Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/01

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

Adding sourced information to image pages

A quick question about adding sourced information to image pages. An example I did recently is here. Is that the right way to add such information? And would anyone here be able to help with finding an image source for the photograph of Jack James that is further up on this page (the same source as used to add the information to the image mentioned above), and see if it is OK to upload to Commons? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

An additional question. Is the image found here, the file being here OK to use? The online table of contents for that book is here. The information pages are here, and there is a list of illustrations at the bottom of the contents page in case it is OK to use all of those images. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that there is a single "right" way to add sourced information, but what you've done looks fine to me. I think the photo of Jack James can be uploaded to Commons in accordance with JPL's image use policy, and I've uploaded it here. The photo of Robert Parks is a bit trickier, in that it is from a report by a JPL employee (R. Cargill Hall) but is not on the JPL website. It's probably fine, but I'm not sure how to handle it. --Avenue (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that upload. It is not actually (on a second look) the best picture ever, but I will try and use it somewhere suitable at some point. Is anyone else here able to say more about the photos in that report by R. Cargill Hall? What is needed is information on where the photos came from - what happens when a publication doesn't provide image sourcing information? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Upload png files

I have uploaded these two png pictures: File:Journal de Bruxelles nr 136 1800 (364, 365).png File:Journal de Bruxelles nr 136 1800 (366, 367).png I doensnt render a thumb picture, but even worse you cant link trough to the original. I use png as jpg pictures are not stable with frequent edits to clean up the text.

The third smaller picture File:Journal de Bruxelles nr 136 1800 (368).png gave no problems. By the way the older picture File:Journal de Bruxelles nr 136 1800 (362, 363).gif should as it unusable and there is a good replacement File:Journal de Bruxelles nr 136 1800 (362 363).png (except for the missing komma)Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

See COM:MAXTHUMB: 25 megapixels is the maximum size thumbnails are generated for PNG, TIFF or GIF files. I didn't quite understand the "you cant link trough to the original" problem: both files show up normally for me from the "Full resolution" link. MKFI (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
You are rigth, I am so used to clicking on the thumb picture. The size is (7,32 M and 5,32 M), so it is within the 25 M maximum.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info The limitation is on the resolution of the image (25 mega pixels, eg 5808 × 4405 =25 584 240 ) not the file size (in this case 7 320 000 or 5 320 000 bytes) --Tony Wills (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Problem solved: With a bit of cropping I manage tot remain within the size limit. I could eliminate the white space between the pages but that was not needed.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Image display fault

I wonder if anyone with the appropriate expertise could remedy the fault which is preventing the following image from displaying properly? I'm unable to provide a direct link to it from here. Each time I try, the full image appears on this page. File:Tam o' Shanter and Souter Johnny at Kirkton Jean's.png Kim Traynor (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The image displays normally to me, atleast from looking the file description page. You can create an inline image link with an extra ":" at the beginning: [[:File:Tam o' Shanter and Souter Johnny at Kirkton Jean's.png]] -> File:Tam o' Shanter and Souter Johnny at Kirkton Jean's.png. MKFI (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks normal to me, too. Kim, what looks wrong about it to you? And have you purged your browser cache? - Jmabel ! talk 00:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies. The image appears as normal both at Commons and on the Wikipedia page for the poem it illustrates, until I click on it to see the larger display. Then it hangs after scrolling about a third of the way down. I was assuming everyone would encounter the same fault. I have purged my cache recently, but this is an error I spotted several months ago when I uploaded the image. I assumed it was just a temporary problem that would sort itself out in time. A fault is also occurring, for me at least, on this image: File:Siege of Leith map, 1560.jpg, on which I placed 45 annotations, none of which are now showing up. Maybe it's Google Chrome, the browser I use, that is the problem. Kim Traynor (talk) 11:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:M. Pokora

Lame deletion requests

I am getting tired of looking at Deletion requests based on things that are fixable such as writing to a copyright holder, looking at an external website to check something or just renaming a file. I find examples such as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Al Jazeera files with bad file names bizarre. If deleting files rather than checking up on facts is becoming the norm for our community, the Commons will fail to be of any use to any institution or individual looking for a means of preserving knowledge for the public good, as the risk is getting too high that some guy will find a minor quibble in the future, that has bugger all to do with a real copyright issue, and the media will be deleted because those that care about the content are not around within 7 days to express their opinion, or fix some minor problem they have raised. Is this the way 2013 is going to pan out or must we do more to educate our community on the importance of preservation and how we have a joint responsibility to take due care to implement it within the project scope? PS I am not talking about Real Copyright Problems here, I am talking about an absence of common sense as to when Deletion requests are useful rather than a waste of volunteer time, compared to plain old just-fix-it. Thanks -- (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

In this case, I agree that not having the time to improve the content is a poor reason for deletion. However, in some cases, a deletion request is the best way to get a proper debate about an file. Yann (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. In my short time here I have seen three camps. Deletionists, inclusionists, and those that go out of their way to fix files, send emails, research laws, documents, etc. I consider myself in the 3rd group. It seems that the deletionists actually believe that they will be taken to court or that the storage space is actually on their hard drive. Some seem rather adamant about wasting their time and ours tagging files for deletion that are very obvious easy fixes. It would be nice to bring in a deletion tagging limit like the 3RR limits etc. Do they have nothing better to do with their time than waste ours?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I second Canoe's views in every respect except for his gently courteous reserve. I accept some of the reservations that others have posted, but I regard unnecessary deletion, either of articles or content, as being most often discourteous, unconstructive, self-aggrandising, disruptive, vandalism, and commonly stupid and malicious to boot when it is not the product of simple carelessness and idleness. I apologise for every word of that description and categorisation, but plead difficulty in thinking of others equally honest and accurate that would meet WP's and Commons' standards of courtesy and consideration. JonRichfield (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
If you find yourself dividing people up into multiple groups, and describe one group with glowing terms and put yourself in it, it's likely you're biased and unfairly dividing people. If you see very obvious fixes, then make them. Go ahead and haunt DR and make those fixes. But don't aggrandize to yourself the claim of being the only one to do the right thing. I've done a lot of work fixing files and researching laws. I also find that a lot of Commons files are very sloppy copyright-wise and often need some non-obvious fixes. If you don't want to fix them up at DR, discuss some way of fixing them up elsewhere, but don't sneer at the person who thinks that Commons should be better then that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
As Beyond My Ken says on that DR, "I see, not busy enough to tell someone else what to do, but too busy to to it yourself." Are we to join so many institutions in having a collection of files we can brag about but nobody can actually use because of copyright worries or because they have random number names and no description? --Prosfilaes (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

A more constructive response than general griping would be drafting something to expand available guidance. Commons:Deletion requests has a "how to list" section but not "when to list" (or even "things to do before listing"). Rd232 (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is it bizarre to nominate a Flickr file for deletion if the Flickr uploader obviously has stolen the file from Facebook? --Stefan4 (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Stefan4, could you please cease from using Wikimedia Commons to make unfounded and overly dramatic allegations of crimes against an organization, particularly as you have supplied no evidence of malicious intent, theft, or in fact any evidence that the copyright license on the official Flickrstream is not entirely a correct release. That a photo appears on a Facebook page, is not evidence of theft. If you persist, then I shall make the effort to email the Aljazeera Satellite Network in the State of Qatar and suggest that they review your allegations. Thanks -- (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • File:Range Rover Limousine.jpg is one I just came across. The image is far smaller than the camera is capable of. The uploader only uploaded the one image and it isn't used anywhere. The website doesn't seem to have the same image, but it is the same size.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I nominate a lot of files for deletion. I only do so either when the file is a copyvio, or when the evidence required to show that it is compliant with policy is difficult to obtain (and yes, e-mailing someone to negotiate a license statement is difficult - time-consuming, exhausting, and usually ineffective, especially when multiplied by 100 files). Often I find myself working in an area in which the resources needed to establish critical information such as date of first publication or author death date are not available or always easily understandable to me. I don't believe I will be sued (probably) or WMF will be sued - OCILLA is a big shield - but I do believe it is our duty to provide the best legal advice we can to content reusers, so that one of them doesn't get sued down the line, as well as to protect the rights of authors and preserve the reputation of the project as the most reliable source of free content. That said, if somebody nominates a file for deletion when simply looking up the work's info on the web would immediately show that it's PD, then that's just lazy (I hope I haven't done that at some point...). Dcoetzee (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

General question about PD templates

While adding Creator templates in Files, I frequently stumble upon PD-templates from the country of origin of the artwork, but the author is dead more than a century ago, like here.

In that kind of case, is it necessary to keep both PD templates, or just the {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}} is necessary ?

--Hsarrazin (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, {{PD-old-100-1923}} assures PD throughout the world, and is quite sufficient where it applies. {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}} is not sufficient by itself because a work by a person who died in 1913 may have been first published posthumously in the United States after 1923, and remain copyrighted until at least 2019. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Really? The template says This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1923. not published in the United States before January 1, 1923. eq. it refers to work by a person who died in 1913 and published his work before 1923 somewhere. If I have to look, if an PD-author who published his work before 1923, first published his work after 1923 in the US, the template is misleading and I will never upload any PD-files. --PigeonIP (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Let me clarify. If the work was first published anywhere in the world before 1923, then it is in the public domain in the United States. Generally, we assume works of art are published shortly after their creation. However, if the work was lost or something, and remained unpublished until 1923, then was published posthumously in the US with full formalities (notice, registration, and renewal), its copyright may extend to 2019. Such cases are expected to be exceptionally rare - something like 1% of registered works are renewed. It's not something you normally have to think about. There are also special rules for posthumous publication in European countries (e.g. 50 years from date of publication in the UK) which we generally ignore since most works are not published posthumously. In short, {{PD-old-100}} is sufficient worldwide for works published before the author's death, but it's good to know if it predates 1923 to simplify things in case it wasn't. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, thank you... my question was not about "1923" - my question was "can I remove the PD-Chile, or PD-China or PD-Japan ?", when there is absolutely no doubt about the ancient work ? I left quite a number of them, not daring to remove them, and some where on 2 or 3 centuries old works :( --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I usually let them be, if the image meets requirements of those licenses. Some country specific reasons for PD, might be more useful within those countries. However that unfortunately clutters the file page and is often plainly wrong, like {{PD-Polish}} applied to non-photographic materials, etc. --Jarekt (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
For the record, the publication doesn't have to be in the United States. If it was first published between 1923 and 2002 with full formalities and in a country which had copyright relations with the United States (w:Bilateral copyright agreements of the United States, w:Universal Copyright Convention, w:Berne Convention etc.), then the work is protected in the United States until at least 2019. If {{PD-old-100-1923}} applies, consider using that instead of a national tag. However, {{PD-old-auto-1923|year of death}} is even better. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Galleries in categories

I've just created a category for the Titian's poesie, with a sub-gallery for each painting, and added a gallery with the best version of each painting. This way you get them all in one glance. I just wanted to ask the general opinion, if others think this is a useful way to organize things too, before I do the same to similar categories.—Austriacus (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Normally, one does not put the gallery in the category, but one makes a gallery page, which is categorised in the category concerned and in Category:Œuvre galleries. --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
This was indeed discussed a few weeks ago. See Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2012/12#Galleries_in_Categories. Jean-Fred (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that's very helpful, at least for cases where the gallery doesn't overwhelm the category. It would be better though if MediaWiki allowed a way to do this properly (so that clicking the image representing the subcategory took you to the subcategory). Anyone know if there's a bug for that? Rd232 (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
In the gallery for the poesie, I simply linked the title of each painting to the corresponding subcategory.—Austriacus (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. But clicking on the image takes you to the file page for the image, not to the category the image represents, which is a bit confusing. Actually if we made the gallery without using the <gallery> tag, and instead used a table with file thumbnails, we could link the thumbnail to the relevant category (since you can make a thumbnail point somewhere other than the file page, but AFAIK you can't do this in the gallery tag). However that might cause attribution problems. Rd232 (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if that would be such a good idea anywa::y. Besides giving an overview, another function of such a gallery is to give quick access to the best version of each painting. If the thumbnail was linked to the gallery, you'd have to go looking for it again.—Austriacus (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Hm, good point, there is that. I just wish it could be clearer that clicking the image goes to the image and clicking the name goes to the category; I'm really not sure that people unfamiliar with Commons will get this without some experimentation. Rd232 (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Seems we do have a bug: bugzilla:15087. Jean-Fred (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Indepently I did the same thing with Category:Triptychs by Hans Memling and Category:Graslei. Donarreiskoffer (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Public Domain Day 2013

On January 1, 2013, many new works enter the public domain. In order to upload them here, they must meet one of the following criteria (based on en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights)):

  • The author died in 1942 and the work was published in a country with 70 pma (works enter public domain 70 years after death of the author), and the country had 50 pma on its URAA date.
    • Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bulgaria, Chile, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mozambique, Oman, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Ukraine
  • The author died in 1942 and the work was published in a country with 70 pma, and the work was published before 1923.
    • Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Dominica, Ecuador, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Ireland, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malta, Montenegro, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, Vatican City
  • The author died in 1932 and the work was published before 1923 in a country with 80 pma.
    • Columbia, Spain
  • Crown Copyright works in the UK first published in 1962.
  • The author died in 1962 in a nation with 50 pma and had 30 pma or less on its URAA date, or has no copyright relations with the United States.
    • Afghanistan, Algeria, Djibouti, Iran, Iraq, Kiribati, Palau, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, United Arab Emirates
  • The author died in 1962 and the work was published before 1923 in a country with 50 pma.
    • Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Aruba, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brunei, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Caribbean Netherlands, Canada, Cape Verde, China, Cuba, Curaçao, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Gambia, Guyana, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Macau, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Micronesia, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Niger, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Sint Maarten, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, South Korea, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Zambia, Zimbabwe
  • The author died in 1952 and the work was published before 1923 in a country with 60 pma.
    • Bangladesh, India, Venezuela
  • The author died in 1937 and the work was published before 1923 in a country with 75 pma.
    • Guatemala, Samoa, Honduras
  • The author died in 1913 and the work was published before 1923 in Côte d'Ivoire (99 pma).

There are some exceptions to these (works published concurrently in the US, etc) but these are good general guidance. Based on Category:Undelete in 2013 I've created an initial list of affected authors and where they published most of their works (sorted by nation, then last name of author):

Artist (with
link to Wikipedia)
Death year Nation of publication Category on Commons Artist template Notes
Franz von Matsch 1942 Austria Category:Franz von Matsch Creator:Franz von Matsch Published before 1923 only
Herman Richir (fr) 1942 Belgium Category:Herman Richir Creator:Herman Richir Published before 1923 only
Bohumil Kafka 1942 Czech Republic Category:Bohumil Kafka Creator:Bohumil Kafka Sculptor
Emil Wikström 1942 Finland Category:Emil Wikström Sculptor, before 1923 only
Eugène Paul Benet (fr) 1942 France Category:Eugène Benet Creator:Eugène Benet Published before 1923 only
Leonetto Cappiello 1942 France Published before 1923 only
Émile Oscar Guillaume (fr) 1942 France Category:Émile Oscar Guillaume Creator:Émile Oscar Guillaume Published before 1923 only
Hector Guimard 1942 France Published before 1923 only
Denys Puech 1942 France Category:Denys Puech Creator:Denys Puech Sculptor, Published before 1923 only
Marcel Rieder (fr) 1942 France Category:Marcel Rieder Creator:Marcel Rieder Published before 1923 only
Georges Malissard 1942 France Category:Georges Malissard Creator:Georges Malissard Published before 1923 only
Georges Vacossin (es) 1942 France Category:Georges Vacossin Sculptor, Published before 1923 only
Anton Uesson 1942 Estonia
Jochen Klepper 1942 Germany Category:Jochen Klepper Published before 1923 only
Max Karl Tilke 1942 Germany Published before 1923 only
Wojciech Kossak 1942 Poland Category:Wojciech Kossak Creator:Wojciech Kossak
Bruno Schulz 1942 Poland Category:Bruno Schulz Low res avail from [1]
Kazimierz Zdziechowski 1942 Poland
Jorge Colaço 1942 Portugal Category:Jorge Colaço Creator:Jorge Colaço
António Teixeira Lopes 1942 Portugal Category:Teixeira Lopes Sculptor
Frederic Storck (ro) 1942 Romania Category:Frederic Storck Creator:Frederic Storck Sculptor
Boris Zvorykin (ru) 1942 Russia Category:Boris Zvorykin Creator:Boris Zvorykin
Vladimir Alexandrovich Frolov 1942 Russia Category:Vladimir Alexandrovich Frolov
Ivan Bilibin 1942 Russia/Turkey/France Category:Ivan Bilibin Creator:Ivan Bilibin Some works published in Turkey 1923-1925 are no good
René Bull 1942 UK/Ireland Category:René Bull Published before 1923 only
Walter Sickert 1942 UK Category:Walter Sickert Creator:Walter Sickert Published before 1923 only

Please help add to this list and find good authors whose works we can begin to add (en:1942#Deaths, en:1962#Deaths, en:1952#Deaths, en:1932#Deaths are useful lists, as are our own categories Category:1942 deaths, Category:1962 deaths, Category:1952 deaths ,Category:1932 deaths), as well as add categories and Artist templates for the above. If you add a category for an artist labelled "Published before 1923 only", please add template {{URAA artist}}. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, there is a very long list of writers and poets whose works have entered into the public domain today published by the Polish Coalition for Open Education. If anyone would like to upload scans of their books, articles or other works that are in no other way copyrighted – especially for use on Wikisource – I think it is now quite safe to do so. odder (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Poland had 50 pma on the URAA date in 1996, so any work by these artists is fine for upload to Commons. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
For those works that have Crown Copyright attached, what is the cut-off years for those works now? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Crown copyright expires 50 years from the end of the year in which the material was first published, so works first published in 1962 under Crown Copyright are now PD. I added that to the guidance above. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
For the record, France is in the wrong category due to wartime copyright extensions. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed this myself. I've tagged them all appropriately. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

all usage on all wikis

Whether there is a tool or a page, I can check the usage on all wikis of all the files I uploaded?乌拉跨氪 (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC) and --McZusatz (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A suspicious photo

Hello, everyone. Happy New Year.

I'd like to attract your attention to this file. I have some serious doubts about its truthfulness, or rather about the truthfulness of its description. (I've also posted this same text on the file's talk page and then decided to address a larger audience.)
The photographer claims this photo was taken two hours before the crash of the depicted airplane (more details about the crash). The metadata says it's 10:32. Aparently the time is UTC. It can't be Eastern European (Poland) time zone because then it would mean that it was taken 40 minutes before the airplane took off. It means that the local time was 11:32. In the Northern hemisphere the noon sun should be roughly at the South or South-East. And, if the airplane is flying East or North-East (as the route suggests from Czeck Republic to Moscow) the sun should be illuminating the airplane's starboard. However, on the photograph, the sun is aparently shining from the quarter port side (you can see the sun reflection on the left side of the windshield). This implies that the airplane is either flying West in the afternoon, or is flying East in the morning in the Southern hemisphere. Do I understand this part correctly? It is also very suspicious that such a unique shot wasn't used by any news agencies or published on plane-spotters websites. I believe the reason for that is that both of those require the original photograph with genuine metadata. Anyone has any thoughts or ideas about all this? Leo711 (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

File:EXIF Canon 500D .JPG I have the same camera. I don't have the free Canon EXIF view utility on my new computer yet. Would it be worth comaparing to my data to see if anything looks fishy? The camera clock could be set wrong as mine was for a few shots on commons. The image was cropped and possibly rotated for esthetics. An original raw image would be useful, yes.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
There definitely was no rotation - see figures and letters at the wings. Sealle (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Letiště Pardubice - letecký snímek.jpg is the airport it took off from. Could it have been in a flight pattern that may have rotated on its way to the destination? If it had been 'mirrored' the letters would be backward, yes. We could add 'claimed to be' type statement to the description and notes about doubts on the talk page of it. A re-name may be in order as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Commons. Anyone can publish anything here, no matter how unreliable. No point of view, no original research, it does not apply here.Jan Arkesteijn (talk)
Jan Arkesteijn -- in most cases (with caveats about unidentified species etc.) the person who takes the photograph is in the best position to know what's shown in the photograph. We should certainly be sensitive to the possibility of hoaxes, mislabelings, etc., but it would be ludicrous to severely restrict the ability of a photographer to tell us what's in a photograph he/she took... AnonMoos (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this photo in my role as a crat -- this isn't something that a crat needs to get involved in, so my comments here are only as an editor. If are doubts as to the authencitiy of the claims, I would suggest making contact with the photographer -- perhaps they are active at -- or the uploader of the photo could be asked to make contact. Whilst we can publish anything here, as noted by Jan, it is in our best interests to have correct descriptions, as this is being used in articles on wp and other projects. Contact the photographer, and then go from there. russavia (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Nah, I'm fine. In Russian WP we have already removed the description and will remove the photo as fake. If bureaucrats here don't want to act on faking photos, why should I bother, right? Leo711 (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Leo711, it's not the role of a crat on this, nor any other project, to "judge" on such things. It is up to editors to discuss the issue, and remove the files as required. You may wish to add {{Fact disputed}} to the file page to alert people the description is disputed. And the discussion to articles where it is being displayed. You may also wish to alert COM:AVIATION to the issue as well. russavia (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Russavia is correct - there is no designated leader here and no one here has the authority to act beyond anyone else. It would be useful to link to a discussions in any and all languages about the legitimacy of the photo. Do this on the photo's discussion page in Commons. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks, but you're a little late. Discussion is in progress for hours, file has been already renamed. Sealle (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I just want to add that I didn't mean to imply anything beyond the fact that I'm new while Russavia is aparently more experienced. I've just registered two days ago, I have no significant interest in the project as long as it doesn't interfere with the articles I write in WP, so I believe it's the responsibility of more experienced editors to deal with this. I expressed my concern and that's all I can or want to do. Leo711 (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

IMO its good to contact the photographer first, to see if it's just a misunderstanding WhisperToMe (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It was an earlier flight apparently.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  • If this case is resolved - would you be so kind and remove this from my user-talk page? I am sure it was not a deserved assessment. It was precipitate reaction, but now everybody knows what was the source of this. I would like NOT to have this post on my personal page, but I should not to clear it myself... Julo (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I removed it. If you were speaking to the poster to remove it themselves then feel free to add it back so they can eat crow in the edit summary as they remove it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Julo (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Copy ?

Gran Elefant dret.JPG


I'm very surprised that this image has been labelized, and is still in Commons, since this is an artwork by Miquel Barceló which is a living artist who's artwork is under copyright and that we're not, TMO, in a case of COM:FOP (even if in Spain it exists) because the sculpture is the only subject of the picture and occupies approx. 30-40% of the total image surface. Am I wrong ?--LPLT (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

you're confusing freedom of panorama with de minimis. Spain has FOP for sculptures, so this file is fine. However it's best to use {{FoP-Spain}} etc templates when applicable, and {{Art photo}} helps clarify licensing issues better than {{Information}}. I've updated the file. Rd232 (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I'm just surprised that this could be considered as a FOP (because it's outdoors) since the artwork is the subject.--LPLT (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
FOP applies to works permanently situated in a public place. Most FOP files are in fact photos of sculptures or buildings taken outdoors. However I have also tagged this file {{Not-free-US-FOP}} since it is of questionable copyright status in the US. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh yes... that. :( Rd232 (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking for an image

Good evening,

I'm looking for this image, that, according to this, comes from a krater vase of the Martin von Wagner Museum in Würzbourg. Does someone know more about it? Thanks in advance, --Fsojic (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything in Category:Ancient Art in the Martin-von-Wagner-Museum or in Category:Martin-von-Wagner-Museum or in the German article on the museum. I really can't think of where else to look, but maybe just search around under vase or Sophocles or whatever. The category system is far from perfect, and our collection is far from complete. :0-) Smallbones (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
There is an image of the piece on the museum website (bigger) --moogsi(blah) 17:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Threshold_of originality question

I posed a question at the Wikipedia page for Copyright questions, because it involves two images, one of which is currently on Wikipedia, and one of which is on Commons. However, because more image experts hang out here, and the open question applies to the Commons image, I thought I would ask here.

You can read the entire thread at the link, but I'll try to summarize the main issue here: I accept that the AIG logo is sufficiently simple that an editor would be allowed to create an SVG as a free version for use.

