Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/04

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

Mars Gigapixel?

Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I haven't found anything. Is there a way to grab this gigapixel image of Mars (click link at top of article) or somehow grab at least useful high-resolution panoramas (without the whole 360 thing)? I thought I'd throw it out there. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 00:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The website,, charges users for downloads of their panoramas. I don't think these are free images. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the original NASA photos are in the public domain (they probably are), someone could make a similar panorama from those and release it under a free license. Rybec (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POTY candidate caption

Will someone please fix the English translation of the caption for the STS-130 photo from the 2012 POTY competition? Seeing the current caption in the Top 12 list gives me a headache and would be embarrassing to see appear on a calendar produced by WMF. I'd edit the caption myself if I could figure out the correct link. Thanks! --Pine 05:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renaming or removing

Please rename "File:Swagers kaj Finet - La cxiutaga vivo.jpg" to "File:Swagers kaj Finet.jpg" . Because of "cx" I can't use the file in the Esperanto Vikipedio. Thank you for helping. --Forstbirdo (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done. — Ralgis [mantisreligiosa]  —@ 16:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forstbirdo -- you could actually do it without renaming by setting up an image redirect. When I encountered that problem with File:Sxildo-de-fido de-la-Triunuo.svg (my first and only Esperanto-language image), I set up a redirect from File:Ŝildo-de-fido de-la-Triunuo.svg... AnonMoos (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear AnonMoos, Many thanks. I'm sorry I have to confess that I don't know what "an image redirect" is like. --Forstbirdo (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC).Reply[reply]
You can look at it at ; it's not really any different from an ordinary Wikipedia article redirect. AnonMoos (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voice of Cory Doctorow.ogg

Last December, File:Voice of Cory Doctorow.ogg, which was uploaded in November, was deleted as having no licence. IIRC, the subject uploaded it himself. However, not being an admin, I can't check (it's possible I uploaded it for him, but I can't find any correspondence in my archives). Could someone do this for me, please? As the subject made the file himself, specifically for this project, there should be no issue, and I'm keen to resolve any that may exist. Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You uploaded this file on 2012-11-07, and tagged it with {{OTRS pending}}. It was tagged with {{No OTRS permission since}} by a bot, after being in the queue for more than 30 days --moogsi (blah) 16:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's odd (but thank you nonetheless); I received no talk page notification. I'll have to trawl my Twitter archives, later, to see if Cory and I discussed it there. Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So now we are importing sunset images from flickr?

(Inserted note:links have now replaced the formerly 1,000 pixel wide images)

