category Moses Lake (town), Grant County, Washington What a monster :-) Just rename town category to Moses Lake (town), Washington and use Moses Lake, Washington for the lake itself? Opinions?

FYI:Posted on DE as well. :) --Hedwig in Washington Canis lupis track.svg(Woof?) 17:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Moses Lake, Washington and Moses Lake (lake)? Ghouston (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
There is at least another Moses lake in Texas, and I would maintain the city naming standard, so I guess that "Moses Lake, Washington" and "Moses Lake, Washington (lake)" would be the best long term solution. --Foroa (talk) 06:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
✓OK I think that looks better than the enwiki approach. No more monster-category(names) :-)) Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington Canis lupis track.svg(Woof?) 01:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

August 20

Addition of images to a category when it's an incidental portion

Several people who are adding categories when very small portion of the image is related to the category. My concern is when the category is not the subject of the photo but an incidental portion. The latest example that I see is the addition of Category:45 (number) to an image of an entrance to a small village (diff). There happens to be a small sign that is barely visible in the thumbnail which has a 45 speed limit sign. Using that same logic - there are also 11 words barely visible in the image too, why not add the image to categories based on each of these words otherwise? Another similar scenario is when I see people adding images of a downtown to a category for a gas station [36]. Is there a guideline when categorization of this type has become overcategorization? Royalbroil 04:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, but people have created categories like Category:Cygnus olor (incidental).Ghouston (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Overcategorization is the practice of adding content to multiple levels of the same hierarchy and has nothing to do with applying irrelevant categories. As for other aspects of applying appropriate categories, I generally try to use the rule of thumb that it should be possible to illustrate the topic covered by the category using the files in it. With that in mind, I agree that the examples you give would be examples of what not to do. LX (talk, contribs) 08:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
In the first example File:MarathonCityWisconsinDOTSign.jpg (my edit on 01:49, 20 August 2012‎) the image is in five categories. I would not worry about incidental categories as long as they are relavant. The second example File:WIS29EastTerminus.jpg in in eleven categories. At this point I would not add tertiary categories (although others may) as it would offer little benefit. In determining is a category is incidentail you should check to see what the focus of the image, page, etc. is to see what is the main subject and what provides the context. If you still feel that a category is incidental then remove it. This is a wiki after all. Allen4names (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Upload help pages

The sidebar links to Special:UploadWizard, but I cant find any help pages about this wizard. Help:Upload is about Special:Upload, and it is now inaccurate because it says "Clicking the link [on the sidebar] you will find the Commons:Upload page".

A very important 'help' question that I frequently asked is how to tag an image as {{PD-Australia}}. I expect other countries have the same problem. If we write a help page, can Special:UploadWizard contain a link to the help page? John Vandenberg (chat) 14:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. odder (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
How about expanding Commons:Upload Wizard?
It would also be good to have a better PD picker in UW that isn't US-centric - specs/workflow suggestions welcome.--Eloquence (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons: Remove border

The guideline proposal recommendation Commons:Media for cleanup#Unnecessary borders has been around a while without making it to guideline status (but in the way of these things on Commons, is still referred to as if it were a guideline). I think the problems with this proposal, including the lack of clarity, come from being all about avoiding something. But that something is something that happens all the time, and should. So what or where are the reasons, are there no exceptions!? Concrete it deals with logos, which sometimes have a protection zone. It's about the overall appearance. For example, CD binding for logos from governments. See a current case (and more). -- πϵρήλιο 22:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Whilst it's not good to see an upload war on the same issue on two files (any others?), it's even worse when no-one is using the talk pages, or explaining what the CD is and in what way it's supposed to be binding. Commons seems to merrily ignore government requirements for reproducing their banknotes, so why should it respect government requirements for borders on their logos? NB Commons:Media for cleanup is not a guideline proposal, but that's not important. Rd232 (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The CD is on the file description (but that's not important). Ok government is not that important. But you have not really answered my questions. However you give 3 new questions. What is NB? What is Commons:Media for cleanup then exactly? Why Commons doesn't respect strict graphical bindings (from such influential authorities)? (I've only other images from same type. Why is this important for you? I do not like to discuss with everyone, but I was the first from 5 people which start a talk, but that's not important) -- πϵρήλιο 00:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The issue seems to be whether the background for the logo is supposed to be white (and no other colour), or whether the background is not part of the logo and so the images and text can be used on a background of any colour. Is there an official description of the logo anywhere? If, for example, a flag is supposed to have a white portion, it would not be right to make that portion transparent. — Cheers, JackLee talk 13:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
NB=nota bene cmadler (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
@JackLee: There is an official description in the styleguide of the Bundesregierung. Second sentence: "Die Bildwortmarke steht grundsätzlich auf einer weißen Fläche." ("in principle, the combined word and figurative mark has to be on a white area.") --Origami-Kranich (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, then I agree that a white background and not a transparent one is warranted. — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, CD = Corporate Design, which is linked from the file description page. I'm not entirely sure, but it seems the German government considers the white background and border to effectively be part of the logo, in which case, it shouldn't be removed. Rd232 (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Examples of the logos are shown here. You can only see them on a white background, no matter what site you click. Likewise, the styleguide of the government explains explicitly that the logo only can displayed on a white background. Every vector data of the three logos has got a white background in the EPS-file, for example the logo of the german Federal Intelligence Service (BND). Regards, --Origami-Kranich (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
It occurs to me that the white background may be considered part of the logo; the borders may be too. But in some cases when using a file in Wikimedia additional borders will be added within templates etc, in which case, the use could still respect the border requirement without it being part of the file. So there may be a case for an additional version of the logo on white background without border, with the description making clear the border requirement. Rd232 (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for response and the consent, there are certainly much more such logos (or other graphics?) with such "protected borders". So we can please specify/update the recommendation proposal with exception!? And it also contradicts COM:NPOV, means "correct" graphics for Wikipedia. If no one has objections any more, so can someone please revert the respective logos? -- πϵρήλιο 23:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Should we make a vote for the change? -- πϵρήλιο 21:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Which change? Reverting the files? Rd232 (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The border cleanup is intended for images featuring a border which is not part of the image, or otherwise detracts from usage of the image under normal circumstances. In cases where the version with the border is meaningful or useful, both versions can be retained. However useful does not mean "for mere decorative purposes" - in such cases markup is more appropriate. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, but I'm not sure what you mean by that last sentence. Rd232 (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
That is to say: it would normally be redundant and better avoided to take (say) a photo of a flower and put a 10 pixel black border around it for aesthetic appeal and reupload that. The sharp boundary would be poorly encoded by JPEG, and its application would be limited since most projects don't use such borders around images. Such decorative borders are better done using markup, which allows the border width to be easily adjusted, avoids compression artifacts, avoids wasting storage, and allows updates to the image and its description to be done in one place instead of two. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very clear. Rd232 (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes thanks, so it's clear we can revert this images!?! But nobody update this clarification on this recomendation (on COM:MFC). @Rd232 I mean COM:MFC. -- πϵρήλιο 14:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
So, if we are all saying that those three logos need the white background, would it be possible for an administrator like you, Rd232, to revert the protected images to its correct appearance?
Approving Perhelion, I think extending and clarifying the unnecessary borders rule would be good. It's not about rewriting the rule but extending it so that it's clear which borders should be removed and which shouldn't. In my opinion, this could avert long discussions like this one ore this in future. Origami-Kranich (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that ARD example is relevant - it seems more about colours and logos than borders. Rd232 (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the two files, since Fry1989 seems to have lost interest (I notified him of this discussion, and he's been active but ignored the discussion and removed the notice without comment). I've also clarified Commons:Media_for_cleanup#Unnecessary_borders a bit. Rd232 (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, thank you very much for your effort on reverting the files! And thanks for extending the rule at MFC! --Origami-Kranich (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

August 17

Problems with thumb.php

These URLs are producing an error message:

Error generating thumbnail / Fehler beim Erstellen des Vorschaubildes: No path supplied in thumbnail object
File not found / Although this PHP script (/w/thumb.php) exists, the file requested for output (mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-thumb/f/f7/Europe_laea_location_map.svg/1000px-Europe_laea_location_map.svg.png) does not.