That isn't what happened. An editor found that someone else created a version, which was used on a website. The editor copied that image, and uploaded it. In short, is this permissible? It would clearly be wrong if the editor claimed it as own work, and that isn't the case, the source is attributed. Does that make it OK?--Sphilbrick (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I may have read pd text logo template wrong, but being in the public domain it cannot be copyrighted. Depending on the 'sweat of the brow' in the country of the derivative creation their work may be PD as well. I assume you are aware that it is protected by 'trademark' which is different than copyright. Others may correct me and strike this response if it is not correct.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to leave my position as the uploader of AIG logo currently hosted here. I understand that the simple AIG initials are not subject of copyright so they are extremely simple with no further ornaments. The only change I made to the file was the transparent background, editing the file with Photoshop and generating a PNG (a format that allows transparencies) instead of the JPG taken from the "Brand New" website which I cited as source. Obviously I could not claim any form of copyright over the file, considered what I've explained above. Summarizing, the AIG logo is suitable to be placed on Commons as PD-textlogo. Fma12 (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
In addition, other editor replaced the file at AIG page at Wikipedia, agreeing with me that the logo is too simple to be copyrighted. Fma12 (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I did miss that you edited the image, which I shouldn't have missed.--Sphilbrick (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

New category

This painter has being kind enough to upload images of her works to commons. I created a category for her at the bottom of File:Gary Locke official portrait for Department of Commerce by Michele Rushworth.jpg. Did I name it correctly and which super category should it go in?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I have done some necessary steps, though new categories still could be added.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Rather than Category:Michele Rushworth, I'd suggest, say, Category:Works by Michele Rushworth. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Ooops! I added the 4 works she has here already. What is the best name then?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
That was indeed the original suggestion, but I would say it only makes sense if we have many (say over 10) paintings of her, and on top of it also smth else about her like her photos. But I will obviously not object moving the picture to a separate category if somebody wants to.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

en:wiki problem

The en:Collective Security Treaty Organization artictle links to Category:Collective Security Treaty Organization which was deleted here as a duplicate of Category:Collective Security Treaty Organisation, zed versus ess in spelling. Can cats be re-directed in commons? If not we would have to change the article name over there or cat name here unless there is a way to do it in the template over there. {{commons category}}--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I created a re-direct from the deleted cat. Someone may wish to check my work.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I changed the en-wiki commons category link to Category:Collective Security Treaty Organisation. MKFI (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Creators and Wikidata


Since Wikidata is collecting names and wikilinks, I thought it could be interesting to "collect" them in the "Creator" template (at least to get an easy access to updated wikilinks). Now, I try to systematically add all "new" creators in wikidata (at least, those with wikilinks Clin), and find all those I can, (see my work (in progress here).

That could easily be done, through an addition to "Authority control" or through a dedicated field (like for Wikisource), and could apply a little icon on Creators with wikidata links (like those I prepared here), and a maintenance category like category:Creator templates with Wikidata link, for example (or Category with Wikidata link).

In the future, it could allow a better gestion of wikilinks, thanks to unique updated data, instead of individually made links…, which could be very useful for "LangSwith" names (for now, it is a PITA to add them manually when there are more than 5).

I discussed it with Jarekt who would agree with it, and I'm quite certain we could get a help from Tpt, who has "global edit interface" here, and is sysop there (and on Wikisource too), and very active in the wikidata developpment, and creates many scripts, on many sites.

  • Discussion on Wikidata here

What do you think ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's good idea. I could also suggest to look into images which are using {{Google Art Project}}. Part of data are definitely intersected with {{Creator}}. Data could be shared between different copies of same images and articles in Wikipedia about famous paintings. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
There are categories of people (no creators), which should get a wikidata-link like Category:Alexandra Starker. --PigeonIP (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
@PigeonIP : Yes, I agree, that's why I proposed to insert the Wikidata link in "Authority control" - but that first implies that there is at least one wikipedia article about the person Clin
and, just to show what Wikidata can bring to Commons (or any other project), Tpt wrote a little script that allows to get "all" the wikilinks from Wikidata, when you know the wikidata # wikidata:User_talk:Tpt#liens_Wikidata_et_Commons - it works fine, and lets me gain quite some time for Creators Face-smile.svg - it adds a (tennis ball) button in the advanced edit toolbar when added to common.js. --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The majority of Category:people by name are not creators and they need interlanguage links too, so a global uniform approach should be privileged. Moreover, those names in other languages should be searchable (which they are not yet), should be click-able on the left side of the screen below the toolbar, and should be automatically updated by bots (which is done now). The gadget [2] allows to get them quikcly. --Foroa (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
for that too, One pedia article is necessary ;) - this script is just an example of what we could gain by systematically keeping tracks of wikidata items on creators, categories... --Hsarrazin (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I added the example of Alexandra Starker, because there may never be an article and Alexandra Starker is not covered by authority control. But she has a FIS Code and a birth date that may prevent from further mistaken identity with another Alexandra Starker. Name and birth date are personal data for starters, a FIS Code is a bonus. That is why I think personal data of wikidata and interwikilinks should be primarily connected with categories than templates. Templates may be additions. Thinking of {{LangSwitch}} and interwikilinks in some templates like {{Creator}}. --PigeonIP (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
what is a "FIS" ? (in French it is Front islamique du salut Clin) --Hsarrazin (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
FIS = Fédération Internationale de Ski: Alexandra Starker is/was an alpine skier and is a member of the Canadian Women's Sitting Volleyball Team, too. Anders Jacobsen for example has the FIS Code 4889. [3] I am aghast that I had to set interwikilinks there! --PigeonIP (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I should have guessed it lol
@PigeonIP : for now, wikidata only accepts items with at least one wikilink, but it may change in the future, and there are only wikilinks and multimedia files stored in wikidata, but they will begin storing personnal (and geographical, and many others) data in a few months… (and you can also build a "stub" article on wikipedia - just to ensure there will be a wikilink Clin
@Foroa : by linking to Wikidata in the {{Authority control}} template, we could insure that both Categories AND Creators would have access to it (since the AC are transcluded in their home categories).
my primary goal, for now, is having as many "creators" as possible to link to the files, since they are much easier to manage than authors names in many languages and forms… but I think that is only a beginning (after all, wikidata is only a few "months" old). --Hsarrazin (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to add wikidata link to Creator templates and to Authority control templates, since most of categories do not have creator templates. The only, thing that gives me pause is that I do not know how will Commons use interwiki data stored in wikidata, in the future. Currently Commons has interwiki links to Wikipedias, however wikipedias do not link to Commons through interwikis. Wikidate interwiki links at the moment only hold links to wikipedias and there are no links to other "sister" projects like Commons, wikisource, wikiquote, etc. I assume that they will be added to the wikidata at some point as well and I am curious how. Because if in the future links to Commons and other projects will be added to the same page as current wikipedia interwiki links than all we will have to do is to add the link at wikidata and the next generation wikimedia software will automatically create links here. --Jarekt (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata holds sitelinks to external sites, and those might be Mediawiki-sites but can also be other sites. For now we only support sites in the group for Wikipedia, that is code="wiki".[4] There are a few differences between the groups, and that creates problems when it comes to Commons. Those problems must probably be sorted out before we can start creating sitelinks to Commons. Most important is probably that links would go to categories for real world entities and not to individual content pages. That does not mean you can't reuse information from Wikidata on individual content pages, but it could mean that simplified embedding would only work when a page is categorized in one of the sitelinked categories.
When statements goes live on Wikidata it is fairly likely that some of them will use properties for authority control. In our context that would be a property just like anything else, it would just be a property named Fédération Internationale de Ski (or Identifier FIS) where you can add some code. There is a discussion if there should be some kind of international identifiers like the localized aliases, but I think properties are good enough.
As far as I know (heh, would not be the first time I'm mistaken) there are no plans on storing multimedia files at Wikidata, but there are some very rudimentary ideas on how the Wikibase extension can be adjusted to Commons needs. That would make it easier to reuse information from the file-pages in other projects. Information about the creator of an artwork could then be made available wherever the file is used. Jeblad (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Jeblad, thanks for the explanation. I am not sure if I got everything. So you are saing that "wikidata holds sitelinks to external sites" - are those used for interwiki links (like d:Q162077)? And is there a way (or will there be a way in the future) to add link to Commons category (Category:Glyptothek Munich) so the future interwiki links between commons and wikipedias can be stored on wikidata site? I agree that majority of interwiki links on Commons are between commons-categories and wikipedia-articles, however there is a decent amount of links between commons-galeries (we call pages in namespace 0 "galleries" not "articles") and wikipedia-articles. To capture that complexity we could have 2 sitelinks for Commons: one for category and one for Gallery. That way users of that information would always know what they are getting. --Jarekt (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
By the way I added wikidata parameters to {{Creator}} and {{Institution}}, see for example Creator:Alberto Valenzuela Llanos and Institution:Glyptothek Munich. --Jarekt (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
The pages linked in "List of pages linked to this item" is sitelinks. They are specified as a pair of site id and title, and only valid site ids can be used. For now the only valid site ids belong to the group Wikipedia. In our initial version there could only be one sitelink for each item, but now we can have several if they go to different namespaces. That is we can link to category pages in addition to content pages, or in the case of Commons that would be galleries. I'm not quite sure about the status of this, I don't think it has gone live yet. You can link to items without any problems, the limitation on the sitelinks will only have an effect on backlinks from Wikidata and to Commons and how to reuse data from the items. Jeblad (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Jarekt Face-smile.svg - can I begin to use them to store the wikidata for each creator I find ? or wait a little ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Note : the script that allows to compute LangSwitch from the Wikidata # has evolved quite a lot, and is now here - you may, of course, import it to your common.js, if you wish to be able to use it.

Also, Tpt has built a site [5] where he imported all the commons creators he found on january the 2nd, and made links with other projects, that allows this script to work without manually inputing the Wikidata # (here is [George Washington Lambert George Washington Lambert's page] for example. The creators are not updated automatically, but their links to wikidata yes (see the link to wikidata, that I created only yesterday night).

This site has been built to allow bots to use the data stored there to update automatically data here…

Don't hesitate to contact him if you wish to know more about it - he's the magician with code, not me lol --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

December 31

Linking to Wikipedias and the {{On Wikipedia}} template

This is to broaden a recent discussion of some issues about linking, and particularly this {{On Wikipedia}} template.

Interwiki links in category headers

I think it's axiomatic that Commons content is improved both by descriptive headings on categories and linkage to Wikipedia there. This helps with explanation, with clarifying scope, and with basic "building the web".

There are many formats in common practice for this. {{Mainw}} has been one (e.g, [6]), most categories are using (in recent edits) a verbose hand-coded but flexible form (e.g. [7]), there is now {{On Wikipedia}} (e.g. [8]) which appears to be an all-singing all-dancing attempt to solve everything, once and for all.

  • Do we need standards for this? Or is per-use flexibility better?
  • Do we need templates for this, or is their rigid boilerplate an unnecessary and unproductive constraint?
    • When the custom approach is done well, there is additional clarifying text, not just a link title. Or should any such text be deleted on sight, as an inappropriate attempt to become an encyclopedia?
  • Should all interwiki links always be included? We have many potential links here, but many just don't add much – they're either very close to existing links, or they're too simple a bare link title.
    • At present, where we have expanded link text this is often English-only, sometimes in other popular languages, or in a locally-relevant language (mostly for geographically relevant categories). The point is that these languages have been naturally selected by the effort available for adding them, i.e. the most useful links are those that have been worked upon and added. This is a more tailored selection than the blanket approach produced by the template, where the Azerbaijani article on Napoleon Bonaparte would be sorted before the French article.
  • Is "Main Wikipedia" a valid concept, or is that just nationalist chauvinism to the en:WP? What if "Main Wikipedia" has to be a non-English WP, as it is likely to be for many geographically specific topics.
Interwiki links for automatic parsing
  • Should articles have interwiki links? (i.e. Specifically the sort using [[en:Foo]] syntax and thus appearing at the foot of the left column, rather than the more general [[:en:Foo|]] form that appear in-line.)
    • Should such interwikis be added to pages, or should they be added through a template such as {{On Wikipedia}}?
Linkage to Wikipedia articles, or to categories
  • Should Commons categories be linked to Wikipedia articles at all? The view has been expressed that Commons should not link to articles, and that categories at Commons should only be linked if they're linked to other categories.

Your thoughts please: Andy Dingley (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that removal of interwiki links (aka. interlanguage links) like the case discussed here, is always wrong. I think templates like {{On Wikipedia}} are fine but unless there is a plan to write a bot to keep them up to date, they will always be outdated. --Jarekt (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Should Commons categories be linked too Wikipedia articles at all?

In my case: Yes! Providing an example: Category:American Show Racer, there is no benefit by creating a gallery for linking purposes only. Category:Anders Jacobsen is another example from above. --PigeonIP (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Commons goes much deeper in categories than en:wiki and within one or two years, Commons will have more categories than there exists articles on wikipedia, while it has less than 107000 galleries and 75000 redirecting galleries. So obviously, the relation en:wiki articles/Commons categories and vice versa is rather crossed.
  • Interlanguage links are the most interesting links, as far as I am concerned links to wikipedia articles (not categories) as we want to make sure that all people can easily understand in their language the content of a category. Moreover, those links is the only maintenance part that is handled very well by bots.
    • Unfortunately, the interlanguage links are not (yet) included in the search database, but nobody seems to be concerned for such a powerful multi-language translation tool; people seem to prefer to dream about future translation software while the basic elements are there waiting to be exploited.
    • It would be nice if the mouse hovers over the interlanguage links that the first paragraph(s) of the related articles would pop up.
    • As far as I know, interlanguage links to categories are not exploited by tools, so I would certainly give preference to links to articles.
  • {{On Wikipedia}} is a nice extension for relatively simple subjects that can be grasped with one or two words. A pity that bots cannot maintain them (yet). In the mean time interlanguage links are much more practical and easier to look up, especially when a corresponding article exists in 270 different languages.
  • When including text from tools such as in this example, I include
    • The English text as a minimum
    • The texts in the local languages (if possible, although I get often confused in India for that) for items that are closely related to a specific culture or region.
    • The texts in all languages when they concern items with many naming variants in many languages such as Category:Mbira and Category:Pedal cars.
  • I don't think that {{Mainw}} add something to it as it is not expandable, so more restrictive than the other methods, except when one wants to refere to a general theory/description that covers a whole category tree. --Foroa (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think that Commons categories can and should link to Wikipedia articles if the Commons category is about the same subject. If Commons category matches a Wikipedia category then the category should be linked (and only that). Categories are our main tools as gallery pages are quite under-utilized and frequently poorly maintained. Creating gallery pages for linking purposes would only increase maintenance workload. MKFI (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • On Commons the categories play similar roles as Wikipedia articles, and for most wikipedia articles (with some images) we have corresponding category. That is why most interwiki links (aka. interlanguage links) on commons are between commons categories and a wikipedia articles. Commons galleries occasionally have links too, but those are often unmaintained, rarely visited, and sometimes just wrong. --Jarekt (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, in fact I would say they MUST be linked to Wikipedia Articles. I expect the linkages between Wikipedia and Commons to be asymmetric. The typical linkage would be: Subject article on Wikipedia links to Gallery on Commons (through a {{Commonscat}}). The Gallery links back to the Subject article on Wikipedia and all the inter-wiki versions. The Gallery is part of a Commons Category. The Commons Category links back to the Wikipedia subject articles, again including all the inter-wikis. I'm not sure I can see any examples when a Commons Category would want to be linked to a Wikipedia Category. When I create a new category I try to pick up all the inter-wikis from the relevant articles so that the category has the best start possible. A bot which says this category is linked to these Wikipedia articles, and these articles are inter-wikied to these other articles, and then updates the category (and articles) to have the full set everywhere would be helpful. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I think Commons categories should link to Wikipedias'categories when such categories exist, and there are plenty of examples. For example, Commons categories "cultural heritage monuments in..." are better linked to Wikipedia categories of monuments than to lists. For geographical categories, I see no advantage in linking to an article instead of a category. IMO, the current rule of thumb of linking categories to categories when possible, is still the best option.
Anyway, one Commons category could link to articles AND categories in Wikipedias (even in the same Wikipedia, maybe). This is also a common practice, but the way it is presented needs to be improved to make clear to the reader where the links point.--Pere prlpz (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A multilingual template for Nudes ?


Considering the very high number of "Nudes" artworks contain, I think a template with autotranslation between the different languages could be very useful, perhaps with a parameter like "male/female", unless there is already one, that I did not find Clin --Hsarrazin (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not see it at Category:Multilingual tags: Title, so go ahead create it. --Jarekt (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I think this would be useful for the title or description field --moogsi(blah) 11:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done {{Nude}} I will need help for translations, since I only know the english and the french word lol, and I don't know at all how to insert the parameter control for "male/female"
I would suggest : Genre = m/f, but I do not how to insert it since the position of the adjective is different in the different languages --Hsarrazin (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2

Error of Cateogories File:Pick2.jpg

That file certainly does not represent a man from the 19th century : see the sweatshirt and backpack (seems like a skier or an alpinist to me) - a mistake, an homonym, or someone having fun ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The cats were added by User:CategorizationBot automatically based solely on the word "pick". That is why it has Template:Check categories - they are wrong. I have removed them, and deleted the image as out of scope since it's unused, 3 years old, very low quality, and contains no information about who it depicts. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Why did the page report the file as used on cs:Georg_Alexander_Pick (but the image did not appear there)? Dankarl (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
It was removed from the article and Commons didn't pick that up yet. Apparently, the image was of this guy, who is supposed to be the only living relative of Georg Pick (going by the Google translation of the removed paragraph). --rimshottalk 23:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah I didn't research thoroughly enough. Nevertheless it's an obvious copyvio without a license statement from the photographer. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Dcoetzee, your assumption about how categorization bot works is wrong. The categories weren't added based solely on the word "pick"', but we're added based on the usage at cs:Georg_Alexander_Pick and the data from Commons:Tools#CommonSense. Multichill (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
My mistake, that use was removed from the article before I examined it and so I could not tell it was ever used there. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

January 3

Upload form

Is it just me or did the fancier upload form at Special:Upload disappear? Just earlier today it was there and now I only see the old basic upload form. In my preferences, I see that I have the ImprovedUploadForm gadget checked. Anyone know? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 23:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Me too. I have also problems to view SVG file into multiple dimensions. Raoli ✉ (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC) And now also for the Edittols. Raoli ✉ (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I wonder what "the fancier upload form" means... ? --Malyacko (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
ImprovedUploadForm is not the wizard but the script Lupo wrote years ago on top of Special:Upload.
While changing a sidebar link text, I accidentally broke MediaWiki:Gadget-UploadWizard so folk had to click through another form to get Upload Wizard. I regret the inconvenience. -- Rillke(q?) 16:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

January 4

Flickr Upload bot category

I see that the Flickr Upload bot puts all files uploaded using the interface on a single category: Category:Flickr images uploaded by Flickr upload bot. This can be a bit problematic taking into consideration that The bot only recognized the license and not the content. As a result, a screenshot of a copyrighted program can be uploaded under the cc-by-sa 2.0 license and it'll take a considerable amount of time to detect it if using that single category. Therefore, I'd like to propose the creation of monthly (or daily) categories to better keep track of the bot's uploads and make easier the job to double check the uploads to verify they don't violate copyright. Any thoughts? — ΛΧΣ21 00:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  • BE BOLD and JUST DO IT!--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I wish I could, but for this to be done, the bot has to be modified. it is not easy to check 180,000 images :) — ΛΧΣ21 02:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Please don't. Permanent tracker categories are usually flat. If you want to see recent additions to the category just look in the Related changes. Multichill (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I won't do it, not even if paid for xD Too much work to be handled by a human. — ΛΧΣ21 03:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Could another set of categories be created and then deleted as they are checked?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I was thinking of something about these lines. — ΛΧΣ21 03:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

image annotations problem

(only for me?) the annotations are no longer shown. Firefox 17.x on Win XP. This started tonight. I thought something went wrong in Windows, cleaned the cache etc. But after booting with linux (other partition, not booted for about 20 hours) I still have the same problem (Firefox 17.0 on opensuse 12.2). So this seems to localize the problem outside of my computer. Some warning on my error console:

source file:

Warnung: 'important' erwartet, aber 'ie' gefunden. ';' oder '}' zum Beenden der Deklaration erwartet, aber 'ie' gefunden. Deklaration ignoriert. Zeile: 13
Warnung: 'important' erwartet, aber 'ie' gefunden. ';' oder '}' zum Beenden der Deklaration erwartet, aber 'ie' gefunden. Deklaration ignoriert. Zeile: 10
Warnung: Unbekannte Eigenschaft 'zoom'. Deklaration ignoriert. Zeile: 10
Warnung: Farbe erwartet, aber 'bottom' gefunden. Fehler beim Verarbeiten des Wertes für 'background-image'. Deklaration ignoriert. Zeile: 10
Warnung: Fehler beim Verarbeiten des Wertes für 'background-image'. Deklaration ignoriert. Zeile: 10
Warnung: Unbekannte Eigenschaft '-moz-box-shadow'. Deklaration ignoriert. Zeile: 10
Warnung: ';' oder '}' zum Beenden der Deklaration erwartet, aber '!' gefunden. Deklaration ignoriert. Zeile: 9

etc. I will be back here tomorrow ... Greetings, -- 02:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

works again ... in case somebody helped out: thanks :-) Greetings, -- Schusch (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
That's interesting. See my posting further up the page, entitled Image Display Fault. I'm also finding that annotations I've seen working are no longer showing up. Kim Traynor (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I also encountered that problem, that seem to be evanescent, on some artworks by Hieronymus Bosch. First, I thought I had accidentally erased or modified an important tag, then the annotations reappeared. Pb of memory ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Former and abandoned

Please leave some feedback at Category talk:Former mining buildings in Sweden, but is there a significant reason there are separate categories for some structures but not for others? Is Category:Derelict buildings something to take into account in this context? I'm not all familiar with the linguistic nuances in former, abandoned, ruined, defunct, etc., although the Swedish equivalents (which I'm more comfortable with) should be about the same. V-wolf (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

January 5

Creators for "École française", "English school", etc.


It is, in fact, a very common use to designate an artwork with the appellation "French school", etc., + a century, because no-one knows the real painter…

There already is École française, why not adding English school, Italian school, German school, Flemish school, or at least templates, to make them "multilingual" ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

see here or here what I mean :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Montreuil - Salon du livre jeunesse 2011 - Lilidoll - 001.jpg

Hi, I found the deletion of File:Montreuil - Salon du livre jeunesse 2011 - Lilidoll - 001.jpg. An administrator who deleted the image said, "Although we have no way of knowing whether this IP user is in fact the subject of the image, it is certainly true that in France permission is required for any photogrpah of any person (does 'any person' include public figures?). Therefore we must delete this." But I fear the deletion may effectively damage the first statement of en:WP:NFC#UUI and the licensing resolution of WMF ("An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals.") because if we fail to obtain the permission (not copyright-related permission) from the subject of the image that means there is no way to create, find, and/or use free image of the subject. Puramyun31 (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

English Wikipedia policies are an issue for English Wikipedia. That project already uses a different definition of public domain by only requiring works to be in the public domain in the United States whereas Commons also cares about the source country. The project could also decide to use a different version of COM:IDENT if it so wishes. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
So, if a potrait image does not meet COM:IDENT, the problem is solved just to move the image to English Wikipedia? I don't think it's a good solution just to get away the problem, because as a know some Wikipedias do not allow local uploads. Also I guess the Wikipedias probably intend for freedom from copyright restrictions, not non-copyright restrictions such as COM:IDENT issue. Puramyun31 (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You are going toward a situation when commons will split into a US and an european divisions, fully independent. Not a good imagination. -jkb- (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Does my french suck that bad or is that in Montreal, Canada?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Removing deleted category scheme template

Template:Category scheme astronomy was deleted two months ago, but is still included in about 300 pages. Is there a bot that could clean up this? MKFI (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done - you can call me "bot" Clin --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

January 6

Quick recategorization?

About 90% of photos from Category:Katowice (few hundred total...) needs to be recategorized to Category:Buildings in Katowice. Is there any quick way to do it? I don't feel like spending an hour or two doing this manually... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you try Cat-a-lot gadget? MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js may be helpful too. If you familiar with place, may be you could find event better places for individual building images? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I'll try the gadget out. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

January 7

CommonsCat: a Tumblr hailing Wikimedia Commons categories


Just to let you know that since mid October, Léna and myself are curating a Tumblr about the sheer awesomeness that are Wikimedia Commons categories: CommonsCat. There is also a Twitter to broadcast the posts, @CommonsCat.

We feature a Wikimedia Commons category each day (which makes 70 so far). It is a fun thing to do.

Hope you will enjoy it too − feel free to give suggestions :-)

Jean-Fred (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is awesome and fun and great exposure for Commons too. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words Dcoetzee :-). Jean-Fred (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleted photos of the silent movie Nosferatu ?

Why have the stills/photos of the film Nosferatu been deleted? The film is over 90 years old and the director died over 80 years ago. I thought 70 years after a "creators" death was the limit.--Ezzex (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was established as PD, though I notice that the screenplay was written by Henrik Galeen who did not die until 1949. -- (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, a bit more searching shows it as copyright in Germany until 2028. See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:NosferatuShadow.jpg. -- (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
So it's not only the director that have artistic rights to a movie.--Ezzex (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Certainly not in Germany. It is the same situation in the UK. It is incredibly tough to find a film out of copyright in any archive as every name in the credits needs to be considered for a potential claim of copyright. Finding films made over 100 years ago, or even where the named director died 100 years ago is not sufficient. Even worse, sometimes you can find situations where stills from the film, the soundtrack of the film and different sections of the same film, might have different copyright statuses! -- (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
A European copyright directive (w:Copyright Term Directive) tells that you only need to care about the year of death of some of the people in the credits:

"The term of protection of cinematographic or audiovisual works shall expire 70 years after the death of the last of the following persons to survive, whether or not these persons are designated as co-authors: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work."

