Commons:Village pump/Archive/2012/10

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

Geograph bulk import

When did the Geograph import last run?

I've found recent images have not been transferred.:

Robert EA Harvey (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2012‎

I think I stopped a bit after 1.800.000 in March 2011, see Special:ListFiles/GeographBot. Multichill (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is that a space issue? Utility? The categorisation thing? Or did you think Geograph is getting repetitive?
They now have a new tagging structure - Perhaps they could be imported as e.g. 'Geograph:Inns'?
At the moment I have to do a manual import, saving the picture to my PC and cut/pasting the licence. Any chance of a Wikimedia tool to take a Geograph number & do it directly?
And, BTW, there is now a German version: http://geo.hlipp.de/
Robert EA Harvey (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I got a harddisk full of images and the database. I uploaded everything from the harddisk. Never really got it refilled ;-)
I'm using the tags already. Users already mapped most of the tags to Commons categories. So for example Category:Inns. Based on the coordinates the name of the location is figured out and intersected. See for example the categories at File:The Unicorn Inn, Cronton - geograph.org.uk - 291618.jpg. There you also see the main problem of this system: It's quite hard to figure out the exact name of a location and images might end up in the next village. Multichill (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, thanks for all that effort
It is curious that Geograph have a location name on the top of e.g. http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3136543 "near to Bourne, Lincolnshire" but that isn't anywhere in their Metadata. Perhaps a licencing thng. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For online import without having to download to your harddisk there is Geograph.org2Commons. You will need a TUSC account to use it. --Rosenzweig τ 20:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done that, thanks. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. I don't know how well that worked. File:Wherry's Lane warehouse - geograph.org.uk - 3136543.jpg has the picture and the categories, but the description is unattractive.
But you are still cleverer than me! --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ye glods! If I want to report a bug with that I have to create yet another login on yet another system. It's more than fat & bone can stand. I give in. If MediaWiki makes it core functionality I might be bothered. I've been editing categories & adding pictures and it gets harder & harder. I feel I'm wasting my time. I gave up on Wikipedia because of the wikinazis, I'm going to give up on this because it is just more bother than it's worth. Thanks for your input, but its all to ramshackle. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for the rant. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of the bot categorization is a bit odd. E.g., File:Sunday morning, Brick Lane - geograph.org.uk - 320366.jpg, where it got Brick Lane, but what's with Streets of Hertfordshire? Plenty of other images of London have been added to Category:Essex. ghouston (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Be fair. Half the population of Thameside Essex don't know the difference either. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 29

New Google Art Project uploads have begun

Hedvig Sofia, Princess of Sweden, Duchess of Holstein-Gottorp by David von Krafft, c.1700. First upload of new Google Art Project files.

I've just started uploads from Google Art Projects' new collections since their expansion earlier this year, from about 1000 works to 30000 works, including many new gigapixel works. Some updates were needed to the downloading tool due to changes in Google's infrastructure. See Special:ListFiles/DcoetzeeBot for latest uploads.

This time around I'm using a new template ({{Google Art Project}}) styled after {{NARA-image-full}} which includes all metadata from GAP and transforms it into a suitable artwork template. It gives great flexibility regarding how that mapping is done, while also allowing any individual artwork field to be overridden manually. The subtemplates {{Google Art Project institution}} and {{Google Art Project medium}} give the mappings from Google's names for institutions and mediums to suitable localization templates. User:Peter Weis has been very helpful in helping to fill these out. I'm making use of auto templates ({{PD-Art-auto}} and {{PD-Art-two-auto}}) to automatically update licenses over time for recently deceased authors. I'm also creating a hierarchy by collection and by artist. See the first upload at File:David von Krafft - Hedvig Sofia, Princess of Sweden, Duchess of Holstein-Gottorp - Google Art Project.jpg (right) for an example. There is a category, Category:Google Art Project files requiring license verification, for works whose license status I may be uncertain about, which can be manually reviewed.

My uploader is a semiautomatic tool, which lets me examine each image and its description before upload. I can add things like {{Non-free frame}} on-the-fly as needed. I'd appreciate any feedback on this process. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A note: a few users like User:INS Pirat have already been uploading a small number of Google Art Project images, maybe 50 or so, some at full resolution. My current plan is to just reupload these and merge file descriptions as needed, since there's not a lot of them. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First two collections are now done, see Category:Google Art Project works in The Royal Armoury, Sweden and Category:Google Art Project works in Albertina, Vienna. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some updates to this: after feeling more comfortable that the bot is doing a good job with license sorting and filling in templates, and differentiating 2D and 3D works, I've set it to upload automatically for any images that don't require license verification (the ones it's pretty sure about). So most images will upload unsupervised, which will speed up the upload process a lot. I review its upload stream for files that need to be tagged with {{Non-free frame}}. You can explore the images uploaded so far at Category:Google Art Project works by collection - about 5 collections (300 files) are complete at the moment. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first new gigapixel work is up at File:Auguste Renoir - Dance at Le Moulin de la Galette - Google Art Project.jpg. It's scaled down from the highest resolution version (to eliminate artifacts) and is 669 megapixels / 203.28 MB (uploaded using chunked uploads). Dcoetzee (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great!
I would think we could do without all the info about the artist. When we have a creator, all info should already be there, otherwise it should be possible to upload the creator info to a creator template rather than to the file (user:Jarekt did it for the Walters Art Museum). There may be cases were our info conflict with Google's info but it should be minor enough that it can be ignored, we already need to reconcile our info with VIAF and tons of others anyway.--Zolo (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was a little hesitant to automatically generate creator templates because in many cases the name is a variant spelling of an existing creator with slightly different info which could cause confusion, and other times the artist is vaguely specified for a single work and a creator template wouldn't make much sense. It might make sense to omit them for cases where a creator template is available, but I find it helpful to ascertain that the creator template that was chosen is actually the same person, in case of name conflict. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blacklist? - Control characters

What's this. "Naslov »File:Russula turci - višššsnjeva golobica.jpg« je bil preprečen pred ustvarjanjem. Ustreza naslednjemu vnosu na črnem seznamu: .*\p{Cc}.* <casesensitive> # Control characters" This means that the title meets the entry .*\p{Cc}.* <casesensitive> # Control characters" on some blacklist. How's that? It's a compound of a Latin name and Slovene name of a fungus.. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russula turci - višššsnjeva golobica.jpg
82117115115117108973211611711499105324532118105154154154115110106101118973210311110811198105999746106112103
That's because there are U+009A (decimal: 154) characters between "vi" and "snjeva". Accoding to en.wp they are "Single Character Intro Introducer". The solution is removing them:
File:Russula turci - visnjeva golobica.jpg
-- Rillke(q?) 11:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's three embedded control characters inside "višššsnjeva" - it seems to be Unicode 009A, "Single Character Intro Introducer". They're invisible, and show up between "vi" and "snjeva". I don't quite know where that came from!
Try copying-and-pasting this file name, which is plain text with no control characters: File:Russula turci - visnjeva golobica.jpg. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Auto adjust

Windows Photo Gallery has an "auto adjust" button that slightly rotates a photo, brightens it, and changes the colouring. I think it makes them look a bit better. Should I use that on photos before uploading them, or does Commons want photos in their original unmodified forms? 68.149.164.35 22:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's normal to edit your own photos a bit before uploading. If you like the improvements made by Windows Photo Gallery then use them. Just don't use effects that distort the depicted object (e.g. false colours, overexposure). Windows Photo Gallery also offers very little control over the process, so you may eventually want to try another tool like GIMP or Photoshop that gives you more control. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One could also try IrfanView, which I personally like: it too has an easy "auto adjust" option, but adds some manual controls as well, without being as complicated as GIMP, and it's free... Gestumblindi (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 1

Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Vector version available/error

There are again many transclusions without a parameter (often caused by CommonsDelinker). Anyone willing to help with the cleanup? --Leyo 09:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you asking for the templates to be removed? -FASTILY (TALK) 08:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think he is asking for help to fill in the missing filenames. /ℇsquilo 12:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is an alternative SVG version, this would be the best solution. Alternatively, the template should be removed. --Leyo 00:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clinton Hart Merriam

This person ( see wikipedia ) died in 1942. Does copyright on photographs of him still exist ? --Forstbirdo (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid there's no easy answer - it'll be different for different photographs. It depends on who took the photograph, when they took it, and (critically) when it was published. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only images by Merriam I could find are C. Hart Merriam Collection of Native American Photographs, ca. 1890–1938. If you could point out the images that you are interested in, it would be possible to determine if they are suitable for Commons (i.e. in the public domain in this case). Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for informing. I mean the photograph you can find in the Indonesian Wikipedia, article "Zona kehidupan". --Forstbirdo (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The photo in question is here: id:File:PSM_V66_D390_Clinton_Hart_Merriam.png. It was published in Popular Science Monthly 1904 in the US and so is public domain and can be transferred to Commons. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the appropriate license would be {{PD-1923}}. - Jmabel ! talk 15:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image scaler upgrade test

Peter Youngmeister has performed a major upgrade of the operating system on one of our image scaler machines, as a test for upgrading all of them (upgrading from Ubuntu 10.04 (Lucid) to Ubuntu 12.04 (Precise)). The image scalers are responsible for generating scaled-down versions of images for inclusions in wiki articles, as well as converting SVG images into PNG. The great thing about this upgrade is that 12.04 comes with much newer versions of imagemagick and librsvg, which both have many bugfixes from their previous versions. The risky part is that the new versions *might* introduce new bugs serious enough that things might temporarily get worse.