great. all of them spamming categories. Amada44  talk to me 12:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, isn't that Russavia‎ who uploaded these via a bot or something ? isn't he the polandball guy ? Hey ! let's have ourselves a lynching ! wooHoo ! I'll get some torches, you get some matches, what else do we need to make it nice and authentic southern style, lemme think, umm, oh can we tar and feather saying arbcom is doing what arbcom does over there, and he was the next in line after Mr 5 million edits ?
We need to invite more people, we should find some long time editors with alt accounts from over there to get this thing underway, hmm, maybe some of those semi automated accounts with lots of small edits. Who do we know, hmm what else do we need, ah, an excuse, yes, lets find an excuse, anything really, but don't bring it up on their talkpage like everyone else, we have to make it super-fantastically-attention-grabbing dramatic instead, yes, that's the way. Don't say a word to Russavia‎ about it, hmm, this is so exciting everyone loves a good southern style lynching !!! Hoo Yeaa !
should I get out gimp and make adjustments to this one, add his name and put it on his talkpage, no, better make it his userpage. Is it time yet or is it too soon, I'm so noob at this. Penyulap 13:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
its a general problem. Magnus bot spamming across meaningles (the bot is great, just the automatic cats really don't work) categories and mass importing of random images. Amada44  talk to me 14:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggest that Magnus is the person to talk to as bot programming is specialised. His talkpage is here Penyulap 14:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it's not a "general problem" or a problem created by Magnus' bot. Making a bot upload one or one thousand images does not exempt the uploader to review what the bot has uploaded. In this case it seems as if the uploader just switches the bot on and forgets about what is being uploaded. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 14:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Woohoo wooohoo! I thought we were in doubt there for a moment ! That's what I'm saying too. I don't know what came over me when I said 'talk to Magnus', I mean the only thing that would do is maybe remove spam categories for all users of his bot, and where's the fun in that. No, I think we need to create some merriment, do you have any target in mind, or are we just going after every user of the bot to yell at them because the bot might include spam categories ? I mean the only other thing to do is write some notes about spam categories that users of the bot might see, and gee I can't think of where that would go, or who to ask about it, can you? Penyulap 17:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doesn't the bot just copy whatever categories the original Flickr uploader listed on Flickr? Those categories often make little sense or are too general. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Magnus' bot provides the 'Auto-detect categories' option. Even if selected by default, it can be deselected. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stefan4, that's what I expect it is doing, and so an internal blacklist for the categories that copy would be helpful, makes you wonder why this discussion was put here to grab attention when it seems a small matter to discuss this with Magnus actually. Penyulap 08:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey all, when Flickr2Commons uploads it pulls information from the tags on the Flickr image. Using File:Dawn Sunset Isola Bella Taormina-Sicilia Italy - Creative Commons by gnuckx (4276709247).jpg as an example, one will see that the tags on the Flickr image are somewhat overdone. This appears to be a problem with a section of that Flickr users uploads. I am going thru all of these uploads, and as one can see from Category:Sunset in Isola Bella (Taormina) it is easily fixable (don't touch that category as it is currently set up for Commons delinker category change). Whilst there is a largish number of images in that category, they could be quite useful for someone who is wishing to make a time-lapse image of a sunrise. I will make Category:Files from gnuckx Flickr stream a priority in fixing, and now that I know how to fix in bulk the categorisation shouldn't be a problem for too much longer. If there's any issues, feel free to drop by my user talk and raise them directly with me. russavia (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Hmmm.... reading the heading i thought we are discussing too many uploads of similar sunsets and sunrises. But the discussion seems to be about silly-categorization. Amada, what was your intention in opening this topic exactly? 14:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I have a bot request about categorization based on Flickr tags: Commons:Bots/Requests/Rybecbot (2). Looking for feedback. Rybec (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CC-heirs ?

Is there some particular reason(s) that the heirs are able to release the work under PD-heirs but they are not able to do so under some CC-BY-SA-compliant license? I mean the right of attribution and moral rights. It seems rather unfair for legally inherited: "either unconditional PD, or just keep it". --NeoLexx (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use {{Heirs-license}} instead in the same way that you would normally use {{Self}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, thank you! Somehow missed this template in all my Commons searches. --NeoLexx (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually that's a template-building template which shouldn't really be used directly. There is {{CC-BY-SA-3.0-heirs}} which may be what Neolexx is looking for, and heirs versions of other licenses can be made pretty easily as needed. Rd232 (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anti-sign cleanup

There are lots of unused anti-logos in Commons. Some of them seem not to be useful for any realistically probable educational purpose, but attempts to use Commons as a soapbox. I started a few deletion discussions:

I was instructed to start a consolidated discussion. I was told that we have lots of anti-soccer symbols. How do sixteen nearly similar signs, many of them being of poor quality, serve any educational purpose? All this junk just makes it unnecassarily hard to find the potentially useful images.