However, Germany, the United Kingdom and possibly other countries have a special transitional rule: if the work was created before the w:Copyright Duration Directive went into force, then the old copyright term is used instead of the new copyright term if the old copyright term is longer. Thus, if the previous German and British copyright laws state that you have to consider the year of death of everyone listed in the credits, then you still have to do this. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
« have to consider the year of death of everyone listed in the credits». This is both outrageous and sad.--Ezzex (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me if I say silly things, but the "movie" is protected in all its parts, but what part did the "screenplay writer" have in a single "photograph" of the movie… like if a photo of a movie representing a certain actor was protected because another actor of the same movie (not on the picture), was dead only 60 years ago !! it does not seem logical to me :(
That said, I will not contest German law (or any other law), and won't "fight" to keep a "protected picture" - it's just that it does not seem "logical" Face-smile.svg --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
These rules are silly and have no place in the modern internet age. This is the rules for the 20th century, not the 21th.--Ezzex (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
If being silly stopped things being law... Rd232 (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Move & replace

The new Move & replace thing is great, in general, but it would be nice if (admins at least) were able to tell it NOT to leave a damn redirect. It really makes it annoying to renumber, since it won't give an option to move to a created page (a redirect), and doesn't offer the chance to delete the existing page. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that it does not allow you to move files to the position of a redirect pointing to that file and only having one revision is a bug. I've added this to MediaWiki talk:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js#TO DO.
Just to clarify, it does not allow not leaving a redirect if the file is in use. -- Rillke(q?) 17:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to like ever not leaving a redirect if the file's been around for more than 30mins *grumble* -mattbuck (Talk) 01:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Ideas/Bugs for hackfest

Hello people! I'm helping conduct a 3 day hackathon at IIT Madras, starting yesterday. We finished basic Gadgets training yesterday, and I have now a dozen enthusiastic volunteers looking for Gadgets to write. I've started collecting tasks at mw:User:Yuvipanda/Hackfest_ideas. Anyone adding anything more would be highly appreciated! Thanks! Yuvipanda (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

How about 'Make Cat-a-Lot work on search result pages'? Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Andy, what exactly does not work with Cat-a-Lot on the search result page? For me, it works fine at e.g. this page? -- Rillke(q?) 21:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I does for me, too. That's odd - I couldn't get it to work, yesterday. Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Compagnie maritime belge ships

I am trying to discover the name of this ship. A usefull guide is the list in fr:Compagnie maritime belge. There is a Dutch description in nl:Léopoldville (1895). Even more problematic is File:Boma Les Quais.jpg.

I have done some research on File:MS Georg Büchner HBP 2011-06-28.jpg and added the Belgian history in the English description. This needs to be translated and added in the German and French descriptions. (There is a full description in the German article de:Georg Büchner (Schiff).Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Animal husbandry

Does anybody know what is the difference between, Category:Livestock and Category:Animal husbandry? Or better: it there an advantage to make a difference at commons? --PigeonIP (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

  • The only possibly useful difference I could imagine is if the latter image showed people in the act of actually working with livestock. - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

International copyright quick reference guide

I've created a new page Commons:International copyright quick reference guide to help users (and myself) in figuring out the rather complex conditions dictating whether a non-US work is acceptable for upload to Commons. It's intended to be more accessible and easy-to-use than the table at en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, calculating specific years rather than providing a static description of the law. I haven't completed all countries yet, but a lot of them are up there - let me know if there are any missing you'd like me to prioritise. It has two tables, a "public domain" table that tells you when works are in the public domain and which tag to use (useful for uploading), and a "copyrighted" table that tells you when, where, and why they're copyrighted (useful for deletion requests). Most of the table is dynamically generated using templates, and all the years update dynamically over the time. Please take a look and let me know your feedback on the design, suggestions for improvement, errors in the table, etc. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, interesting initiative Face-smile.svg - wouldn't it be better to indicate "auto" PD tags, instead of static PD-50, PD-70, etc ?
As for Music in France, bef. 1948, it was 58pma+120 days, not 78pma :) - and that's for "composers", not "interprets", where the protection is much shorter… --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
It would, where the author's death year is precisely known - but it is not always (for example knowing someone died before in the 1930s is enough tp know an Italian work is PD but you wouldn't be able to use the auto tag). I added a note to the introduction to indicate this, but I don't think it can be indicated in the table without being excessively verbose. Regarding music in France - the 1995 law says "On the death of the author, the right shall subsist for his successors in title during the current calendar year and for 50 years thereafter. However, for musical compositions with or without words the term shall be of 70 years." This would have been in force at the time of the URAA, and I believe it applies retroactively, with the wartime extensions in L123-9, to all works published before 1995, so musical compositions would have been 78pma+120 days on the URAA date. Is this accurate? See also the interpretation at en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#endnote_tab_france, which states "The extensions are therefore mostly moot in France today, except possibly [...] authors of musical compositions, if the longer terms were already running on July 1, 1995." I'll note that it applies to compositions rather than performances. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, in fact, it is much more complicated that that, since it is not (an never was) a uniform duration of 58+120 or 78+120 for an author : it was (for authors dead before 1995) 50 + for each work : number of days depending on the date of publication AND the date of death of the author : i.e. work published before 1914 : 14 years (if author died after 1949), works published after 1919 and before 1949 : 8+120, but work published after 1949 : only 50 years (70 for authors dead after the 1995 law, but without war prolongation) see here a detailed article in French.
The same author could benefit of different durations for different works published at different times. - The 1995 law decided on a "uniform" 70 years for all living authors and all "works" that still were not PD on 1/1/95 (all authors dead before 1930 + some works of authors dead later were already PD), and remember that in France, the law is "never" retroactive… -
The computation has to be made "work by work", not "author by author" --Hsarrazin (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
All this is correct, but it doesn't actually change much. Works published before 1921 are PD in the US, so their status on the URAA date is irrelevant. It also doesn't affect their status in France since the change to 70 pma was retroactive there at least according to my sources. (Note that your cited article mistakenly interpreted the law's "toutes les œuvres publiées avant cette dernière date" as meaning before 1914, but according to fr:Prorogations de guerre this signifies works published before the date "la fin de l'année suivant le jour de la signature du traité de paix" or Jan 1, 1921, since the Treaties of Trianon and Sèvres came into effect in 1920. They have reliable sources for that.) However according to fr:Prorogations de guerre, terms for musical compositions that increased above 70 pma in 1984 were lowered back down to 70 pma in 1992, and that would have been in effect on the URAA date, but there is deep legal uncertainty about whether terms can be diminished. In any case for now I'm just going to strip musical compositions from the table since they're not common and exceptionally complex and uncertain. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you could link to {{PD-in}} from this reference? It's a very powerful template. -- Rillke(q?) 00:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I like PD-in, but as with the auto templates, it's only really useful when all the necessary information is known precisely, and it has a lot of parameters that may or may not be relevant in any particular case. You can't always be conservative by just rounding up, because e.g. some copyright extensions only apply before a particular year. I think the ideal way to do this is with a "wizard" or expert system that uses a decision tree to ask a series of questions until the copyright status is determined with reasonable certainty. The table is sort of a first approximation of this, but just work type, author death date, and publication date/creation date aren't really sufficient in all circumstances. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a large group of images under anonymous EU. The publication date is older than 70 years. Theoreticaly it should be 1996 - 70 = 1926 cut off date. In practice it should be left alone. If the author is "discovered" the normal rules can be applied. There is no legal risk if best effort is applied to discover the author. Most of these are local postcard views, wich have nothing to do with US-laws and zero commercial value.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The cut-off date varies from country to country depending on the copyright term for anonymous works on the URAA date. Also, if it is in the public domain in Europe because it is unpublished and at least 70 years old, then it additionally needs to comply with {{PD-US-unpublished}}, which essentially requires it to be 120 years old, so {{Anonymous-EU}} is a scary template. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm avoiding thinking about anonymous works right now because that's another level of complexity and most of the rules in the "copyrighted table" include a death date which would not be available for an anonymous author (so it's just incomplete rather than incorrect). Dcoetzee (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm. On the one hand, it may be useful. On the other hand, it competes with Commons:Copyright rules by territory (and especially its summary table at Commons:Copyright rules by territory - summary) and Commons:Copyright tags. We should really try and merge these somehow. Rd232 (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of those pages but the summary table is very incomplete and complex - this table is intended to address just the most common cases across a wide range of countries with specific dates. So I think they're not strictly redundant. I do think the summary table seems redundant with en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights though. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Cannot be displayed because it contains errors

I am currently getting messages of the form "... cannot be displayed, because it contains errors" for display of any file at a resolution greater than a couple of thousand pixels wide. Though wikimedia does seem to be able to generate new thumbnails at resolutions smaller than that, so apparently it can still read the file. eg this file --Tony Wills (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems to have fixed itself now. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Until relatively recently, if you requested a rendering of an SVG more than 2000 pixels wide, you would get a 2000-pixel wide image... AnonMoos (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

How to deal with photos which are taken behind color glass?

Hello! I took some photos behind a piece of blue glass. As a result, all the things in the photos are in blue. I want to use GIMP to adjust them. Could someone tell me how to finish the adjustment? Thank you very much!--Jack No1 (中文/English) (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop may have advice.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This Youtube tutorial might help: Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Dashes in file names

There is a script on en:wp that turns dashes to endashes in file names in articles and breaks the links. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That's only a problem for English Wikipedia. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Thought: script is broken and should be blocked til it's fixed. Find an English WP admin and point them at it. Rd232 (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
All sorts of dashes should be avoided as it is a source of problems: dashes are not available on standard keyboards in several countries, some times they use even other symbols (there are 4 different dashes that are difficult to distinguish). --Foroa (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems like dashes are way too frequent in names and stuff to get rid. Given that we do have filenames in any number of languages, the fact that dashes are not available on standard keyboards and are hard to distinguish in some cases doesn't strike me as convincing; I could say that about pretty much all Arabic filenames, for example.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Unnecessary confusion is different from spelling in a different language. In any case, whatever script Canoe1967 is referring to will be part of the en:Wikipedia:MOSDASH saga, where hyphens (which people use by default because it's on the English keyboard) are mass-replaced by en-dashes (which may or may not be strictly more correct). Such a script should certainly not be breaking file references. Rd232 (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I have read through some of the talk page since and it seems the human has to review and click each change. Someone probably got click happy on the one I caught.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
That's no excuse - even with human review, the script shouldn't be doing things that are obviously wrong and easy to detect automatically. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

January 8

About licence of some pictures

I`ve uploaded some pictures from "Star Wars. The exhibition" in Madrid, but I have a dude, can I use pictures from objects that they have their own copyright? These are the images:

The originals were scale model, R2D2 and C3PO were scale 1:1.

Thank you very much in advance.--Nachosan (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

COM:FOP says statue images are allowed in Spain. Does copyright matter in the country of origin for the models? I assume USA which doesn't have FOP for statues.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It says that freedom of panorama only applies for works "located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares". It sounds as if freedom of panorama only applies outdoors, but this seems to be indoors. Also, works have to be permanently located there. Is this a temporary exhibition? --Stefan4 (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Star Wars: The Exhibition is a traveling exhibit touring across Europe as part of the Star Wars 30th anniversary festivities in Europe. It is certainly temporary and I've deleted the images. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Derivative works explains why your images are not suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Be a Wikimedia fundraising "User Experience" volunteer!

Thank you to everyone who volunteered last year on the Wikimedia fundraising 'User Experience' project. We have talked to many different people in different countries and their feedback has helped us immensely in restructuring our pages. If you haven't heard of it yet, the 'User Experience' project has the goal of understanding the donation experience in different countries (outside the USA) and enhancing the localization of our donation pages.

I am (still) searching for volunteers to spend some time 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 very low amounts, like 1-2 dollars)**

By helping us you are actually helping thousands of people to support our mission of free knowledge across the world. If you are interested (or know of anyone who could be) please email All countries needed (excepting USA)!!


Pats Pena
Global Fundraising Operations Manager, Wikimedia Foundation

Sent using Global message delivery, 20:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

January 9

No index template

On the en.wikipedia (and others) the following template can be added to user pages to avoid indexing by Google, etc. But the template shows up as a redlink here. I recommend Commons allow for no-indexing.
{{NOINDEX|visible = yes/no}}
--Srich32977 (talk) 06:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The template was deleted two years ago. Use the magic word __NOINDEX__ instead. No-indexing is a MediaWiki feature, en:Template:NOINDEX is merely a convinience wrapper. MKFI (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Commons is not for articles

{{Commons is not for articles}} is a new message template to help users trying to create articles on Commons find the relevant help pages on Wikipedia. Please help translate this, and be sure to point translations at the equivalent pages on the relevant language Wikipedia. Thanks, Rd232 (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Great - can we get it incorporated into the "notify user" script - would be very very very handy there --Herby talk thyme 12:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Format of dates in category names

We have some categories which have dates in them of the form month day or day month - see examples in Category:Vladimir Putin by day. There does not appear to be any standard for the naming (looking at Commons:Categories#Category_names and Commons:Naming categories), so we get a mix of month day / day month styles, sometimes within the same topic (again Category:Vladimir Putin by day is an example). This is a bit messy and can also cause confusion, and sometimes renaming of categories (which we always want to keep to a minimum).

Can we agree on a standard format, at least for new categories? (The obvious choice would be the one used by the main day categories, like Category:31 December, which all seem to be day month.) Rd232 (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be a tremendous help to categorization if contributors weren't always left to guess which format was used by the category ("is it 'Vladimir Putin on 15 November' or 'Vladimir Putin on November 15'?").--Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

January 10

batch uploads

(Before beginning, I'll say I've googled "wikimedia commons upload api" and reviewed Commons:Commons API.)

Say I have twenty files that will ultimately contain very similar file metadata. Is there an easy way to get these uploaded and then tweak the metadata? This could be through an API or through the web site interface. When I say "easy" I don't mind some technical proficiency being required. Perhaps I should say "efficient" instead of easy.

I don't consider the page that allows multiple files to be selected and uploaded at once "easy" because every one of the twenty files would have at least two required fields that need the same information pasted in--information that will be embellished once the file is uploaded in any case. Or do I have to look into the bot route if I'm even remotely interested in such a concept? Thanks, Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I understand, you want to mass-edit files after upload? Maybe VisualFileChange.js would work for you then?
Otherwise, the UploadWizard does allow copy of metadata from one file to all others during a batch upload.
Jean-Fred (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't rush to start playing with the API for just 20 files - it's a bit of a pain. As Jean-Fred mentions, Visual File Change is a great way of editing the contents of all image pages in a category if you have some general text corrections (including templates, licenses etc). The word "metadata" may be a little confusing here. There is metadata associated with image and the image page that is not editable by simply using the 'edit' button. For example the EXIF data for an image is not editable that way, though can be queried using the API. This is different from the information (that can also be called the image metadata) you fill in during image upload and on a smallish batch of images, stuff like categories, licence and geodata can be instantly made the same across all images when you use the standard upload interface. Thanks -- (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Tx for the replies. To clarify: I am interested in the most efficient way to upload a moderate number of files, as opposed to doing one at a time, appending a single wikitext description/license to all of them that I then adjust for each file afterwards. Jean-Fred mentions that the Upload Wizard allows copying of the file information from one file to all the others, which I was not aware of. I've now tried that feature and it's a big help, close enough to addressing my issue. It is too bad that we don't have an advanced version of the batch upload feature that is incorporated in Upload Wizard, where one can paste in all the prepared wikitext like the basic upload form, rather than being forced to complete the individual Upload Wizard fields that add superfluous wikitext to the file. (See the initial state of this file which I just uploaded--it's got my {artwork} template framework, plus the duplicate junk resulting from the fields that Upload Wizard forced me to fill in. ...But I am just another guy saying "it would be nice if" with respect to Commons tools.
Fae, could you clarify for my interest, to use an upload API does one need special permission or bot clearance? I haven't seen anything on the upload API that is specific to Commons, only the Mediawiki page about it. Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Using a different template than {{Information}} is the moment the UploadWizard becomes useless, indeed. Maybe have a look at Commons:Tools#Upload_media: there are a number of desktop applications to upload media − the long-time Commonist, and the newcomers Up! and Commons:VicuñaUploader − I am not myself a user of these tools, but from what I heard they might just be what you need. Jean-Fred (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Thanks again. One of those tools might be just what I need. I didn't realize they were out there. I must say, a category or Commons: index of upload-related pages would be handy. (I looked before starting this thread... Or can't I find that either. :-) Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Boo-Boo, you don't need any special permission to play with the API, there's all sorts of clever things you can do, particularly if you know how to pull in xml results from an API call into a programming language of your choice (Python being a free popular language). However I can recommend the Visual File Change tool as a first stop. If the standard uploader can get your files up on Commons, then VFC is a great way of converting them to other layouts and templates with some basic understanding of how to use Regex, without having to learn how to navigate the API. Cheers -- (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but uploading through the API? I already use VFC and it wouldn't really apply to this scenario. Anyway, I do have considerably more resources than I started the thread with. Thanks, Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
You can upload through the API. If you do it under your current account, the previlegues are sufficient. A lot of tools including VFC, UploadWizard and most of the desktop applications mentioned above, use the API.
However, when uploading, it seems to be required using the multi-part-message format (RFC2388) instead of URL-encoding which is slightly more difficult to realize in Web-Applications. (I just tried it at User:Rillke/Down'NUp but ran into issues- some SVGs, however work.) Since UploadWizard is openSource and does it correctly, it should be possible to make a derivative version of it, which is more addressed to the advanced user. The relevant JavaScripts for file uploading are located in the MW Git repo (mw.FormDataTransport.js contains an example of compiling a multipart message).
If you are on Windows, Smallman12q wrote some awesome upload scripts for his bots in VBScript/WSH: User:Smallbot/source/bible upload.vbs.
In case you are not on Windows, you may use the pywikipedia framework.
It would be great, if you could update/extend COM:Batch uploading#Tools (similar to COM:Batch editing) -- Rillke(q?) 12:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Questionable Flickr image


I found this image: File:Talgo_I_gente.jpg. It came from Flickr with a license compatible with Commons, but there is a lack of information about the original source in Flickr, because the user who uploaded it to Flickr is not the author.

I didn't find a template to mark this type of images, that I don't want to be deleted but to be human reviewed.

Please tell me what to do to resquet a human revision for images alredy reviewed by Flickr upload bot.

Thanks.--HrAd (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

the uploader at Flickr has a personal homepage, and imo the content and description seems legit. Rbrausse (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The original uploader to Flickr says in her personal web: "My main sources are museums, comercial archives, state archives, personal collections, librarys and art gallerys around the world". We don't know anything about the real author and if this file has or hasn't author rights now. A personal question to the Flickr uploader should be made through OTRS I think, not by me.
Anyway my question was about how to resquet a human review, not only for this image but for future images.--HrAd (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The type of "review" you want done is done through a deletion request discussion or through a discussion page. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

January 11

Inconsistent search results

Hi! I've noticed that sometimes when I do a search, no results will be returned. However, if I do the same search again, there can be a lot of results. And yes, the search string is the same in both cases. This is baffling. Palosirkka (talk) 07:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, a problem already reported long time ago for example here Commons:Requests for comment/improving search. As can be seen in Bugzilla 42423, they finally seem to take it seriously. Don't hesitate to add test cases. --Foroa (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Foroa, good to know this is acknowledged. Palosirkka (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Re: Foroa - bug 42423 is a recent issue. Well there are issues with search, that bug is only about the new issue. Any pre-existing issues are not handled by that bug. Bawolff (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

New photo

Hello, I've uploaded a photo and need to know if everything is ok by copyright permissons I've used? ~ KIX4U (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Doesn't look to me like that license applies: it looks like a posed portrait, and there is no mention of those in the licenses given. Could you indicate what clause you think applies? - Jmabel ! talk 16:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I've added permission block that reads: "The Bulletin is recommended to use by press media without copyright control. The photo issued in the President's press-bulletin and therefor is free of copyright." Is it the right way? Thanks. ~ KIX4U (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
    • What is your basis for "without copyright control"? Giving permission for reuse of a publicity photo is not waiving copyright. In particular, it does not necessarily authorize derivative work. See Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses. - Jmabel ! talk 03:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I've read, thanks. Sorry for disturbing so much. Is it possible to explain the permission for reuse of a publicity photo to suit Wikimedia? I feel I need to add some explanation. So, PD-files aren't right here? ~ KIX4U (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
If you have the legal ability to release copyright on this photo, then you should do so in terms of a recognized license. Most publicity stills / press release photos are not in fact released free of copyright, so this is a traditionally sensitive area here at Commons. Since this photo was obviously taken decades ago, possibly in the Soviet Union, you should make it clear on what basis you have the legal ability to release copyright on this photo...AnonMoos (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the in-depth review! I think I understand. Is it OK now? It seems the only right way, if not, I'll remove the photo... ~ KIX4U (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, no. There is no evidence that anyone has released this to the public domain. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Using the creator template?

I have seen the {{Creator}} template see increasing use. Most of the photos in the collection I mentioned in the section above were taken by an official photographer -- Arthur S. Goss. He was a good photographer, and prolific. I figured some readers might want to have a convenient way of viewing just those images he took.

What is the best way? I created Category:Arthur S. Goss -- but this should probably be done via the creator template. But I did not find its documentation very clear.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 08:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Creator and main category function independantly (though with the help of bots we can sync both). General information is available on Commons:Creator.
To create a Creator, juste edit Creator:John Doe, and MediaWiki will offer to preload it with an empty Creator template. Fill in the blanks, and you’re ready to go.
I went ahead and created Creator:Arthur S. Goss.
Jean-Fred (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
MediaWiki will offer to preload it with an empty Creator template - specifically, when you open a non-existing Creator page, you'll find some explanation and a link "Click to preload this page with a creator template". (Just to clarify what this "offer" looks like...) Rd232 (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Flagging a doubtful license

This pic shows noted Portuguese press photographer pt:Gonçalo Lobo Pinheiro at work and was uploaded by him as being taken by himself (among others which were), what obviously ain’t so. What should be done? -- Tuválkin 03:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Not obvious. He could have used a timer, or someone he employs could have taken it, or he could simply have given sufficient direction to be the effective author. I wouldn't doubt his copyright claim here, given his record as a professional. - Jmabel ! talk 03:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Meanwhile, someone else read the matter differently and now we have this: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gonçalo Lobo Pinheiro a trabalhar.jpg. -- Tuválkin 23:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


Just out of curiosity, how come when I go to edit User:CommonsDelinker/commands it takes way longer to load than other pages? - Jmabel ! talk 06:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes it takes tens of seconds, even minutes. Don't know under what conditions it is so slow, but it happens often. --Foroa (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The page has thousands of revisions. Perhaps this is an issue for MediaWiki? Bawolff? -- Rillke(q?) 13:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, so the issue is the number of past revisions? - Jmabel ! talk 09:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a tool for squaring up photos of photos?

A gallery in one of Toronto’s original city halls has an exhibit devoted to documenting the career of an influential chief of its Department of Public Works. I snapped images of all the pictures -- all of which I believe are in the public domain.

I tried my best to snap my images perpendicular to the original. I know we have robot tools to trim borders. Do we have a tool that can detect the frame of the photo, and combine the steps of cropping the frame, and slightly stretching the photo to compensate when I was not centered directly over the photo?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 08:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

GIMP, is free and has a 'perspective' tool. You drag each of the four corners to stretch it. File:Gimp2Menü.jpg is the toolbox. The tool two left of the black A for text is perspective, I think. I added a few annotations to the image--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Or upload them and add {{Perspective}}, and someone else will probably do it eventually. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I can do them for you. Just upload the uncropped versions and leave a note on my talk page. I just tried that tool in gimp. It is pretty simple and does a good job.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a freeware tool called Shift-N that does just this: correct perspectives, at Best regards, MartinD (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Brief summary for Adrian Dove-1.

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here. 

Affected file(s):

Thank you! Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the file should have been speedy deleted anyway, due to unclear licensing and being out of scope as a mostly text document. It was uncategorized, only upload by Request for deletion came from "Chairman of planet.ECO". It was also marked as "confidential", so maybe someone confused Wikipedia with Wikileaks. --Jarekt (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, this was clearly out of scope. cmadler (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Sadly, there's plenty of people who'll jump straight to DMCA requests when a polite request would have sufficed! Andrew Gray (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Flickr user request

This is an image I would like to use in an article. Does anyone have a flickr account to email the creator to change the licence? Slim chance, but it may work.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Consider it done - I already have boilerplate text for this. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Equipment exchange

I'm donating part of my old equipement: a Nikon D200 DSLR with its battery grip and a Sigma 1-50/2.8 lens. See Commons:Equipment exchange#Donation: Nikon D200 and battery grip + Sigma 18-50/2.8 for more info. If you're not interested but know Wikimedians who could be, please pass the information on. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 21:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

January 12

Unusual Page Move

User Talk:Chetvorno wanted the advertisement in lower half of a magazine page [9] but did this by cropping the image then moving the page to a new name. File:Audion vacuum tube advertisement.png Here is the edit summary "Chetvorno uploaded a new version of File:Electrical Experimenter Aug 1916 pg228.png: Cropped out everything but the De Forest Audion ad; this is the important content. The other stuff made the Audion ad too small to read." The new page is ideal for the De Forst Audion advertisement but the Clapp-Eastman products in the top half are lost. The original full page should be restored and the new cropped page left under the new name. I have never done this so I am unsure of how to proceed. --Swtpc6800 (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree. Could someone please delete the redirect from the move. The file should probably be {{Split}} and moved back, but it will be simplest to simply upload the full version of the page[10] under the old name File:Electrical Experimenter Aug 1916 pg228.png. Tony Wills (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm really sorry about this. I should have known better. I salvaged a copy of the original file and uploaded it to similar name File:Electrical Experimenter Aug 1916 pg 228.png (note space between "pg" and "228") since it wouldn't let me give it the old name. Hope this will help. Maybe someone could move it back to the original name. Sorry to put you to this trouble. --Chetvorno (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Beer by ABV

I've started to upload some pictures of individual bottled beers. I'd like to classify them (and others) by ABV, but I'm not sure how granular that should be.