So, please keep an eye on these functions over the coming days, and report any problems you suspect are caused by this upgrade. Thanks! -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would be nice if you could bump the tiff pixel limit if this upgrade is stable. Multichill (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 3

Category:Media renaming requests needing target and help from Hebrew-knowing user

This category currently showcases 14 files with rather absurd names. The description for these files is in Hebrew and the files pertain to ISraeli heritage. I request the help of a Hebrew knowing user to rename the files. Plz feel free to contact my talk page. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • From what I seeand read this is Beit Shean, but it would be good if this info could be confirmed by an Israeli.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then you please help us by contacting an Israeli Wikimedian / just national for this purpose. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]
User_talk:Ynhockey#Heritage_sites_in_Israel_without_clear_description. --Foroa (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Foroa, for your effort. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Free or non-free, possibly PD

I am interested in a file displayed on the English Wikipedia at Cosmic ray. The file is File:Moons shodow in muons.gif, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moons_shodow_in_muons.gif]. Just below the figure in blue highlight is "Non-free media data", where further below is "Portion used All - the image is purely constructed from scientific data, contains no trademarked or copyrighted logos, and is freely shared information." The source url, [1] is a dead link. While I realize "freely shared" is not Public Domain, I am confused about whether or not this image can be uploaded to Commons. I am working on tracking down the copyright holder, if any. It's probably someone or a group associated with the Soudan 2 detector. Thoughts and suggestions would be appreciated. Marshallsumter (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The design is only 2-dimensional and quite simple. Thus: {{PD-ineligible}}. --77.2.47.12 08:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suspect it can't be uploaded. The archived version of the source page is here; they give the author, and note that permission should be obtained for commercial use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All photographs are purely constructed from scientific data; this photo is no exception. We could ask them to republish it under a dual license of CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-SA, a common licensing combination. But I suspect it's non-free iff the telescope was oriented and activated by a human and not machines. 68.173.113.106 23:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Riots, demonstrations and protests

Am seeking views on whether riots should be considered as a form of demonstration or protest. My view is that riots should not be so considered (and so "Category:Riots by country" should not be a subcategory of "Category:Demonstrations and protests by type by country", for example), because riots are generally spontaneous outbreaks of violence whereas demonstrations and protests are planned events. That's why I placed "Riots" in "Category:Activities associated with demonstrations and protests". However, I will go along with the consensus on the matter. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Demonstrations are (defined ay being) planned events? ..Really?. :/ Orrlingtalk 19:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jacklee Your request is unlikely to be solved, since there's no "true" answer to it. If you want to consider a riot being a form of demonstration, protest or civil disobedience is closely related to your political view on this matter. It's possible to find definitions that make a point for both approaches. Personally I'd c&p English Wikipedia's current approach and apply Category:Protests Category:Civil disobedience. Although there's an intersection between protests and demonstrations, I don't approve of using them in one category. To sum it up: -Category:Demonstrations and protests by type by country +Category:Protests +Category:Civil disobedience for Category:Riots. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your views. Well, if I understand your point, riots can be considered as both a form of civil disobedience and a type of demonstration or protest, so both of these should be parent categories. (Note that "Category:Protests" now redirects to "Category:Demonstrations and protests".) — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't support that Category:Protests redirects to Category:Demonstrations and protests, since I object the centralisation of demonstrations and protests in one category, but that's a different story - and worthy to discuss, too. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, Category:Demonstrations already redirects to Category:Demonstrations and protests. This has been discussed several times before: Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/11/Category:Demonstrations, Commons:Village pump/Archive/2011/08#Demonstrations and protests and most extensively at Category talk:Protests. LX (talk, contribs) 08:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this attempt at a distinction (riots as "spontaneous outbreaks of violence" vs. demonstrations and protests as "planned events") isn't sustainable, for various reasons. For example, demonstrations and protests (whether peaceful or not) often happen quite spontaneously, too. Then, the same incidence may be called a "protest" by supporters of the protesters (or rioters) and a "riot" by the opponents of the rioters (or protesters)... Gestumblindi (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not to mention that riots are often the result of initially organised demonstrations that degenerate into violence, often without a clear line between the two. LX (talk, contribs) 08:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I'd say riot is a form of demonstation and protest... So yes, it should be a subcat. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, looks like we have consensus, then. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 2

Capture date

Is there any concurrence wheater a file should be assigned with categorie of the originating year (and country), e.g. „Category:January 2012 in Switzerland“ and „Category:2012 photographs“, see this diff. I just want to prevent a useless editwar. --Mattes (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move proposal: Schools for people with hearing impairment → Schools for the deaf

I was told to come here to ask for discussion about this proposal. - Purplewowies (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikitravel File Transfer Tool Proposal

Hi all, I've made a proposal for the creation of a file transfer tool of some sort here. All users are invitied to comment. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible read-only time Friday, October 5 11:00-14:00 UTC

Hi everyone, we have some emergency maintenance that may require a brief period where we may stop uploads. We plan to do this starting 11:00 UTC, hopefully brief, but potentially lasting up to 3 hours (until 14:00 UTC) tomorrow. Our backup NFS server is nearly full, and we're having hardware issues with our new Swift servers, so rather than run without a real-time backup, we plan to use a newer NFS server (nas1) which has more capacity. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thank you for your patience! -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the note. Apparently this hasn't happened in the first 19 minutes of the period. Can you update us here when it's done? (or if you've decided not to do it?) --99of9 (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I gather the highly informative message “Upload warning: Could not create directory "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/archive/3/36"” I just got along with a failed upload is supposed to mean that the plan went ahead?—Emil J. 11:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems so. No uploads possible (how great in the middle of a mass upload). We have space for site notices for every crap imagineable, but something like this is unannounced. --FA2010 (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 5

Incorrect definition for Years by country subcategories

Hi all! There was a relatively recent change on some of the countries' Years by country categories (i.e. Template:Category definition: Year in Switzerland). The source of the changes is Template:Category definition: Year in country which now states, incorrectly in my opinion, that: Images/pictures taken in in this year and sorted by month they were taken. This is not the date of the upload (check the upload date) nor the date a photo was scanned (can be in exif).. This is "narrowing" a broader scope category like: Category:1929 in France, which is focused on history (anything that happen in 1929 in France) to photographs in 1929. But actually Category:1929 in France logically contains Category:1929 works in France‎, Category:1929 events in France‎, Category:People of France in 1929‎ and so on. The category that would fit the statement, i.e. should contain pictures taken that year is Category:1929 photographs. But a photographs only category cannot contain events, works etc. We may have Category:1929 photographs in France‎ under Category:1929 works in France‎ if we need too. Additionally, the parent category Years by country, being a sister of Category:Centuries by country, goes well back in time, way past the invention of photography. See Category:208 in China or for a laugh read the description for Category:1302 in France. I am suggesting a change in the Template:Category definition: Year in country which should say for example: "{{{1}}}{{{2}}} in the history of France. This category includes works, events and anything related with that year. Note that this category is NOT intended only for photographs taken in that year, as the parent Category:France by year goes in time past the invention of photography. For the narrow scope of photography, see Category:Photographs by year.". Any thoughts?--Codrin.B (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I made {{Category definition: Year in country}} based on {{Category definition: Year in Belgium}}. I had no particular opinion on the wording and just used what was there; but it seems standard (eg {{Category definition: Year in France}} uses it, but not via {{Category definition: Year in country}}. Maybe the template should be more general, but we should be aware of the change in meaning, from "media made in this year" to "media made in or relating to this year". If we're happy with that, the tweak can be smaller: Images/pictures/media created in or representing events in. NB I'm not sure we want to lose the "not year of upload or scan" warning. Rd232 (talk) 09:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understood. I noticed the use of Belgium as an example. The confusion started from that category. In my opinion, we should just say "This category includes works, events and anything related with the history of France in that year". Using terms like Images/pictures/media seems redundant since the entire Commons is about images/pictures/media and it is also narrowing the scope or confusing the reader. If we don't talk about media at all, we don't have to talk about "scanning" either. I'm would be fine with saying for example "Note that this category is NOT intended ONLY for photographs taken in that year, or at all for media uploaded or scanned in that year, as the parent Category:France by year goes in time past the invention of photography, scanner or computers.". But I find it weird to read such a "note" when looking at Category:1302 in France.--Codrin.B (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contrat pro.jpg and Contrat pro2.jpg

Could someone knowledgeable have a look at "File:Contrat pro.jpg" and "File:Contrat pro2.jpg"? For some unexplained reason, the uploader blanked out the two files. When I tried to revert the blanking I received these error messages:

"
  • Could not read or write file "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/a/a0/Contrat_pro2.jpg" due to insufficient permissions or missing directories/containers.
  • Could not read or write file "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/archive/a/a0/20110306062856!Contrat_pro2.jpg" due to insufficient permissions or missing directories/containers."

Perhaps the blanking should be taken as a request by the uploader for the files to be deleted, and that this should be fulfilled on a courtesy basis? — Cheers, JackLee talk 12:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

#Possible read-only time Friday, October 5 11:00-14:00 UTC. Rd232 (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blanking was done within 24h of upload, and the files appear to be legal documents probably out of scope, so yes, I'd say speedy delete once write access is restored. Rd232 (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, didn't realize there was a temporary shut-down. I trust that an administrator will delete the files later. — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done.  ■ MMXX talk 14:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Location" of painting: location of the "camera" position and the current position of painting

I recently geotagged two photos of paintings ([2] and [3]). The two paintings show each an image of an easily identifiable real-world location. The "location" field of the Artwork template seems to be for the current location (in a museum), rather than the location of the depiction. So it seems that I have used the template the wrong way. Is there a way to markup an artwork regarding the depicted location? — Fnielsen (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have simply used two location templates in such cases: File:9 inch model 1867 firing salute in Kustaanmiekka.JPG, the first location and object-location templates are the (approximate) locations for the original photograph, last location is the museum where I took the photograph-of-a-photograph. Not the most elegant solution, certainly. MKFI (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That works, but it can be made prettier. One option is to give the {{Location}} template an extra |name parameter that allows you to specify what the location is. Rd232 (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help please

Help

For the first time I used the command to copy the same information to all uploaded images. I uploaded 13 images and did not notice they would all get the same name. I didn't think that would even be allowed. Why is there no delete command for a situation like this so I could remedy my own mistake? I need to rename those images or re-upload them after those there now are deleted, or whatever is done in this situation. I have uploaded hundreds of images and this was the first time I tried that beloved shortcut of "Copy" all information to all images. Will some kind person simply delete the last 13 images so I can re-upload them with the proper names, &c? William Maury Morris II (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just add {{Rename}} to the images. (example: {{rename|The new correct name.jpg|1|Text reason for rename}}. cheers, Amada44  talk to me 08:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Viral licenses are not automatic - essay review?

Hi all, I'd like to get some eyes on my new essay at Commons:Viral licenses are not automatic, which was written in response to at least two relevant deletion requests in which I participated. I'd like to ensure my legal understanding is valid and augment it where possible with references to reliable sources like case law. Please leave comments at Commons talk:Viral licenses are not automatic. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To me, your text seems to be perfectly reasonable; however, I think that such cases aren't very common, rather a rare fringe issue here on Commons... but anyway the essay will do no harm, I assume. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, I appreciate it. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, that's sound reasoning. There's a great piece in LWN from 2003 dealing with the topic, specifically as it applies to GPL. LX (talk, contribs) 21:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image file locked as currently non-working version

See File:Emblem of the Kuomintang.svg... -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I fixed that by reverting to a previous working version of that file (though there are still some controversies about the colour and the shape of the sunlight). odder (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. odder (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal re Licensing for new Featured Picture Nominations

Please join the discussion at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Proposal: Change to FP criteria for new nominations: disallow "GFDL 1.2 only" single licensing as it is not practically free for images. Remember this discussion concerns FP criteria only. Discussion on Commons licensing for uploads belongs elsewhere. -- Colin (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bye bye Toolserver - Bye bye Rotatebot, Magnus'tools, Cropbot, … Open Streetmap tools - Welcome Wikilabs?

See also m:Future of Toolserver

This is my personal view and without any doubt it is biased, especially the heading:

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), this time announced by Erik Möller (Vice President of Engineering and Product Development), asks (see section We can't provide and 2) We're not comfortable hosting) Wikimedia Germany (yes, of course, without the WMF there would be no Toolserver) to close its Toolserver (located in Amsterdam, Netherlands) in the near future (December 2013). Then the Foundation, located in the U.S., is the sole "owner" of all the (live-)data and can control its flow entirely. Congratulations.

A replacement for Toolserver by the Wikimedia Foundation itself is in progress but it will be never as permissive in licensing questions as Toolserver was. Also authors will likely have to migrate their tools themself adding additional time pressure to them (yes, the tool authors were volunteers). The benefits will be possibly more stable tools. But much more cash will be (and was) invested than in Toolserver.