I could reproduce this behaviour with various other images as well. Note that if I choose another width - for example 1005 instead of 1000 it works. Is it a temporary problem on the server or a bug? --Alexrk2 (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Should work now, I purged the files. Some problem with the old thumbnails. MKFI (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Does it mean that thumb.php is not working properly? I'm looking for a reliable way to get the thumb URL of an image. --Alexrk2 (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
And after a hard refresh it's broken again (one can purge to restart the cycle). It seems like it only works when it has to be generated. Aaron Schulz (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Fixed with Aaron Schulz (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Filed bug report --Alexrk2 (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Butchering a buffalo

There are a lot of "Butchering a buffalo" images wich are not categorised. I did one File:Butchering a buffalo - NARA - 285516.jpg, but I have doubts about the location. Kansas City could be only a repository location. I have no knowledge of native Americans. Could somebody help?Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. This one fixed. Dankarl (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like Dankarl already piped in with the key point. Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is actually rather famous/infamous. For anyone interested, I recommend the en-wiki article about the reservation but also Wounded Knee Massacre (1890) and Wounded Knee incident (1973), two landmark events that occurred there. And on the immediate point, if the credit says "Pine Ridge Agency," then that's where we're talking about. - Jmabel ! talk 04:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I categorised the other pictures. Theremust be stil a lot of others from indian affairs.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Catalonian countries art


While I was searching for Art pictures at Wiki Commons, I have seen that there is an entry as "Catalonian countries art". After taking a look into it, I would like to inform you that there is no administrative, historical or political denomination such as "Catalonian countries" in Spain. This expression is used only to describe Catalonian speaking regions, it is therefore a linguistic category, but the moment "Catalonian countries" is extrapolated to the historical, administrative, or political domain, it becomes a nonobjective approach, an ideological statement. This use of the term is done exclusively by Catalonian nationalist ideologists aiming at creating an independent country composed by the Spanish states that speak Catalonian language. In order to legitimate their claims, these ideologists project towards the past history their future political aspirations, as if they always were a nation. This denomination has been fully contested by serious historians. You don't even find this denomination in the domain of Art, where you find Romanic Art, Gothic Art, and so on. And if there is a Catalonian specific art it would be referred as "Catalonian Romanic art" or “Catalonian Gothic Art", always within the boundaries of the Autonomous Region of Cataluña, but not "Catalonian countries art". The fact that regions around Cataluña speak the same language doesn't make them Catalan countries. It's just like if someone included the art of Texas in the denomination of "Mexican countries art", both entities share a language but not a national/political identity.

Thanks for your attention.

Best regards,

Eva 17:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  • "Romanic" => "Romanesque" in English.
  • The concept is essentially "the Catalan-speaking world". I believe at some time in the past we used that term, and I for one would be in favor of going back to it. I agree that "Catalonian countries" is an odd term, at best. - Jmabel ! talk 04:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
There is indeed a Category:Catalan Countries category tree that refers to en:Països Catalans that states: It may refer strictly to the territories in which the different varieties of Catalan are traditionally spoken, or it may be extended to the entire political entities in which Catalan has some official status, in spite of the fact that those entities include areas where Catalan is not spoken . From the historical and philology point of view, it makes sense, I doubt very much for the architectural cats and most other categories (art, politics, economy, ...). The English name Catalan Countries has probably been chosen because of the Commons English naming rule and to decouple it from political/nationalistic meanings, very much like the Land of Valencia that was a compromise to stop the heavy and long lasting naming wars caused by language and political conflicts. Whenever one has "País" in a name in Spain, you are in for troubles; countries and Land of seems widely accepted while it suits better the historical kingdoms. --Foroa (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The article on en-wiki was originally called "Catalan Countries" as a translation, renamed in 2009, and the en-wiki category en:Category:Catalan Countries is still named that way (even after a rename request). Perhaps we could add a bit of description to the category to explain the concept. I guess though the main point is that there are now a host of subcategories like Category:Art of the Catalan Countries‎ and especially Category:Ancient Roman art in the Catalan Countries‎; while it is a geographic term, it would seem the concept is being taken quite a bit too far by integrating it into category trees which refer to political divisions, instead of keeping it more strictly to items more closely related to the language. It seems as though it has been used as a generic supercategory alongside "<topic> of Spain" for all categories like "<topic> of Catalonia", "<topic> of the Land of Valencia", "<topic> of the Balearic Islands", and "<topic> of Andorra". I'd have to say that is probably going too far, unless for specific topics there is a cultural tie beyond that of purely language. I can't see the relevance of tying together ancient Roman art which happens to lie in that geographic area. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree, the category tree has evolved towards a politic/nationalistic meaning which makes no sense at Commons. As one can see in the history of Category:Categories of the Catalan Countries by territory, this has been the work of one person that tried to structure it as a real country; I seem to remember that I cut back a whole series of higher level meta categories. --Foroa (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Task force for preparing for transfer of files from Wikitravel Shared to Commons

A task force has been established to deal with the logistic questions about the likely-to-happen copying of files from Wikitravel Shared to Commons. If you're interested in helping, please visit Commons:Wikitravel Shared transfer task force. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

August 24

request for help in batch upload (New Orleans Bee)

I wish to get any help with this requested batch upload of the New Orleans Bee, a old newspaper. I downloaded all files (~137.000 / ~100GB) and can upload this with a bot. I wrote some comments, but no one is interested in this yet. First I like that anybody can confirm that is desired to upload this in general and than answer my questions or give comments. --Slick (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Many newspapers have easily accessible archives on internet, why duplicate them on commons?--Havang(nl) (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I dont know. I dont request it, I only work on it. The request to import this is there since 2010. Thats enough time to add dislike I guess. --Slick (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
They'll never disappear from the net so long as we're around, and they'll be accessible as [[File:New Orleans Bee 1944 Feb 4 page 14.jpg]] not [] (which encodes who knows what information and who knows how stable it is) or worse "log in to -- you'll have to set up an account -- and then ...".--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Have you considered uploading this to the Internet Archive as well? They're often a more accessible source for printed material than Commons. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
"more accessible"? What do you mean? Rd232 (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Easier page-by-page reading, for one thing (assuming the files are batched together into issues or volumes). Andrew Gray (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Bots not tagging Commons images as featured on Arabic Wikipedia

Hi, could anyone help solve the issue described on my talk page here?[37] Thanks. FunkMonk (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from having a quick look: the ar=1 parameter isn't set. It might be a problem with the Arabic writing. UTF-8 seems to be buggy with bots sometimes. Haven't tried to add the parameters by hand yet. --Hedwig in Washington Canis lupis track.svg(Woof?) 09:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I tried to add it by hand, but nothing changed--باسم (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Now it shows a star on arwiki. You might want to change the text in arwiki-nom=Image...... My Arabic is quiet rusty. :)
If any developer reads this, the preview doesn't work with this image, it just shows some html and that's it. --Hedwig in Washington Canis lupis track.svg(Woof?) 00:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Working on it, should be done shortly. --Hedwig in Washington Canis lupis track.svg(Woof?) 23:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done Works like a charm. --Hedwig in Washington Canis lupis track.svg(Woof?) 00:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Uploading plain text files (.txt)

Why is it not possible to upload plain text files (.txt) on Commons? - Even PDFs are allowed.
The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences allows sharing big text files like this one (a supporting file of Sloane'sA198380), but they have to be related to a sequence. sucks less than many other pages of this kind, but they display "plain text" on HTML pages (see this page), and without registration the size is limited to 500,000 byte.
Wouldn't it be useful if Commons offered the same possibility as the OEIS? Greetings, Lipedia (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

PDFs are only allowed under certain circumstances, see Commons:Scope#PDF and DjVu formats. Since Commons is a repository of media files, text files are out of project scope, except in certain cases (like subtitles) in conjunction with audio or video material (Commons:Timed Text). --Rosenzweig τ 17:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The main reason is that text material on WMF projects is normally shared through wiki pages in order to be more easily viewable and editable. I struggle to imagine any situation where this is nor desirable, even on Wikisource. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
@Lipedia: Did you have an example of a .txt file you think we should have here? As the others say, we generally shouldn't have text documents, so a text-only format seems ... unlikely ... to me. But I'm certainly willing to be persuaded. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

For Wikiversity work it often would be helpful if I could include source code in a scroll window. One where Ctrl + A selects only the content of the Window and not the whole page. At the end of this page you see how I included code until now, but something is broken (compare). Lipedia (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And to do this, you absolutely need to upload text files to Commons? Isn't there any other way, like formatting the text appropriately, or uploading the file locally to Wikiversity? --Rosenzweig τ 16:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing is without alternative, but files on Commons would be a practical solution, and I don't see what harm they could do.