Should we have:

  • Category:Beers of 4.6 ABV
  • Category:Beers of 4.7 ABV
  • Category:Beers of 4.8 ABV
  • Category:Beers of 4.9 ABV

and so on; or, say:

  • Category:Beers of 4 - 4.9 ABV
  • Category:Beers of 5 - 5.9 ABV

or some other graduation? Perhaps a mix, with 0.1% graduations for 4-5%, but fewer for 8% or 9%?

Should the categeories by named ABV or alcohol by volume? Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't help wondering how useful that project is. Are people really going to be searching for beer media based on ABV? Rd232 (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Lagers, pilsners, ales, stouts, bocks, etc, may be better. Beers by country or brewery as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Those, I believe, already exist. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Why not? Consider a journalist, looking to illustrate an article on relatively weak and strong beers. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, OK. To answer your question about the category naming: I'd suggest avoiding abbreviations if possible. Rd232 (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else have a view, before I go ahead and make some categories? Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should spell "alcohol by volume" in full, for people unfamiliar with the abbreviation. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

And how about Commons:Derivative works from none-trivial bottle labels? And do you really need them to illustrate particular beer? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy, I really don't want to offend you, but I would think that such a classification is only of interest to people who have a financial interest in the alcohol by volume in beer, i.e. the tax people. But then again, there are quite a lot of unusual categories over here, so do feel free to go ahead with it! :) Best regards, MartinD (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


Template:Cc-by-sa-all redirects to Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0. Problems:

  1. CC will soon release new license version 4.0, so "all" will no longer be true
  2. Wikivoyage importing is bringing files across tagged cc-by-sa-all, which on Wikivoyage means (since 2006) Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike version 1.0 or any later version.
  3. We can't tag files as covered by later license versions if the author hasn't clearly indicated that's their intention.

I suggest that we

  1. have a bot substitute all current uses of cc-by-sa-all so that all files using it directly use Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0; total transclusion count is 270k. Wikivoyage imports should all be identified with {{Wikivoyage}} and should be ignored.
  2. then revise cc-by-sa-all to use Wikivoyage's definition.

Other templates may have similar problems of course. Comments? Rd232 (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

  • We can't tag files as covered by later license versions if the author hasn't clearly indicated that's their intention
You clearly indicate that you want a file covered by all current and future versions of a license, by choosing {{Cc-by-sa-all}}. If you mean only the versions of the license to date, then you choose {{Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}}. What other reason is there for having {{Cc-by-sa-all}} ??!!
  • If files have been tagged {{Cc-by-sa-all}} by their rights owner then leave it be, if {{Cc-by-sa-all}} has been substituted for something else by someone else then correct it.
  • If it comes up later that some people meant something else by adding {{Cc-by-sa-all}} then handle their cases one by one just as we do in other cases where people are mistaken or confused about their "non revokable" license. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    1. "all versions" may mean (a) "all existing versions" or (b) "all current and future versions". Given that "all" redirects to {{Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} I don't think, given the legal issues involved, that we can safely assume (b) is intended. This intention was not the outcome of the tagging, and we cannot later change this without confirmation the author wanted it (I suppose we could try and reach out to authors and ask, but 99% won't respond).
    2. You've ignored all the other issues. Rd232 (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • When originally created, the license did actually specify its obvious meaning of "all future versions", some clever person decided to make it a redirect (don't know whether that change was ever discussed). I didn't ignore all the other issues, the other issue mentioned was that someone else (wikivoyage) may have a different meaning for the license - I think I covered this in my second point, but in their case translate the license as they are moved across if they mean something different to us. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
the conversion of {{Cc-by-sa-all}} to a redirect was done in 2005 within hours of the creation of the template, so I'm not sure it's worth talking about now. You didn't mention wikivoyage or CCv4, and it's hard to see those issues covered in your comment. Rd232 (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The problem is the -all template does not say "or later versions". Instead, as a result of the redirect it specifies 1.0, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0. cc-by-sa-all has been a redirect to specific licenses for its entire history, indeed there was conflict on this issue in 2007 when 3.0 was released...
We cannot assume "all" means "all current, and future versions", as that is not what the right holders specified on upload, as we cannot be certain that was their intention.
I'd agree with Rd232's first step (bot substitution). However, I'm not sure if the wikivoyage definition is ideal. It provide for "1.0 or later", but IMO the current recommended CC license (3.0 for now) should be explicitly mentioned and link provided to its legal code, instead of linking to the obsolete 1.0 code only.
Note that the same situation applies with Template:Cc-by-all.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
the current Wikivoyage template version does link to all current CC license versions. Thanks for pointing out {{Cc-by-all}} - this is exactly the same situation (except that Wikivoyage has no CC-by-all template) and needs the same treatment. Rd232 (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Given the ambiguity and uselessification created by making it a redirect, I change my suggestion to agreeing with RD232 to substitute the {{Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} license, but then going the step further and deleting {{Cc-by-sa-all}}. Then perhaps recreating a "all future versions" license by another name (to save confusion) - or if everyone else calls this concept "... -all" then recreate it by the name {{Cc-by-sa-all}} but ensure it is sufficiently documented so that future users (and sister projects) know what it means. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Agreed on making sure that it's as clear as possible, eg by creating a new {{Cc-by-sa all existing and future}} and redirecting to it. Rd232 (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I forgot we already have {{Cc-by-sa-1.0+}}; this could be renamed or have a new redirect. Rd232 (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Ahh, might change my licenses to that :-). I am a bit worried by the concept of having license templates being redirects, we are always left with that temporal problem of what exactly did it mean when it was applied. For that matter license templating is a conceptual problem, perhaps all license templates actually need to be subst'ed so there can be no ambiguity? --Tony Wills (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
We can't subst licenses; for one thing it messes up the internationalisation. Rd232 (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Bit of background, which explains why the -all templates are redirects, is at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2005/07#Template:cc-by-sa-2.5.2C2.0.2C1.0. The intention of the template's creator was to provide for the "any later version". However, the legal code was misinterpreted as automatically providing this - so template was redirected. The misinterpreted clause allows derivatives to be distributed under a later version, but not the original media itself.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
All of the files are essentially already licensed under all future versions of CC-BY-SA. The uploaders agreed to license the images under CC-BY-SA 2.0, which says that derivative works of the files may be used under later versions of the licence. Just make a minor change (say, change one pixel, modify the EXIF or print out the image on a paper) and you have a derivative work which can be licensed under a later version of CC-BY-SA. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Well per license legalcode, the license covers the Work in all formats, so printing it certainly doesn't create a derivative. I doubt too that trivial changes create a derivative, but I'm not certain. Rd232 (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The creation of a "derivative work" as defined by copyright law isn't the issue; it's whether such minor changes would be a "Derivative Work" as defined in the license (v2.0, not 3.0). Cropping off the top line of pixels would seem to qualify, for instance, since their definition of Derivative Work specifically includes abridgments. (There is a similar "later version" clause in CC-BY-SA 3.0, although that license talks about Adaptations instead of Derivative Works, and these are defined a little differently.) --Avenue (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Well "abridgement" is not something you would usually use for cropping... but anyway, I'm not sure that this discussion is going to get us anywhere - unless we're seriously considering adding an explicit "or future versions" to existing "cc-by-sa-all" uses based on this logic. Rd232 (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

History question: from July 2005 to August 2007 {{Cc-by-sa-all}} redirected to {{Cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}; since then it redirects to {{Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}}. Was this discussed at the time? Is the change OK? It seems like a very similar issue to the one we have now was solved simply by retargeting the template... Rd232 (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think from the edit summary comments, the template was orphaned first - ie I think they did a similar substitution excercise first. Anyway it is going to be the same problem every time a new license comes out - so just delete it when done, there's no point to having it if we have to do this every time --Tony Wills (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I see, OK. there's no point to having it if we have to do this every time - well if there's an explicit "all future versions" statement, we won't have to do it in future. Rd232 (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

So, Wikivoyage images tagged as -all should probably actually be tagged {{Cc-by-sa-1.0+}} here on Commons, eh? Powers (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

We need to be careful with Wikivoyage templates so that there are no errors in the transfers. The {{Cc-by-sa-all}} issue is not a big problem: we just don't inform people of all licences that they may use, but people can still use the images. I found a much bigger problem: {{Cc-by-sa}} is version 1.0 on Commons but version 2.5 on I've replaced all {{Cc-by-sa}} templates with {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} on and corrected the three or four files which had already been transferred, but we need to look out for similar problems. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Without a version number specified, both cc-by and cc-by-sa should always be version 1.0 - actually a wrong implementation at wikivoyage. You can't assume it's a higher version unless the uploader/creator specified it. --Denniss (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The author and a reliable source differ about the date of creation

Hello. This regards all the files in Category:Iberian Resolve. The author - Master Sgt. Scott Wagers, U.S. Air Force - gives the date 2002-06-02. Notice the VIRIN in the descriptions (see [11] for the meaning of VIRIN). For instance, in example, VIRIN is 020602-F-EF201-001, which means it would have been created 2002-06-02. On the other hand, I consider TRILHOS Publicação do 2ºBIMec / BMI / SFOR II - número 4 - Maio 2002 - Mensal a reliable source and, according to page 8 and following these pictures would have been made between 20 and 25 of May 2002. What should then appear in the field "Date" of the Template:Information? Garsd (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  • More or less what you wrote here. Indicate that the disagreement exists. - Jmabel ! talk 04:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Garsd (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

January 14

Roman Coaches or Carriages called "raedae"

I recently read in "Ancient Rome, History Of A Civilization that ruled the world" 1996 White Star S.r.l, Via Sassone 22/24, published by Barnes & Noble, inc ISBN 0-7607-2210-2, M1098654321, page 60 I read the following:

"Traffic in Roman towns was very busy. Four-wheeled passenger coaches (raedae) similar to the one illustrated in this bas-relief jostled with the much heaver four wheeled carts (sarraca) and only slightly smaller carts called (plaustra) used by farmers to take their produce to market. I have not been able to find a defination of raedae, plaustra or sarraca. I am not aquainted with how the process works to get a new posting in Wikipedia but I believe these three terms could use a better definition.

I also have an illustration from page 60 of the above book that shows a pictre of a raedae. - unsigned

  • I have a feeling that you intended to post this to the English-language Wikipedia, with reference to some article, but I have no idea what article. You've posted it to the Wikimedia Commons (the Wikimedia Foundation's repository of public domain and free-licensed images, sound recordings etc.). Wikipedia is also a WMF project, and it uses media from the Commons, but they are two separate entities. If you can't work out where you should post your remark, if you give a little more context here as to what you are responding to someone may be able to aim you to the write place. And if you sign your post with ~~~~, that will give us a timestamp and indicate who posted, which really makes it easier to keep track of the conversation. - Jmabel ! talk 04:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Fossil images: batch upload potential

The Biodiversity Heritage Library has a load of good illustrations of fossils, e.g.:

which, though out of copyright, are marked on Flickr as "by-nc-sa", so not suitable for Flickr Upload Bot. Is it possible for a trusted user to have an override facility on FUB, or could someone with their own bot import them? There are copies on the BHL website also, if that's a better method of access. Andy Mabbett (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

CC license problem

An issue with CC licenses was noted a while ago, but archived without action at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2012/06#CC_License_templates_trouble, although there was agreement that mention of the license name/URL is a license requirement which should be added to the templates. The requirement is part of clause 4a, You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform. ... You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform...[12] The "deed" version says For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page[13] which doesn't seem strictly sufficient as it implies the link is optional; but the Commons template doesn't even say that. Rd232 (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it would be clearest to add it as a separate bullet point, eg

Note: I'm looking here at CC-By-Sa-3.0 ({{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}), but the same issue applies to at least some other CC licenses (maybe all). Rd232 (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't see a problem with this, as long as it's stated as succinctly as possible. Unless anyone here objects soon, I would say "just do it." Note that most local projects accepting local uploads also need to update their CC templates. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    • You don't have to include the URL. You can choose to include the full text of the licence instead. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, but we can ignore that because (i) vanishingly few people will prefer to include the full text to including the link (ii) those willing to include the full text can be expected to go and read it and not rely on the Commons license template (iii) it's surely helpful to include the link even if including the full text. Rd232 (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't think we should completely ignore that: I think we ought to continue to say that a copy is a legitimate way to conform to the license. (Or am I misunderstanding what you are proposing, and you agree that we need to continue to say that?) But what we most need to do is to give people a text that they can use that will be legally correct, which they can simply copy and paste. What happens now an awful lot of the time now is that reusers make an entirely legally incorrect credit to "Wikimedia Commons" as if the image copyright were held by Commons, not by the people who own the copyrights. - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Well there is currently Commons:Credit line and COM:REUSE, plus the "download for use" script. Improvements are always possible. As to the fulltext option: I'm saying we don't currently mention it in the license templates and we shouldn't start; it's unnecessary complexification given how few people will want to choose that option. Even having the help pages mention this option seems a bit unnecessary, but OK. Rd232 (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, it would actually be quite helpful to link the terms from the license template to some kind of explanatory Commons page, to say eg what "sharealike" means with examples at Commons:Sharealike. A modified version of Commons:Credit line could be linked from "attribution", for instance. Rd232 (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

What is int:filedesc?

There is absolutely no documentation about the tag (or template, I don't know) int:filedesc.

It took me over 20 searches of different namespaces and combinations of search words to decide that I can't find anything, and upon coming to the Village Pump, I searched through the FAQ, and only there found an instance of int:filedesc text, only it doesn't help only by telling me that it is the Summary-field.
Searching "summary" in the FAQ, you find What information should I put in the summary, or on the image description page?, which answers See the tutorial at Commons:First_steps#Good_file_descriptions. Which doesn't exist. Only I didn't notice the anchor in the URL, so I read through all of the tutorials (since it didn't even say which tutorial) in vain.

The Template:Summary and Template:Summary2 are for the upload summary, which is increasingly misleading.

I can't even remember anymore how I found it, but in Commons:Guide_to_layout#File_description_pages it finally says something substantial: The usual headers for these pages are: {{int:filedesc}} (Summary) … These are optional.

And still there is no documentation of the template, what it does, where I should write it on a File -page? Is it compatible with {{Information}}? If it is, should I put it above or below?

I apologize for my tone, but I feel like I just dragged my patience through two miles.
~ Nelg (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

See Commons:Localization/useful MediaWiki messages. It transcludes translatewiki:MediaWiki:Filedesc/en, translatewiki:MediaWiki:Filedesc/ja, translatewiki:MediaWiki:Filedesc/sv or some other variant depending on your language settings. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Right, I see how that would be frustrating! I've made {{Filedesc}} so hopefully explanation of this will be easier to find in future. Rd232 (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
How to use it on a File-page

 a License tag
--PigeonIP (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess you actually wanted to read Commons:First steps/Quality and description#Good file descriptions. But all this documentation stuff is hopelessly outdated.
And, in short, to answer the question in the heading, {{int: will use the according MediaWiki message, depending on the user's chosen language. So if my user language is French, {{int:license-header}} will display MediaWiki:License-header/fr. -- Rillke(q?) 16:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

See also the help page at meta:Help:Magic words#Localisation. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Recruiting for Wikilivres

I recently uploaded a large number of files deleted here on Commons to Wikilivres (not to be confused with fr.wikibooks), a wiki unaffiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation that is managed and based in Canada (see Category:Deleted files transferred to Wikilivres). Because Canada has a copyright term of 50 years after the death of the author and observes the rule of the shorter term, many of our deleted works can find a home there and remain available to the public, including all works that are PD in their source country. However, because they were originally a Wikisource spinoff, their staff is not very well equipped to deal with images and feeling a bit overwhelmed. It'd be great if I can get some people to assist with importing templates and template documentation, creating a new category structure for the images, and generally helping to curate the images there. Please see [14] and [15] for a list of the uploaded files so far. Thank you! Dcoetzee (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Qestionable uploads

Questionable uploads by Wikiwatcher 1. Am cross-posting this here so others might comment. We hope (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons Delinker request

Getting an error when I tried (it says it *should* be doable by filemovers, but maybe it's not documented very well), so could someone add this into the Commons Delinker queue?

CommonsDelinker: Replace File:Don Quichotte.jpg with File:Georges Rochegrosse's poster for Jules Massenet's Don Quichotte.jpg across all Wikimedia projects. Reason: Higher resolution version

Thanks, Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You should neither sign your request, nor add quotes or dots to the end of the request (one line consting of {{universal replace|old name|new name|reason=reason text}} only) when adding something to User:CommonsDelinker/commands/filemovers. I will add an explanation/ abuse filter message for the future.
And, much more important, this page should be mainly used for files that were moved. Other requests can be made at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Where in our policy pages did you find instructions for adding dissimilar files/ a justification for the task you tried to accomplish? -- Rillke(q?) 16:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I was actually trying to add it to the talk page where you suggested, which says "To request for a file to be replaced by another file, click the "Edit" link on the right side of the section heading "Replace-requests on protected page by filemovers only (click to process list)" below, and add your request there using the following command: "{{universal replace|OLD NAME.jpg|NEW NAME OR ANOTHER FILE.jpg|reason=STATE THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST HERE}} ~~~~" - but it wouldn't save, citing some abuse filter. I'm not sure why - I think we can agree that following the explicit instructions given is hardly abusive. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
aha. The request in the instructions to sign the request is what causes the error. =/ Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that someone added this big box there, so I changed the wording accordingly, now. -- Rillke(q?) 16:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

January 13

How to answer for a {{Missing}} item found ?

Hello, on Category:William-Adolphe Bouguereau, I found a notice for a missing artwork, that I think I have found…

Where am I supposed to signal it, or to whom ? It would be a good idea to add a "contact link" to this model, so that people can ask and advise for what they found.

Thanx --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Good find! Just paste a url here where you found the image and someone should upload it as public domain {PD-Old}, I think. Any of our help pages are good contact links. I may add them to that category page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Already uploaded and completed the informations File:Bouguereau - La petite blessée.jpg - just not sure it's the artwork that was searched… but I did not find another similar one on Commons --Hsarrazin (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
You may want to go back in the Category:William-Adolphe Bouguereau history to see who put the tag on it, then ask them if there is a place to report. I thought you were a new user that didn't know how to upload so I tagged the page with links to here. Everyone point and laugh at me now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

changing file name


I uploaded File:Florida heron.JPG, but now I think it's not a heron but a Anhinga anhinga. How do I change the file name?



Hi, Please see Template:Rename. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thanks, I used the template! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 02:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

January 15

Translation of template

I've tried to add a Dutch (Nederlands) translation to this template, but I can't get it to display correctly. I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. Can someone help? Thanks, Openbeelden (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You forgot a close bracket (]). Dcoetzee (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Generally, if you add a translation to an autotranslated template, and if you do not edit one template that is directly transcluded in an autotranslated template, it needs a purge to refresh the rendering if you view the template in the language you created. The solution is, editing the lang-template after creating the language sub-template (because the lang-template is always transcluded (through the layout template which in turn is used by each language)) and does not depend on the magic of autotranslate. -- Rillke(q?) 15:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Resolved
Thanks a lot! Openbeelden (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Which text should be used

Wich text/flag should be used to comment that the uploader should remove the copyrigth symbol? File:TGV R-SG-LH6.JPG Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:School buildings in the United States

In the category there are 5 states listed, there are 2 other states but they have notices. The category School buildings in New Jersey says all photos should be placed in Category:Schools in New Jersey, likewise with School buildings in New York says all photos should be placed in Category:Schools in New York. So we have 5 states that have the category School buildings in and 2 states that don't want that category. I was going to create a Schol buildings in Georgia (U.S. state) category. Can administrators look into this? Thanks. - unsigned

  • There is no administrative issue here. This is purely editorial. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • As an editor, I could go either way on this. I think the "school buildings" distinction is a good one, but it's one that has not mostly been followed, and there would be a lot of work to impose it systematically. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
School buildings / Education buildings is already under discussion at the top level, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/09/Category:Education buildings. ghouston (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested URL could not be retrieved

I recently uploaded File:Bristol MMB «25 Canons Marsh.jpg, and for some reason, when trying to view the full size image, I get a notice

ERROR The requested URL could not be retrieved

The following error was encountered while trying to retrieve the URL: /wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Bristol_MMB_%C2%AB25_Canons_Marsh.jpg

Invalid URL

Some aspect of the requested URL is incorrect.

Some possible problems are:

Missing or incorrect access protocol (should be "http://" or similar)

Missing hostname

Illegal double-escape in the URL-Path

Illegal character in hostname; underscores are not allowed.

Your cache administrator is webmaster.

Now, this is NOT a problem with having « in the filename - got plenty of images (eg File:Bristol MMB «26 Canons Marsh.jpg) with that character which work fine. I tried to reupload the file, and now the old version is viewable but the current one is not. I saw a similar issue with another image last week I think. Does anyone know what's causing this? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Full res images of all three versions in file history worked fine for me. MKFI (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Works for me too, in Opera 12 and Firefox 18. --rimshottalk 21:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem here, with Firefox 18.0. — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a specific issue for users in Europe, I believe. Some squids returned this error (X-Squid-Error ERR_INVALID_URL 0) but now it seems to work. -- Rillke(q?) 14:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

January 16

Xeno-canto birdsong

The website xeno-canto is a repository of good quality bird song recordings, almost 400 of which [16] are cc-by-sa. It also allows contributors to remove their contribution at any time. Do we, or could we, have a tool or bot for importing files from there? Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone? Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andy, these are quite delightful. I don't know of an easy tool to use for this. I am taking a look, but as a back-burner task to fiddle around with using my Python muscles, and create some modules that I might reuse for another custom upload. I might stutter due to the pressure of other stuff going on but I'll contact you if I run into a brick wall.
After reviewing the website a little, it would be (relatively) straightforward to scrape the data but loading these to Commons seems the sort of re-use that their project is set up for. Rather than just going on a hack raid, I'll try writing to the project first and checking if they have an API I can use, this might help if we want to refresh in the future.
Update they have a csv service, but this appears strictly limited to queries by species, not quite what is needed here.
Oh, and of course, Commons cannot take mp3 files, so these would need to be batch re-encoded to ogg format.
I have created an initial upload example which only uses the data from the file page on, and so could be easily automatically created. See File:Nothoprocta pentlandii - Andean Tinamou - XC112728.ogg. The Latin names are particularly useful for automatic categorization, so can nicely be played from within Category:Nothoprocta pentlandi where the user can be looking at photographs of the bird at the same time. -- (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
As this might go on for a while, I'll lay this out as a mini project at User:Fæ/Projects/Xeno-canto. -- (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for this, and for the work you and others have subsequently done. I've made a few tweaks to, chiefly using {{Species-inline}} for the scientific and vernacular names. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
No worries. :-)
✓ Done (All) You can check out the batch upload at Category:Xeno-canto. -- (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


On this page: Heilig-Blut-Tafel 1489, I use images that have annotations. Under each of the images, the text "This file has annotations..." appears. I don't want that. The syntax that is supposed to hide this text doesn't do that. Bug or feature? --FA2010 (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Using {{ImageNoteControl}} with |caption=off seems to do the trick (diff). Jean-Fred (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Incredible that we need a workaround like this for what seems to me like a bug. --FA2010 (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

New template for names of living things

I have created a new, inline, template, for the names (vernacular and/ or binominal) of living things: {{Species-inline}}. There are examples in its documentation. The template emits metadata in the form of a 'Species' microformat. If required we can add other ranks, and subspecies/ breed/ cultivar names.