Feel free to comment on the mailing lists, e.g. Reasons for not migrating to Tool Lab. -- Rillke(q?) 14:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'm somewhat confused by what you are trying to say here, especially because of a parenthesis-filled sentence and (I think) several attempts to use the ironic mode in a language where you are pretty far short of native proficiency. After re-reading three or four times, do I correctly understand that WMF has asked Wikimedia Germany to shut down its toolserver by December 2013 and you oppose this because Wikimedia Labs software is in some unspecified way less free than the toolserver software? Is there something else I am missing? - Jmabel ! talk 15:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It looks to me like WMF have asked Wikimedia Germany to shut down toolserver by December 2013, to be replaced by proposed-but-not-yet-created functionality in Wikimedia Labs? Other than the fact that we're giving up a known (toolserver) for an unknown (proposed Wikimedia Labs functionality), I don't understand the problem? cmadler (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Confusing parts were removed. The remaining part should be pretty clear: Additional work. Some bots will stop their work if Toolserver authors don't agree to the stricter terms of service by the WMF. Thanks for the notes. -- Rillke(q?) 15:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I still cannot parse Rillke's original post. It's like trying to read LISP. Regardless, the WMF Labs server already exists and there are already bot authors using it. It just doesn't have DB replication yet. Why does everyone say it is merely "proposed" and "not-yet-created"? The toolserver hasn't been very reliable for the past year or so and WM-DE doesn't seem to have much interest in supporting it. This sounds like good news to me. Kaldari (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Just because there are some bot authors it does not mean it will be suitable for all bot-authors. Furthermore, bots aren't the only users of Toolserver. Also, I have the feeling the Wikimedia Foundation is usurping control over everything, beginning with the founds and now continuing with Toolserver. I am annoyed by the strategy of professional fundraising (“a personal appeal by” where the “letter” is the product of analyzing user behavior but far away from something personal) and income maximization. It is maybe nice of you are able to read hundred of pages in English (as for understanding the founds-issue) and if you get an account (which I don't do because I can't accept certain terms of the labs-policy). -- Rillke(q?) 18:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-10-01/Technology report... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tile sets - gigapixel artworks on Commons

I have a number of very large gigapixel-scale artworks collected up on my local storage that I haven't been able to upload to Commons, partly due to file size limitations but also for a number of practical reasons: JPEG does not support images over 65536x65536, Photoshop does not support JPEGs over 30000x30000, TIFF files are way too big to be practical, and most applications will completely decode an image in 32bpp in RAM when it is opened, meaning that the full size images break most apps. I had been distributing them as ZIPs of the original tiles on my torrent server, but these sets (containing 50,000 tiles or more) can't be used without writing custom software.

So I came up with a compromise: I can upload the full-resolution images in the form of a small set of very large (29696 × 29696 or 882 megapixels) JPEG tile files. These files can be processed by ImageMagick and opened by Photoshop and GIMP on my PC, which is a fairly normal 64-bit PC with 8 GB of RAM (unfortunately simpler apps like MS Paint and JPEGtran can't handle them). This enables a lot of useful transformations, especially cropping. I have uploaded the first sample, a 12 gigapixel image of Rembrandt's The Night Watch, composed of 16 such tiles. The grid is shown below, along with the reduced-resolution full artwork (656 MP), to scale, for comparison:

Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x0-y0.jpg Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x1-y0.jpg Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x2-y0.jpg Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x3-y0.jpg
Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x0-y1.jpg Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x1-y1.jpg Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x2-y1.jpg Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x3-y1.jpg
Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x0-y2.jpg Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x1-y2.jpg Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x2-y2.jpg Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x3-y2.jpg
Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x0-y3.jpg Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x1-y3.jpg Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x2-y3.jpg Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project-x3-y3.jpg

Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project.jpg

My approach is to create a category for each set of tiles forming a single image (e.g. Category:Tile set of The Night Watch, which is under Category:Tile_sets) and each file description page is identical and based on a single template supplying the image description, cats, and tile grid (e.g. {{Tile set/The Night Watch}}). The grid is in a subtemplate {{Tile set/The Night Watch/grid}} which allows it to also be used on the cat page and on the page of the reduced-resolution complete artwork.

I would like to get feedback about my approach and any comments on how I could improve it before I continue to upload more gigapixel images in this fashion. Thank you! Dcoetzee (talk) 07:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe using {{Tile set/The Night Watch/grid}} has some pros --Martin H. (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure what the point is. If the point is only to use Commons to store these very large images, I suppose it'll work for that purpose. These files though, tiled up like this, are way too large to use in any way on any project, and I don't see any benefit of using them over a scaled down image that's as large as we'll allow in a single image. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They're not meant to be used directly on projects - they're intended to be used for editing and derivative works. The main application is cropping (producing images of portions of the original work at the highest possible resolution - e.g. see some at Category:Details of The Night Watch). I can also imagine a number of research applications for these images (testing scaling of distributed image processing algorithms, classifying works based on detailed brush strokes, etc.) They're also useful for content reusers who want to produce very large, wall-sized prints, by printing each tile and physically assembling them. For example the above work, printed at 600 dpi, would yield a print of size 15ft 8in x 13ft 0in (4.8 x 4.0 m). Dcoetzee (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Martin H: Using subpages (/s) for the templates now, thx for the tip. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent idea. I can see this being extremely useful for third-party, non-WMF re-users -FASTILY (TALK) 08:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While this is quite impressive, I have to say that I'm not sold on the actual usefulness of these files. I agree that it's important to provide high resolution images so that people can create crops of details, but this is the equivalent of looking at a painting through a microscope. Is anyone going to create a crop of a single eyelash or a single speck of paint? We could study the brushstrokes at 1/100th of this level of detail. The only legitimate case where you would want this level of detail is to do a restoration, and the people who would be doing that already have access to these images (I would presume). Kaldari (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would concede that the 656 MP single file is sufficient for most conceivable purposes, including the ones I mentioned. Nevertheless I assign that more to my lack of ability to conceive clear applications, rather than the absence of such applications. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: see two additional gigapixel works at Category:Tile set of The Garden of Earthly Delights (18 tiles) and Category:Tile set of The Last Day of Pompeii (12 tiles). Dcoetzee (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, that's really cool! InverseHypercube 03:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the idea. --Jarekt (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Superseded images policy

Having just enacted a new guideline (COM:OVERWRITE), I'm wondering if we couldn't get rid of something to keep the number of policies/guidelines from rising... Commons:Superseded images policy seems a really easy win: just redirect to Commons:Deletion_policy#Redundant.2Fbad_quality. We don't need a policy that just says "this isn't policy any more", do we? Rd232 (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You mean not have "rejected policy" or "superceded policy" tags? Why not? They would provide a) historical reference and b) context for when old discussions are referenced. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's currently labelled (official) {{Policy}}. Labelling it {{Rejected}} would also work, to allow it to be removed from the list of official policies. But if redirected as I suggested above, the talk page would remain available as an archive of the old discussions. I don't mind how it's done exactly, as long as it's not labelled official policy any more. Rd232 (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirected, though I also categorized it as Category:Commons rejected policies and guidelines. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 But I've restored the deleted information[4][5]. (PS. My Another Edit was an unintentional mistake. Thanks Rd232) -- πϵρήλιο 10:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 4

Commons:Copyright rules by territory

What do people think of developing Commons:Copyright rules by territory so that it transcludes country info from individual pages, like Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany-table? I think at least for the more significant countries (in terms of quantity of contributions and complexity of copyright) we could benefit from individual pages to tie the different copyright issues together a little better. Rd232 (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can see several benefits. It would make it easier to link directly to relevant information in response to help requests. It would break translation tasks into more manageable chunks, which would be easier to maintain than a monolith. It would enable translators to prioritise the most relevant jurisdictions for each language. It would also make it possible to do more selective watchlisting. LX (talk, contribs) 13:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support: It also allows keeping discussions about the country together, language links to the appropriate Wikipedia article/ or help/project page and being more specific. -- Rillke(q?) 11:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also think it's a good idea and I agree with most above, however, I think it is better to have all discussions in one place rather than having more than 100 different talk pages to follow, perhaps it would be easier if we just redirect all country-specific talk pages to the main talk page.  ■ MMXX talk 21:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed on redirection of talk pages. Added a note pointing at COM:VPC too, since Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory is not meant to displace that. Rd232 (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image permissions via SNS

Some users asked me whether it is possible to forward permissions gained via social networking services (e.g. Twitter, Facebook) to OTRS. Well I don't know about this area, so I could not give accurate and helpful answers. Recently, many media files are uploaded to SNS and getting permissions via SNS is very convenient. So I propose the guideline about permissions via SNS to be established. Your opinions are appreciated. – Kwj2772 (msg) 04:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You mean permissions received via private messaging on SNS, or non-public parts of Facebook? Because otherwise they're just websites. Rd232 (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I meant includes public statements and private message. – Kwj2772 (msg) 10:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps you mean User:Idh0854? permissions needs to be verifiable and we should be able to archive it, a Twitter permission, written in less than 140 characters is never sufficient, let alone a copy-paste like this (ko:사용자:Idh0854/저작권#두 개의 문) with no deep link. as I understand COM:OTRS is available in Korean too, so it shouldn't be a problem for User:Idh0854 to understand what to do.  ■ MMXX talk 16:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SVG rendering for specific sizes

Please look at User:Gauravjuvekar/Sandbox. File:Associatividadecat.svg does not render with correct fonts at specific sizes of 30, 100, 150, 180, 200, 300, 500 px. Is this a caching issue(it happens for only these specific sizes)? Purging the cache does not help. The same happens if these sizes are viewed from the links on the file description page (This image rendered as PNG in other sizes...). Thank you--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't see what the problem is... AnonMoos (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All sizes mentioned were sans-serif. -- Rillke(q?) 10:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't tell anything about the 29px-30px-31px thumbnails, and I didn't wait for the larger ones to load, but all of 99px, 100px, 101px, 149px, 150px, 151px, 179px, 180px, 181px, 199px, 200px, 201px display serifed for me... AnonMoos (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting keep-light-green.svg Fixed All of them serifed correctly for me now. Earlier, the 30, 100, 150, 180, 200, 300, 500px were rendering sans-serif. Probably just a caching issue. Thanks anyways --Gauravjuvekar (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 7

Media needing categories that have already categories

Checking images in the Category "Media needing categories" I found many images that have already categories. For example this one. Is it possible that a bot deletes the "Media needing categories" in such a file or changes it to "Check categories"? Wouter (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC) Note: This should be done only when the image have existing categories. Wouter (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Slapping one category on an image doesn't always mean that it no longer needs thought about its categories. In general, this template should be removed by a human who has decided that the image is now decently categorized. - Jmabel ! talk 23:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I think it is not just slapping a category on an image. In all cases the Upload Wizard has been used and the categories have not been added by somebody else afterwards. See for example also this I think that the Upload Wizard has been used in a special way. See also the comment below about "Upload Wizard incorrectly marks file as uncategorized". Wouter (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content with a little disruptiveness in it xD