  • is not bad, but I would feel a bit strange if I paid $24 a year for uploading 2MB files (like the OEIS file linked above) while anyone can upload 100MB photos on Commons.
  • Commons has categories that are used and maintained by a lot of people. Few people care or know about categoization on Wikiversity, Wikisource etc. Pages like don't even offer categorization.
  • A lot of text files may be useful on more than one page in more than one wiki, especially in the field of computer science. Corrections and improvements are of course easier in a central file than on a lot of separate pages. Lipedia Red duck.svg 18:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Automatic usage of creator template

Why is there a creator template shown in File:Liophis reginae.jpg even though it is not in the source code? The sculptor and the photographer only share their name. --Leyo 17:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

{{Information/author processing}} auto-links if the name matches a template. Maybe that's not such a good idea after all... Or maybe it needs tweaking somehow. Rd232 (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
At the very least there should be an easy way to suppress the autolinking feature. MKFI (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The source page spells out his name as "Andreas Schlueter", not "Andreas Schlüter", so maybe the author could be changed to that spelling and avoid the creator template (in this case). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

What about sorting files to a maintenance category instead, if there is a creator template with the same name as the author given? The author name could then be replaced (or not) in a semi-automatic way. --Leyo 23:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, done - Category:Author matching Creator template, Creator template not used. Rd232 (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Is there any good way of grouping the files according to the Creator template? --Leyo 09:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
We could auto-add additional individual categories for each case (eg Author=X produces Category:Author matching Creator template X, Creator template not used), but creating all those categories would be a pain. We could use them as temporary redlinked categories; they could be found by going to a file in Category:Author matching Creator template, Creator template not used and looking at its categories. Rd232 (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
That might be an option. Another possibility would be to use the author as a sortkey.
If an image is in the same category (or a subcategory) as the potential creator template, there is a very high change of a match. Is there any possibility to check for this in an automatized way? --Leyo 23:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
sortkey wouldn't be all that useful I think. You're right about the category, but the template can't tell what categories the page is in - it would take a bot, or AWB perhaps. Rd232 (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I not sure what exactly to ask for on COM:BWR. --Leyo 19:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Process Category:Author matching Creator template, Creator template not used with the rule "if author=X and is a member of category:X, substitute author={{Creator:X}} for author=X" (to transclude the relevant Creator template). Rd232 (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
That said, it may be better to do it manually, or at least via AWB, because in taking a few examples I've had the impression it's an opportunity for fixing and improvement beyond just using the Creator template correctly. (eg, in some cases the Creator template was on the page, but not in the author field, and {{information}} was used where {{artwork}} was better, etc.) Rd232 (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I've just added {{Creator:Bartolomé Esteban Murillo}} to twenty images. There might be cases with even more files (e.g. Category:Photographs by Andreas Schlüter). A (semi-)automatized way would be convenient. --Leyo 09:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-appearing image

The image located (and appearing) here (which I uploaded) does not appear either at the 'My uploads' page (as a thumb in the list there) or at the article where I tried to insert it in the 'Live performance' subsection (so I replaced it with the one there now of Chris Fuqua). Something I'm missing? Thanks . . Artaxerxes (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Gill Landry with Old Crow.jpg
No problem for me. I can see it in both places. --McZusatz (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Possibly cause by:
    • Your browser: Download the file and watch it at your preferred viewer
    • Corrupt thumb in cache: Go the file description page and {{Purge client cache}}
    • Ad-blocker: Try without an ad-blocker.
-- Rillke(q?) 20:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

August 22

Hello. Some questions have arisen at Wikipedia regarding this image. Would it be possible for someone here to take a look, and make sure it's public domain? Thank you. I hope the image is okay to use at Wikipedia. The image was recently removed at Wikipedia here. This issue has arisen in the course of a Good Article Reassessment here. 06:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

See Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Public domain claim on 1968 campaign poster with image. In short, the only possible concern is if the small text at the bottom left does in fact contain a copyright notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. 07:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

User name change for images

I uploaded a number of images to Commons under an earlier user name (I had to change the user name because it had my actual name in it and I received off-wiki harassment as a result). I've changed my user name on Wikipedia so earlier edits now show up under my new user name, but I have not yet done this on Commons. How can I have the images I uploaded under a previous user name changed to reflect my current user name? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

COM:CHU to rename your Commons account. Rd232 (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I just checked that out. My Commons account name was changed at the same time my Wikipedia one was changed, probably because it's a global account. However, the Commons history was not moved. The images I uploaded under my previous name still show the old name. I'd rather not have that user name attached to the image, but rather my new one. I don't see this situation on COM:CHU. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The name shown in the upload history should be changed automatically by the rename. If your old username is otherwise shown in the description page (presumably the Author field), you'll have to change it manually, perhaps with Help:VisualFileChange.js or COM:AWB. If your harassment concerns are bad enough, you could privately ask an admin to do the changes, and to then revision delete the old name from the edit history. (I'm willing to do this if you want - email me with the necessary details.) Rd232 (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, hang on, it occurs to me that an author change may cause licensing problems if the license you used required attribution; I don't actually know for sure if it's OK to do this. Anyone know? Rd232 (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
None of my photographs required attribution. The harassment went away, and I don't think they knew that I also posted in Commons. So, I don't have a problem doing it manually myself, but I wanted to check first. Also, thank you for the offer to help. 72Dino (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
As an oversighter, I'd just like to point out that this case falls under the critieria of the global oversight policy — so if you'd like to have your real name hidden from the public view, you can contact oversighters (as opposed to the simple revision deletion done by administrators) via e-mail at Thanks, odder (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

August 23

Hi, I'm new user. I cleaned up one picture (, and I wish to upload it as a new version of that file, but there is no "Upload a new version of this file"-link. How can I upload that picture? Should I upload as a new picture and then send link to someone to upload it as a new version or what? I am logged in. -- Marekich (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, now I see "Firstly, you can only do this if your account is older than 4 days." I would be better if this would be displayed on pages where you would expect "New version" link. -- Marekich (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
You are not alone. I had the same problem last year. ;-) --McZusatz (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I think as per Commons:Overwriting existing files, this should be uploaded to a separate file.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

KML as a first-class media type for Commons

Can anyone tell me where I can propose the addition of simple KML files as a media format for Commons? This would be ideal for adding geodata to wikis without needing to rasterise it or produce single, fixed, SVG visualizations. There is prior art for doing this on enwiki, but Commons would be a much better place to put this data. -- The Anome (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:File_format#Unsupported_file_types listed KML: bugzilla:26059. Apparently security issues related to IE6 were blocking it. Rd232 (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it another kml than in Category:Geocoding overlays ?
I see it in use at File:Green_Hill_Indiana_map_from_1877_atlas.png. Does this actually have any use other than "Open this map in Google Earth."? ghouston (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it was previously discussed at Commons_talk:File types... AnonMoos (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, seven years ago: Commons_talk:File_types/Archive_1#KML_and_KMZ_file_formats_for_simple_GIS_data. Rd232 (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

UploadWizard updates

Pushed out a bunch of updates to UploadWizard today. Most of them are back-end error handling updates, and support for Wiki Loves Monuments, but there is one more-prominent UI change. The language list for the image description now displays languages in your language, rather than in the native language. So, for example, if your interface language is set to English, you will now see "Spanish" instead of "Español". There should also be a bunch more languages in the list now. If you don't see the change, be sure to clear your browser cache. All of the updates were to address requests or bugs in Bugzilla. If you notice any serious problems, please ping me on my talk page. If you notice any minor problems, please put them in Bugzilla. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A lot better compared to a few weeks ago, but there are still significant issues left. I found 3 more bugs today that explain several issues that we have seen, and I'm actively working on figuring out at least two others. TheDJ (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I've been informed that there will be a development sprint dedicated to UW this week fully focused on fixing issues in UW to make it more reliable before the WLM launch. Over the weekend I myself have done quite a bit of bug analysis, code review and even a few patches to UW. I'm fairly confident now that this will actually allow for most critical bugs to be solved within the next two weeks. TheDJ (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Identify SVG-like maps