Question: Given that we may add several more optional parameters, should we enable use with unnamed parameters? Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons: Categories

Hello, I wondering that there is no point about the minimum size for the creation of a category (in the German guideline there is around recommendation of 10, but not generally, but as no real definition). I mean, it is in every way completely pointless to create a category for 2-3 files (which has no prospect of enlargement). Have I missed something? Can be mentioned something for the general public? Practical Example (PS: something maintain / improve / optimize on Commons is truly a farce) -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ 15:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, as for me, I do create categories for 1 file (like here or there). And I don’t think there is any problem with that. Jean-Fred (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
If there is no potential for enlargement then it would be unusual to create a category for 1-2 images. Still, if it is one of a large number of parallel categories some of which are larger, it is sometimes worth doing. - Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
It's hard to have a rule of thumb on this issue. Sometimes a one image category is appropriate, in other cases a three image category is not. It depends on the circumstances. To the extent that any advice were added to COM:CAT, it would need to emphasize that there is no hard-and-fast rule, but I doubt any such advice is needed. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Lets just take a random example from Category:People by name that contains many categories that contain few items: Category:75 cents. In each of the categories it belongs to, it would be next to impossible to find back a 75 cents image; the fact that it is encapsulated in a category that consume negligible system resources;
  • allows to find it back easily in all categories it belongs too
  • provides one single container that need be maintained, regardless of the number of images it contains
  • decouples the (often bad) file names from the real meaning
  • simplifies significantly the categorisation and documentation/linking work for all uploaders and avoids the redundant work of categorisation of each image, thereby significantly reducing maintenance work
So personally, I feel that for each person or significant building, artwork, artefact, ... a category should be made as this is the best long term solution. --Foroa (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I suspect that small categories are often useful. To use an example that I'm familiar with: Categories for politicians (the kind of categories I usually create) are extremely useful - even if they have just one or two entries. This allows the media/webmasters/Wikipedians/others to quickly determine if Commons has the image they are looking for instead of having to sort through a wall of images. Such categories also have a tendency to grow as a politician remains in office and more pictures of him are taken, so even if they start as one... – Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Category:Propeller beanies is useful, though it only contains 7 files... SFriendly.gif -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Metadata question

The metadata of File:Nigel Farage UKIP MEP.png says "Horizontal resolution 37.79 dpc, Vertical resolution 37.79 dpc". I've noticed a few screenshots also have this metadata, eg w:File:H2G2 website.png, w:File:GOM Player Default Skin Screenshot.PNG, so does this metadata suggest that the Farage image is also a screenshot, or are there other possible reasons? January (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Could well be a screenshot. Looks very pixelated. - Jmabel ! talk 20:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • 37.79 dpc is 96 dpi which is the standard resolution of windows computers (I believe). Which does suggest it could be a screenshot. However with that said, it could just be a png image with a suggested resolution of 96 dpi. Bawolff (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

January 17

Image not updating

I uploaded a new version of File:2012 General Election Results by County.png yesterday, but it currently still shows the old image. I tried refreshing the page and purging the cache many times, but no effect. I've seen image uploads take a few hours to update before, but never more than a day. Should I just keep waiting or try uploading again? --Lasunncty (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  • There have been a lot of these delays lately, reportedly even days. I wouldn't worry about it in terms of any particular image (though the global problem is a bit worrisome). - Jmabel ! talk 16:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Lasunncty -- You can try using an "odd" thumbnail size which hasn't been requested before (221px instead of 220px, or whatever). If that works, then the problem is with the software updating not with the image itself... AnonMoos (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


The top item on this page, at the time of writing, is undated; and seems to have screwed up the archiving and subheadings. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I signed then back-dated the signature. That may fix.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons POTY script giving me an error message

Every time I go to one of the Commons POTY pages, the little pop-up says The data that will be saved and publicly visible if you send the report: Your username, a timestamp, what the App did immediately before and "'undefined' is not an object (evaluating '_storage.__jstorage_meta.CRC32') TypeError". The voting buttons and all don't work. I've tried blanking my common.js and disabling all gadgets, but it doesn't work. I'm using Safari 5.1.7 on a MacBook Air running OS X 10.6.8. David1217 (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I read your error reports and I will look into this within 24 h. Do you have browser add-ons/extensions/plugIns installed? -- Rillke(q?) 01:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
As a first step, can you try deleting the local storage for jStorage? If you have saved profiles with VisualFileChange, make sure you save them in your account before. -- Rillke(q?) 12:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I disabled my extensions and cleared the jStorage thing. It still is giving me the same error. David1217 (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I tested with Safari 5.1.7 on windowsXP and it worked fine. Unfortunately I have no MacBook nor Mac/OS as VM available. -- Rillke(q?) 20:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Did you receive a success-message after clearing the jStorage thing?
Are you in private browsing mode?
With the next version, which will be deployed within 24h, I will include a fix. However, this fix simply ignores that storing data failed. The cost are longer loading times because your eligibility is checked each time. -- Rillke(q?) 00:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Eh, I used Chrome v24.0.1312.52 and it worked fine. David1217 (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Now it should also work in Safari with private mode enabled. I've also forwarded the issue. -- Rillke(q?) 11:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Photo help

I took a picture of a painting (approx. 18"x24") on my wall, File:Ed Miracle I Told You So.JPG. It is daylight but I used a flash anyways. Any ideas how to stop the glare from the surface? It has a textured varnish that may be the biggest issue. I didn't use a tripod but do have one here. What would be the best settings for ASA, shutter speed, aperature, and focal length etc. It is a cloudy day and a can take it out on the cold balcony if needed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  • You pretty much cannot avoid glare when using a flash built into the camera. If you don't have a remote flash then, yes, you'll need to shoot by available light. I see you are shooting with a Canon Rebel. If you just use a tripod and let it use default settings, you should be fine. - Jmabel ! talk 21:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
But dad, there are no default settings. I have a bunch of AE priority settings; including shutter speed, ASA, aperature, etc. If it was a 35mm film camera I would use an 85mm 'portrait lens'. With a 'crop factor' of 1.6 I think this would be 53mm. I will try the tripod with about 1/10 second exposure time, smallest aperature, and see how it turns out. I was just wondering if there is a rule of thumb set up for taking pictures of paintings.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Why are you putting this on Commons, given that there is an article linked to from the Wikipedia article about the book that uses it as a cover implying that the work is in copyright? [17] If it is really as simple as the file's license template says, why were lawyers involved in 2007? Just curious. Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Canoe1967 -- do you personally own the original of a painting used on a Thomas Friedman book cover? AnonMoos (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The article linked above seems to imply that Miracle made several oil-painted copies (not the thousand of printed posters). It may not be possible to tell that one particular oil copy is the only original. It's plausible that the uploader owns one of those oil paintings. Or it's also possible that he owns a fake. See also the official website at Strangely, they don't tell the year of the first oil painting. They imply that the printed reproductions had a copyright notice. But it's unclear about the first oil paintings. Does the uploader's copy have a notice on the back or somewhere? Is it dated? Is it signed? Is it authenticated? -- Asclepias (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not important whether the uploader owns an original oil painting, an authorized copy, or a fake - this has no bearing on the copyright status of the painting itself (in whatever physical expression). If it's copyrighted, then it can not be kept at Commons. Gestumblindi (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The painting might be in the public domain in the U.S. if it was "published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice" as the currently used template says. According to the article at CNN Money, the artist originally made a "pen-and-ink drawing" around 1970, "... and made a few copies to sell. It was a hit, so Miracle redid it as an oil painting ..." - not much later than 1970, I assume, so "published between 1923 and 1977" probably is correct, but also without copyright notice? Indeed, as Boo-Boo Baroo says - the article implies that the work is in copyright after all. - Canoe1967's copy looks like an "oil print" to me, a reproduction on canvas or a similar material, probably not the original, but that's irrelevant with regard to copyright. Gestumblindi (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I am confused. If my copy was made by the creator before 1977 in the USA with no notice, are photos I take of it allowed on commons? I searched that site and it isn't listed although many of his newer works are.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • With regard to lighting, take a look at this article. Even a couple of anglepoise/desk lamps at 45 degrees would probably give a much better result. -- (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the link Fæ! I have two floor lamps with those pretzel CF bulbs. I will try a night shot with the camera set to flourescent and 30-55mm focal lengths. I should get a 'grey card' some day and may try the same shots using that.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I took new pictures of the front and back to show no notice. It does have a signature with a strange number-letter combination below it. I had emailed his agent a while ago for authenication which I haven't recieved yet. I think it may be an 'oil copy'. You can see from the images that it is a well made work on canvas with complex frame. I think the original is in a bar in Florida.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that if one of the "original" paintings has a copyright notice, then the work as such is copyrighted - regardless of whether your particular copy has a notice or not. Someone correct me if I'm wrong... Gestumblindi (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the original was copyrighted. His site mentions that the 'pirate versions' copied his notice. I don't think his had a notice and I can't find it registered in the database. I brought this up at pump/copyright and closed it here below.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Resolving here and moving to pump/copyright to sort that out. Thanks again Fæ for the link. I will see if it can stay before a drag lamps all over.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia sites to move to primary data center in Ashburn, Virginia. Read-only mode expected.

(Apologies if this message isn't in your language.) Next week, the Wikimedia Foundation will transition its main technical operations to a new data center in Ashburn, Virginia, USA. This is intended to improve the technical performance and reliability of all Wikimedia sites, including this wiki. There will be some times when the site will be in read-only mode, and there may be full outages; the current target windows for the migration are January 22nd, 23rd and 24th, 2013, from 17:00 to 01:00 UTC (see other timezones on More information is available in the full announcement.

If you would like to stay informed of future technical upgrades, consider becoming a Tech ambassador and joining the ambassadors mailing list. You will be able to help your fellow Wikimedians have a voice in technical discussions and be notified of important decisions.

Thank you for your help and your understanding.

Guillaume Paumier, via the Global message delivery system (wrong page? You can fix it.). 15:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Does this have any legal consequences? We have a number of pages that make reference to the servers being located in Florida, including Commons:Project scope, Commons:General disclaimer, Commons:Child protection and Commons:Sexual content. LX (talk, contribs) 17:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Good question. I'd suggest emailing legal @ wikimedia. -Pete F (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
{{PD-US-record}}, which currently seems to be factually wrong, only works in some states. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright cut-off date for European newspapers

If I want to upload scanned pages of a European (British, French or whatever) newspaper, what should be the cut-off date from a copyright point-of-view? 1923 because that's what the American copyright law? 70 years ago (January 1, 1942) because it's a collective work? checking the author article-by-article seems unfeasible and also, most (and in some cases, nearly all) articles are unsigned.

Also, what's the policy of Wikimedia Commons on scanned newspapers? What format should they be? PDF? PNG? JPG?

If you want those papers to be used on Wikisource, I would advise DjVu, (or PDF) --Hsarrazin (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Do we have some "best practices" for that? Bogdan Giuşcă (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
It really depends on whether the articles are signed or not. In modern newspapers, it usually says who the author is, and in that case, you have to wait until the author has been dead for at least 70 years. In old newspapers, articles are more commonly anonymous. Also, it depends on both the copyright law as of 1996 and on the present copyright law. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
It would have to be published pre-1923 or out of copyright in 1996 in its home nation for US copyright law. I see no reason a signed article would not have the usual life+70 copyright in the EU.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Would the project be ready for a deluge of such files? Bogdan Giuşcă (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Bogdan -- Pretty much the entire run of the New Orleans Bee was uploaded to Commons, and it didn't break... AnonMoos (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Template help, please

The penultimate example in the documentation of {{Species-inline}} isn't rendering; I can't see why. Can anyone assist, please? Andy Mabbett (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Because if you use trinominal parameter you must have either vernacular or binominal parameter specified. Ruslik (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
That's not intended behaviour; but I can't see where I've gone wrong (I coded the template). Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I was not incompletely right above but I made a change and it works. (Before the last part was simply always ignored.):
Motacilla alba yarrellii
Ruslik (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. That;s fixed it. Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I created an updated version at {{Species-inline/sandbox}} that allows editors to specify a |link= to a Wikipedia project for the vernacular name in different languages (using |lang=), as well as to specify links for the binominal (|binominal_link=) and trinominal names (|trinominal_link=). Examples are at "Template:species-inline/testcases". If you think these updates are useful, go ahead and deploy the updated template, or let me know and I'll do it. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm not sure why that's needed. You can do the same with the current template:
{{species-inline/sandbox|vernacular=Gorille des plaines de l'ouest|[[:fr:Gorilla gorilla gorilla|trinominal=Gorilla gorilla gorilla}}
Gorille des plaines de l'ouest (Gorilla gorilla gorilla)
using less code. Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
It would be easier for people not familiar with wikitext markup to use. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Can one insert a "restored by" parameter in template:artwork ?

I tried to add the creator template for the restorator name at File:La mort Saint-Innocent Louvre R.F.2625.jpg, but what I did is not so good, because I had to insert the creator template 3 times for each language. Does any one know if the "other field" parameter mentioned on Template:Artwork#Parameters could be used for that purpose ? Teofilo (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

what about a {{LangSwitch}} like I did ? - you may revert if you don't like Clin --Hsarrazin (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done using {{Author info}}. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Teofilo (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

WLA and PD ?

I can't see how this work could be PD - it was painted in 1927, and the painter is dead in 1970… a problem with PD, or an exception that I don't understand… (I'm not really comfortable with US law) ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe that copyright would have had to be filed, and then renewed, in order for a painting of that age to not lapse into the public domain. I suspect Kaldari can shed more light on this if needed, he is pretty adept with copyright law. (Note the Smithsonian seems to have a much higher quality version on their site, so if this is indeed public domain, maybe it should be replaced.) -Pete F (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah… right, I always forget that under US law, copyright is not "automatic", contrary to EU laws Clin - thanks - --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
There's so much to keep track of in copyright law…it's almost as if the people writing them don't really want us to understand… -Pete F (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
it's almost as if the people writing them don't really want us to understand lol - in fact, I am quite certain that the lobbyists behind the MPs who vote the laws really don't want that they could be straightforward - this way, they can do what they want… the one who writes the rules, can rule the world Clin --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I filed a deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:WLA amart Vielle Maison at Porte by William H Johnston.jpg. Teofilo (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Street Musicians, by William H. Johnson.jpg same artist. Teofilo (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Photographs from 1860-1875

Nagasaki in 1865

During the last vacations with my family we found a photo album with photographs of Indonesia, China, Japan, Portugal and Rio de Janeiro from 1860-1875. We couldn't figure who the photograph was (probably an ancestor of the Bogino side of the family though). The last to know may have been my grand-father Jacques Bogino (who died few years ago).

I scanned the photos and uploaded a first serie, 13 pictures of Nagasaki in 1865. If someone wants to help restoring the photos or finding who was the photograph, you're welcome :-) ! --Wagaf-d (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, nice pictures, and interesting too…… only, you put them in the wrong cat - it's been renamed :) - and if you don't want them to be lost in the "ocean" of Nagasaki pictures, you should put them in a sub-cat, something like Nagasaki in 19th century, perhaps ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I created Category:1865 in Nagasaki. Teofilo (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
These are really neat to see - perhaps you could create a tracking category for the album, including any other pictures you upload from it? Andrew Gray (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

A request ;-)

Hey; I have a request. I've been busy lately and likely will be much more so for the next few months (and as you can tell from my contribs, I really haven't gotten far with this); could I have some help, please, with a standardization project? As you'll see below, it can't really be done by a bot.

Extended content
  1. Use this HPC link, download a batch (only the filledrain(pr)blk/rainfilled(pr)blk and save as Stormname YYYY rainfall.gif]
  2. Upload batch to UploadWizard. DO NOT CLICK CONTINUE.
  3. Modify the files which already exist with {{HPC rainfall}}. There is documentation on the template page and on my userpage as well. (The month should be in form Month YYYY, and come from the image itself, not the Wikipedia article(s).
  4. If necessary, move them, or place a move request to "Stormname YYYY rainfall.gif".
  5. For other files, upload them in any fashion, and proceed to add the {{HPC rainfall}} template.
  6. You can see the progress here – it's not entirely up to date, so you can add the ones I've finished in my contribs since the last update

Thanks. :) HF (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Missing Institution or Unknown Institution ?


I work on many artworks, by "creator", and transform the {{Information}} in {{Artwork}} or {{Art photo}} templates, according to the 2D or 3D cases.

Often, old photos do not have any information about the place the picture was taken, or the place the Artwork is kept, like here.

What is the best solution in this case :

In fact, I don't really understand if the {{unknown|institution}} means that no information can be found about the location or if the meaning is exactly the same as the Cat. one.

If the meaning is exactly the same, could it be possible to add an automatic category in the {{Unknown}} for location or institution, so that the category does not have to be added manually…

  • Even better solution would be an "automatic recognition" of the empty field (like for Source) that would tag instantly the file Clin

Thank you --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I think you should use the category, and not the template. The category seems proper for such cases. The template is not meant to "mean" anything in itself; it is a purely technical translation tool, intended for use in place of the string "unknown"; the template, as a technical tool, does not assume or tell anything about the appropriateness or lack of appropriateness of the action of a user who has written "unknown" somewhere (with or without the template). If the description page of a file is missing information because the uploader was not bothered to mention it, we should not replace that absence of information by a false information stating that the information is unknown. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Is "art" always educational or do we need aesthetic criteria agreed?

On Commons we try to avoid the aesthetic judgement of artworks and instead use the measures of "is it educational?" to justify keeping it and "does it have creative content?" in order to decide on licensing. So, here's the issue to achieve our goal of preservation... in the situation of modern artistic photography, including virtual world "photography", how to we measure whether uploads are in scope or not? By default we tend to delete new artworks unless the artist has some notability, in line with "Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use" as a rationale for deletion. There are times when I look at a great photo on Flickr, say a great shot of a rain puddle or a broken washing machine, and at a glance can see it is of high quality, aesthetically pleasing and the sort of image I believe adds value to the Wikimedia Commons collection. However, if I then upload the image, I have a very weak basis on which to provide a rationale to keep, other than I believe that someone looking for images of some generic type, would find this image of superior quality to another. In all other regards it probably fails to meet the literal definition of project scope.

The fact that Commons:Featured_picture_candidates has a definition that assesses the balance of a number of factors not explicitly recognized by our definition of Scope, itself seems an underpinning contradiction in top level guidance and policy. Often images in controversial areas, especially nudity, are deleted on the basis that we have enough of them and an individual image is unlikely to be of educational use, but I see little discussion that assesses aesthetic quality, more than obviously flawed images (such as being blurry or low resolution).

In conclusion, are there grounds for agreeing (or trimming those for featured pictures) some basic general guidelines of how to judge photographs for quality and aesthetic value (rather than educational value) and extending our project scope to recognize this distinction? Thanks -- (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean images like File:Cat guarding the beer fridge.jpg. Good to high quality, but is it in scope?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep, though you might believe that every possible image category of electronic devices on Commons is better with one or more LOL cats, teddy bears or scantily clad women/men, others might disagree. When there is disagreement as to educational use, then aesthetic value would be a healthy thing to consider as part of the project aim must be to preserve artworks (including recent and original photographs with artistic value) that are appropriately released. -- (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you saying they are in or out of scope? Should we DR this one and the other as examples and then use those DR discussions in future policy/guideline changes? They aren't used anywhere important, created by a non-notable (so far) user, etc. I have no problem with a DR if it will assist the project on a better definition of what we keep or delete.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
For a change, let's not rush to delete anything we don't need to ;-) I am raising the question generally here as I think that better guidance on aesthetics would help us as a community to judge if one photo of a cat in a fridge has more likely long term artistic value (even if it has no particular educational or illustrative value) than another photo of a cat in a fridge. Where cat in a fridge could be any subject where the value to open knowledge is the artistic quality of the photograph itself more than just its literal subject matter. I don't think this example of a faux cat would be that definitive, if you want to try this as a technique then I would rather you looked through current open DRs and spotted one where the photograph was high quality, yet there were otherwise strong pro-deletion arguments being raised. -- (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "It's a founding principle of Commons that we should only host content that can be used by anyone for any purpose." In this case is the scope of the project to provide files for commercial use? My file could easily be used for an new advertising campaign: "No Milk?". They also may use it for the idea for a new campaign, or even for educational purposes in advertising schools.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If you have enough imagination, almost anything can be in scope. A piece of art may not be notable in itself, but might be a brilliant illustration of a particular subject, process, art technique, technical photographic method, etc. I'm not usually inclined to delete high-quality images on scope grounds alone. On the other hand, like any WMF project we have to recognise that each page represents a cost, another place to watch for vandalism, another license to check, another search result that might obscure more relevant resources. In this sense it is necessary for COM:SCOPE to exist, but I think it's okay to vary just how strictly we interpret it based on factors like image quality. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "Art" is a term thrown around and is meaningless. Photographs aren't always educational, and the vast majority of images are not. Commons is supposed to be used for actually usable images. Although server space might be unlimited (it actually isn't), volunteer time and manpower is limited, and it takes a lot of work to deal with the massive amount of bad images now. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, so rather than leaving "bad" as purely subjective and the cause of indefinite heated debate, I am proposing we have some guidelines for the "good", so that the rest of us have a chance of knowing it when we see it. As Dcoetzee points out, we resist deleting good quality photos even when on thin or tangential grounds against the scope definition, and it seems odd to be "bending the rules" to keep photographs that those with an aesthetic sense know are artistically interesting and have qualities to be worth preserving, but is not just another postbox, licence plate or low resolution shot of a geotagged empty field that the "collectors" amongst us justify as being unique and of potential educational value. -- (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
      • My use of bad was as a catchall for copyright infringing images and such that are hard to sort through now and would be significantly harder with far more images. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the guidelines are good as they are. (I don't want inclusion for aesthetics (or quality) alone - this is an educational project (already broadly understood)). I don't see any contradiction with FPC - of course it has different criteria to scope, they're entirely different animals. But I doubt you'll find many FPs that aren't in scope (if that's what you're angling at). I understand that scope is sometimes difficult to judge, but that just means if you're uploading grey-area images, they will sometimes be deleted when you misjudge the community's consensus. --99of9 (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
My opinion matches closely opinion of user:Dcoetzee. It is a balancing act, but most out of scope images that are being deleted are of poor quality, with watermarks, etc. I occasionally see FP, VI or QI that are likely out of scope, but that is usually never mentioned. --Jarekt (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Slo ..

Image servers seems slow this evening. What is happening? --  Docu  at 17:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

May caused by some initial preparations for this ? Or just one of the usual server hickups (or they cleaned their image thumbcaches). --Denniss (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


I've uploaded new photo (from using license on this one. Is it OK? KIX4U (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#BnF/Gallica, where there should be more knowledgable people. - Jmabel ! talk 18:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
For the photos from Agence Rol, it would be better to take inspiration from the other files in the Category:Agence Rol. I know they're not all formatted the same way and they don't all use the same templates, but you can explore a sample of them and then use the format and templates that you consider the more appropriate. May be of some use too the templates Creator:Agence Rol, Template:Gallica or Template:ARK-BNF, and Template:PD-BNF. You can see also this previous help desk comment. Also, for categorization, the Category:Askold (ship, 1900). -- Asclepias (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I'll investigate that. About the categorization, now I see it's not that Askold ship, but something else. Thanks again. KIX4U (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Right, apparently it's not the same ship. The mistake on the Gallica website may have been from an initial annotation by the Agence Rol. A Russian forum had also noticed that mistake some years ago. It would be interesting if we could identify this ship. By the way, you can upload the large version of that photo with the methods mentioned in the discussion at Commons:Bistro#Reproduire sur Commons l'image zoomée du site Gallica. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Using Flickr Upload Bot for PD images where copyright is wrongly claimed

From time to time I see images on Flickr, such as pages from very old books, which are PD, but where the uploader there has tagged them as "All rights reserved", Is it possible,as as trusted user, to have a "key" to use Flickr Upload Bot in such cases? Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It's better to use your own bot in those cases. If you make a mess, it won't affect other people using the bot. Multichill (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't have my own bot. How could using FUB "make a mess", and how could that "affect other people using the bot"? Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Just download the photo to your own machine & upload, as you would do from a site not covered by a bot. - Jmabel ! talk 03:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I could do that, but it's long-winded, especially when there are a number of images to shift. Isn't that what we have bots for..? Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Is "art" always educational or do we need aesthetic criteria agreed?

On Commons we try to avoid the aesthetic judgement of artworks and instead use the measures of "is it educational?" to justify keeping it and "does it have creative content?" in order to decide on licensing. So, here's the issue to achieve our goal of preservation... in the situation of modern artistic photography, including virtual world "photography", how to we measure whether uploads are in scope or not? By default we tend to delete new artworks unless the artist has some notability, in line with "Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use" as a rationale for deletion. There are times when I look at a great photo on Flickr, say a great shot of a rain puddle or a broken washing machine, and at a glance can see it is of high quality, aesthetically pleasing and the sort of image I believe adds value to the Wikimedia Commons collection. However, if I then upload the image, I have a very weak basis on which to provide a rationale to keep, other than I believe that someone looking for images of some generic type, would find this image of superior quality to another. In all other regards it probably fails to meet the literal definition of project scope.

The fact that Commons:Featured_picture_candidates has a definition that assesses the balance of a number of factors not explicitly recognized by our definition of Scope, itself seems an underpinning contradiction in top level guidance and policy. Often images in controversial areas, especially nudity, are deleted on the basis that we have enough of them and an individual image is unlikely to be of educational use, but I see little discussion that assesses aesthetic quality, more than obviously flawed images (such as being blurry or low resolution).