Just to let you know. See pages listed here.--Dixtosa (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've started to remove the inappropriate self-description. --Túrelio (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upload Wizard incorrectly marks file as uncategorized

I uploaded File:Nikolai II Hietalahdessa Verkkokaupan näköalatasanteelta.JPG with Upload Wizard after having problems with the old upload form. Despite having multiple correct categories the image has been marked as uncategorized. I was too lazy to select categories one at the time, so I simply pasted a list of categorylinks into the "other information" field. Upload Wizard should check if the file is actually uncategorized, not simply check if the user filled the category field. MKFI (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please open a bug (good choice) for this or write it as a suggestion to Commons talk:Upload Wizard (likely not requires a discussion there). Commons administrators or users can't change Upload Wizard with reasonable efforts. -- Rillke(q?) 10:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Failed upload warning for successful upload

I twice uploaded File:Creole House in Prairie du Rocher.jpg (note no differences between the two uploads) because of a warning during the first upload; after receiving the error a second time, I decided to check my contributions and found that it had gone through. I didn't keep the first warning, but the second one is "Could not move file "mwstore://local-NFS/local-public/0/05/Creole_House_in_Prairie_du_Rocher.jpg" to "mwstore://local-NFS/local-public/archive/0/05/20121007205429!Creole_House_in_Prairie_du_Rocher.jpg". Any idea what's going on? The directory names in the error message are completely unrelated to the directory names on my hard drive. Nyttend (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The directory name you have seen represents the structure of one of the Wikimedia Foundation's servers that is used to host the image, and the problem you got is probably related to the outage of this server that happened earlier today (see this e-mail as a reference), though it might have occured at one of the servers in the cluster mentioned in that e-mail, too, I am not sure. We have all been experiencing some errors today, but there's nothing to worry about; it's a server issue that should have been resolved soon, I guess. odder (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 8

Image in Vasari painting

Hi!

Painting by Vasari.

I'm hoping someone can help me identify an object in the painting by Giorgio Vasari of "The Mutiliation of Uranus by Saturn". Above the scene, apparently peering out an opening in a dome-like cage, is an object that looks like a telescope or something similar. At the left end of it is what appears to be an aperture lens and at the other end an objective lens. Help or suggestions are appreciated. --Marshallsumter (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whole thing is some kind of Armillary sphere... -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be the sceptre, the symbolic attribute of the ruler of the deities and of the universe. It was an attribute of Uranus and is about to pass to Cronus. The nature of a sceptre as a phallic symbol seems especially obvious in the context of this painting. The ruling god and owner of the sceptre during a given mythical era is also the main progenitor of that era. (Thus mirroring an alpha male in primate and some other animal societies.) -- Asclepias (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let first give a chance modifying own image to the author

When a new edited version (cropping, enhancing, retouching etc) of an image is needed within all the Wikimedia projects, normally who needs the new version or someone else does it as per the license offers. I propose, first request to the original author, who photographed/draw the image, if he/she is original author, active and willing to do so. A time span, say seven days may be given to the author if he/she fails, then only the modification may be done by other.
Suppose, who shoot in .NEF for by Nikon camera, the image delivered in .jpg format in Commons, when a .jpg is edited and saved again in .jpg format, that suffers a loss of colors and tone, but if that is modified from the original .NEF file the result will be the best. example Obviously it will not applicable for the up-loaders of others’ works. -- Biswarup Ganguly (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the author has a better-quality file available than the one uploaded to Commons, the results from any editing may be better, yes. There's nothing to stop people asking authors for help now. What exactly are you proposing? Rd232 (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suspect most of us aren't able to do significant modifications of the images; and I don't know how many of us are using cameras that output JPG, but I suspect there's quite a number working from low-end cameras that do. And if the author wants to do a better job, they can upload their version over yours. Retouching or serious enhancing take enough work that it may be a big deal to do it twice, but it's also something that most people can't do, or at least can't do well.
Cropping as a general rule should be lossless; jpegtran and other tools can losslessly crop jpegs, and other photographic formats are naturally lossless.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are unhappy with the quality of someone else's cropped version of your photo, you can always replace it with a better crop. - Jmabel ! talk 15:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is precisely why Commons should accept camera raw files. Vote for my bug to add DNG support. Meanwhile, my unofficial site Commons Archive is accepting camera raw files for images on Commons. Provided that original authors can be persuaded to upload their raws, there is no reason that anyone cannot make improvements to them - indeed, others may be better at postprocessing than the original author. The proposed policy would amount to giving a sort of limited ownership of files to the original uploaders, which is counter to our principles and culture. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd upload raw files, just for the sake of giving them an offsite backup. I'd also believe that somebody else could process them better. It's very rare however that anybody else would modify one of my images. Most of them are nothing special. It should be possible to consider any raw format to be "open" if there is open source software that can process it - the source code will function as documentation. ghouston (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would expect considerable opposition to uploads of proprietary camera raw files, for reasons of principle. However DNG is an open, royalty-free format, with open-source batch converters from proprietary formats, and Adobe is actively seeking to have it standardised. I think that makes it an excellent contender - but it's been ranked so low priority that I might have to do the work myself if I want them to accept it. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brno trams

I get frustated when I try categorise this tram image File:Stelplaats Vozovna Pisárky in Brno.jpg. All the trams are categorized up to individual trams. I cant recognize the tram type. To complicate matters most trams are only visible in there modern versions. There should be category type image so you dont have to be an expert to know what you are looking fore.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • All of the trams visible on the photo are Tatra T3.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh, I see you already discovered that. Well, the individual numbers are not visible, so that we can not do anything about it.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Where I get confused is that all the examples of T3 I saw where single cars, while these are articulated trams.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, you are right. Looks indeed more like Tatra K2. You probably need to ask an expert.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 9

How to remove date stamp?

I took some picture but the camera automatically created some date stamps. Now I want to remove them, what should I do? I usually use GIMP to edit pictures but I am not very good at that.--Jack No1 (中文/English) (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • If by "date stamp" you mean something visually on the picture (rather than just in EXIF data or something similar) there is no real way to remove this without somewhat falsifying the image. Depending on the picture, this may be easy or difficult to do with reasonable integrity. If you can point to an online example of the pictures you are working with, it's more likely someone can help you. Also, you might get better advice at Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop than on the Village pump. - Jmabel ! talk 05:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:speedydelete translations error

I made this [correction] in en-gb but I think had to be made to all translations.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 10:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot warning re licence problem

After uploading an image at Commons, I got this message. I have since added this Freedom of Panorama licence, but I'm not sure if that addresses the problem or not. Can someone please advise? Hamiltonstone (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The FOP template covers the copyright of the painting, but you also need a license tag to cover the copyright in the photo of the painting. This could be {{PD-Art}} (in this type of case only!) or {{PD-self}} (if you took the photo yourself), for instance. Rd232 (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah. In that case, I will have switch to fair use rather than free use, as I did not take the photograph itself, and I'm not in the same city as the work, so I won't be able to as a practical matter. Can someone arrange deletion of this image from commons, or do I need to take that request elsewhere? Hamiltonstone (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Am I missing something here? The photo would appear to be a faithful reproduction of a 2-dimensional work, and would therefore have no copyright of its own. - Jmabel ! talk 16:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what I thought, but in trying to apply {{PD-Art}} here, I see that the template says it applies to faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art. Since the painter (en:Constance Stokes) died in 1991, the painting itself is not PD. It can be photographed under {{FOP-Australia}}, but PD-Art doesn't seem to apply. Rd232 (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How would FOP-Australia apply to this work? -- Asclepias (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, actually it doesn't - FoP only applies to paragraph (c) (+ sculptures and buildings) here, so paintings (in para (a)) are excluded. COM:FOP#Australia clarified. Rd232 (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, excuse me, I misread your remark & presumed the work was public domain. Sounds like the only way we could host this is explicit permission from the heirs or estate. - Jmabel ! talk 00:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SVG textpath doesn't thumbnail in mediawiki?


US Antarctic Program images - unfortunately not PD-US

Hi all,

I've recently discovered (see Template:OTRS ticket) that material taken from the US Antarctic Program photo-library is not actually PD-US; they didn't produce the images, but merely host them for a number of private photographers, under what is effectively a noncommercial-use-only license - see here.

The ticket originally named two images - File:Diving emperor penguin.jpg and File:Emperor Penguin Kiss.jpg - but this potentially affects a couple of hundred images, including a fair chunk of the material tagged {{PD-USGov-NSF}}, and most of the results at Special:LinkSearch/photolibrary.usap.gov.

I've not listed any for deletion yet (though the original photographer has marked the "kiss" photo above) but we probably need to work out how to list and remove all the images originating from the photo library. Advice appreciated! Andrew Gray (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an interesting issue. I remember that a couple of years ago there was this very large discussion about if images made by sailors on a navy ship were PD, which I think ended with "depends on wether the person was on duty at the moment of photography". BTW. BAD organization for not preventing such copyright ambiguity in the first place. TheDJ (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, the permission slip is clear enough. Delete all, unless it can be proven that the author was working for the US government at time of photography. TheDJ (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uploaders also linked http://web.archive.org/web/20080102231658/http://photolibrary.usap.gov/information2.htm. Thats not a free content permission (derivatives? perpetually? destribution, yes, but commercially?).
Also one can think that this photographers are employees of the NSF. E.g. File:Fryxellsee.jpg suggest so, but no, its only required to credit the NSF, see the permission point 6 (http://photolibrary.usap.gov/documents/PermissionForm.pdf). So File:Fryxellsee.jpg is for no reason public domain, the NSF credit is a source credit, not a copyright holder credit. File:Treadmill.jpg is for no reason the property of the NSF, nor is the photo free for any purpose. And so on, see LinkSearch. --Martin H. (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not quite as simple as delete all - some of the NSF material is taken from things like blogs and reports rather than the photo library - but, yeah, 95% of it will have to go. How do we go about this? Individually list them all for deletion? Some (like the Emperor Penguin above) are quite complex - they're FPs on multiple projects and there will be a lot of tidying up to do. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've started pulling a list of these together, and it should be ready for a bulk deletion request by the weekend. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 10

WSM meanings

When you look at WSM, you are referred to the Samoa category: I dont understand the connection. In the Dutch langauge there is an other meaning: Category:Westlandsche Stoomtramweg Maatschappij. There may be other meanings to WSM. Could someone look at this? Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WSM is the three-letter en:ISO 3166-1 country code for Samoa. MKFI (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes but how do you arrange a choice WSM (Samoa or Westlandsche Stoomtramweg Maatschappij) There must be other country codes wich have more meanings. With a redirect it is to late: I cannot place a link in the category Samoa for (Westlandsche Stoomtramweg Maatschappij). That would confuse everybody. A Dpintro? Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many such country codes are not used as redirects this way (e.g. US, MX). I don't see any reason we can't make this a disambiguation of some sort. - Jmabel ! talk 00:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created a redirect (:Category:WSM (Railway company). The current redirect should be renamed or included in an disambiguation page as: WSM (Country code Samoa)Smiley.toerist (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong name