Could somebody (or some program) go through Category:Maps of the United States to:

  1. Tag {{Convert to SVG}} where appropriate and
  2. DeleteMark images like File:Dayton Tennessee map.jpg where its superseded by en:Template:Location map

I'm interested in eliminating JPEG maps from my image algorithm. —Dispenser (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

ad 2 - this image is used! Bulwersator (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
What about earlier uses? We cannot replace the image in earlier article revisions (and you cannot redirect a file to a template). --LPfi (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Well then we need {{Superseded by template}} for the second one then. —Dispenser (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thumbnails not created

Jubilee Campus MMB T2 Melton Hall.jpg
Jubilee Campus MMB T9 Melton Hall.jpg
Jubilee Campus MMB U7 Melton Hall.jpg

I uploaded some rather large JPEG panoramas, and the thumbnailer seems to have given up on them. Anyone know how to sort this out? -mattbuck (Talk) 03:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Are they progressive? If so, convert to non-progressive format... AnonMoos (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Files with such large resolution should absolutly be progressive. Tecnicaly, it should be easier to create thumbnails from progressive images. Is there a bugzilla ticket for this bug? /Esquilo (talk) 08:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
No, it's the opposite with thumbnail creation: Baseline mode images require less memory while rendering. I fixed the third one and tagged the others with Category:Progressive mode JPGs to be saved in Baseline mode. (See cat. for bugzilla as well). --McZusatz (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Baseline mode images require the whole image to be read into memory to create a thumbnail, while progressive images only require the first scan to be read. /Esquilo (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
First thing is to inform the author, which I did. Yann (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


It seems that all pics imported by this author are copyvio : On french WP i've no answer to the questions.

Can you see ? (and sorry for my bad english) --Tsaag Valren (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

  • You could make a mass deletion request if you think so. Doesn't strike me as obvious. They look quite plausibly like they could be the work of one photographer. I agree that the small size of the images is suspicious, but I looked for several of these on the web & didn't find any obvious sources; the one instance I found of any of them could well have been posted by this same person. Do you have some basis to think otherwise? You don't indicate where on the French WP you've asked questions, so I don't have any way to know what issues you've raised. - Jmabel ! talk 08:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I could not find any hints for copyvio as well. They seem ok for me. --McZusatz (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The question was asked on the uploader's talk page at 06:47 (UTC). This section of the VP here was initiated at 07:00 (UTC). The uploader replied on his talk page at 09:41 (UTC). -- Asclepias (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • You need to inform the user. I did it this time. Yann (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I also can't see a reason to suspect copyright violations. They are all relatively small, and only two have camera EXIF info (same camera on same day), but they are all consistent with a spectator taking photos from the stands, and having to crop the photos down. I can't find copies of any of them elsewhere on the internet, save versions copied from Wikipedia, other than a couple from a posting in a forum here. For that many photos, it'd be pretty unusual to *not* find copies elsewhere on the internet if the uploader was simply taking them from other sites. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirecting gallery pages to categories

I notice User:Wikien2009 has redirected several galleries, including those that existed (like United States) to category pages: Special:Contributions/Wikien2009

Is this allowed? I would think we would encourage having gallery pages whenever possible WhisperToMe (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It's sometimes done if the gallery page is basically a duplicate of the category (same set of images, with no additional captions etc.) but it should not be done for well-formed gallery pages like that one, so I undid it. The Commons:Galleries guideline says In the absence of a gallery, or if there is only a gallery with little or no content, a gallery title can be redirected to a corresponding category (a cross-namespace redirect). Galleries are a different approach to viewing a topic than are categories, and yes they should be encouraged, and well-organized ones should absolutely be kept. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! To get a better idea of which galleries are too small and large, here is a sampling of some other redirected galleries:
Stacy Keibler
Alicia Klass
Katja Kassin
Katie Holmes
Jennifer Tilly (Only had four pictures)
Violetta Blue (Only had three pics, so it was very small anyway)
Melissa Lauren (Only had one picture, so it was too small)
Which cases are too small, and which ones are good ones? I understand that Michaela Schaffrath was already restored.
WhisperToMe (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Judgement call, basically which ones add value over and above the category. It might be above a certain number of pictures, but a gallery is supposed to be a selection of the better ones in the category, covering as many aspects of the topic as possible (think of it more of a visual version of an article). The category is supposed to have *all* media related to the subject. Sometimes the gallery is badly out of date, with much better pictures in the category, and it may make sense to turn it into a redirect (or, improve the gallery). But if there is grouping and organization to the galleries, or additional captions, that is usually enough reason to keep the gallery. If people are coming to a topic from a Wikipedia, which is the best way to give them a view of what media we have? Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Please help the coolest gradution project ever!

I had a bet with my prof. I said I can make users donate over 1000 pics to commons. He was skeptic, and I decided This would be my graduation project in marketing. Let's prove him wrong! more details here. Please help! matanya talk 02:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


I am sure I have missed the discussions about this bot before, but still would like to know why this bot is not running now. CategorizationBot was one of the most useful bots that was running in commons. --Sreejith K (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Cartoons in Internetr Archive

Are really in Public Domain the cartoons in the "Internet Archive" website? Can We use in commons this Disney cartoon, this elections-related cartoon and more important, this great MGM film? thanks.--Coentor (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Also this work for the Canadian government.--Coentor (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Movies can be very difficult -- they can be derivative of copyrighted characters (which depends on the copyright of the movie/book where they first appeared), the music involved, or the novel the movie was based on, that sort of thing. If they are, and the underlying work is still under copyright, we can't distribute the movie -- often people upload to the Internet Archive based on someone forgetting to renew the copyrights to the movie, but ignore these other possibilities (there are several court cases, including recent ones, which affirm the rights of the underlying work). The first one, and the Canadian government one, are both derivative of Disney characters at the very least, so those cannot be uploaded. The second one is clearly marked with a copyright notice of 1972; it is under U.S. copyright until 2068. No idea why someone thinks it is free to upload there, unless Columbia Pictures released it -- I don't see any mention of a license there. The third one, Peace On Earth, you can see here that it got its copyright renewed on December 5, 1966, renewal number R399480. So it is under copyright until 2035, and cannot be uploaded either. So again, unless MGM gives out a license for it, that cannot be distributed. No idea what permissions the Internet Archive has, if any. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be widespread non-enforcement of copyrights where the cartoon was not renewed, even if the underlying characters or stories were. The Internet Archive doesn't seem to be very active in policing the material that's uploaded to it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Allright, thanks for the answer. I was susipicious about those movies, as long as none of the two last apperead in any PD-cartoon database. For the Canadian government Cartoon, ¿Have Canadian Government works the same PD-status as the US-government works? If it's so, at least some screenshots of the Canadian Cartoon could be used in commons (THe film Would be in PD, despite having copyrighted chraacters on it, so the screenshots -few, but some- withouth any copyrighted caracter would be OK to upload to commons).--Coentor (talk) 07:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
No, unfortunately Canadian government works are not in the public domain. InverseHypercube 18:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Canadian government works follow Crown Copyright; see a portion of {{PD-Canada}}. They do become PD 50 years after publication. However, I'm not sure that a work produced by Disney would be considered Crown Copyright; it was produced by an external author. And it would still be subject to the derivative copyrights, at least in the U.S. As for screenshots which don't involve the characters, yes, that is a possibility -- you might check the copyright renewals on that film itself in the U.S. archives (see here). It would have to be renewed either 27 or 28 years after its publication. If that film was not renewed, and I don't see it, then its non-derivative parts are PD in the US. As for Canada... it would depend on if that was an anonymous work or not, I think, in which case it would be PD 50 years after publication. I forget though if the term can be based on the life of the director, or what. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all.--Coentor (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

August 27

Zero pixel JPEGs

SELECT img_name
FROM image
WHERE (img_width = 0 OR img_height = 0)
  AND img_major_mime="image" AND img_minor_mime="jpeg";