In conclusion, are there grounds for agreeing (or trimming those for featured pictures) some basic general guidelines of how to judge photographs for quality and aesthetic value (rather than educational value) and extending our project scope to recognize this distinction? Thanks -- (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean images like File:Cat guarding the beer fridge.jpg. Good to high quality, but is it in scope?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep, though you might believe that every possible image category of electronic devices on Commons is better with one or more LOL cats, teddy bears or scantily clad women/men, others might disagree. When there is disagreement as to educational use, then aesthetic value would be a healthy thing to consider as part of the project aim must be to preserve artworks (including recent and original photographs with artistic value) that are appropriately released. -- (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you saying they are in or out of scope? Should we DR this one and the other as examples and then use those DR discussions in future policy/guideline changes? They aren't used anywhere important, created by a non-notable (so far) user, etc. I have no problem with a DR if it will assist the project on a better definition of what we keep or delete.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
For a change, let's not rush to delete anything we don't need to ;-) I am raising the question generally here as I think that better guidance on aesthetics would help us as a community to judge if one photo of a cat in a fridge has more likely long term artistic value (even if it has no particular educational or illustrative value) than another photo of a cat in a fridge. Where cat in a fridge could be any subject where the value to open knowledge is the artistic quality of the photograph itself more than just its literal subject matter. I don't think this example of a faux cat would be that definitive, if you want to try this as a technique then I would rather you looked through current open DRs and spotted one where the photograph was high quality, yet there were otherwise strong pro-deletion arguments being raised. -- (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "It's a founding principle of Commons that we should only host content that can be used by anyone for any purpose." In this case is the scope of the project to provide files for commercial use? My file could easily be used for an new advertising campaign: "No Milk?". They also may use it for the idea for a new campaign, or even for educational purposes in advertising schools.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If you have enough imagination, almost anything can be in scope. A piece of art may not be notable in itself, but might be a brilliant illustration of a particular subject, process, art technique, technical photographic method, etc. I'm not usually inclined to delete high-quality images on scope grounds alone. On the other hand, like any WMF project we have to recognise that each page represents a cost, another place to watch for vandalism, another license to check, another search result that might obscure more relevant resources. In this sense it is necessary for COM:SCOPE to exist, but I think it's okay to vary just how strictly we interpret it based on factors like image quality. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "Art" is a term thrown around and is meaningless. Photographs aren't always educational, and the vast majority of images are not. Commons is supposed to be used for actually usable images. Although server space might be unlimited (it actually isn't), volunteer time and manpower is limited, and it takes a lot of work to deal with the massive amount of bad images now. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, so rather than leaving "bad" as purely subjective and the cause of indefinite heated debate, I am proposing we have some guidelines for the "good", so that the rest of us have a chance of knowing it when we see it. As Dcoetzee points out, we resist deleting good quality photos even when on thin or tangential grounds against the scope definition, and it seems odd to be "bending the rules" to keep photographs that those with an aesthetic sense know are artistically interesting and have qualities to be worth preserving, but is not just another postbox, licence plate or low resolution shot of a geotagged empty field that the "collectors" amongst us justify as being unique and of potential educational value. -- (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
      • My use of bad was as a catchall for copyright infringing images and such that are hard to sort through now and would be significantly harder with far more images. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the guidelines are good as they are. (I don't want inclusion for aesthetics (or quality) alone - this is an educational project (already broadly understood)). I don't see any contradiction with FPC - of course it has different criteria to scope, they're entirely different animals. But I doubt you'll find many FPs that aren't in scope (if that's what you're angling at). I understand that scope is sometimes difficult to judge, but that just means if you're uploading grey-area images, they will sometimes be deleted when you misjudge the community's consensus. --99of9 (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
My opinion matches closely opinion of user:Dcoetzee. It is a balancing act, but most out of scope images that are being deleted are of poor quality, with watermarks, etc. I occasionally see FP, VI or QI that are likely out of scope, but that is usually never mentioned. --Jarekt (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Slo ..

Image servers seems slow this evening. What is happening? --  Docu  at 17:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

May caused by some initial preparations for this ? Or just one of the usual server hickups (or they cleaned their image thumbcaches). --Denniss (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


I've uploaded new photo (from using license on this one. Is it OK? KIX4U (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#BnF/Gallica, where there should be more knowledgable people. - Jmabel ! talk 18:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
For the photos from Agence Rol, it would be better to take inspiration from the other files in the Category:Agence Rol. I know they're not all formatted the same way and they don't all use the same templates, but you can explore a sample of them and then use the format and templates that you consider the more appropriate. May be of some use too the templates Creator:Agence Rol, Template:Gallica or Template:ARK-BNF, and Template:PD-BNF. You can see also this previous help desk comment. Also, for categorization, the Category:Askold (ship, 1900). -- Asclepias (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I'll investigate that. About the categorization, now I see it's not that Askold ship, but something else. Thanks again. KIX4U (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Right, apparently it's not the same ship. The mistake on the Gallica website may have been from an initial annotation by the Agence Rol. A Russian forum had also noticed that mistake some years ago. It would be interesting if we could identify this ship. By the way, you can upload the large version of that photo with the methods mentioned in the discussion at Commons:Bistro#Reproduire sur Commons l'image zoomée du site Gallica. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Using Flickr Upload Bot for PD images where copyright is wrongly claimed

From time to time I see images on Flickr, such as pages from very old books, which are PD, but where the uploader there has tagged them as "All rights reserved", Is it possible,as as trusted user, to have a "key" to use Flickr Upload Bot in such cases? Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It's better to use your own bot in those cases. If you make a mess, it won't affect other people using the bot. Multichill (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't have my own bot. How could using FUB "make a mess", and how could that "affect other people using the bot"? Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Just download the photo to your own machine & upload, as you would do from a site not covered by a bot. - Jmabel ! talk 03:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I could do that, but it's long-winded, especially when there are a number of images to shift. Isn't that what we have bots for..? Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Bug in Adobe CS5 !?

We figure out there is maybe a bug in Adobe CS (5). When store a image as JPEG and select 'Baseline ("Standard")' the image is not stored as Baseline. It is stored as progressive as like it be when select "Progressive". Progressive JPEGs makes trouble, see bugzilla:17645. So please, if you own a Adobe CS Software, please make a test to confirm this. --Slick (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I use PS Elements, but apparently it has the same problem; see User_talk:Rillke/Discuss/2013#Bug_17645_-_progressive_JPEGs. Have I understood it correctly that it's better to use the option "baseline optimized" while saving? --A.Savin 21:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Jup, it is the only way to save in baseline right now. Please use baseline optimized. --McZusatz (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Badge for Top 100

Moved this discussion from Picture of the Year 2012 talk page to here, for community opinion --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a small proposal which will be very easy to implement as well. How about introducing a badge for POTY TOP 100. We have almost close to 1000 FPs this year, and I would assume that this number will go up in future years. We also seem to have an excellent automated voting system, which is probably resulting in a large number of votes. The vote volume is only likely to go up in coming years.

In view of this, I would recommend that lets introduce a badge for TOP 100 for those excellent images (and media) which could not quite make it to the Final 36 or 40, but were close on heels of the finalists. This will also serve as a recognition for many additional contributors who will feel recognized for their efforts.

Designing the new badge should be fairly easy (given that we already have badges for finalists and category tops). A simple statement like "This image was in Top 100 of POTY 2012" will be good enough. If we want to provide a bit more information, we can include the rank in R1 round as well like "This image ranked (#58) in Top 100 of POTY 2012" or something like that.

This proposal doesn't result in any change of rules or schedule or anything. It's just an additional recognition which we can introduce considering the large number of FPs and audience interest this year onwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dey.sandip (talk • contribs)

Seems like a good idea. Tomer T (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Tomar, for supporting the idea. Its becoming relevant since the number of FPs are increasing substantially each year --Dey.sandip (talk) 10:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, but just to clarify, the badge would be to the uploader talk page or to be in the file page? Béria Lima msg 16:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Beria, Thanks for your interest in the proposal. The badge/banner will be just like other POTY badges and can be placed the same way in the file page itself (refer to how the POTY finalist banner is placed in file pages) --Dey.sandip (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

So, POTY finalists are placed in the {{Assessments}} template for 1st, 2nd, 3rd pictures and finalists. To do what you asking, we would need to:

1. Change this template, and therefore ask community for input, since we can't do it by ourselves; or
2. Create a new template to list the top 100 minus 1st, 2nd and 3rd places (already on the other one).

In case we go for option 2, I still think is better to ask for community opinion because is yet another template in a file page and some have FP, QI, VI, WLM and FP in other projects templates. But I like the idea (if we can fix the xmas tree effect that might happen) Béria Lima msg 16:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If changing the existing {{Assessments}} template is a time consuming process, the simpler option (as you mentioned as option 2) will be to devise a new template which can just have a simple statement like "This picture was in Top 100 of POTY 2012" and may be a standard POTY logo. --Dey.sandip (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
My problem isn't change or create a template (can be done in 20 min maximum) but do it with community approval. Why we dont take this to COM:VP or COM:AN? So more people can see and give opinions. If all goes right, I can do it in the blink of an eye ;) Béria Lima msg 16:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, please move the proposal to these community pages that you feel suitable. I have no issues with that. I give you my support :) --Dey.sandip (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

1,000,000 articles on it:wiki!

Wikipedia-logo-it-milione 3.png

Buongiorno a tutti i contributori di Wikimedia Commons! Oggi l'edizione in lingua italiana di Wikipedia ha raggiunto il milione di voci, siete tutti invitati a festeggiare con noi e a lasciare un messaggio qui, ciao!
Good morning to all Commoners! Italian Wikipedia reaches one million articles today, come party with us, and leave here a message to support our community! Have a nice day!
-- 09:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: Please, put in some party pictures!


Hi. Do you know a tool to transfer images from Wikimedia Commons to local Wikipedia projects? Best regards --Jivee Blau (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Depends why you're doing it. If you want to transfer files that are being deleted as fair use candidates, you'll want to use {{Fair use delete}} and let User:Commons fair use upload bot do it (it does not support all wikis yet, just English Wikipedia - please let me know at User talk:Dcoetzee if you want me to add more, I need help from the local wiki to set it up). If the file is not being deleted, then you probably don't want to transfer it - there's no reason not to leave it on Commons. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Essenheim- Adolf Hitler als Ehrenbürger 13.7.2012.jpg?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I plan to transfer some files that might have some problems with US copyright (like File:Abenheim.jpg). Later I will re-upload files in German Wikipedia with Template:File-PD-old-100. Sadly I do not have enough knowledge to program. Kind regards --Jivee Blau (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is no such tool (regrettably). Commonshelper 2 offers such an option, but it doesn't really move the file; all it apparently really does is offer you source code to copy, and even that never worked for me. You'll have to upload them manually. If you wish to upload them to a local project using the same filename, you won't be able to do it yourself (unless you're an admin there). You'll need to find an admin there to do it or perhaps to move the file to the desired filename after upload.
Photos from before 1923 like the one you pointed out don't have any problems with US copyright BTW because they are in the public domain there, at least if they were published in some way. They might have problems with the copyright of their respective source countries however, depending on the circumstances in each case. --Rosenzweig τ 19:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
It is strictly against Foundation policy to host any image that is copyrighted in the US on any local project, regardless of its target audience, except in compliance with an exemption doctrine policy consistent with US fair use law. See Resolution:Licensing policy. German Wikipedia has an approved non-free content policy at de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Bilder.2C_deren_Urheber_nicht_bekannt_ist, and also accept some works that are PD in the US but not Germany, and you can upload images that satisfy those terms, either through Commons fair use upload bot (which doesn't support dewp right now), or by just reuploading the image yourself and copy pasting the history and file history. Otherwise, you cannot reupload such an image to your local project, even if it is out of copyright in Germany. As Rosenzweig mentioned images like that c. 1903 one are fine under US law as long as they were published before 1923. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions. I'll think about it. Kind regards --Jivee Blau (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Flickr bot failed

The bot failed to confirm this file and others I have recently uploaded because of the 90 deg rotation, I think. Is this worth fixing to avoid admin and trusted users from checking them manually or is there another work around we can do when uploading?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Use one of our flickr upload tools and then RotateLink (if it isn't urgent). -- Rillke(q?) 23:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The fickr images were sideways. I downloaded them to my hard drive without rotating them. The commons upload system rotated them during upload and then the bot was looking for the sideways dimensions to match on flickr. They still show as sideways on my hard drive. I used --Canoe1967 (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

January 22

Remark on POTY

I don't usually get involved in the various efforts to recognize Commons' best work, but I did just spend 20 minutes looking through the Picture of the Year candidates. It seems to me that there is a very conservative aesthetic at work here: a lot of very simple symmetries, very little dynamism, extreme concern with technique over substance. It seems to me that very few of the world's currently most prominent artistic photographers produce work that would meet this aesthetic, and even the bulk of leading working photojournalists do not. - Jmabel ! talk 17:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that should be taken to Commons talk:Featured picture candidates I guess. These are the basis to POTY. Jean-Fred (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The thing is, I'd really like to see the issue of appropriate criteria discussed more broadly than the rather small group who seem currently to comment on particular nominations. - Jmabel ! talk 06:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I see. Well, if we want more diversity in POTY, then there are two ways : having FPs more diverse − I don’t think criteria are the main issue ; if we want more eg famous paintings, it is a matter of finding and nominating artworks more famous paintings − or stop using FPs as the sole basis for POTY. (as for me, I have not much of an opinion on this. I believe POTY and FPs do their job of highlighting content fairly well). Jean-Fred (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I found among the candidates (actually someone mentioned after I launched a topic on that matter on the French Wikipedia's Bistro) File:12-03-17-aktstudien-nuernberg-by-RalfR-32.jpg which is the perfect example of "self-created artwork without obvious educational purpose" which should be discarded as COM:SCOPE#Examples requires to. Apart from that, I found good pictures, including File:Colombia Mapa Oficial.svg, an SVG map of Columbia which has a high informational value and is in my mind the kind of files which should be promoted as a representative of what Wikimedia Commons is for. Teofilo (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I know that artworks always had it difficult (and sometimes it hurts me when I see that some are deleted) at Commons but that you suggest deleting a photo used and suitable illustrating Wikiversity and more importantly Wikipedia Articles goes beyond what I could understand or endorse. -- Rillke(q?) 23:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I am sensitive to beautiful artworks too, but when I see one, I think one should remember that the purpose of Wikimedia (Commons, etc... anything) is about "collect and develop educational content" per m:Mission. Also, if we start accepting beautiful artworks on the basis of beauty regardless of notability, we end up being powerless for discarding ugly ones, for beauty/ugliness are subjective and can't be the basis for workable rules on a collective project. Teofilo (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Did you notice that the file you mentioned is used for illustrating a photography technique? -- Rillke(q?) 00:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I know. But I dislike photographers taking pictures for the purpose of showing photography techniques by the same token as I dislike films about film-making (for example en:Day for Night (film)). There is something narcissistic in that. Teofilo (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Internal error: Server failed to store temporary file - when trying to upload new image

Receiving an "Internal error: Server failed to store temporary file" notification and upload failure when attempting to upload a new image. Searched through the archives and found one entry dating back to 2010 that did not appear related. 2ChannelGod (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia is currently moving to a new data center [18], this might be caused by that. MKFI (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the report. We had a loose end from the migration that we recently cleared up. This should have been fixed as of 00:05 UTC. Sorry for the inconvenience! -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I take that back. It's not fixed just yet -- I'm able to reproduce this problem myself. We're currently investigating now. -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, now it should be fixed. :-) It turns out that images uploaded with UploadWizard while this was broken would have a couple of problems: 1) any information entered as an image description is lost, and 2) the image will not show up when you first visit the page. A page purge fixes the problem. The problem was addressed at around 01:23 UTC, so subsequent uploads shouldn't exhibit any problems. -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks RobLa - I was indeed able to upload without issue. :) Thanks again! 2ChannelGod (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Make some images and image categories hidden

It is disgusting that Wikipedia do not have such policy. And it is immoral. Just because it is free doesn't mean it has to neglect protection of children online from abusive images and also of those who don't like to see them. We all know most companies like Google has such policy of restricting content for those who are either minors or not interested. Why FREE has to be equal to IMMORAL with Wikipedia. It is scandalous how some people are blind to it turning Wikipedia to one of the biggest storage for nudity and pornography besides very much imposing itself to auditory of children and people who DON'T want to see these things. How hard it is to make the content hidden for minors and for those who don't want to see it? It is not hard at all, but for the administrators and owners of Wikipedia, to me it looks like you act like exhibitionists in a public place, having no heart or whatsoever moral control for showing these things to children and people who don't like to see it. --Aleksd (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that Commons is "one of the biggest storage for nudity and pornography". For other information see m:Image_filter_referendum. Ruslik (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
What referendum? Morality is not something that has to be voted, pls. --Aleksd (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
uh, what? "Morality" is a completely undefined field (your morality POV is not my POV), constraints regarding this topic have to be based on a broad community consensus. Rbrausse (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Aleksd -- in the Commons system, "Hidden category" means something different from what you think it means... AnonMoos (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  • <sarcasm>Because it is so much more moral to have children look at images like File:Dead from the My Lai massacre on road.jpg, and so this sort of thing is so easy to resolve...</sarcasm> If you don't want to see a particular type of image, don't go looking for it. - Jmabel ! talk 16:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Congress to bring PD works back under copyright---won't this affect Commons?

According to this article at Ars Technica, non-American works produced since 1923 that have fallen into the public domain in the US may be brought back under copyright in the US. According to the article, that amounts to millions of works. I imagine quite a few of them exist here with {{PD-US-not renewed}} or other tags. Doesn't that mean these files will be subject to removal? Curly Turkey (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. For example, there are a few thousands of those in Category:Works copyrighted in the U.S.. Files in that category are currently being deleted, but it is first necessary to verify whether the works really are protected by copyright in the United States. In some cases, a tag may have been added erroneously. Also, there are lots of other files which will have to be deleted but which aren't in that category. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Although the Ars Technica article doesn't mention it by name, I think this is about the URAA we at Commons have now become quite familiar with (quoting from Ars Technica: "In 1994, Congress adopted legislation to move the works back into copyright, so U.S. policy would comport with an international copyright treaty known as the Berne Convention" - I think this can only mean the URAA). So, not really news here. The perverse thing about the URAA is that it makes works again protected in the U.S. (often for a very long time) that are now in the public domain even in their source country... so goes considerably further than just the Berne Convention. Most Berne Convention signatories have just a protection term of 50 or 70 years after the creator's death, and that's it... but works that were still protected in their country of origin on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 in most cases) got the same protection in the U.S. as U.S. works with renewed copyright, i.e. 95 years after publication - even if these works went into the public domain in the country of origin next year (e.g. if a German author died in 1926, then his works became free in Germany on January 1, 1997 - but as they were still protected in Germany in 1996, a work by this author published in 1926 is now still protected in the U.S. until 2021). Gestumblindi (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that article is clearly about the URAA. Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/URAA review is currently working to identify and delete such files from Commons, ideally also classifying them into "Undelete in YYYY" categories. cmadler (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
It's clear that the US went considerably further than the Berne Convention with URAA - a "reasonable" position would have been to restore protection in the USA, "as long as the work is still protected in its origin country"… but USA want to rule the world, or at least, US publishers want to control all that can we commercialized, for as long as possible… even when it does not interest anybody but commons users Clin --Hsarrazin (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, that's exactly what the USA did. Only works that were still copyrighted in the source country as of the URAA restoration date (1/1/1996 in most cases) got a restored US copyright. However, because the restored US copyrights follow US law based on the date of publication, US copyright durations do not match most other countries. This is compounded by the lack of the "rule of the shorter term" in the US, meaning that works that got a restored US copyright because they were copyrighted in the source country on the restoration date remain copyrighted based on US copyright duration, even if they have subsequently passed into the public domain in the source country. On the other hand, because of the requirement for copyright formalities, for many decades US reusers were able to make use of many foreign works with no regard for the copyright and/or moral rights of the creator. cmadler (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Move them to wikilivres, which follows Canadian copyright law. --Túrelio (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

We already routinely do so. See Category:Deleted files transferred to Wikilivres. However, I desperately need more people over there to help with categorization, or I'm probably going to end up blocked. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Update to this: I've now created Category:Media from Wikimedia Commons needing category review on Wikilivres. If you're frustrated with the URAA and want to preserve works that we are forced to delete here because of it, please visit there and help with categorization. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

January 18

Assistance required regarding display of image licence

File:Sir Douglas Haig portrait.jpg I have uploaded an image from the collection of the Imperial War Museum, London, allowable under a non-commercial use licence, but am unsure how to display this appropriately on its Commons description page. I have temporarily used a public domain template which is incorrect. Can anyone advise how I replace this with a more appropriate template? Kim Traynor (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Specifically non-commercial licenses are not accepted on Commons, so if that is the only available license then this image will have to be deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 05:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
This is a case of a UK institution claiming copyright under UK law in a faithful photographic reproduction of a PD 2D work. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag for further discussion. Man vyi (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Is the original PD? Dankarl (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
According to William_Orpen the artist died in 1931, so it's PD in England (pma + 70), but according to this it is protected in the US until pma + 95 (not in the public domain in 1996), but I'm not sure how that impacts commons (I haven't followed the URAA discussion). Kameraad Pjotr 17:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake, it is in the public domain from January 1st, 2013, as it was published in 1917, and copyright in the US in this case is publication date + 95 years. Kameraad Pjotr 17:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it was in the public domain in the U.S. even before, as it was first published before 1923. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

PikiWiki Israel is not following Commons' file naming policy

Pikiwiki Israel is uploading files under names like File:PikiWiki Israel 29042 Cities in Israel.JPG which is not a meaningful name as required by Commons:First_steps/Upload_form#4._Set_an_appropriate_file_name. A more accurate description is available in the |description= field of the template (עברית: ציורי קיר פסלים ושפוץ בתים ברחוב פרישמן, Original Image Name:רחוב פרישמן, Location:תל אביב) which Google translates as "Hebrew: sculptures and murals reconditioning houses Frishman Street, Original Image Name: Frishman Street, Location: Tel Aviv" . I think Pikiwiki Israel should follow the best practices of the batch uploaders who have experience with batch uploading at Commons:Batch_uploading. In this case I think it would be better to have a file name in Hebrew rather than have a meaningless or vague English name like "cities in israel". Or a longer name combining the two : "File:29042 Cities in Israel - ציורי קיר פסלים ושפוץ בתים ברחוב פרישמן.jpg" Also the categorization is too vague. Instead of being inserted into category:Cities in Israel, File:PikiWiki Israel 29042 Cities in Israel.JPG should be part of Category:Tel Aviv-Yafo or some even more specific category. Teofilo (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

PikiWiki is not really a "batch uploader" as such; it's miscellaneous diverse people (some of whom might have a shaky grasp of English at best) uploading to Commons by means of a heavily-customized form on Hebrew Wikipedia. AnonMoos (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Creature ID

I just came across a flickr user with some very nice images under free licence. I quickly downloaded a few in case he changes his mind. This one needs a better file name though. File:Unknown hairy creature on stump.jpg File movers can feel free to give it any name they wish.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Am by no means an expert on this, but it looks like a lar gibbon (Hylobates lar): compare "File:Gibbon Amiens 26873.jpg". — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you and correct, we think. The file has been re-named.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
"We"? Anyway, glad to help. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
"We" are the others at en:wp reference desk/science where it was agreed that you are correct.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Image issues - same as mentioned above or different?

I've asked for three files to be restored by Commons admins, because I received permissions statements from the copyright owner. All happened, but I see some viewing issues with each of them.

Two are linked to w:John_P._Angelos The first is the image in the infobox, which I can see. However, if I click on the image, which brings me to w:File:John_Angelos.JPG, I don't see the image. If I click on the link to the commons image: File:John_Angelos.JPG I see a large grey box. If I click on the name in the gray box, it opens an image, rotated by 90 degrees.

I thought perhaps I need to request rotation, but when I click on that option, the image looks fine, and the rotation options all change it away from the desired vertical view. My guess is that something is doing an auto-rotation, so I don't know whether I should request a rotation, or do nothing.

The second image should be at the bottom of the section "A New Spring Training Home"

I don't see it. I thought maybe a purge would help, or maybe it was a caching problem, and passage of time would help, but I processed this last night, and it still doesn't appear on the page.

If I click on the image, I am brought to the Wikipedia image page, and it still doesn't show. If I click on the file name, I can see the image. If I go to the commons image page: File:Orioles_Announce_Partnership_with_Baltimore_Schools.JPG I see a gray box. Clicking on the file name opens the file, so it is there, but I expect to see it in the Commons image page.

Similarly, this morning I arranged to have w:File:HHH_Ray_Enners_Day.jpg restored, but I cannot see the file.

I do see Commons:Village_pump#.22Error_generating_thumbnail_.E2.80.93_The_source_file_for_the_specified_thumbnail_does_not_exist..22 which links to w:Wikipedia:VPT#Images_not_rendering

If the answer is simply that I am giving additional examples, and the problem will be fixed, then I will just wait. But I'd like to make sure that my issues aren't different, requiring some different actions, in particular, whether rotation is needed on one image.--Sphilbrick (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

All your examples look fine to me here and on wikipedia. If you still can't see them try clearing your browser's cache. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
And for me as well now. Thanks for checking.--Sphilbrick (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

January 25

Think it should be easier to upload photos or videos from article pages?

I'm a San Francisco area product designer looking to collaborate with the Wikimedia Foundation to improve the uploading flow of photos and videos in context of the article page. Have thoughts about it? Check out my proposal here:

Look forward to a good discussion.

AAshstar01 (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"Error generating thumbnail – The source file for the specified thumbnail does not exist."