Hi. One year ago in es:WP the son of Bernardo Roselli reported this is not his father. I put a message in the TP of the uploader, but the description and picture is still there. Today we received another message about the one in the picture is not BRoselli, wich is easy to see here. Even Commons' picture it's from 2009, it's very clear in my opinion it´s another person. What do you suggest to do? Rename seems not possible, since I don´t know who the yungest man is. Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the uploader didn't do anything in reply to your message in one year, that probably means he doesn't know who the person is. If you think there's any hope of ever identifying the person and that he is a notable chess player, maybe rename temporarily to something like "Unidentified chess player in Dresden 2008". If not, a photo showing nothing other than a face of some unknown person is not likely to be of any use and a deletion request could be considered. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say the image shows Roselli's opponent in the 6th round game of the Dresden chess olympiad 2008, es:Rubén Felgaer. The EXIF date of the image gives November 19, 2008 as the date; at that day, the sitxh round was played, opposing Uruguay[6] and Argentine[7], with the pairing Roselli vs. Felgaer at the top board (1-0). Looking for images of Felgaer, the likeness to the images shown at [8] (see especially at the bottom) makes me believe that File:Roselli mailhe bernardo 20081119 olympiade dresden.jpg actually shows Rubén Felgaer, even though he's wearing different glasses. Lupo 21:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I think that is more accurate. Thanks for your work. Is it possible to rename it? --Andrea (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. File is now at File:Felgaer Rubén 20081119 Chess Olympiad Dresden.jpg. Lupo 21:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Formatnum

I've just come across the fairly complex template {{Formatnum}}. Is this not superseded by the Formatnum magic word? (Compare en:Template:Formatnum, which is just an error message telling people to use the magic word.) Rd232 (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 11

Freedom of Information Act image releases

I uploaded aerial images of the September 11. attacks on the World Trade Center. The images were taken by Greg Semendinger, a member of the NYPD's aviation unit.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) a federal agency was tasked by the 9-11 Commission with conducting a forensic investigation into the collapse of the towers. The NIST put out a call for photographers to "voluntarily" submit images to the agency "without restriction" i.e. copyright claims.

ABC News submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the release of all available inages in possession of the NIST in 2009. The request was granted and approximately 2,700+ images were released on 3 CD's, amongst them were the 250 digital images taken by Semendinger. I uploaded 5 of these images and placed them in a category: Freedom of Information Act image release.

Images released via a FOIA request are, according to, Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996.:

Section 2. Findings and Purposes
"The findings make clear that Congress enacted the FOIA to require Federal agencies to make records available to the public through public inspection and upon the request of any person for any public or private use. The findings also acknowledge the increase in the government's use of computers and exhorts agencies to use new technology to enhance public access to government information."
"The purposes of the bill include improving public access to government information and records, and reducing the delays in agencies' responses to request for records under the Freedom of Information Act."[9].

Once the images were posted on the ABC News website they were availble for use by "any person for any public or private use". Said images are legally displayed on various websites.

There is no appropriate tag for "Freedom of Information Act image releases". So one needs to be created. I would do it if I knew how. 7mike5000 (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If they're made by a U.S. govt. agency, just use {{PD-USGov}} (or a template more specific to the particular agency, if one exists). If various private parties released them for unrestricted use, use {{Copyrighted free use}}. I don't think FOIA has much to do with it. -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, FOIA releases of copyrighted materials are just a form of fair use, according to the Justice Department. See FOIA Update Vol. IV, No. 4, 1983, OIP Guidance: Copyrighted Materials and the FOIA for details. --Avenue (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also I uploaded 5 images, and now there are mysteriously only 4. With no record of the 5th image having been uploaded, it just.....disappeared. Weird just like an administrator who was misusing his "tool" on the English Wikipeda, the same pecker whi then blocked/banned me. And this litttle episode for me is the coup de grace with the whole Wikipedia, Wikimedia arrogant, obnoxious petty stupidity. Maybe somebody can delete all of these too[10]. I couldn't care less. Bye Bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7mike5000 (talk • contribs)

If it had been deleted by an admin, there would be a notice like this. Images magically disappearing without any trace sounds much more like yet another bug in the Upload Wizard. That thing does some really crazy stuff from time to time. --El Grafo (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:North Tower burning-9-11 attacks.JPG was deleted (per copyvio). Jean-Fred (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the image was deleted "per copyvio" (which it was not) why was there no speedy deletion tag placed on it first. Why was i not given the courtesy of being informed first. Why does it not appear in my edit summaries that I uploaded it. Why does it not appear in the edit summary that I posted it on a few Wikipedia websites, like the Swedish Wikipedia...just curious.7mike5000 (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A {{Copyvio}} tag was placed on the image about 5 hours after you uploaded the higher resolution version, and the tagger raised his concerns on your talk page (admittedly without specifically mentioning the tag). The image was deleted about 5 hours after it was tagged, and has since been restored by the admin who deleted it.[11] --Avenue (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm bored, and also a kind of a glutton for punishment:
"His photographs re-emerged recently after ABC News’ Diane Sawyer obtained them from the 9/11 Commission under the Freedom of Information Act. ABC identified the photographer, who had made sure to label the material when handing it over to the panel chaired by former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean. “That opened the floodgates. The Associated Press reprinted some of them, then Newsday, then magazines and newspapers from all over the world. I once had one TV crew in my living room, a second one in the basement having coffee while it waited, and a third one out on the front door,” said Semendinger, who lives in Wantagh with his wife and 12-year-old daughter.[1]. He put his name on the images via a watermark, because he's human and wanted to insure he was accredited for them.

The same as a painter signing his work. A watermark is not a copyright. This is a United States copyright symbol Copyright symbol.png, which is absent from the watermarks on the images because the photographer did not copyright the images. The explanation is quite frankly fairly clear as to what type of images, how they were obtained and why they are public domain and said explanation is available on various websites of organizations that are considered credible resources, such as the New York Times, which is a newspaper of record in the U.S. So this: File:North Tower burning-9-11 attacks.JPG was deleted without cause. "My image" was not deleted Wikimedia's was. 7mike5000 (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright symbols are irrelevant. After 1989, all works published in the US are automatically copyrighted to the author, notice or no notice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPR News: "The pictures were released after ABC News filed a Freedom of Information Act request. Semendinger is glad they're out. "The rest of the world should see them," he remarked, because they provide "a total perspective of what happened that day."[12].7mike5000 (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NBC News ( 2/10/2010): Semendinger said he gave the digital images to the 9/11 Commission and believes those images were released by the NSIT.[13]7mike5000 (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semendinger being "glad they're out" is not necessarily the same as him being happy for his photos to be put to various commercial uses. In that same NBC article, we're told nine of his images were published in a book without his consent. If he's still rehashing that 10 years later (the book came out in 2002), I think we'd be wise to be cautious about the idea he's willingly released all rights to the photos. News organisations can claim fair use, but fair use is not allowed on Commons. --Avenue (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete template is broken?

Tagged these two obsolete redirects for deletion with the "speedy delete" template but the reason for deletion doesn't show after save. File:PSM V51 D026 Global male stature distribution 16.png and File:PSM V51 D026 Global male stature distribution 256.pngIneuw 06:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The = sign you used in your rationale was interpreted as template_parameter=... I'm fixing it now by removing the = --99of9 (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes! Thanks for the reminder and the edit. I've done this elsewhere once before. Guess one lesson wasn't sufficient. — Ineuw 08:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please make the numeric parameters explicit: {{Template|1= abc = abc}}. -- Rillke(q?) 16:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

F2ComButton

Re User talk:Odie5533/F2ComButton. This used to work on my PC, but it stopped working about 4 months ago. I guess that it might have stopped working because of incompatibilities with new versions of MS Windows, GreaseMonky, Flickr, or Firefox, but it could be due to a problem elsewhere. The author has not edited here for a long time. Is there anyone who can fix the script or explain how to get it to work. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Search field does not recognize text in description field

Please answer my question on File talk:Oil spillage.jpeg. -unsigned

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 15:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clean way to undo an unintended upload over an existing file?

Hi, what is the clean way to undo an unintended upload over an existing file? Reverting to a previous image does not solve the problem, as it makes the reverter the author of the image. As an example see file:Hohe Kanzel.jpg. How is it possible to credit User:Königshofen in his file-list again?

BTW: It looks as the new UW does not check any more for existing files and the old upload form never did (not sure about that - did not use if for long time, except for uploading new versions). --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UW should not allow upload over an existing title, and indeed I'm not able to reproduce this in Chrome (it checks the title against existing files while it's being entered). Which browser/OS did you experience this with?--Eloquence (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FF 15 on Mac. Maybe it depends on the responsiveness of the Ajax requests to check. But I entered an existing name (without suffix) and waited for minutes, no complaint. But this is a side notice, the primary question was about undoing. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bug or some strange image format ?

Both File:Amalienborg Slotsplads - equestrian.jpg and File:Nordre Toldbod - colonnade.jpg are identical to the Flickr source images but at Commons they show a glitch that isn't visible at Flickr. Any idea? --Denniss (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 12

Correcting perpectives

HAL Rotterdam terminal en schip.JPG
HAL Rotterdam terminal en schip1a.JPG

Is there some procedure or tool to correct perspective problems? (leaning towers etc) One example is File:HAL Rotterdam terminal en schip.JPG, where someone corrected the image with File:HAL Rotterdam terminal en schip1a.JPG.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lens correction tools can do this. See a tutorial at [14]. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Gimp, among others, does it. Gimp 2.8: tools/transformation/perspective --Jwh (talk) 08:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But GIMP does not have the ability to correct barrel/pincushion distortion, does it? /ℇsquilo 12:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can find this tool under Filters > Distorts > Lens Distortion... There's a documentation about it on docs.gimp.org. Make sure you've got your GIMP updated to the latest version (although the lense correction feature has been already added in GIMP 2.3.12 beta). Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool, thanks! /ℇsquilo 19:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks too, Peter! --Jwh (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a dedicated software for this. Its called ViewPoint from DxO. Details are here: http://www.dxo.com/uk/photo/dxo_viewpoint/introduction - Amada44  talk to me 08:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I use ShiftN, downloaded from http://www.shiftn.de/. I find it very easy to use. Also for getting horizons horizontal. Best regards, MartinD (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Import a gadget from Spanish Wikipedia

In Spanish Wikipedia we have this Gadget. It show the history and all specials pages (like contributions) as a numbered list. I like this gadget and I think that it is a good tool. So I request an administrator add it in Special:Preferences> Gadgets > Interface:. Or put this gadget like default changing it the dots. I like the two option (change). The description phrase is "Show the history and all specials pages as a numbered list." For questions, contact me. --Vivaelcelta {discussion  · contributions} 01:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should only copy and paste
body.ns--1 div#content ul,
div#content ul#pagehistory {list-style: decimal}
into User:Vivaelcelta/vector.css. No gadget needed. --El Caro (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But adding the gadget all users can activate with only marking a box. And this way they have to copy and paste the code, but it is difficult and people that don't know to create this.--Vivaelcelta {discussion  · contributions} 20:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

copyviol

I think. Most artworks here are by Category:Jose Carlos Ituarte Gonzalez dead in 1992. thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 18:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please create a deletion request which include them all. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 13