95 Files in 30 minutes. —Dispenser (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I spot-checked 4 or 5 of them and they all displayed just fine in Safari when downloading the original image, so there is data there. But obviously the Wiki software has issues with them. Not sure what the issues are, but they should be possible to fix somehow. Hmm... I downloaded one and I do get an error of "Corrupt JPEG data: 91 extraneous bytes before marker 0xed `Willard_Straight_house_5_Av_94_St_jeh.jpg'". But it can be converted to an image without the error. Not sure what the real issue is, or if it can be fixed losslessly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I fixed File:Willard Straight house 5 Av 94 St jeh.jpg by using "jpegtran -copy all -perfect", which should be lossless. I do see it removed the offending 91 bytes, then added something or other as the filesize is a little bit bigger. But that should be a decent approach to fixing any which have the same type of error. Not sure what caused the issue; the 91 bytes were all zero bytes, and it was a ways into the file. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I fixed File:Black Orchid.jpg using GIMP. --Meno25 (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. I fixed most of them and User:Denniss fixed some. --Meno25 (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Saving a JPEG with GIMP is lossy. --AVRS (talk) 09:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of the files got deleted per " (File is corrupt, empty, or in an unallowed format) "! Why? --McZusatz (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Bug 39301. --Meno25 (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I get "The file "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/4/46/" is in an inconsistent state within the internal storage backends" when trying to upload a new version of that file. Our version seems to be corrupt, but the image at the geograph source is fine, so it just needs to be re-uploaded. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Those files have the wrong UNIX permission. Hopefully the bug gets resolved soon. --McZusatz (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Fixed now. I reuploaded the source file. --McZusatz (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There are some (four?) broken files left. Any idea whats wrong with them? --McZusatz (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Six since some were incorrectly striked out. Dispenser (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Fixed one more. File:John_Ment_Studio_Nov09.jpg, by its description, *seems* like it could be an image from the site; there are similar descriptions on images there today (like here), including similar image sizes, but I think the one in question is no longer visible there. Not sure I'd trust the license, and the image data seems completely corrupted. File:Lako bodra.jpg is also corrupted, and odds are it was an image taken off the net (apparently the person helped teach the Ho language in the late 20th century; any photo or painting of him is likely still under copyright). The source is given as "public". I'd probably just delete that one. File:Muscat-Interior of Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque (41).jpg unfortunately seems completely corrupt; I can't get anything to read it, though obviously there is a lot of image data there. Maybe someday someone can figure it out. File:Rozestavěnost OD Fontána v Teplicích 9. března 2012 (exif údaj je špatný).jpg seems similar; maybe ask the uploader if they still have their copy and could re-upload (or tell us which program can successfully view it). File:Музей_П.Тичини_с._Піски.jpg... not sure what the issue is, but the uploader also added two (much larger) images at the same time, and those are the only contributions. I can only guess that the upload got corrupted, so probably not much hope for it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Which program did you use to (partially?) read some of the files? --McZusatz (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I used jpegtran (non-lossy) on File:KOTOUŇ - vjezd.JPG. I can't find any image viewer which can show any of the others. The two larger ones have EXIF info, but something is corrupted in the JPEG. Those uploaders are still active; perhaps they could re-upload if they have a working version. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Image preview in edit mode is broken

Probably since deploying MediaWiki 1.20wmf10 the image preview in the edit mode of file description pages is broken. Only plain HTML is shown there. Raymond 09:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I first noticed it yesterday evening (German time). --Rosenzweig τ 09:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Reported as Bug 39584 by a user of hrwikiquote. Raymond 10:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Ha, I saw something similar myself and thought it was just a temporary server thing.... A fix is in the works. Rd232 (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Not fixed yet. - The Bushranger (talk) 06:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad this is reported. I spent some time switching between browsers, browsing in InPrivate/Incognito/Private mode and browsing from different physical locations connected to different ISPs until I decided it is definitely a server problem. Fleet Command (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Miley Cyrus interpreta Miley Stewart.jpg

I'm getting the following error when attempting to delete this image:

Error deleting file: The file "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/6/60/Miley_Cyrus_interpreta_Miley_Stewart.jpg" is in an inconsistent state within the internal storage backends

Any ideas? Эlcobbola talk 20:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Reported at bugzilla:39221 TheDJ (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Image Copyrighted

See the DR & comments...Any reasons Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Erzdiakon_Thomas.jpg..???--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

  • You've nominated it twice, and twice an admin has closed it as PD-Art. The date of 1680 seems entirely plausible, given the subject matter & style. What is your basis to doubt it? And, furthermore, what if anything is your basis to claim that the piece is copyrighted? - Jmabel ! talk 08:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidence/records available the its created on 1680, Only assumptions are playing role, If there is an evidence no body will have a doubt. How commons can make sure that this image is without a copyright. it can be drawn on the recent past..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Is there any reason to doubt that painting is from 1680? If not, stop being ridiculous. --Sebari (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
We always have to make assumptions -- the question is how reasonable they are. We don't go deleting files on the slightest whiff of doubt; we could cast tiny bits of doubt on the majority of images uploaded here if we wanted to. You claim the painting is copyrighted in the DRs... why? That implies you have information on its authorship. What do you know about it, and what research have you done? It appears to be an old painting (lots of pockmarks) on a wall, and does not look like a modern style. It seems pretty reasonable to assume that copyright has lapsed in India, barring any further information. Clearly, at least two admins are of the same opinion, as they closed the DRs -- leave it be at that point (really after just one), unless you have further information that was not brought to light before. According to en:Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and File:Marthoma I.jpg, it is at the "Ankamaly Syrian Orthodox Church". I'm presuming that is this church, where the pictured person is buried, though I'm not sure. That site says the church was believed built in the early 1600s, and the person died in 1670. Odds are fairly high it's out of copyright. I do see a slightly larger version of the photo here. A different photo, shows a bit more of the surrounding context, here. While it'd be great to have better information on it, I think assuming the painting is old enough to be PD is quite reasonable. If you come up with more information which makes that less likely though, please bring that up. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Question: The work appears to be from India. India appears to have a copyright term of life+60 years or publication+60 years, whichever is later. Do we have any evidence that this was published with the consent of the copyright holder? If not, publication+60 years hasn't happened yet, and as it seems that works can't enter the public domain in India without prior publication, it could make the painting copyrighted in India. Does painting a painting on a wall in India constitute publication? Back in 1670, it wasn't trivial to print wall paintings on paper, and if no one currently knows who the copyright holder is, there is no way to ask the copyright holder for permission to publish the painting, so there is no way to start the publication+60 years term. Not that anyone would care, though. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
It was painted on a public wall from the looks of it, which should be publication. India has a different definition of publication than does the U.S. There was no copyright law in 1670 anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Commons is not standing behind any assumptions for the copyright, No picture should stay in commons which does not have a copyright status , if its old or new. As per your question on the above post (What do you know about it, and what research have you done?). Its the responsibility of the uploader (Always) to clear any questions to the image when it comes to the copyright. If uloader don't have any answer that doesn't mean that the image is going to stay, even if its closed by Admins who doesn't want to explain the answer & lean towards keeping copyrighted images in commons. For this image the following questions were not answered
  1. Who is the author of the image (Not a name from somewhere, with evidence)
  2. When it was painted (Very important, and to be stated with evidence)
  3. Whether the image is accessible to public to state that it is "Published"..???
There is no law in 1670's..well where it says that this was painted on 16th century..??. As per indian copyright law the following definition applies to the term publication