I am trying to move an SVG to Commons (File:Three Hares Symbol - Map.svg), but it does not render in the preview. And if I click on the other sizes, I get the error message above. --Morn (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Same problem here (File:Ryan_Donk_(16-01-2013).jpg and 3 other pictures) Mooi is de wereld (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
My last 30 uploads or so have the same problem, see Special:ListFiles/DcoetzeeBot. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Bandera de Castrillón.svg also has this problem, while File:J. H. 5 Rusyns 1878.jpg has another one -- the thumbnail displayed is based on the 714x1064 pixel 202kb losslessly cropped and grayscaled version of the file I uploaded, but my upload isn't shown on the file history, and instead SofoPodilska's upload of the original file version is shown twice. P.S. The problem with File:Audio-mp3.svg was also never fixed... -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
So, is anyone of the Wikimedia tech people looking into this or are we talking to ourselves here? --Morn (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
See also w:WP:VPT#Images not rendering. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I've been having problems for the last few days with images not updating properly. For instance, I marked File:Biocentrum SLU January 2013 01.jpg as having a dust spot - the uploader fixed it, but I can't see the change. Same with other files with more major changes (eg a colour balance change) - the full size image and viewing thumbnail refuse to update, even after purge and ctrl+f5. It makes QI very annoying. -mattbuck (Talk) 04:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I've been cheating and moving files to a moderately-more-descriptive name. It's not an ideal solution, but it does fix the problem. Honestly, though, I wouldn't trust getting a fix anytime soon: Wikipedia's coders are fairly incompetent when it comes to images. We still can't show large PNGs or TIFFs, years later, and PNGs are shown blurry, because they aren't sharpened like JPEGs are, making the lossy file encoding look better, even when the lossless file displays in the first place, which is rare, and thereby encouraging people not to upload lossless files. I don't foresee much chance of things getting fixed on anything more than a stopgap scale before Wikipedia starts paying coders who can't just ignore bugs for years. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, whatever this is, it started recently, so it's something new which is broken, not something old. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Although the bugfix mentioned above (error message for thumbnails) is marked fixed, when I upload new versions of existing files the old file is still shown (File:Mumbai attacks vinu image01-crop.jpg), I have tried purging - no luck. Using the ?1 trick on the end of the filename gets the correct version. Hohum (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thumbnails don't work

Does anybody know what is wrong here: File:WP Christoph Graf zu Stolberg-Stolberg.jpg, File:Map of the island Simeulue.jpg. --Nachcommonsverschieber (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

See parent section. --Nemo 13:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hoax demographic map?

I'm fairly certain File:Mexicanos en usa 2010.png is a hoax. I've already removed it from the articles it was used in, but I could use some help in verifying that it is, in fact, fake. Kaldari (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think it is a hoax. It does look reasonable at the first glance. Ruslik (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
A bigger problem is that the map has no legend. What does red mean? 10%? 15%? MKFI (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Category-view filetype selector bug

Category:Test of periods in names has several files with names containing periods (in addition to the period before the filetype extension). If I use the pulldown to select display of only a certain filetype by extension (rather than the default [all]), some of the parts of the filename get included in the extension. I have File:Test.1.png in that cat, and the menu treats it as filetype extension [1.png]. DMacks (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-GalleryFilterExtension.js had a bug in this regard that should be fixed now. -- Rillke(q?) 17:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
WorksForMe(tm). Thanks for the quick fix! DMacks (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Uploading Flickr sets

I seem to recall reading recently that there's a new tool for uploading Flickr images a set at at me. I can't find it - did I dream that? Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It's part of the upload wizard and as far as I know it's admin-only, at least for now, as it is still in the test stage. --Rosenzweig τ 23:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
It's actually quite reliable, but not available to everyone yet. People in compliance with requirements can ask reviewer right. --Nemo 10:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

maybe you mean this? cheers, Amada44  talk to me 13:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

See Commons:Upload Wizard/Flickr. Jean-Fred (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

January 26

help adding cats to an excellent flickr image set (2500 pics)

Here it is: Category:Photos by Jason Hollinger (uncategorized) . Images are generally tagged very well so categorizing should be quick and easy. Just remove the (uncategorized) cat and replace with the new one. Thanks and cheers, Amada44  talk to me 13:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Upload Bots and thousands of duplicates

Is there any way to prevent uploads bot from uploading duplicate images (Bit-for-Bit identical copy already existing here) without breaking the Bots? I'm currently working through several thousand duplicates at Category:Flickr images reviewed by File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) (duplicates) and there are many more to come from Flickr upload Bot and others. Especially the mass upload tool(s) may/will increase these numbers considerable as uploads are not checked agains existing images. --Denniss (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I created this category (and others) and have been populating it by sniffing the metadata. A few quick points:
  • The duplication rate in comparison to total uploads is about 1%, but it would be slightly unfair to count all of these as the bot's fault as some will be later uploads after the bot's original upload.
  • Duplicates in this scenario are not the fault of the uploader(s), it was impossible to know at the time of upload that this was happening.
  • This is a massive backlog being checked in one big gulp. Until I started to categorize these, little had been done over the last couple of years to sniff them out for attention. Future runs should give far fewer and more manageable results.
  • I understand from one past conversation that failure to detect duplicates on upload may have since been solved, though I would like someone to explain this is the case.
  • It would be possible, if there was a consensus, for me to write a script to run an automated check of all these files and tag all copies of each original file with the {{Duplicate}} template apart from the oldest which would be removed from any category of duplicates. At which point an admin could mass delete all duplicates in the category with minimal harm.
Thanks -- (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The bots simply must not set the ignore-warnings-flag. The API perfectly catches exact duplicates when you don't set this flag. Smarter bots would also calculate SHA1 before uploading and ask the API whether such a file exists. But their operators are too busy to catch each warning gratefully (there are some more cases which you should then treat correctly). If you see new occurrences of this issue, consider starting a bot-bit-removal request. -- Rillke(q?) 21:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
After working through ~1500 duplicate files in this cat I could state that the majority of these files were from August/September 2012 and later. But that's just a current snapshot of the files I worked on, it also depends and Fae's sript and how/where/when it detects dupes. It would probably be easier if the devs would add an automated cat to place identical images in, then use a bot to filter-out the oldest version of an image and tag the other incarnations as dupe. --Denniss (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why this is happening. Checking for a duplicate prior to upload is trivial and has been part of Pywikipedia for years. Why didn't that happen here? Upload bots that don't do this simple duplicate checking prior to upload should not run on Commons. Multichill (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Re: Rillke's comment above. I know that I have on more than one occasion inadvertently uploaded a duplicate using Flickr upload bot without having set the 'ignore warnings' box. I have the impression that the duplicate-check used to be there but stopped working some time ago, Don't know how you would check this. Dankarl (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I would like to point out Category:Uploaded with VicuñaUploader (duplicates)‎ which originally contained duplicates I identified that appear to have been created with this new upload tool at a similar rate (1% I think) to Magnus' bot. Perhaps someone could simulate some tests with both these bots to check if this was a temporary glitch or this remains something that ought to be diagnosed and fixed.
By the way, my script is finding duplicates by using the standard API call and I am just checking the files in the bot category in alphabetical order. Originally I wrote this to check out high bot users and then focused my attention away from the user (which seemed a bit unfair as this appears to be something that an upload tool user cannot prevent) to the bot itself. I run the checks rather slowly, I don't think there is any rush here as I tease through the backlog [I think it has been a week and I'm on record 202,700 of 224,200, so nearly done :-)]. Thanks -- (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Update my check of the Magnus bot category is complete, with the last one found being No.224,595:File:上水_-_Sheung_Shui_-_September_1991_(2350032187).jpg. -- (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Magnus Manske's bot needs to be fixed ASAP, I have seen images from 2013 uploaded as duplicate. --Denniss (talk) EDIT: Flickr Upload Bot doesn't care about dupes as well, see File:C-O sole (Pleuronichthys coenosus).jpg I just uploaded as dupe of two others. --Denniss (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • First, hats off to those who developed and maintain flinfo, and the other excellent tools. I don't want them to feel unappreciated.
User:Rillke suggests uploaders should not be allowed to turn off "ignore warnings", to prevent uploading duplicates. Isn't that several minutes later than possible?
Flinfo, for instance, starts with the uploader plugging in a URL to the image they want to upload. Several steps follow, before the uploader has an opportunity to actually upload the image. All those intermediate steps are a waste of time -- if the image has already been uploaded. At that point the tool could perform the same check as our special linksearch form. This wouldn't prevent all duplicates, but it would prevent about 95 percent of them.
That would be number one on my requested features list -- that flinfo and friends check to see if the URL for the image has already been used.
I would strongly prefer that the "ignore warning" button remains available. Geo Swan (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
My Google Art Project upload bot computes the SHA1 hash of the file and issues a SHA1 query ("" + sha1Hex followed by if (queryResult.Contains("<img"))) to determine if the file exists already. This is very easy to do and there is no reason all bots should not be doing it. Sometimes it gets tripped up by people editing images (the query doesn't check SHA1s of old file versions), but that's not very common and easily dealt with manually. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I had the SHA1 check in there from day one, however, just now I found a silly bug that prevented it from working correctly. Fixed now, should upload no more duplicates. --Magnus Manske (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Not the uppercase/lowercase regression bug I hope? Multichill (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the Bot. Any idea how to contact Bryan to have him fix the Flickr upload bot? BTW Fae - are you planning to check Category:Flickr_images_uploaded_by_Flickr_upload_bot for dupes as well? --Denniss (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Happy to do it, it's bit late tonight so rather than starting it when I'm tired, I'll kick off a duplicates check for the Flickr upload bot tomorrow at some point. :-) -- (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Category:Flickr images uploaded by Flickr upload bot (duplicates) created and being populated for your enjoyment. Back to bed, I'll check on this later to make sure nothing odd is popping up. -- (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
By the way my connection has been truely ghastly (blame TalkTalk) and my IP gets reallocated when my connection drops (several times a day now), this routine may lock up. I'll keep kicking it when I notice it misbehaving. You can judge progress as the results are in alphabetical order. Thanks -- (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Update I am up to record 111,000 as of UTC 19:00 today and only 258 (~0.2%) are currently shown as duplicates (though I suspect many have been fixed as they were highlighted). As this is more than halfway through, I don't think that the Flickr upload bot can be judged as out of control :-). Thanks -- (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done Category populated, with the last duplicate being File:Князь-Владимирский_храм_на_Валааме.jpg. Thanks -- (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I was reducing them in parallel, sometimes both dupe files were in this cat or were dupes with Magnus Manske's upload bot. In the end this cat contained ~1200 entries. Cat did not contain as many new entries (from mid 2012 on) as were detected on the other bot but were spread over multiple years. --Denniss (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone in this conversation know how to turn off some warnings in pywikipedia, but not others? My bot (Category:Batch_created_charts_by_User:99of9) needs to re-upload over existing files in order to update graphs. --99of9 (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In upload.UploadRobot() you can set the parameter ignoreWarning=True (not done this myself, but I think that would do it), however as you want to switch some off and leave other warnings on, there is no standard parameter that could do this, I think. If you want a bit of fine control over what happens, you could make a copy of and customize the error trap (search for "data['warnings'].iteritems():") where there are a number of errors that result in the user being prompted to make a decision to overwrite or not. By the way, I'm not a Python wizard, so these are just my naive thoughts on work-arounds. Thanks -- (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

January 20

Commons proposed policies and guidelines

There are a number of proposals languishing in Category:Commons proposed policies and guidelines.

If anyone wants to pursue any of these issues, feel free! Rd232 (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Started a RFC on Commons:Username policy. Techman224Talk 22:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Which template for museum collectibles that are not art?

Hi, we have {{Information}}, {{Artwork}} and {{Photograph}}, which easily covers most cases. But I'm a bit unsure when in comes to museum collectibles that are not really art, such as these from the Norwegian Pharmacy Museum. In some cases, like this, there is a known creator of the item, and also a known photographer. It's tempting to use {{Artwork}} to add institution, location, accession number, and more, but it still seems a bit wrong to label it art. – Danmichaelo (δ) 12:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Description templates are only tools and their names are only strings. The "Template:Artwork" could have been named "Template:Abracadabra" or anything. In general, the name is chosen for evocating the most likely usage. The choice to name a description template and the choice to use one description template or another is a practical matter of convenience. It is not an academic statement by the Commons user. IMHO, one can use the description template that helps format and present the informations in the best possible manner in each case. For example, in the case of a non-artistic 3-D artefact, choosing to use "Template:Information" or "Template:Art Photo" can depend on the nature and on the number of the available and relevant informations about that item. If the object is a museal item and its description includes many museal informations that would be best presented with the "Art Photo" template, then in that case that template could be the best choice. If not, the "Information" template could be the best choice, and freely formatting the informations in its description field as desired. Also, for 2-D items such as the håndskrevet resept, it can be a good idea to use status templates such as "Template:Licensed-PD-Art-two". -- Asclepias (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I was starting to think along those lines, but it's always helpful to hear other's opinions to help crystallize one's thoughts! – Danmichaelo (δ) 21:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Naming templates is always tricky, original name of {{Artwork}} was {{Painting}}, but since it was also used for other artworks we renamed it to "Artwork". Than people started using it for archeological objects and other museum objects that were not artwork, but if we keep on renaming it to cover the whole range of uses than we will end up with something as general as "object". We had the same issue with {{Museum}} which was too narrow and was renamed to {{Institution}} which is a very broad term. We have "mental institutions", "institution of marriage", etc. At the same time many locations keeping artworks might very institution like: for example parish churches, etc. So as Asclepias said, do not worry about the name, but look at the fields available, and if it is a good match with metadata you have than use it. If it is not than we can either add fields to existing templates or create new ones. --Jarekt (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

File won't purge

I can't get File:Complexe sonore.png to purge. I've tried purging (by adding ?action=purge) the page, the full resolution file, and even the other resolution files. The last two appear to work, but when I go back to the page, it's still the old image. I've checked with multiple browsers.

I know that sometimes the software does eventually catch up and purges them itself, but usually it's faster than this. So please check and make sure the two different versions are different. (Mine has a darker green that's easier to see on white.)

I've seen Wikia have this problem, but never Wikimedia.

Trlkly (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Both versions are bitwise identical (and size 86 KB) when I saved them to my PC - it is as if wikimedia took only the file size (36 KB) of the new uploaded version but ignored the actual file itself. Unless better advice arrives I suggest re-uploading, and if that fails, upload to a new file name. In case this is relevant, I was unable to optimize the original PNG to smaller than 73 KB - how did you optimise your version to 36 KB? -84user (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I guess I can try that--didn't work back when Wikia had this problem. BTW, yhe file's there, if you add ?action=purge to the end of it, like so. As for the image, it only has a few colors in it, so I tried reducing it to 8-bit. A few tweaks later, and you couldn't tell the difference from the 24-bit version. Since the exact colors of the antialiasing are not important to the image, and you can't see any banding or (more) jaggies, I decided to keep it. Then I just ran it through OptiPNG, AdvPNG, and PNGOUT, like I always do. --Trlkly (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
There were some recent problems with purging of the caches (bugzilla:41130), but they were fixed. Maybe there is a re-lapse of the problem. 16:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, for me with both Opera and Firefox the second version ([19]) is now 36 KB and shows the darker green, so something "strange" must have been occurring. I see the bug has been reopened, some reported no problem from Germany, but I can confirm the problem from Italy, no proxies. FWIW, the most recent versions are identical to the second. -84user (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
As of 08:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC), it seems that the original and all thumbs have successfully purged but the 800px one. Unfortunately, that's the one that displays on the top of the page, even when I'm not logged in and am using yet another browser. --Trlkly (talk)
I confirm the problem with 800 px exists for me too. -84user (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Update and now the 800px is correctly rendered, after I clicked purge. I was about to try the "?bypasscache" trick explained in [20] so I wonder if anyone else had already tried that on these problem thumbnails? -84user (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I also cannot make updated files be displayed corretly. This is the core function of Commons, and it puts Wikimedia and its developers to shame that they don't seem to care a bit about this. Recent examples: File:Rollstuhl_Farfler_1655.jpg, File:AUT Markt Hartmannsdorf COA.jpg, File:CLJessen Kuester.jpg - in those not even the "full resolution" links will render the correct files in the latest version, regardless of all purge actions I could imagine. New thumb filesizes are all right, but the existing ones don't update at all. --FA2010 (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess we should all vote for Bug 41130 to speed up the process. --FA2010 (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Making it easier to request uncontroversial category moves

Soo someone has made a typo in the name of a category, and a new user and neat freak sees it and wants to do something about it. Immediately on the page, you can nominate a category for discussion, in the Toolbox. So the user clicks that, types in the box, and their concern is left at COM:CFD to be generally ignored.

If it's a rare person, the kind who has time to read documentation, they can quickly find Commons:Categories which leads them to Commons:Rename a category. Perfect. But there is something sort of cryptic about this page. For uncontroversial errors the user ends up at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands (this page currently has a backlog of commands going back to November).

In rewriting this page I'd like to provide some other ways to get categories renamed. I know of Category-bot. Any others?

I'd also like to make the "Nominate category for discussion" link do more and different things, but that's getting off-topic.. // moogsi(blah) 11:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  • The difficulty is to review & see which changes are actually non-controversial. Perhaps we could expand access to User:CommonsDelinker/commands (vs. its talk page) to everyone with filemoving privileges? - Jmabel ! talk 16:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Just use {{Move}}. Bit backlogged right now, but one bot operator could easily clean out all the uncontroversial requests in a rainy (or snowy) afternoon. Multichill (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe it would be beneficial to only use {{Move}}. It's nice to have different way to do things but the backlog seems to be about the same for any method, because it is down to just specific bot operators to do this (instead of any admin). I think it would benefit from some simplification from the user's perspective. The difference between a speedy and regular deletion is quite easy to understand. The difference between requesting a bot to do it using {{Move cat}}, starting a discussion at CFD, and using {{Move}} is less clear. Why are there different ways? Which bot should I ask? If I make a request with {{Move}} should I also open a discussion at CFD? Or on the category's talk page? What's happening? Are all questions I would ask as a new user. CFD doesn't really seem to work because few cases that actually need discussion end up there.
Mediawiki's categories are woefully unfit for the purpose Commons presses them to. There's already a lot of ingenuity gone into making them more user-friendly and it seems like there are a few relatively small steps that could make Commons less confusing // moogsi(blah) 12:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

(unindent). For spelling errors and other typos many people ignore the whole unwieldy process you describe. They just create a new category, and use Cat-a-lot to move everything to it. Then they put a {{Speedy}} tag on the old category with "empty category" as the reason. An admin sees the obvious spelling error or typo and goes ahead with the speedy delete. If the old category has been around for only a short time, few, if any, links have been made to it from the various Wikipedias.

If the old category has been around awhile the admins will use soft redirects. A very dumb idea in my opinion. Please see: Commons:Requests for comment/Hard category redirects REDIRECT.

I have repeatedly asked that User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands be moved to a non-talk page. But I am ignored. So people look for a non-existent talk page for a talk page. So people have nowhere to ask questions. Typical Commons and Wikipedia cluelessness on creating and maintaining communications. That is one more reason why so many people leave. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The unwieldy process is the one that the documentation suggests you use. I'm really thinking about what we recommend users to do, because it doesn't seem clear to me.
I can't really comment on the redirect issue cos I'm not familiar with all the reasons things are as they are. Seems like inertia to an outsider, though.
I do wish User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands were somewhere else, in User namespace under the bot, or in Commons namespace. Category:Requested moves probably *could* be cleared out very quickly. It's not a COM:BR thing because it's not an automated task. Opening User:CommonsDelinker/commands to filemovers as Jmabel suggests may be beneficial, but both bots also do things you would probably only want admins to do --moogsi(blah) 18:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I never noticed that toolbox link "Nominate category for discussion". When I click it I see that it has a "More information" link that only sends me back to the category. A help desk or help page link of some kind would be better. Maybe a couple more links too to various info pages on categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
A significant part of the requests on COM:DL are refused or changed; I don't think that it is acceptable to open direct access to the delinker; with a few "good" move request, one can move many thousands of items in an unrepairable way. Many templates cannot be bot moved. Last bot moves from Special:Contributions/SieBot date from 14 Januari, problems probably related with the migration of the Toolserver. A category bot move moves the authors of the categories too and renames the talk page. --Foroa (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Find missing categories?

Hi, does anybody know a simple way to identify categories that do not have a certain subcategory attached to them? Without looking into each of them manually, of course. I have Category:Members of Landtag of Bavaria and I´d like to know which of the 245 subcategories are without Category:People by name. And then the same for the Category "XXXX births" (more complicated, as it should show any missing births-Category independent of the year). I know about Catscan but don´t know how to achieve this. Thanks, --Rudolph Buch (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, this search query should find the categories in question. I don't know if there is a way to find the intersection of a category with the inverse of a category with Cat Scan, but if you do an intersection of these 2 categories you get 243 results, which means that every category which is a person (243 out of 245) is also in Category:People by name. The second one is more difficult, as the search doesn't appear to allow wildcards in this context, so
incategory:"Members of Landtag of Bavaria" -incategory:"* births"
doesn't work. There's most likely a way to do it, though // moogsi(blah) 14:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually what I didn't think of was searching for the absence of the word "births" which is unlikely to occur if the page is not included in a birth year category
-births incategory:"Members of Landtag of Bavaria"
of course this is not recursive so you will have to go through any subcategories manually. Cheers, moogsi(blah) 17:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
CatScan2 is very useful for that kind of search (ex : --Hsarrazin (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Aah, thanks for this, I was using the old CatScan with less features for some reason! // moogsi(blah) 10:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Both answers are very helpful, thank you. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Every now and then, bots add "people by name", birth and death categories, so no need to waste your time on that. --Foroa (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Bug: latest version disappearing

Sorry if this has been covered; not sure if this is related to the current image caching bug. I uploaded a new version of File:Rama VIII Bridge at night.jpg on 21 January. The action is shown in the log, but is completely missing from the file description page (which is showing duplicate entries for the previous version). The new version of the image actually briefly appeared on the file description page after the upload (though the thumbnails weren't being updated), but disappeared around the time of the server migration. Not quite sure what is going on here. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Same problem as reported above for File:J. H. 5 Rusyns 1878.jpg, which now seems to have fixed itself (though the thumbnail on that page after the second upload was always from the second-uploaded version, as far as I know)... AnonMoos (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Likely related to bugzilla:41130 which might share the underlying problem of bugzilla:44391. The latter has been fixed a few hours ago thanks to the operations team spending the weekend investigating, the first one is still being investigated. Sorry for the inconvience caused. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Grant application for: "New Wikisource relationship with Commons, Wikidata and Wikipedia"

Since the Wikidata project is allowing us new ways of handling content, I have started a grant proposal to define a vision about how to integrate Wikisource content in Commons and Wikipedia. Please, check my grant application and share your thoughts. Thanks! --Micru (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"Article feedback" for images?

Hi all,

I'm working on a bulk upload at the moment - see Commons:British Library#Picturing Canada for details - and one of the aspects that's very interesting to the curator I'm working with at the BL is getting information back from Commons. The Bundesarchiv error reports were a great demonstration of how we can send back corrections, and I'd love to have something like this set up. Here's an idea for an experiment...

As you may have seen, some Wikipedias have recently been experimenting with feedback boxes (AFT) in articles - see en:Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool for a background of the project, or en:Fibonacci#External links for an example of the current version of the feedback box. They don't require the reader to edit a wiki page, so we get a lot of comments from people who might not otherwise say something - which can be both good and bad! It's not explicitly designed for image files, but there's no technical reason it wouldn't work for them.

It seems that this might be a very interesting way to try and gather reader comments. It's possible to enable AFT so that it only triggers for pages in a specific category, so it wouldn't appear anywhere we didn't want it to; I'm also happy to do the legwork of collecting and processing any comments, at least for this collection if we do it as a trial.