Template:GFPLM-image-full

I'm trying to nest {{GFPLM-image}} into {{GFPLM-image-full}}, but the empty params seem to be showing through. Can someone let me know what's wrong with the code?Smallman12q (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added pipes between the template parameters.[15] PrimeHunter (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 14

Request for Checkuser rights

This is to inform the community that there is a nomination for Checkuser rights here. It was agreed a couple of years ago that such requests and for Oversight which are quite rare should be publicised due to the high level of trust required in users with these rights. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maps of Palestine, and maps of Palestinian territories

Discussion moved to Commons:Requests for comment/Palestine and Palestinian territories
Timestamp for archive -FASTILY (TALK) 00:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 4

do these images meet threshold of originality?

this logo (#1) and this logo(#2).-- Infestor  TC 10:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Yes, IMO. Surely per U.K. copyright/jurisprudence. --Túrelio (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
oh, it depends on country? these are from turkey. no turkey-specific information about it on commons (afaik) -- Infestor  TC 16:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By US standards probably the first does meet TOO, not sure about the second. Per Turkey standards I have no idea. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Nominate for deletion" notifies all contributors

...which seriously annoys the person who wants to notify only the original uploader. Is there a way I can tweak the .js a bit so it does so? Hurricanefan24 (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In many cases original uploder is no longer around, or someone cases we had filename wars where multiple people were fighting for "desirable" filename by reuploading over each other. Ofter The current image has nothing to do with the original upload. I think that it is better to notify too many people than too few. --Jarekt (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is intended behaviour. People who just reverted are not notified. Perhaps one could offer an opt-out for this feature (which makes only sense if implemented for the recipient side) but this requires an additional API-request, thus slowing down the procedure. -- Rillke(q?) 17:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I personally appreciate it; if I've done any sort of work on an image, I'd rather be notified when someone is deleting it. I remember an article I was a contributor to on Wikipedia that got deleted, and would have liked to have some more warning then a mere line in my Watchlist.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I get notified even for images that my bots have automatically rotated on request, images where I've removed a border or watermark, etc. which generally don't concern me at all. But the messages are rare enough that I can merely revert my talk page. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please confer to Commons:Bots#Notifications to upload bots. -- Rillke(q?) 10:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Illegal Code for image re-use on Commons

As I wrote on the German Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen, in the German Forum (=Village pump) here and at http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/165211461/ I see the attribution according the CC licence using the title-attribute not as legal. It urges the user to a mouseover and doesn't work for old browser and - this is important - for mobile devices using iOS. You cannot see the attribution on an iPAD or an iPhone. Even Apple isn't accepting the HTML 4 standard for iOS you cannot expropriate the creators by recommending an attribution mode not appropriate for iOS. Furthermore Commons should make it more clear that any re-use without the URI of the CC-license is illegal --Historiograf (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to suggest something specific, please mention this at MediaWiki:Gadget-Stockphoto.js. As long as we don't have such a policy or similar, which enforces proper template use, our code for embedding is not reliable, anyway. -- Rillke(q?) 20:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does it show the attribution if you click on the image? Isn't that sufficient? It's harder than that to find the attribution of a line of text in Wikipedia, where the same considerations would apply (the author information, which can be found by studying the article history). ghouston (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is no argument, all re-use recommandations we give should be 100 % license conform --Historiograf (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Mr. Histograf. This is a Wiki. Meaning you can edit it. At least the associated talk pages. If you would like a specific change for a non-controversial request (which is implied by your use of illegal), then please make an {{Edit request}}. Everything for generating the code is at Commons. Please confer to Help:Machine-readable data. -- Rillke(q?) 21:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The URI of the CC license is required? Is that true? Keep in mind many potential reuses are not in a web context, where such a URI could seem very strange. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, yes, but it is so impractical that Creative Commons plans to move away from it in the 4.0 version. Jean-Fred (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really? I grabbed the Handbook of the IPA from the shelf, from 1999, and found within 5 seconds two URIs. Likewise with the 2012 book I had sitting around. Both the calendars I have up have URIs on them. It's not unusual at all in a modern environment.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Licensing of images release by political parties in Germany

Hi,

regarding licensing of images released by political parties in Germany:

On Commons:Free_media_resources/Photography#Germany we have this section "Some chapters of German parties, federal, state and communal level, or politicians release photos under free licenses on Flickr:". On Commons talk:Free media resources/Photography we have a comment "Public domain or free?".

I think we should keep all sources of acceptable licenses in one place and remove the claim it is just public domain (and also not just Flickr). See talk page.

Just added a section for the Piratenpartei who runs a wiki and explicitly mentions CC BY-SA 3.0 for its logos but then also has quite a few more images without license templates, or at least i could not see them right away. See the second link. This is the license, but then some images _may_ be excluded, "Manche Inhalte (Dateien/Bilder) stehen ggf. unter einer anderen Lizenz.", and there are all these but what if they don't have license templates?

Further, i added File:Tobias von Pein.jpg from the SPD Flickr account, which was cc-by-2.0. (the de.wp page was missing an image, added it there).

I also tried to find a source for the CDU, and there is Junge Union Fotoarchiv. It has this copyright message in German: "Urheberrechts- und Coyrighthinweis: Bei Quellenangabe sind die Fotos honorarfrei einsetzbar.", which roughly translates to "if source is attributed, reprint free of charge". How acceptable does that sound to you?

I am trying to find more sources and add more political parties, also smaller ones, for completeness, and categorize images by party. Ultimately to add photos to politician stubs/articles on de and/or en.wp missing a photo. I have no personal relation to any of the parties.

Thanks for comments or edits, Mutante (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 15

Upload (updating an image) error

I keep trying to add a new version to this image, but after waiting a minute or so it keeps giving me the following error:

A database error has occurred. Did you forget to run maintenance/update.php after upgrading? See: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Upgrading#Run_the_update_script Query: SELECT 1 FROM `image` WHERE img_name = '17L_2012_5day.gif' LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE Function: LocalFile::lock Error: 1205 Lock wait timeout exceeded; try restarting transaction (10.0.6.41)

I have tried uploading several times. Could somebody please help me? Thank you in advance. (also it's kind of odd that the last few revisions of the file are blank) –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thumbnail issue for all new thumbnails

I cant produce new thumbnails: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Citi_Private_Bank_1.png/641px-Citi_Private_Bank_1.png yields:

 Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib/pymodules/python2.6/eventlet/wsgi.py", line 336, in handle_one_response
   result = self.application(self.environ, start_response)
  File "/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/wmf/rewrite.py", line 368, in __call__
   resp = self.handle404(reqorig, url, container, obj)
  File "/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/wmf/rewrite.py", line 197, in handle404
   upcopy = opener.open(encodedurl)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 391, in open
   response = self._open(req, data)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 409, in _open
   '_open', req)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 369, in _call_chain
   result = func(*args)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 1161, in http_open
   return self.do_open(httplib.HTTPConnection, req)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/urllib2.py", line 1136, in do_open
   raise URLError(err)
 URLError: <urlopen error [Errno 110] ETIMEDOUT>

--McZusatz (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As of now this is working for me. It might have just been a temporary issue -FASTILY (TALK) 08:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you also tried another *px count or file? --McZusatz (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems it takes very long time to create a new thumbnail. --McZusatz (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2012 october 15 : no upload possible

Hello.

When I upload files with commonist, there is an error message : "unexpected response 504 gateway time-out". Why ??? --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This problem is may be resolved. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two files uploaded, but not appearing in preview or in Wikipedia as thumbnails

I uploaded two files. The first didn't appear properly, but opens correctly when clicked upon. I figured some type of error occurred, so tried again, and the same problem occurred.

Here are the two pages:

  • File:Kedjenou with rice.jpg
  • File:Kedjenou with rice 1.jpg

Signed: Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Requested deletion of File:Kedjenou with rice.jpg by tagging it with the duplicate template. The latter is of higher quality. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same problem. Must be a tech issue. Others at IRC complain of the same.
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The images are now loading correctly at commons and on Wikipedia. Appears to be some technical adjustments occurring that temporarily rendered the images blank. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 15:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Video player localisation

Hi, is it possible to localise (translate) video player messages, like "Wikimedia.org is now fullscreen.", "Video loading stopped." etc? --Eleassar (t/p) 12:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Korean War Veterans Memorial statues by Frank Gaylord

I notice a number of images of the Frank Gaylord statues have been uploaded to Category:Korean War Veterans Memorial since the deletions in March 2010, despite the warning on the category page. I'm wondering if the warning on the category should be strengthened to say that photos of the statues will be deleted. If anyone thinks a further deletion debate is required please create it, as I don't and won't. William Avery (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please: How do I upload a simple photograph?

I agree with no. 24, "Copyright of a photograph". I am trying to do a simple thing but Wikipedia's 100 million copyright rules and laws and pages and pages of subjects to read first just put one off. It is impossibly complex. In future I am not going to read anything. I will try to upload a photo and will first contact you with my specific request and ask you to tell me what to do. I will archive your response and once I have covered a few different situations, will understand what to do — until I encounter a new situation. Then I will first contact you again.

I have been trying for two days to do one basic thing: A man took a photograph of a vinyl record featuring its label. He sent it by e-mail to me. He is in the band that made that record back in 1978, and wrote all the songs for it. On Wikipedia Commons I filled in a form, all the required fields, and it sticks on "Next". No prompting me for something missing. Just won't work. I scrutinise it. Still won't work. Seems to be the copyright tag, so I start to read about this: "GNU licenses", "Free Creative Commons lisenses", "Old Creative Commons lisenses", "Copyleft Attitude License", "Other free tags". Are you kidding me?

This is impossibly difficult. Even your Creative Commons has too many links to other pages that must be read — "Choose a license": "Considerations before licensing"; "How the licenses work"; "Want public domain instead?" Please ! Anything that makes my task work !