Us law also says similar

Death date of the person will not be considered when its expressed by an artist. Image will be re-nominated again if those questions are not answered.--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Indian law, as you quoted, also defines "communicating to the public" as being publication, which is explicitly not in the U.S. definition (i.e. things like broadcast count, whereas they do not in the U.S.). It does not require the distribution of copies. Putting a painting up on a public wall is communicating it to the public, and that is publication (in India). That is pretty plain, and a very, very significant difference. And actually, that would likely count as publication in the U.S. as well for acts prior to 1978 (the definition you quote is only valid from 1978 on). The odds this was painted 1941 or later are pretty low. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Drawing a picture on the wall doesn't mean that its a communication, The artist should transmit a message about the work and should be received by the public in any form either by copies, advertisement or written/oral etc. But in this case its not relevant as there is no evidence available that this picture is from 16th century. Moreover US law will overrule the Indian law as the servers of Wikimedia situates in US. US law must be satisfied first then local law. I am moving on to another DR after giving a note to the closing admin's page--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 05:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
*sigh* "communication to the public" means making any work available for being seen or heard or otherwise enjoyed by the public directly or by any means of display or diffusion other than by issuing copies of such work regardless of whether any member of the public actually sees, hears or otherwise enjoys the work so made available. It can be directly seen by the public; it is communication to the public; it is publication. Moreover, prior to 1978, something permanently placed in public like that was most likely to be publication under U.S. law as well; see COM:FOP#United States and Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US#Before 1978. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
All of the above a publication question remains...When it was published..??--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 05:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
As long as it's before 1941, it probably doesn't matter much -- and the previous keeps are based on the (very very high) odds that it was published by then. It'd be nice to know for sure, of course, but common sense does prevail when the odds are that low. If better information comes to light, then re-evaluate -- but as said, we don't delete stuff when there is barely any doubt. We assume good faith on uploads from anonymous users every day, and the odds of those being copyvios way, way exceeds stuff like this, and (like those) we should only be deleting when further information is brought up which significantly changes their outlook. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
What is the evidence available to us to say that its before 1941, or 16th century or 10000 years old. Till now nothing is available. Copyright is not something which works on commonsense, It will work with valid evidence & cleared copyright status, Previous keep is wrong and self made decision by an admin without considering the policies of commons, If it was a keep why it was not discussed. Without any available information this image cannot be kept in commons, if information's are available it can be re-uploaded, till the time it should obey the copyright laws. We assume good faith but not for the images which is not having a clear evidence of copyright. Now the existence of the image is challenged and it must be answered, not some imaginary answer to say that it was drawn some where on 16th century or before 1941. The pictured personality may be lived in 16th century but the picture can be drawn at any time even a cracked wall is available in 21st century. See the historical records of the said church, the said painting is not mentioned anywhere 12--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 20:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Every image is a judgement call -- information and evidence can come in all sorts of ways. Deletion (and policy) is basically by community consensus; if people feel by looking at all information that it's a much older painting, and they don't think there is a reasonable chance it could still be under copyright, then they can decide to keep it. Very few works are ever going to have perfect information; we do the best with what we have, and that does not mean automatic deletion. You gave links to two different churches above; it's not absolutely clear which one has the painting (if either). But, there is another photo of it here, which gives a little more context -- don't know if that (Tamil?) caption would be helpful or not, if someone could read it. Looks like another photo of it here where someone who is from the church does say it's a wall mural. The associated article says it is on the "southern wall of the nave of the St. Mary’s Cheriyapally, Angamaly, Ernakulam District, Kerala, India." Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The picture is different from the one which we discuss, See the quality and stick direction in the hand (both are different) So the picture in the church must be the one inside this PDF and mentioned on 2 books came out on 1998 & 2009--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
It is exactly the same painting. Even the skirting mark where used to be some sort of second staff is there. If the photo in the PDF is of a real thing, and not a retouched picture, apparently the mural or whatever that is suffered some sort of horrendous "restoration" which destroyed the frieze along with other details.
Anyway, this whole discussion is a Byzantine bizarrerie, a complete waste of time. Even the mentioned PDF discusses if it is from the 17th or the 18th century. Really, Captain, you ought to look for something more useful to do here, than chasing "copyvios" 3 or 4 centuries old. What next, the Altamira bisons?
--- Darwin Ahoy! 02:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Altamira bisons have a proven year of drawing by several archeological reserchers, But for this where it says that it is drawn on a specific date, If you can show an evidence to prove that this picture is drawn on a specific date before 1000 or 10000 years, then there is no issue at all, On all the records it is showing that the person was lived in 16th century not the painting/painter. No evidence is available to us that it is created recently or before 1000 year. In any such case if this image is staying in commons without showing the evidence of original painting date, I have many files with unknown date(Centuries old) to undelete.@Clindberg, this image says that it is a painting from Jacobite church, Ankamali, Created when..???...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Estimates are given by the PDF file you linked above, by people who looked at it firsthand. The original researcher reportedly dated the painting from the 18th century; the author of that response article thought it was from a bit earlier, in the late 17th century. If you want to change the date in the description to be something less certain, please go ahead. But any deletion discussion is silly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the small one as duplicate. Yann (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Captainofhope asked, on my talk page, that I offer an opinion here. Very few images on Commons have a copyright status that is known beyond any doubt. We Assume Good Faith all the time when an uploader claims "own work" and I have no doubt that some of those are actually taken from elsewhere. Similarly, and closer to this subject, when we keep an image based on PD-Art, the painting may in fact not be an old master, but a recent forgery. We use judgement all the time in our decisions. Certainty is very rare.
This work looks old. The subject died three hundred years ago. The church where it was created was built a long time ago. Therefore, a number of experienced Commons editors have concluded that it is old -- that, in fact, it predates the existence of copyrights. Could this be a modern fake? Yes. Could it have been touched up -- repaired -- in the intervening three hundred years? Also yes. But I think it has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that it is old enough to be long out of copyright.
Admins have an enormous backlog -- arising out of technical problems earlier in the year. Non-admins have many many images that are problems that need tagging with {{Delete}}. It would be far better for all of us to spend time cleaning up what we know is wrong, rather than arguing at great length (2,600+ words) over an image that is almost certainly OK. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
As Jameslwoodward says, It is possible. But why we always need to consider the age of the pictured person & age of the place where it was drawn, I merely think if the picture was about a common butterfly, Then no user can say that the particular butterfly was lived on 16th century and the image was drawn at that time and walls got a crack after that. To define the age it surely required archeological research documents, not by seeing a photo with cracks or the pictured subjects age. Yes we can make sure that it is old enough by referring the available bits & pieces about the photograph available on internet. But here its totally mixed up with different personalities and different images (1 is in commons & another one is in the PDF). This discussion has given an indication that any image (artwork of an old personality before 1900) from a wall looks little old, can be uploaded in commons & stays...I need to raise some un-deletion requests.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 18:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Unsure about copyright status of a NASA image

This very interesting photo, as well as a handful of other photos of the X-48 aircraft, are published on the NASA website with the author information as "NASA Photo by: Boeing".

Does the PD-NASA license apply here? Is there a relevant guideline on Commons where I could have found this answer? I’d appreciate your input. Thanks, Ariadacapo (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ariadcapo, the photo as it is taken by Boeing would not automatically be in the public domain, so it is unsuitable for Commons. BTW, have you seen COM:AVIATION? Might be of interest to you too. Cheers, russavia (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
"photo as it is taken by Boeing would not automatically be in the public domain" - but photo made by Boeing for NASA would by "NASA material" mentioned in Template:PD-USGov-NASA. Bulwersator (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Template:PD-USGov-NASA - "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted" - I think that according to linked page it is NASA material - "NASA Photo by" and there is no mention that it is copyrighted. Bulwersator (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it's OK too. While maybe not strictly PD-USGov, the image collection statement says This collection contains digitized photos of many of the unique research aircraft flown at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards, California. These images date from the 1940s. Recent photos are added only to the Image Gallery. No copyright protection is asserted for these photographs. So, if it was a Boeing image, they have released it (the NASA logo etc. on the bottom seems to reinforce that). Current image location is around this page, in the gallery. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
This is perfectly possible. NASA wants something build, Boeing builds it for them == public work. that includes administration around the project and possibly photography if required by the contract. However, mistakes are also rather common in the NASA materials, so almost impossible to know either case to be true, without reading the X-48B contract :D TheDJ (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for your answers. I think it is reasonable to assume they are publishable on Commons. Since they are of great pedagogical value I am going to upload them; I will link to this discussion in each file’s talk page. Ariadacapo (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And I'll delete this image if I stumble about it. Boeing is clearly stated as author - publishing by NASA is not automatically PD-NASA. --Denniss (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Aahh, the friendly atmosphere of the Pump. Thanks for the feedback (and the warning) – I’m definitely letting go of the problem. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Denniss -- the image collection is specifically marked No copyright protection is asserted for these photographs. I don't see any good reason to ignore that. If you want to change the tag away from PD-USGov-NASA in favor of a different tag (say PD-author) for accuracy's sake, that's fine. But when a collection is so specifically marked like that, it should be good enough to keep them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe this is a much more important topic, worthy of clearer guidelines here at Commons. Various images published by NASA on the NASA websites have the No copyright protection is asserted for these photographs. While I have not emailed Boeing in this specific case, others I have emailed indicated in writing that they, the copyright holder, which they always are, considered the image released into the PD. Yet, unfortunately here at Commons someone puts a Deletion sticker on the image and an admin deletes it. I believe we occasionally lose okay images because of this. This also happens regarding images from Aladin at SIMBAD, even though staffers have communicated to Commons that any works from this catalog are PD. Marshallsumter (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Now 20,000 ships

Variatie (ship, 1949)
"Ships by name"-category covers 20,000 ships

One year after the 10,000th ship, the 20,000th subcategory for an individual ships is created: Category:Variatie (ship, 1949).