Thoughts? Andrew Gray (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I have experience with the latest iteration of the Article Feedback Tool and like both the experience of leaving feedback and the curation experience (see en:Special:ArticleFeedbackv5). I think it's a much easier and more obvious way for readers to leave feedback, and would be a good way to gather both metadata corrections and (in the long run) provide more positive reader feedback to media contributors. On the other hand, curation would be necessary to account for irrelevant feedback like "this is gross" or "nice pic" or "this is not the picture I was looking for", and the staff is stretched a little bit thin here. On the balance I remain uncertain if it would be worthwhile. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
One of the benefits of turning it on on a set-by-set basis is that we could try and make sure there was a "contact" - someone willing to take responsibility for sorting the feedback for that set - before enabling it. Once you've got that commitment, it might help avoid some of the worse problems. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, it feels very un-Commons to me and I'm not that happy with it as an experiment that may be the thin end of a wedge of ghastly lobbying for AFT style semi-social and English-language-centric frills. I would rather see well structured GLAM project pages and these pointed to from the templates used in the batch upload. If someone wants to raise corrections, then visiting the notice page where you can point it out, or discuss issues of wider feedback (which is more likely for batch uploads of images that individually crafted en.wp articles) seem more natural to me. It should be possible to automate a backlink reference if you want a "request a correction" link, but posting that on a noticeboard in a standard wiki-way seems a lot simpler than creating an annoying AFT interface. It will tend to naturally avoid the "your mum" and other time-wasting or less than useful feedback but present little of a barrier for good faith contributors. Glad to hear the Canadian project is underway, it seems a long time since we set it up. -- (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Image Feedback sounds like a worthwhile approach to update metadata based on crowdsourcing - including updating the catalogues of our GLAM partner institutions.
The Library of Congress is currently using a similar approach on Flickr by evaluating user comments (see this image for example). Several blogs like (which also uses Library of Congress material) feature dozens of user comments, which could be used to update metadata catalogues as well. Changing the Commons UI and allowing people to comment beneath content (like anywhere else on the internet) might be the most obvious thing to do; yet this kind of fundamental change is likely to be very time consuming.
Image feedback is especially interesting if a growing number of Wikipedias and other sister projects decide to link their media files directly to the Commons, rather than showing the local mirror. Some Wikipedias like Spanish and German Wikipedia link directly to Wikimedia Commons while English Wikipedia currently doesn't seem to be interested.
The concept design on featuring an IWM exhibition was quite interesting and shows how image annotation could look like in the future. Alas, huge technical improvements are rather unlikely and very time consuming. AFT is already existing and could be implemented after some tweaking. Long story short: it would be nice to fill the large whitespace next to our current preview images with an image feedback tool. It might be useful to prepare a draft and focus the discussion on this draft, once we've gathered some ideas. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
It is a nice idea, but what I've seen of feedback pages on en:wiki there is a high noise to information ratio ie most comments are not really helpful. The whole idea of a wiki is that anyone can edit it and fix problems, doing it via comments that someone else has to interpret and implement seems to be a backward step. It encourages an us (editors) and them (rest of the world) division, the antithesis of the wiki model. Although maybe in the long term as articles stabilise and the number of useful edits to vandalism edits rises, maybe a gatekeeper model will come into play, where the only way for the public to make changes, is via suggestions through a comment system (ugg!) --Tony Wills (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
To be fair the large majority of AFT comments are from people who would never consider editing a page - that's even more true on Commons where we're heavily dependent on templates for internationalization and such. Additionally, AFT is designed to convert commenters into editors (by telling them they can edit, etc.)Dcoetzee (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
A number of Wikipedias, most notably probably the German one, have flagged revisions on where changes to the pages don't immediately show. The German is the most notable one, and last time I checked they had it full force, so most edits don't get displayed by default.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
A couple of responses:
  • It's certainly true that there is a lot of noise in the enwiki (and elsewhere) comments. However, I think this is in part the result of them being on Wikipedia articles; if we put these on Commons file pages, which is a very different context, and prime people appropriately (perhaps "Can you tell us more about this image?", or "Is this description wrong?"), I feel reasonably confident we'll get somewhat better results. I may be wrong, of course ;-)
  • A system that expects people to leave comments on wiki pages is always going to deter a lot of people. There's no easy way around this; however simplified we make it it's going to put some people off, and confuse others (think of the times you see people editing description pages, etc). I think it's worth a bit of limited experimentation to see if we get a more active response using a new tool.
  • Limiting the set of images we request comments on is very simple, and we could easily start small (and keep it small!) to see if it works without opening it up to the risk of enormous backlogs. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
If you want to try this, then you should put forward a community RFC. It is a fundamental change to the socialization aspects of Commons and so is the sort of change, that would benefit from a full and managed discussion even if a test is running in parallel. Thanks -- (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, certainly - I've no intention of asking for it to be enabled without a plan & a clear RFC approving it. I just want to test the water first to see if there's any interest & to help figure out the concerns. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I was just thinking: another reason I really like the idea of AFT5 on Commons is because file talk pages are not normally used on Commons (due to files not having enough watchers), and this would be a nice way to consolidate and organise feedback about many files in one place. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree completely with Andrew, especially regarding the idea that comments here on Commons would be significantly different than those on I doubt we'll get quite so many "I came here looking for a mailing address :( :( :(" negative response type messages. I especially agree with the notion of experimentally limiting these to specific categories at first; for example, I'd like to see it enabled on certain categories within the spaceflight tree (NASA, private spaceflight companies, etc)...I'm certain any number of us that edit within these arenas would be happy to monitor the comment feed and respond as necessary. Alternatively, editors could register their desire to monitor certain category trees and then be allowed to add the tracker to those categories (or category trees) that they feel comfortable with. Huntster (t @ c) 01:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

January 28

Please delete Santa Maria pics immediately!

Please delete everything at immediately! At the pics descriptions it is claimed the site says "Todo o conteúdo deste site está publicado sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 3.0 Brasil" (The content of this website is published under the Creative Commons License Attribution 3.0 Brazil)

This is a bold lie! In fact it says "Todo o conteúdo deste site está publicado sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 3.0 Brasil exceto quando especificado em contrário e nos conteúdos replicados de outras fontes." [21] -- 23:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

A translation would help us non-Portugese speakers. Smallbones (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Google to the rescue :)
  • All contents of this site are published under the Creative Commons License Attribution 3.0 Brazil unless otherwise specified and content replicated from other sources.
the most important help is the mouse-over tip - some of the images are "(c) <photographer name> ABr" -> everything's fine, cc-by-sa-3.0-br
but many of the photos are not clearly marked as property of Agencia Brasil and should be deleted. Rbrausse (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete some, Symbol keep vote.svg Keep some. The ones taken by Agencia Brasil seem to be OK, but the ones taken by others need to be deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

January 29

Can't log in

Hi. Any suggestions as to why password reminders aren't reaching me? 13:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC) (User:Deb) PS. Before someone says, "Check your spam folder", I already have. 13:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no email set for Deb (talk · contribs) (or, at least, it's not showing me an "email this user" option), which is probably why no password reminders are being sent out! You could try leaving a note at Commons:Changing username/Usurp requests and see if it can be reassigned that way. (I'm assuming you're the active enwiki/cywiki Deb...) Andrew Gray (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Colour error

Would I be right in thinking that File:Masmiyah-Phaena temple.jpg should be moncohrome, and that the colour shown is an artefact of the scanning process? Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It certainly looks that way to me. It seems to be cropped from the Google Books scan, which displays the same artefact. Skimming through the book, it appears to have been printed in monochrome. cmadler (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
For a more extreme example, compare File:East Cape 1881 Muir&Bade.PNG with File:Page 343-cruiseofcorwin 2.jpg Dankarl (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Since we have File:Page 343-cruiseofcorwin 2.jpg, please hang a {{Speedy}} on File:East Cape 1881 Muir&Bade.PNG at the end of this discussion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

January 30


Is there any way to make it so that the category connected to {{Bian}} is updated automatically from month to month? I've updated it manually. Any help would be appreciated. INeverCry 18:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You definitely should not touch the template itself because any change will affect all talk pages which transclude it. See User_talk:Industrial_Conconcreto. Instead you should substitute the template when you use it. The current month and year can be automatically inserted using {{subst:CURRENTMONTH}} and {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} magic words. Ruslik (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The template itself is misleading as it states "Commons consensus prohibits company or organizational usernames", and links to the username policy, which doesn't actually prohibit company or organizational usernames. Nor, to my knowledge, is there any other policy that does. Such usernames may of course be blocked, like any other, if they are being used in a misleading manner (eg the user does not represent that company/organisation) or simply for promotional purposes. I think the template text needs to be reworded or we will suffer w:instruction creep as newbies spam it across all company/organisation usercodes. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. The policy page states: "These names include an attempt to advertise, such as a company or group name", which I take to mean that the use of a company or organization username is itself a promotion/advertisement of the company. These usernames are blocked per COM:ADVERT. There's no need for a company username. The same edits can be made with a neutral name. INeverCry 20:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I think your interpretation is exactly w:instruction creep. The policy is that such usernames *may* be deleted if they are used in certain ways, you are interpreting the policy as saying *will* or *must* be deleted. Arrggghhh!, using a company/institution/organisation name is not advertising/promotion !!!! ????? Where on earth does that come from? If we have NASA, the British Museum or (shudder) Disney contributing images directly wouldn't we be ecstatic? --Tony Wills (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, we have to treat them all the same way out of fairness. Secondly, it is a form of promotion, whether intentional or not. I've indef blocked alot of company usernames. Most were non-notable companies uploading unused text logos and pics of their facilities. Why is a company name needed? A neutral name can upload the same images and send OTRS info if needed. If Disney uploaded something they could use a neutral name as well; they would have to give OTRS permission for the material anyways. It's not like we can just assume a company username is defininitely a rep of that company. I don't see any benefit to allowing company names. {{Bian}} lets these users know directly that only the name is an issue, and that they are encouraged to continue contributing under a neutral name. INeverCry 21:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
A name is just a name, there is no problem with a company using whatever name they choose if it is not misleading etc. Are we to ban mention of any company/organisation names in description, source, location, and author fields, or gallery or category names as a mere mention is promotional? A username is a very small detail on any image page, it is hardly a notable way to promote something. Of course we cannot assume that a company name is a rep of that company, anymore than we can assume any other username means anything at all, but there is something called assume good faith. By demanding that they don't use their company/organisation name we are just asking them to obfuscate who they are uploading the images on behalf of. If it is policy to disallow all company/organisation names, then please point me to the discussion? --Tony Wills (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think a company name is inherently promotion. Otherwise just mentioning a company's name (a factual statement) would always be considered advertising and a potential trademark violation. Company names in usernames have been discouraged, but I don't think outright banned -- I certainly don't recall any community consensus to ban them (in fact, we are different than en-wiki in that regard). Promotion would be determined based on the actions of that user (promotional material on the user page, that sort of thing). There is also no reason why a company couldn't upload pages and have a link back to their site on the image page... that sort of thing is not out of line, so I don't see why the username is necessarily an issue. Putting the company name *in* the images could be different but the username is generally not all that prominent. Using a company name as a username when *not* affiliated with the company is a problem, for sure. But the draft Commons:Username policy has always contemplated allowing the company name, at least as part of the username, when there is actually an affiliation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
The draft is against promotion/advert. The majority of company usernames I've seen in the course of DRing promotional images have been non-notable companies/websites/even blogs whose whole point of involvement on Commons is to promote the company with images/logos. The company username in these cases is just another part of the promotion. As for some being ok and some not, who determines this? How do we avoid one blocked company username complaining because another has been allowed to stick around. Also, would we start requiring OTRS proof that a company username belongs to a true rep? As I said above, a neutral name account can do anything a company name acct can do, with less or no question as to motive. INeverCry 01:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
User:BuyQuality(xyzcompany) is a *promotional* username User:xyzcompany is just a username. Blocking accounts just because their only contribution is a logo, which we might class as self promotion, is not within normal policy guidelines - we block to prevent harm to the project, ie if they continue to upload unwanted images after being told. The answer to your question - 'how do we decide which companies to block' is simple - block those causing a problem despite warning as per standing policy --Tony Wills (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Right now we only have a proposed policy, which states: "Use of a company or group name as a username is also prohibited", but then says something a bit unclear in mentioning Microsoft, etc. I'd like to have a clear official policy. The place to discuss it, though, is Commons talk:Username policy, where there's a new RFC on a permanent policy. INeverCry 02:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've linked to this discussion there: Commons talk:Username policy#Should it become policy?. INeverCry 02:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed, the guideline needs to be discussed and clarified before blocking accounts on this basis. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Although I have not read every word above, I think the discussion misses the two major reasons for the prohibition.

First, since anyone can open an account using any username, we protect ourselves against identity theft by disallowing organizational user names and requiring notable people to give OTRS confirmation that they are who their name says they are. We could require organizations to use OTRS to verify that the user name was authorized, with a statement from an appropriate corporate officer, but I suspect that few organizations would be willing to do this. Having been that officer (Secretary or Clerk) in a dozen or so corporations, I know that I would not, because there would be no traceability. In support of this I can say that none of my many uses of {{subst:bian}} have been large or sophisticated organizations -- they have almost always been, as INC says, small organizations with only a promotional intent.

Second, and, to me, more important, is that Commons is a group of individual people working together as a team, albeit not always pulling in exactly the same direction. I know INC, Carl, and Tony, and respect their individual opinions without always agreeing. That greatly speeds up some activities, notably closing DRs. For example, I know that Eugene's nominations for small size and lack of EXIF are almost always correct. I cannot know XYZCorp in the same way, because it would have no individual opinions, so every dealing with it would be slower.

As an example of this, I have been helping User:Bdcousineau, who the Gerald Ford Library has assigned to work on uploading their holdings to Commons. I work with her as an individual in a way that I could not work with User:GeraldFordLibrary. I know what she knows and don't have to repeat myself in the way that I would if I did not know what person I was actually dealing with. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I sympathise with the idea that it is good to have a relation with people you interact with, but then I suspect that most uploaders are one offs, or just here for a brief period anyway. If User:Bdcousineau had always been working as User:GeraldFordLibrary or User:2312hjh31x or User:杰拉爾德·福特圖書館 your interactions needn't be any different (maybe your assumptions about them would be different). (I'm not sure why people get so hung up on names of things here (filenames, usernames), they are just handles for referencing the object (file or person) - interpreting them might colour how you interact with them, but that's just showing your susceptibility to suggestion and advertising ;-). When dealing with a company username I would always assume they were a single person, which would almost always be true, very seldom would more than one person be assigned to such a role at the same time - over time their personnel might change, but over time our personnel change too! Dealing with a school class account would be a different proposition.
I don't see why we need to verify a usercode represents a company any more than any other user. It is their actions that we are interested in, not their handle. It seems to me that it actually makes things easier for us if people flag themselves by using a companyname. If they are genuine and uploading copyrighted material published elsewhere we get OTRS permission as usual. If they are impersonating a company then once identified as fraudulent we perhaps have good reason to delete all their material, wasting less time on researching each item as they have shown their hand from the start - if it were an anonymous name then we couldn't so easily make assumptions about all their uploads.
A username can be in any language and include any number of variations all meaning the same thing, User:companyxyz, User:c0mpanyxyz, User:DropDeadcompanyxyz, User:நிறுவனம்xyz - there is no way to automatically police this, it is just a make work scheme.
Using a company username to attack a company (say by uploading offensive material) would seem to be a subtle way to attack them as the username is not immediately apparent when looking at the file. And anyway we can not prevent this sort of attack as there are so many subtle differences in spelling a username (say we block User:companyxyz User:Companyxyz User:'Company x y z etc etc, there is aways User:companyxyz1 ...).
On the other side, blocking company usernames means we look prima facie unfriendly to companies - we don't want their contributions. We can explain otherwise, but the initial impression is created.
Lastly there seems to be a needless war against 'promotional' content uploaded by many company accounts. Many upload logos which are deleted as unwanted if they are non-notable companies - it seems pointless to delete them, if a project ever wants to mention that company their logo will be useful, if never used they are generally small files and don't need to cause a problem (notability is not a criteria for inclusion at Commons). --Tony Wills (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I think you still miss a point -- User:OrganizationXYZ will likely not be one person, it will be anyone at the organization that edits here for the organization. I have actually blocked accounts that are explicitly described as for that purpose. So, everything I said above actually does apply.
We do in fact see, perhaps one a month, users with no obvious relationship to an organization opening an account with the organization's name. We then have the question -- when they claim "own work" is it actually their personal work? the organization's work? is the upload authorized? We're going to have to go to OTRS in any case.
You have more edits on Commons than I do, but as a Checkuser and Administrator, I see the dark side of our editors much more than you. Allowing multiple users to share a name is a bad idea. While the first paragraph of Commons:Username policy suggests that User:Microsoft would be OK if we received confirmation from a corporate officer of Microsoft, I would be OK with only if it were limited to one person. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I think demanding an account only has a single user is a side issue, and needs to be considered separately.
If corporations can hold copyright and are 'legal people' then it would seem appropriate that they can act as such here.
If people open an account in a company name, maybe it is a helpful flag to us that we should look hard at their uploads, if they open an anonymous pseudonym their uploads might not be so strongly scrutinized. (or maybe we can just assume good faith) --Tony Wills (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

January 27

Recent problems

I have encountered the following problems recently:

  • When I click on the "[+]" or "[−]" symbol to expand or collapse a category tree, I see the error messages "categorytree-expand-bullet: Parse error at position 0 in input" and "categorytree-collapse-bullet: Parse error at position 0 in input".
  • When I try to do a move and replace of a file (I am a filemover), the website successfully moves the file but then hangs when it tries to replace all occurrences of the old filename in various Wikipedia projects.

I'm using Firefox 18.0.1. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Move & Replace: Does it always "hang"? Where did it hang? How does hanging look like? A message about non-responsive JavaScript? The browser freezes or is it just doing "nothing" while the spinner/throbber spins? Or do you get an error message telling you that $prog would be undefined? -- Rillke(q?) 19:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The tool stops at the part where it is trying to replace uses of the file in Wikipedia projects. The throbber spins and spins but the task is never completed. No error messages are displayed. I don't encounter any errors if I uncheck the box that says "Try to replace usage immediately using your user account". — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
As an interim solution you may use
window.aqdCORSOptOut = true;
in your common.js.
Does it always fail (and did it always fail) and do you have NoScript or a similar [preventing cross-site-scripting] Browser Extension/AddOn installed? My apologies for the inconvenience. -- Rillke(q?) 21:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I move alot of files, and I've had this issue as well. It's pretty rare though, considering that I usually do 100+ moves per week and have only seen this issue 5 or 6 times so far. INeverCry 20:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I didn't (knowingly) install any add-on to block scripts. How do I check if there's such a script? The problem seems to have just manifested itself recently. I used it on about three or four files yesterday and couldn't get the tool to work properly on any of these attempts. (I don't move as many files as INeverCry!) In the end, after discovering that the files had been properly renamed, I just closed the non-responsive browser tabs and manually added {{Universal replace}} requests. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Does it show progress? E.g. Replacing usage - 75% … Do not close or Got page contents for … ?
Sometimes it takes very, very long. Just had to wait 2 min. Do you know your upload bandwidth? BTW, I am going to include a timeout so that after one minute of waiting, CommonsDelinker is ordered. -- Rillke(q?) 16:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
No, no progress was shown at all, just a general message that the tool was replacing occurrences of the file (I think). I don't know exactly how long I waited, but I tried working on other stuff for quite a while but after checking on the progress nothing had happened. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it was simply a RL glitch. If the issue occurs again, please

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

Internet Explorer: Press Ctrl+F5
Mozilla Firefox: Microsoft Windows and Linux:
Hold down  Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl+F5 or Ctrl+ Shift+R)

+R (reload page) or + Shift+R (reload page and rewrite cache)

Opera/Konqueror: Press Ctrl+F5 or  Shift+F5
Apple Safari: Hold down  Shift+Alt while clicking Reload

Mac OS X:

++E (clearing browsercache) or +R (update)

Microsoft Windows:

Chrome: Ctrl+F5 or  Shift+F5 or hold down  Shift while clicking Reload
Note: in MacOS  Cmd for Ctrl
-- Rillke(q?) 17:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, just tried it and it seems to be working fine. Thanks! — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Bad rename

I just renamed an ogg file, to File:Glyn Moody voice.oga, with a typo in the file extension, and I can't now rename to File:Glyn Moody voice.ogg. Can an admin fix this, please? Apologies for the inconvenience. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would you like to move to a more generic file extension? The a stands for audio. See en:ogg. BTW, it wasn't your fault but the script automatically changed this. But if a majority thinks that ogg is more appropriate for audio file, I am happy to correct this behaviour. -- Rillke(q?) 12:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the script had done it; I assumed I made a typographical error. If that's usual behaviour, then displaying some sort of notification would be helpful. Why are other .ogg files (such as all the others in Category:Voice intro project) not renamed, in that case? Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Because they are not renamed :P File moving creates a couple of issues; e.g. "hotlinking" (some websites directly include the link to a thumb in the scr attribute of the img tag) is broken. But when we move, we could try to get perfect file names. What kind of notification do you think of? Ideally it would display that notification only one time until a user is "educated" I guess. The script also makes a lot of other changes if the destination-file-input is invalid e.g. containing wiki markup like []{}~ and other bad characters, also to satisfy our title blacklist. -- Rillke(q?) 15:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Most Ogg Vorbis (audio) files I encounter on the web use .ogg as extension. According to English Wikipedia's Ogg article, .ogg should only be used for Ogg Vorbis audio files since 2007 anyway, not for any other Ogg format. And although .oga exists as a more specific extension now, I wonder how well-supported it is? I.e. - can we assume that .oga will not create any additional hassle for users compared to .ogg? Gestumblindi (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Support is pretty much universal. Maybe an old Windows machine where the media player hasn't been updated for a couple of years might cause a user problems if the extensions aren't 'associated' with a media player by the file manager, but this can be solved by trying to open the file anyway. I can't think of many situations where it would cause a problem. Video files named .ogg probably cause more hassle for the reason you mention --moogsi·(blah) 15:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Extremely Rare Color Photography of Early 1900s Paris

Someone might want to look over these images to see if any are PD; or, if not, just enjoy them there: Andy Mabbett (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Some of them should be in the public domain. I suppose we must look which creators created the photos and died before 1943. In the sample on the page you linked, there are some photos taken by Auguste Léon (1857-1942) ([22]). A quick search on Commons currently finds 3 photos by him (which were uploaded before 2013, by the way): 1, 2, 3. You can certainly find more on the internet. The Kahn collection has some 72000 autochromes, not all available but some are. You can see a list of photographers ("operators") for the Kahn-sponsored autochromes on this page. From their copyright notices, the Kahn Museum seems to consider all their photos and their reproductions as copyrighted, however. You can find more information about the photos of the site you linked and more autochromes at the sources and and at -- Asclepias (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Note that any work first published before 1923 can be uploaded to English Wikipedia. If some of these artists died 1943 or later, consider uploading there with the tag {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. For works published 1923 or later, the author must have died before 1937 to upload to any WMF project (otherwise the work's US copyright will have been restored by the URAA). Dcoetzee (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Note that {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} takes a parameter, the year when it will be fine to move the file to commons. So, for instance, if a person died in 1943, you can put {{PD-US-1923-abroad|2014}} [Copyright expires on the next January 1st after 70 years from their death] and on January 1st 2014, the file will be reviewed by admins and moved over. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Adam, I'm not sure exactly what you meant to say there, but I believe you typo'ed on a date (probably the 2021 date). - Jmabel ! talk 07:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
It's a feature of the template on Enwiki. But, yes, I changed my mind on the date of the example, and failed to update both Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Tested flickrbot

File:North Vancouver Deep Cove metric flowers.jpg I removed the licence and reset the bot to check it. It seems the bot can check licences without having one on the file page. Someone at en:wp wants many of the images uploaded from the same flickr user. I was going to use commonist and just put the {flickrreview} template in the commonist UI and then add each licence after the bot has checked them. Is there an easier way to bulk upload from flickr?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Image does not have a valid license tag, just the bot tag stating the license. This would require a hell lot of work the clean up afterwards as they will most likely be tagged with nld. Try this. --Denniss (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I tried two TUSC accounts on commons and en:wp but both seem to be failing. I will give it a while to sort any bugs.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Should work but AFAIR your TUSC username should be the same as your username here. --Denniss (talk)

Quick request for input

Hey there,

I'm wondering what exactly to do with the file File:Badaga village,kotagiri,ooty language,tourist ooty.jpg – I'm tempted to rename it to File:Badaga village, Kotagiri.jpg, but there isn't really any criterion for moving files with badly punctuated names – /can/ or can I /not/ move it?

Thanks, HF (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say go ahead and do it on the basis that the new filename is more accurate. What does "ooty language,tourist ooty" mean, for example? — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
It looks like a copyvio from this page to me. --rimshottalk 20:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Help turn ideas into grants in the new IdeaLab

Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg

I apologize if this message is not in your language. Please help translate it.

  • Do you have an idea for a project to improve this community or website?
  • Do you think you could complete your idea if only you had some funding?
  • Do you want to help other people turn their ideas into project plans or grant proposals?

Please join us in the IdeaLab, an incubator for project ideas and Individual Engagement Grant proposals.

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking new ideas and proposals for Individual Engagement Grants. These grants fund individuals or small groups to complete projects that help improve this community. If interested, please submit a completed proposal by February 15, 2013. Please visit for more information.

Thanks! --Siko Bouterse, Head of Individual Engagement Grants, Wikimedia Foundation 20:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Uploading derivative work

I'm a bit hazy on how to handle a derivative work. The original file is File:PJ Jimmy Butler and Jamel Fuentes.jpg. (It does not yet has a permission statement, but is in progress. I don't plan on taking the next step until that is cleared.) I want to crop it, so I can use it as an image for Jimmy Butler. I assume the information template should list the original file in "other versions" When I upload, do I call it my work, or work of others? Who is the author? (At the moment, the original author is unknown, I have an email request to get the name.) Do I list the original author, if identified, or myself? I assume I do not need separate OTRS permission for the derivative file, as long as I license it appropriately, and the original is cc-by-sa-3.0 and has permission, correct?--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Just use {{Extracted from|File:PJ Jimmy Butler and Jamel Fuentes.jpg}} in the "Source" field and "Work for hire for Paradise Jam tournament" in the "Author" field, and copy over the OTRS template exactly as it is included for the original image, and it should be OK. If the original image is legitimately on Commons, then it is certainly legitimate for you to upload a cropped version (assuming the OTRS comes through)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. As mentioned, I'll wait until the permission is cleared.--Sphilbrick (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Issue with SVG rendering?

Wikinews article wizard workflow.svg

*Does anybody know if the blackbox in the SVG image on the right is caused by mediawiki rendering or a problem with W:Inkscape funny thing is the image displays just fine when rendered in full Hybirdd (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Mysterious black rectangles in rendered SVG's are almost always caused by the stupid Inkscape "flowtext" nonsense, as can be diagnosed at Commons:SVG Check. Will fix in a moment... AnonMoos (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

February 1

Wikidata - translating categories and file descriptions

I started a discussion on the Wikidata mailing list about possible use of some Wikidata software to help make Commons better by allowing multilingual categories or structured data about images. Please feel free to help create a proposal here: User:Kozuch/Wikidata.

Kozuch (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

February 19