About a year ago you had a survey of Wiki administrators. editors, contributors etc. The comment was made that the number of people involved has fallen and that it is probably because it is too difficult or complicated. You think ?! I have a Bachelor's degree in English literature and Psychology and I can't understand all this. Please just help me to upload a simple photograph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theherald1000 (talk • contribs)

The problem is that copyright for this record label may belong to the recording company that made it, not to the artist. Ruslik (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's the basic notion: you can't license a copyrighted work when you're not the copyright holder. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. The record company closed down in 1980, a point that I had made on the Wikipedia Commons form — if I could only have got past the page. Whose copyright would it be, now?
2. I'm sorry if I what I wrote above indicated that I was very frustrated. I'm happy to compy with all the copyright laws — as a photo-journalist, myself, I get it — but there are so many basic clarifying articles, so I would request your specific advice to assist.
3. I have obtained an e-mail from the man I describe above giving me permission to use the photographs. Will this suffice?Theherald1000 (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please forward the email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. An agent there will be able to advise you on whether the email is sufficient, but it's unlikely. Because Wikimedia projects (including Commons and Wikipedia) are "free content", we only accept material that is provably freely licensed or out of copyright—that excludes even content we're 99.99% won't get us sued for copyright violation. I suspect that the image you're trying to upload falls into the latter category, which means it isn't free for anyone to reuse or modify, so we probably won't be able to accept it. Sorry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you say which company? Ruslik (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Issue from a 9 October discussion, and relating to Australian FoP

Moved to "Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Issue from a 9 October discussion, and relating to Australian FoP". — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Royal Navy ships versus Category:Naval ships of the United Kingdom

Perhaps did I miss the discussion before. The Netherlands and a few other countries also have a Royal Navy, with Royal Navy ships. Not so usefull to add e.g. the ships in Category:Naval ships of the Netherlands to Category:Royal Navy ships. Where can I start the discussion to transfer the ships in Category:Royal Navy ships to Category:Naval ships of the United Kingdom? Category:Royal Navy ships then only has categories like: Naval ships of the United Kingdom, Naval ships of the Netherlands, Naval ships of Canada, Naval ships of Australia and so on. I don't think it is correct to have two categories for the same British naval ships. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I agree that two categories for one purpose is wrong, it does seem that they actually have slightly different objectives. Category:Royal Navy ships "include ships commissioned into Royal Navy service", whereas Category:Naval ships of the United Kingdom "include naval ships designed, built, or operated in or by the United Kingdom". As I see it the latter is more inclusive than the former. The instructions for moving are here (they look somewhat like a policy in fact) and the place to discuss it is here. In kind regards, heb [T C E] 07:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I'll copy this part and discuss it at Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/10/Category:Royal Navy ships --Stunteltje (talk) 08:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion requests page for October is not working

Commons:Deletion requests/2012/10 - It should include every subpage for October, but only goes up to October 10. The source wikitext looks like it should work ... purge didn't fix it either - David Gerard (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a well-known problem: these month pages hit template transclusion limits. It's difficult to do anything about it (eg split to a weekly basis) because it would break an unmaintained bot which handles the DR archiving. Rd232 (talk) 08:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rotation problem?

Hi, I recall a problem with the rotation of thumbnails, but this photo is showing correctly on my computer as a thumbnail, but shows up rotated when I click to open the thumbnail. Any ideas? The original is not rotated. Jane023 (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fundraising localization: volunteers from outside the USA needed

Please translate for your local community

Hello All,

The Wikimedia Foundation's Fundraising team have begun our 'User Experience' project, with the goal of understanding the donation experience in different countries outside the USA and enhancing the localization of our donation pages. I am searching for volunteers to spend 30 minutes on a Skype chat with me, reviewing their own country's donation pages. It will be done on a 'usability' format (I will ask you to read the text and go through the donation flow) and will be asking your feedback in the meanwhile.

The only pre-requisite is for the volunteer to actually live in the country and to have access to at least one donation method that we offer for that country (mainly credit/debit card, but also real-time banking like IDEAL, E-wallets, etc...) so we can do a live test and see if the donation goes through. All volunteers will be reimbursed of the donations that eventually succeed (and they will be low amounts, like dollars)

By helping us you are actually helping thousands of people to support our mission of free knowledge across the world. Please sing up and help us with our 'User Experience' project! :) If you are interested (or know of anyone who could be) please email ppena@wikimedia.org. All countries needed (excepting USA)!

Thanks!
Pats Pena
Global Fundraising Operations Manager, Wikimedia Foundation

Sent using Global message delivery, 16:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Many AP and AFP images on Commons

See Commons:Deletion requests/AP images from VOA site and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-USGov-VOA. Many of this pictures has AP (Assotiated Press) and AFP (Agence France Press) watermark on source. Need to check and delete all of this. --Sasha Krotov (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK: review set up at Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/PD-VOA review. It's about 1400 files need checking - not as daunting as some of the other PD reviews (COM:WPPD), so feel free to help, people! Rd232 (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm.... may not be as black and white as some might think. I started working through anumber of images in the PD-VOA category and deleting when the larger image had the AP watermark. I noticed that most of what I was deleting was pictures by David Byrd, and not every image could be located on the VOA website or via the archive.org site. So I decided to Google the chap to see if I could confirm him as a AP photographer. Instead I come across this page on VOA as well as his Twitter statement which makes it sound like he works for VOA, which means if that's the case then his photos are PD. SO I turned around and undeleted what I'd just done. And this is relevant as two of the images at the DR which started it all (File:Chad Hedrick at 2010 Winter Olympics 2010-02-27.jpg and File:Speed skating - men's team pursuit gold medalists at 2010 Winter Olympics 2010-02-27.jpg have David Byrd as the author. Tabercil (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
deleting when the larger image had the AP watermark - you mean the files on VOA had an AP watermark? Or they had a watermark on another site? Being PD, it's conceivable that AP takes VOA images and slaps their watermark on them when they distribute them... Rd232 (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. Here's an example: File:Julie Chu at 2010 Winter Olympics US Women's Hockey press event.jpg came from this page. The small version on the page has no visible watermark at all. If you click on the image, it brings up a larger version as a pop-up which does have an AP watermark in the bottom right corner. Now I sent an email to VOA on the 13th to try and get more details on what the arrangement is with David Byrd, VOA and AP but I've not heard anything back as yet. Tabercil (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subdivide "Dead men" by year/century/other?

Yo girls and guys. It's been lately agreed that dead (deceased) men – as much as dead women – make up a whole too big of a load of ctegories to introduce within a plain flat Dead men/Dead women category, which has given rise to the idea to organize dead women by time of passing and dead men by time of passing, an idea I find very constructive, and I would like you to approach the talk page to help determine whether this should by by year/decade/century/other factor. Both Category:Dead men and Category:Dead women form an important historical branch-on category directly speaking to men and women's cats respectively. Be sure to help optimizing the use of them. Cheerz, Orrlingtalk 13:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We already have a whole lot of categories such as Category:1689 deaths, Category:1932 deaths etc. AnonMoos (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Here we speak about dead WOMEN / MEN. Note the difference. Orrlingtalk 09:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don't see what the benefit is of duplicating Category:1689 deaths with "Category:Men dead in 1689" and "Category:Women dead in 1689"... What possible value would the latter two add? -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’m with AnonMoos. Could someone explain to me what is inherently wrong with so-called « overcrowded categories », which is more or less the only reason stated for subdivising categories again and again? Jean-Fred (talk) 08:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image note of math File:Dourtenga school.JPG

Hi! At File:Dourtenga school.JPG I tried to make an image note of the mathematics on the board. But when I hover the mouse, nothing seems to display. What is happening? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After a bit of experimenting, I found that the {{Fr}} template does not accept the equal sign. I replaced it with "&#61;". — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons:Village pump/Archive/2012/10#Speedy delete template is broken?
This has nothing to do with a special template. If you write stuff like {{fr|abdcdee <br/> abc = first 3 letters}}, MediaWiki (the server software) "thinks", you would like to pass the value first 3 letters as a named parameter (parameter name: abdcdee <br/> abc) to Template:fr. -- Rillke(q?) 16:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. I didn't intend to suggest that this was an issue confined to {{Fr}}. By the way, why do you insist that adding "1=" is necessary? Just curious. — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{fr|1=now you can write as many "=" as you like :=)}}
Français : now you can write as many "=" as you like :=)
without escaping/encoding them. -- Rillke(q?) 17:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the help! WhisperToMe (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 17

family snapshots from the 1920s

I have some family snapshots from the 1920s I wish to upload for use in an article. There is no record of who took these photographs, nor is there the remotest likelihood that anyone would or could claim copyright over them. I do not own the photographs - ie the 'hard copies' from which scans have been made - though as far as I know ownership does not produce copyright. The owner has given written permission to use them, but he is a very elderly man who would certainly not be up to filling in one of the Commons forms. Any advice? Paul Barlow (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ownership of original negatives might be presumptive evidence for ownership of copyright in some contexts (photographs not so much). Otherwise, I can't advise on the technicalities of this, but there are plenty of similar photos already on Commons. Of course, if they could be considered published, and were from before 1923, then it would be a simple case of {{PD-US}}... AnonMoos (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's unlikely such photos have been published - if they had, presumably the owner would know. So they can be considered unpublished, and the most plausible is to assume that the owner has inherited the copyright, and can publish them, as {{PD-heirs}} or {{CC-BY-SA-3.0-heirs}}. I'm not sure how COM:OTRS would handle this situation if you try to act on the owner's behalf; if no-one clarifies here, just contact them and see what the response is. Rd232 (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. They were never published, and in any case exist in the UK, not the US. The owner of the prints does not have the negatives. Paul Barlow (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 18

Catmovez: "Country" or "countries"? "Orthodox wedding" or "Christian Orthodox weddings"?

Hey there! We're continuing in re-titling mistaken category-titles, now it's "Category:Buildings in unidentified country" which wants to become the customary plural form, that is, "unidentified countries", come and be heard in the talkpage! And don't miss Category talk:Orthodox weddings (=needing your majority to become Christian Orthodox weddings) Orrlingtalk 01:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help in displaying Pashto

Hi! At Category:Pashto language I am trying to display the Pashto name, but I am having difficulty in doing so. Why isn't the "ps" one displaying? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure exactly what goes wrong for you (which Pashto name on that page?). Could you maybe attach a screenshot of the area that has the problem (but make sure that no private or confidential data is shown on that screenshot)? Which browser and which browser version do you use? --Malyacko (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 16

About Still images

Hi,

I have made a dozen, or so, still images from this NASA channel old video on Youtube.

NASA_Cultural_Resources-Nike Smoke Youtube video.

It is fair to upload and use these images, specifying NASA as the author, in Wikimedia Commons?

Thanks.

--Marcric (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While you're at it, you might as well upload the video too. Here's an ogv rip of the video. Be sure to check the option for "Chunked uploads for files over 1MB in Upload Wizard" in your preferences under the Upload Wizard tab -FASTILY (TALK) 10:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, the video itself is not my target by now. My doubt is about the still images. I have uploaded these before but as "my own work" (meaning the work of selecting each still), but they were deleted by "missing information on the origin and copyright". So, I think my mistake was not to specify these still images as NASA work right? If I upload it again with the "someone else work" option, and specify NASA as the source, everything is fine? Thanks --Marcric (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done File:Smoke Trail Wind Shear Measurements - YouTube.ogv. Jean-Fred (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OpenStreetMap references

Following a discussion on the OpenStreetMap wiki, there seems to be very rough consensus for OpenStreetMap users to start including references to Wikimedia Commons categories for places. This means very simply that it is possible to say that the Empire State Building on OpenStreetMap is the same thing as Category:Empire State Building in Commons.

Why is this useful? It isn't immediately useful if you are just using the OpenStreetMap website, but it enables people who are building tools, applications and services on top of OpenStreetMap to link through to Commons and reuse images from Commons. (Personally, I'm interested in using images from Commons and data from OpenStreetMap to build an open source alternative to check-in services like Foursquare.)