Commons provides consistently named categories with basic information on vessels, many of which don't have Wikipedia articles yet. Several "by" subcategories of Category:Ships allow to find vessels (and images of vessels) with different criteria.

Participants aim to identify ships by name (20,000 by now), year of completion (97%), flag, type/function, IMO or ENI, country of construction (58%), etc. The 20,000 categories include ca. 100,000 images in their main category. 33% of these images are used at Wikipedia.

See: Category:Ships by name, Category:Unidentified ships, New ships

Added by --  Docu  at 17:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, excellent work.--- Darwin Ahoy! 21:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Mumble experiment


Our current outreach effort are currently focused on on-wiki help.

I wonder if we could also offer more interactivity to both new and established editors with an audio chat possibility.

So, I set up a Mumble server to allow Wikimedia Commons contributors to discuss, request help or assistance, exchange new ideas, etc. by audio.

Mumble is an open source secured way to have an audio partyline, the audio and control streams are both encrypted, and certificates avoid identity thief.

Server configuration
Parameter Value
Name Grip
Port 64738
Username (your Wikimedia account name, your IRC nickname or the name you want to use on Mumble)
Setup instructions
  1. Install Mumble through your packages manager or downloading it at
  2. Server > Connect
  3. Add new server...
  4. Add the configuration (cf. above) like this:

Connect to Grip Mumble server.png

The server will stay up H24. You're free to connect and wait other people or to organize "Mumble hours". --Dereckson (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've already set up a Mumble server, see en:Wikipedia:Mumble. It has been in use for six months. Having two would only divide participation. I had also already created a channel for Commons. I just didn't announce it here. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Free photos from Tekniska Museet on Flickr

It appears to me from the previous discussion that it should be OK to import the photos posted by Tekniska Museet in their photostream on Flickr provided that they are under a free license (which most of them are). There are not only photos made by Sigurd Curman, but my understanding of the discussion is that it should be safe to believe that Tekniska Museet has the rights to license them under a free license, so then the other photos shouldn't be different, right? It should be noted that quite many photos are newer than the ones discussed, many from the 60's and I spotted one from 1971/72. Today when I checked, there were 5351 photos in the photostream, of which all but a few photos (recent photos from some event) are under a free license.

If we proceed and import the photos, I guess it would be most convenient to let a bot do the job (e.g. Commons:Flickr_batch_uploading)? Probably there will be quite some manual work to categorize the pictures etc., so should we start a dedicated page for this project? This could be helpful also for coordination, so the same picture isn't uploaded twice.

I wrote to Tekniska Museet to ask whether the photos on Flickr are the same as the ones in the archive on their own web site, and if they are available in a higher resolution, since they seem to have a maximum size of 1300 pixels. They responded that the photos are the same, and that pictures of higher resolution are available at a fee of 200 SEK + VAT each. --Luen (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I got the opposite impression: since the photos are in the public domain in Sweden, there was probably no one who was thinking of any copyright matters, and so it is very dubious if any copyright ever was transferred to the museum. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
But do we agree that it should be OK to import the photos? --Luen (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
No, definitely not. Unless you can prove that they have been published, then they are copyrighted for life+70 years in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Then maybe I could ask Tekniska Museet if nobody already did. Some suggestions how to turn the question? --Luen (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

August 30

Upload Wizard: Flickr import feature is ready for initial testing


Kaldari has been polishing the work done during Google Summer of Code by Ankur Anand to support importing correctly licensed Flickr photo(-sets) using Upload Wizard. You specify a photoset URL, and Upload Wizard should treat it like a batch upload. You can test the feature here: (you'll need to make a new test user account)

Just click the "Add images from Flickr" button on the first page to get started.

Since UW performs a license check, UW will also add a "VerifiedByUploadWizard" template which should help with the long term validation of licenses for Flickr imported content.

Known issues:

  • Getting a better 'source' value for each image - ideally we want the regular Flickr URL, not the farm server URL
  • Getting the description for each image, this may require separate calls to the Flickr API.
  • Making the 'author' value a link to the Flickr account
  • Supporting the feature to copy metadata across a whole batch, which is shown for regular batch uploads

Now's a good time to start playing with it. You can leave feedback here: - or file in Bugzilla against the UploadWizard extension. --Eloquence (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Tested, feedback left. Should not be implemented as it is, IMO, but with great potential.--- Darwin Ahoy! 03:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Image scaler problems

Missing images

See also bugzilla:39615

Corrupt JPEG

Insufficient memory (case 4)


While pre-caching thumbnails for WikiMiniAtlas I found these images that the image scalers couldn't handle. Dispenser (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

When did these problems first show up to you? Aaron Schulz (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
This is the first time we've run the script. These 14 errors were found in a scan of 2.8 million images. Dispenser (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The "corrupt jpeg" and "insufficient memory" files can be fixed manually. I tagged them with the appropriate category and/or template. They should be fixed within the next few days. --McZusatz (talk) 07:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I opened a bug report: Yann (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There is also a problem with File:Louis Lacombe - Pere Lachaise - 01.jpg (thumbnail doesn't work). ~Pyb (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --McZusatz (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
If anybody wants, I can scan more than the 2.8 million images needed for WMA. It would take a fortnight for the rest of the wiki. Dispenser (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I think this would be helpful. --McZusatz (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I reran the script, it seems like we're losing images :-(. —Dispenser (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I fixed the geograph images and tagged the insufficient memory ones. --McZusatz (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I've added 30 more images. I need to automate the verification and sorting process. Dispenser (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Missing images should go into Category:Files with 404 errors; Broken images should get {{Broken file|filetype=JPG|description=}} and Insuff. Mem. files should go into Category:Progressive mode JPGs to be saved in Baseline mode--McZusatz (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Listed 26 corrupt JPEGs, I've categories the other files. Dispenser (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a bug report open for the "404" images?

    404 error: File not found
    The URL you requested was not found. Maybe you would like to look at:
       * The main page
       * The list of Wikimedia downloads
    A project of the Wikimedia foundation. 

--McZusatz (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Bug 39615Dispenser (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

August 11


I have started Commons:Publication, by importing and Commonifying the article. It is intended as a guide page to everyone that needs to look up the legal definition of publication, since we'll be needing to look up "first publication" years more often now, and the wonderful & wise copyright laws do differ in this one more point between each other from country to country. These differences and the misconception that everywhere mere public performance constitutes publication , can lead people -including me- to mistakes. Sooo... Everyone welcome to add, edit, rename (or delete if it's not needed, although I don't think that's the case) etc - Badseed talk 14:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that the page begins with an error: "To publish is to make content available to the general public." In some or all EU countries, "publication" is one thing and "making content available to the general public" is a different thing. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, as this was the reason for the page in the first place. I lost the first sentence and restructured the intro accordingly - Badseed talk 15:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm. It makes no mention that the U.S. definition given is for 1978 and later only. It makes no mention of limited vs general publication doctrines which came before that. Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US already has a discussion on publication written by WMF legal interns; perhaps simply linking to that for the U.S. section would be better. This paper goes into the topic in depth (for the U.S.). It's a good page to have... but it's such a convoluted topic I'm not sure a single page can really accurately or authoritatively describe all the nuances :-) But... it is a good start. BTW, the Berne Convention has this definition: The expression “published works” means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work. The performance of a dramatic, dramatico-musical, cinematographic or musical work, the public recitation of a literary work, the communication by wire or the broadcasting of literary or artistic works, the exhibition of a work of art and the construction of a work of architecture shall not constitute publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
It will need a lot of work -remember it initially was a wiki article- especially admins adding country cases as observed in DR's. I, too, doubt it can cover entirely the subject - the Hirtle chart alone is dizzying, with case-subcase-case etc etc... However it could become a rough guide for the obvious cases at least... I will incorporate your suggestions at some point. - Badseed talk 22:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

A question about consistency vs anthropology

Hi, here is a funny example of the possible clash between the desire to reverberate different English-spelling currents based on their prevalence in a given country and the strive to apply a consistant, uniform spelling fashion across this project from the other side, as I found out that when it concerns the UK - the ruling trend is to go with Organisations of the United Kingdom, while in virtually all other Organizations the z-version is in use. Should we follow the variants, or stick to one English? Some of our friends believe there is no "universal standard" although browsing thru the vast categories spectrum shows that this is largely wrong. It's still recent that the bot has scanned & modified all "Neighbourhoods" > into "Neighborhoods"; Should have we expected to keep an exception of Neighbourhoods of London? Clearly not I guess. Just an example. Why should the USA and Brazil be exceptional with Community centers in the United States and in Brazil whereas Commons has justifiably chosen Centre as the meta-form?