The policy clearly states that A media file which is neither realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor legitimately in use as discussed above falls outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons. If we really want to keep these logos, we need to change the policy text in order to prevent confusion. --ilaiho (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might be admirable in some cases to have a zeal to apply the Commons:Scope policy, but as a matter of working practice here on Commons, users have generally been allowed to compose icons to express personal opinions on their user pages, as long as these don't get out of hand, and aren't blatantly hatemongering or defamatory, etc. Unfortunately, your nominations beyond Uploads by user Straightlife seemed to be rather capricious and arbitrary (singling out a few images among many hundreds based on no clearly-ascertainable criteria), and on Uploads by user Straightlife, File:No oil.JPG, and File:Screenshot-large-1-.jpg you seemed to intentionally avoid mentioning what others would consider to be the main issues involved. Changing current de facto practices won't really be accomplished by launching deletion nominations against a few individual images out of hundreds (and some of those nominations seeming to be a little off-target). AnonMoos (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I consider your accusations insulting. I cannot read other people's thoughts, otherwise there would be no use for discussions. I wasn't completely aware of the scale of the problem when I started those discussions. If the policy text doesn't reflect the community consensus, it should be changed. Current situation is very likely to cause confusion. --ilaiho (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These images at the front of the list are rather cute actually. I can't see anyone having a problem with them. Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads by user Straightlife is as much meat as the matter may have, if any. Penyulap 23:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep all They are perfectly decent images. We may not agree with what the images are promoting but that's no reason to delete. They are perfectly within scope and it's possible these images (or derivatives of them) could be used somewhere by someone. As far as "anti-sign cleanup", there are probably things around here that could stand to be cleaned up a whole lot more and be a whole less disruptive than picking on a bunch of message-charged images you don't really like. – JBarta (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The policy specifically warns against those somewhere by someone arguments: Not all images for example are realistically useful for an educational purpose, and an image does not magically become useful by arguing that “it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X”, where X happens to be the subject of the file. There should not be such sentences in the policy if they don't actually mean that. --ilaiho (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However, there has traditionally been some leeway granted to users to express opinions on user pages (which is why Template:User page image exists, to start with), and in this area an image is not usually deleted because of a technical scope violation alone, but because of scope considerations plus some additional aggravating factor... AnonMoos (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a complete and utter waste of time. Just leave it be. Multichill (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


So the consensus seems to be that the logos should be kept. Now the policy should be changed to reflect the consensus.

This text:

An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace) of another project, but by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed.

should be replaced with something like this:

Files that are used, or could possibly be used on user pages to express an opinion are allowed, unless they are excessively polemic.

--ilaiho (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is an RfC on it that seems to have fizzled: Commons:Requests for comment/scope.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Canoe1967 -- I have Commons:Requests for comment/scope on my watchlist, but so far it all seems to be about abstract metaphysics, about which I have nothing to say. If the discussion could be brought down from the ethereal plane to discuss practical concrete matters, then I might feel more inclined to comment... AnonMoos (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you could provide some input that would help the RFC, please feel free! Rd232 (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the conclusion that it is "non-educational" is incorrect. If it's in use in something say a userbox to represent an idea, that's an educational use. Images that illustrate an idea are pretty much educational. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't get why it needs changed. Maybe "by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user pages of another project is allowed.", but what we have works well enough.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A consensus to keep these images that express strong opinions shouldn't be misconstrued as supporting a change of policy that would disallow "excessively polemic" opinions--just the opposite. Rybec (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'll put "An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace) of another project, but by custom the uploading of small numbers of images for use on personal user pages is allowed. Icons for use with e.g. user boxes are allowed, too." on the policy page. --ilaiho (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 31

Feedback wanted on "Welcome to Commons" brochure

Wikimedia Foundation is developing a "Welcome to Commons" print brochure, similar to the Welcome to Wikipedia brochure. It's a very rough draft right now, and I'm eager for community feedback. In particular, I want to make sure it's as accurate as possible without going into the details too far (similar to what the Upload Wizard comic does, but with a little more detail). Here's the draft: Commons:Welcome to Commons brochure. Please give it a close read and leave feedback! The next step, after about two weeks of community feedback and revision, will be to hand it off to the designer.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I looked through it. It looks good - I did not find any issues. --Jarekt (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Large uploads

Using the expiremental "Chunked uploads for files over 1MB in Upload Wizard" preference, it should be possible to upload files up to 500mb. Since there were some relatively recent changes in this area, there might still be problems. The current system uses the job queue. Once things are working fine, the 500mb limit can be raised by some amount (no more than 5GB though). Realistically page deletion and moves will start to get impractical with such large files pending a rewrite of the whole file layout system. Any problems can go in bugzilla. The primary bug is 36587 at the moment. Aaron Schulz (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 03

Rename suggestions

So I have these files that are part of one set (that I will expand in the future), and the file names aren't harmonized. Just wondering, what tag between the parentheses  would be the clearest? Napoleon, Napoleonic or Empire? I'd like to get it "right" before I ask someone to harmonize them all. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I understand it "harmonising" isn't really a reason to request a rename. The current names are descriptive and correct. Sinnamon (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uploader requested is, in any case. :) Lemmens, Tom (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Funny thing is that I've actually checked if you were the uploader... but I didn't check to see if your signature matches your User:name. Honest mistake, didn't mean to put you down or anything. Sinnamon (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. :) Any opinion on the best tag? Lemmens, Tom (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
what about <blah blah> (First French Empire).<ext>? Rbrausse (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Signature bot on Commons