If you are active on OpenStreetMap, it'd be great if you could start linking from map objects to both Commons and Wikipedia using the media:commons tag. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incidentally, here's a OSM changeset that adds Commons links to 70+ places in London. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks alot, I'll keep that in mind. --El Grafo (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Tom, could you please give an example of using the media:commons key?
Though I am all for strengthening links between Commons and you-name-it (OSM being top one), I find it strange not to leverage on the existing effort of linking OSM & Wikipedia − especially since WIWOSM − can’t we jsut loop on the Wikipedia keys and follow the relevant CommonsCat template there?
Also, could you point us to the relevant pages on the OSM wiki you mention?
Thanks, Jean-Fred (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Example: Russell Square tube station, which links to Category:Russell Square tube station.
The discussion on the OSM wiki is here.
As for iterating through all the wikipedia links in OSM and inferring Commons categories for them from Commons cat links... that seems very reasonable. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does this have to be mono-directional. When the iteration /bot is launched- couldn't it back-link and write a geotag template onto each Commonscat page?... brief pause to see if the sky falls in! --ClemRutter (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mean linking back to Wikipedia, or to OSM, or both? —Tom Morris (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think ClemRutter asks whether you could add {{Object location}} automatically to the categories your object links to, e.g. Category:Russell Square tube station. -- Rillke(q?) 16:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As well as {{GeoPolygon}} I guess. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Basically a good idea ..but, the set of Commons categories is not much congruent with the set of Wikipedia articles. We have a lot of monuments, buildings etc. categories without an equivalent article on Wikipedia. But for a initial setup it might be imaginable to use a bot to create all this Commons links out from the existing Wikipedia links. --Alexrk2 (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you consider using wikidata for this? OSM could just link to a wikidata object and a category here too tying it together with many Wikipedia articles about the same subject. Multichill (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is great stuff. I'd like to see a bot doing much of it (and for Wikipedia too): find a Commons category (or Wikipedia article) which is geo-tagged and categorised as being one of a list of suitable types (say, a railway station, a statue, or a bridge); look on OSM for an entity tagged as the same type (e.g. a railway station, etc) near those coordinates; check there isn't another entity so tagged within a reasonable distance (say, 500m for a station, 50 for a statue), add a tag to OSM, linking back to the Commons category or Wikipedia article. If automated tagging isn't acceptable a list could be provided for humans to verify.

As well as (or instead of) using object location templates, we should have a way to link back to OSM entities. It's a pity we don't have tagging, then we could use triple-tags: OSM:object=123456, OSM:relation=987654, or suchlike.

Could you link to the discussion on the OpenStreetMap wiki, please, Tom? Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see above, some answers to the points you raise / questions you ask have already been given. Jean-Fred (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aside from the request for a link to the original OSM discussion, which I've now found, I can't see where my points are addressed. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Loss of copyright if owning company does not exist anymore

L.S. Can someone point me out to a (past) discussion or answer me if non exists, about the following question: When a company who had copyright on products (like toys for example) does not exist anymore and was not taken over by another company, what happens to the copyrights? Regards, Alf -- 12:23, 18 October 2012‎ User:Alfvanbeem

Theres no simple answer for this it'd be different for every country. Specifically it would depend on, where the company was based, what works are under patents or are trademarks and where, how the company was wound up including how assets were distributed. In a general basic sense assets of the company would be distributed/disolved to the beneficeries like owners, creditors, etc it may also be possible for copyright to returned to the original creator. I recommend getting professional advice from the appropriate juristiction rather than just relying on the opinions and speculations that may be expressed here. Gnangarra 12:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In general, intellectual property doesn't get destroyed. It may be very hard to track down who has taken ownership of it in situations like these, but someone does have it. Rd232 (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have an article Orphan works. So far, for the United States, Congress has rejected passing any law that would make any special accommodation for "orphaned" works (Orphan works in the United States)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What Gnangarra said. To simplify, one can think of the intellectual property assets the same way as of the other assets of the company: its buildings, its furniture, the money in its bank accounts, etc. Upon dissolution of the company, its assets are distributed to its creditors, its shareholders, etc., depending on the situation and the provisions of the bylaws and of the law. The ownership of each item or group of assets passes to someone. If not specifically mentioned, an item would pass to the residual beneficiary. In the unlikely event that assets remain without ordinary beneficiary, they would be transferred according to the provisions of the law of the relevant jurisdiction, often to the State. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the quick response AnonMoos. It answered a lot of my questions, but also raises a view others! One question i now have is the following: Is it not so that almost all photo's of say toys or electronic equipment build after WWII should immediately be marked for deletion? Question two:If not, why not? Regards, Alf -- 15:12, 18 October 2012‎ 217.122.139.150

  • It depends on a lot of things. For example, anything from the U.S. prior to 1978 needed an explicit notice to be copyrighted. Also, much electronic equipment falls under the heading of practical objects and, in the U.S., cannot be copyrighted. Some toys might fall under that same heading. Similarly in the U.S., clothing cannot be copyrighted (although, for example, an image on a T-shirt could have a copyright in its own right), but in some other countries (e.g. France) it can be, but has a short term of copyright. Yes, this is a morass. - Jmabel ! talk 16:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for all the quick answers of you all! Great that the community answers so quickly and clearly! Regards, Alf

Claiming my 'Wiki Takes' images

153 images which I took, and uploaded using the "Wiki takes" tool, are not shown as being uploaded by me (e.g. under "my contributions"), and have no link to my user page. They also have the wrong date. Is it possible for any or all of this to be rectified (without manual intervention), please? They're all in Category:Images from Wikipedia Takes Coventry by Andy Mabbett. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since it was uploaded by the file upload bot, there is no way to show that it was uploaded by you other than what is currently showing. To have what you're asking for, you'll would need to upload (over the existing upload) the file, (example Special:ListFiles/Bidgee), and edit the file page to fix the date. Bidgee (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification opt-out

Is there any way (could there be any way) to opt users out of receiving automated messages/notifications, to avoid this situation? Rd232 (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't it better to design the script to simply skip talk pages which are fully protected? If a talk page is fully protected, the contributor is usually dead, so there's no point in notifying the contributor. Besides, if you're not a sysop, the script fails altogether and skips adding the request page to the daily log (see MediaWiki talk:VisualFileChange.js#Fully protected user talk pages). --Stefan4 (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, full protection would do it for these cases, if scripts respect that. Rd232 (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Software update leading to image non-display

For a long time (ca. 2005-2010), including xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" in an SVG file's header was optional. After that, it began to be enforced for new uploads. With a recent software update in the last few days, it's now apparently being retroactively enforced on all SVG files, which means many older files are probably not working. I was able to track down five of my old uploads (e.g. File:Urantia three-concentric-blue-circles-on-white symbol.svg) and fix them, but it would nice to be able to know which others are out there... AnonMoos (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aargh, this is bad. Files are going to be broken all over the place. Another one is File:Electronic linear filters.svg. I'll try to fix that one but either this change needs to be reverted or a bot needs to be put onto the task of fixing the broken ones as a matter of urgency. SpinningSpark 14:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reported on Bugzilla Bug 41174. SpinningSpark 14:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, it's easier and safer to just open the SVG file in a plain-text editor and add xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" to inside the enclosing <svg ... > near the top of the file (resaving in Inkscape can sometimes create problems of its own...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What exactly happens now for files without this line? How do they break? Rd232 (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
^ indeed. [16] views as XML, this isn't likely to be MediaWikis fault, it seems to be a browser related issue. More information would be very useful. Reedy (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The symptoms are that the article displays a link to the file page instead of the image, the file page displays a vector graphic icon instead of the image, and the thumbnails in the file history are blank. This is not a browser issue, these images have been working for years and now suddenly they are not. If the image (icon) is clicked I would normally see the image in my browser, but now I see the XML code with an error message (Firefox 15.0.1). IE8.0 (at least in my setup) downloads the image to Inkscape instead of displaying it itself. Inkscape does not have a problem with the images, even though none of them were created by Inkscape, and images created by Inkscape all display ok. I fixed the one above by resaving it in Inkscape. SpinningSpark 15:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When served originals, MediaWiki does not do anything to the files. Downloading them locally also displays them as XML (and causes IE9 to crash)... Reedy (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File not visible

Hi, why this file doesn't appear in good condition on this page? --Nevertime (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't answer your question of why. But to fix the display on that page, if nothing else works, you can try changing the size of the thumbnail. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks to you. Now, it's ok !--Nevertime (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 17:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 20

Talkback template now allows links to the Village Pump

I thought regular Village Pump readers would appreciate knowing that Template:Talkback now allows links to the Village Pump. Just put in the full link as the first template parameter then add |other=1 at the end of the template. This also means that it allows links to a sister wiki. For example:
{{Talkback|Commons:Village_pump|Talkback template now allows links to the Village Pump|other=1}} would link to this discussion
{{Talkback|:en:page name|other=1}} would link to the appropriate page on the English Wikipedia
If a discussion started elsewhere would be better served by continuing the discussion here (or joining the discussion already in place here), just drop the talkback template on the page, linked to the appropriate section, and they'll know right where to go. :) Banaticus (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upcoming software changes - please report any problems

Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg

(Apologies if this message isn't in your language. Please consider translating it)

All Wikimedia wikis - including this one - will soon be upgraded with new and possibly disruptive code. This process starts today and finishes on October 24 (see the upgrade schedule & code details).

Please watch for problems with:

  • revision diffs
  • templates
  • CSS and JavaScript pages (like user scripts)
  • bots
  • PDF export
  • images, video, and sound, especially scaling sizes
  • the CologneBlue skin

If you notice any problems, please report problems at our defect tracker site. You can test for possible problems at test2.wikipedia.org and mediawiki.org, which have already been updated.

Thanks! With your help we can find problems fast and get them fixed faster.

Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S.: For the regular, smaller MediaWiki updates every two weeks, please watch this schedule.

Distributed via Global message delivery. (Wrong page? Fix here.)

I looked and looked and I still can not figure out how that upgrade applies to templates. There is some talk about Parser Function Extension. There are some mw:Extension:Parser_function_extensions at mediawiki too. Are those related? --Jarekt (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also see the discussion on the mailing list. --Malyacko (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also section "Software update leading to image non-display" below... AnonMoos (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I can't view deleted image revisions anymore, has this been experienced by other admins as well? Firefox can't display the image because it contains errors. --Denniss (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

USFWS Flickr photostream images tagged by-nc-nd

The USFWS's regional Flickr photostreams are a crazy quilt of licenses: most are PD, as befits works of the US gov't. But the images in the Alaska Region stream are tagged by-nc-nd, and the Southwest Region's are tagged as copyrighted, all rights reserved.

I'd cheerfully ignore the licenses and just tag uploads from these photostreams {{FWS}}, but for two concerns: first, FlickreviewR is not going to find a compatible license for the images on Flickr. Second, it's possible that some files in the photostream may not be by USFWS employees even though they're being hosted on USFWS feeds.

What I'm thinking about doing is avoiding any that don't explicitly credit the USFWS, but ignore the license as erroneous when the USFWS is explicitly credited, treating them as PD, and presume they'll pass a human review even if the bot squawks. Thoughts? Rrburke (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you should contact the USFWS and ask them. It's generally not wise to presume anything where copyright was concerned. Were the pictures taken by an employee or an independent contractor? Were the works commissions for hire? Ask 'em. Banaticus (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I intend to. That said, the images I'm principally referring to are credited to the FWS, and the photographers named are FWS employees. Rrburke (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 19

Delete

Hi, how can I delete my own files? I want to remove its. Vitor Mazuco Msg 15:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure that you can, after you've released them under a CC license. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[repl