Given that its "Organisations of the United Kingdom" and "Organisations of New Zealand" maybe we also need to have Category:Organizações de Portugal, Category:Organisations de la France etc.?

What do you think? Opinions? Thanx, Orrlingtalk 16:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally I don't care whether it's spelled organisation or organization (and likewise for the other variants.) Both are widely used spellings. So I prefer carrying down whatever spelling is used at the parent category to its subcategories, since this makes it easier to guess the right category name later. ghouston (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Using English-language category names is already made a requirement elsewhere, so that rules out the Portguese and French versions. Obviously it would be better for non-English speakers if category names could be internationalised. ghouston (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
When speaking about internationaliz/sation – and in general advocating the international language approach on WikiCommons – this is exactly where I'm concerned about neglecting the rule of keeping a uniform English for categories, ALL categories. For this has no importance if the UK uses "Organisation", Zambia uses "Center" or the Maldives use "Color" or "Neighbourhood". Once it's decided that this project's language is English, it needs to be ONE English, with a spelling standard agreed priorly and sweepingly compelling. Orrlingtalk 11:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
No, we don't need to use "one" English. English Wikipedia doesn't. Use en:WP:ENGVAR as a guide if you must, but it doesn't matter that much. There has never been a rule that gets detailed to that extent -- English speakers can figure out different spelling types. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
No. WikiCommons is not for native English speakers. (those who can figure out those variants and adapt to the inconsistencies). It is for every user from any cultural base and we're here to manage a fix method of naming most including a universal spelling system. Just as it's likewise obvious that category flow chart are organized in that uniform way that allows everyone to navigate multidimensionally regardless of their level of English. The subtext presented in the preceding message is Maintain Commons for the Anglosphere. This should not gain success. ----Orrlingtalk 15:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The main working language on Commons is broken English anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, some use "z" in the UK -- see en:Oxford spelling... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Rename or Duplicate?

Hi, there are two files with the identical image but different resolution. The file with higher resolution has a "bad" filename, the low-res-file has a good name. Does this need a three-step-process (first the rename-Template for the larger file, then change any links in Wikipedia articles, then "duplicate"-Template for the small one) or would a "rename" to the other filename overwrite the smaller file and solve the problem in just one step? (Cause: The two maps in Category:Flag maps of the world) --Rudolph Buch (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Two-step-process: #Upload high res to low res image. #Tag bad file name image with {{duplicate}}. --McZusatz (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Three steeps. #Download high res (there is still no upload-by-url) Bulwersator (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Some aspects of modern and contemporary art

Hi, there is an open question regarding some aspects of modern and contemporary arts: How do we deal with "ready mades" or similar installations that consist (completely or in parts) of objects that in itself are not covered by copyright. Both Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shark83.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shark84.JPG got closed as keep, despite the fact, that this is not just any shark, but it is this shark specially preserved by Damien Hirst in a special container within the show room of a museum with visitors. It is obvious, that this shark in its state of preservation is presented as work of art and regarded as such. I feel we are bound by that assessment by pretty much all curators dealing with contemporary art. As it is a work of art, the image is a derivate and we can't keep it. What do you think? Would it be useful to reopen the DRs? And how should we deal with similar works? rgds --h-stt !? 14:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fontaine-Duchamp.jpg, which was kept. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Duchamps is about a replica and the original work of art was simply a found object (object trouveé). Hirst preparated the shark had a special fish tank build for it and filled with a conserving liquid. So I think Hirst's work is more than just calling the fountain "art". I'd like to hear more ideas. rgds --h-stt !? 16:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Still hordes of uncategorized files not marked as such

This is an old problem. Since the damn Upload Wizard came into the scene, there are hordes of unmarked uncategorized files waiting in the limbo for some miracle. This user uploads, for instance, were lucky, they only waited more than one year in that limbo. It could have been ten years. Nobody will ever find those files unless by pure chance, since they are not in the proper maintenance categories for uncategorized files. Can't somebody run a bot and fix this mess? --- Darwin Ahoy! 03:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It's easy to blame UW for lack of categories, but the simple fact is that the category system is inherently hard to use correctly by new users, and it's also almost inaccessible to users who don't speak English.--Eloquence (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The main complaint here is not that the files are uncategorized, but that (except for two of the user's uploads), they're not even marked as uncategorized. That is something that the Upload Wizard should be able to detect. I think it does these days, but that wasn't always the case, and we obviously had times when the bots that monitor new uploads weren't working. I also occasionally come across files which have been around for years without ever having had a licensing tag, which is of course even worse. LX (talk, contribs) 19:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that feature was implemented in UW in August 2011.--Eloquence (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I think we should blame Lupo who hasn't developed HotCat much further recently, even though he started remedying the situation. ;) --  Docu  at 05:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
There is a request at Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Files_without_a_valid_license_template for the license issue. Maybe the "no cat" issue could be handled in the same run. --McZusatz (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Can't a bot just go through all UploadWizard uploads and tag them as needed? I could do that quickly but I need clearer instructions on what exactly an "uncategorized file" is. Do hidden categories count? Do redlink (nonexistent) categories count? Dcoetzee (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Red, hidden, meta categories and disambiguation categories don't count. --Foroa (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
User:CategorizationBot has the capability to detect uncategorized files at upload and modification, but (a) it's not working at the moment and (b) it only looks at new and recently updated files. The tricky part is indeed to identify all the exceptions to avoid spurious hits. If the source code for CategorizationBot is available somewhere, that would avoid having to reinvent the wheel for that part of the logic. From there, it should be easy to adapt it to make a complete pass. The best way to do this would be to work on a database dump first to get a list of files to work through online. LX (talk, contribs) 14:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The image categorization system on Commons is mostly useless, and a waste of time, IMO. It is far more useful to provide good descriptions of the files in more languages, as this is how 99% of people find the images (especially via Google). Kaldari (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
That's not true. Categories are how we curate and collect. And it's easier to do if we know which images are uncategorized. That indirectly makes sure that our description pages are curated and thus that images are better findable. TheDJ (talk) 08:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
One thing is connected to the other. I generally use image descriptions to categorize them, but after enough images are collected in a category you start detecting errors and mistakes. If the images were standalone, with no categories, that detection would often be extremely hard, and reserved only to specialists with an eagle eye (and even so!). In practice, I rely much more in the category system than in the images description to find anything here in Commons.
Anyway, as Lx and Dcoetzee pointed out, the idea was to get some bot to scan all files uploaded with UW, and check for uncategorized files, and mark them as such, ignoring all "Red, hidden, meta categories and disambiguation categories", or at least the hidden ones. I seem to recall that something like this was done last year, but somehow those unmarked uncategorized files continue to pop here and there, God knows how many of them are still around.--- Darwin Ahoy! 08:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that your 99% figure (like 86.3% of all statistics) was made up on the spot. Traffic from links to categories and galleries in Wikipedia articles is likely to be a significant share. LX (talk, contribs) 14:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm willing to fire up User:CategorizationBot. It can find all the uncategorized files (recent or old) and tag them. It can also categorize some of these files based on usage. Multichill (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Excellent! Please, do it. :) --- Darwin Ahoy! 23:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

August 28


I create an Institution card using {{Institution}}. The card appears to be a collapsed table by default. May I have it non-collapsed by default? Thanks.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This requires changes to {{Institution}}. Ruslik (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
So I am to use some other, own template? What changes?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)