Hi, I propose we use a signature bot on Commons to sign unsigned posts and notify users who repeatedly post on talk pages without a signature. On the English Wikipedia, this is done by w:User:SineBot. That bot's source code is not public, but I think this would be helpful rather than manually adding {{Unsigned}}. Thoughts? Mono 02:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wonder why it's never been implemented here. Barring a good reason not to do so, I think it's a fine idea. – JBarta (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Túrelio (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support provided someone is willing to procure and administer such a bot. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support. Sounds like a good idea. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support. — Ralgis [mantis Religiosa] — 14:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It should be set up with a reasonable delay to allow those who forgot to sign time to look over their posts and correct, otherwise it gets annoying. Dankarl (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support and according to Commons talk:Counter Vandalism Unit other users support this as well. -- Rillke(q?) 18:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 --Nemo 08:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I find such things annoying, but I do understand that the level of my annoyance is significantly less than annoyance of those who want it, but don't have it here. Sinnamon (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose I'm strongly opposed to the use of SineBot while it remains non-Free. However, if the source code was released, preferably under a GPL-compatible license, then I'd be ok with it. I hope Slakr kindly releases the source code. —James Haigh (talk) 2013-03-21T03:39:17Z
Why does it matter? -FASTILY (TALK) 06:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see why another project based on the philosophy of openness should become reliant on a proprietary component. I find it bad enough that Wikipedia seems to rely on it. I only found out that SineBot wasn't open about a week ago, when I went looking for the code to see if I could track down and fix a bug, to then offer a patch. Without the code, all bug fixes are down to Slakr—not even Wikipedia admins can fix or change SineBot. —James Haigh (talk) 2013-03-21T08:18:17Z
Because we can't make fixes? Because we can't port it to a new project? Because it could break or the owner could shut it off without any notice, and there's nothing anyone could do about it?--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Luxo could shut down all his tools and I am sure there is no one who will run his tools despite they are open source, useful and used. Looks like the ivony tower. -- Rillke(q?) 17:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would feel weird if someone else ran Palz instead of me, and although I could run sinebot, I really don't want to. It's like the running it and writing it are connected (Z wrote palz, but I did his pages, and tinker with his code). The person who wants to run the bot might like to write it, and even if you have the code, it's still a task to find a willing operator. Need to find an operator. Penyulap 18:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support Alan Lorenzo (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Building the bot

The ENWP bot is run by one user and the source code is not public. In general, I have been unable to contact the user. I think it's safe to say that their chance of responding is unlikely, so we should consider building our own. Mono 02:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not public! That's strange. I thought everything on Wikipedias should be publicly available, just like articles. Is this not applicable for codes? Would we require their permission to use? Can some admin get in and bring the code here? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope, not bot programs, which are run out of private servers or on wmlabs. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In de.wikipedia, there is CopperBot that does a similar job (contribs, config). --Leyo 14:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can someone contact him for the code? I don't speak German? Mono 16:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I left a note on his talk page. – JBarta (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess Mono meant the other bot. The operator does understand English. --Leyo 23:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC) PS. I asked him.Reply[reply]
Yes, I mean CopperBot. —Mono 20:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know anything about bots, but I saw this conversation. SineBot took over for HagermanBot, so that might be a starting point as well. Again, no clue about bots, so if this is pointless, sorry 'bout that. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 08:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually doing something

Has anyone contacted the op of CopperBot on dewiki? —Mono 19:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you can come up with a specification and are willing to run it (or know somebody willing to run it), I'll see if I can write said bot. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, I can get the specifics written up and run it on the Toolserver thru my account. —Mono 19:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just left P.Copp a message showing my interest in his bot code. If I am able to get it, I could have it modified to work here. Otherwise, for writing one from scratch, that would take some time, but it would be for a useful purpose.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  00:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 30

Remove text from File:Skjareinn.svg

I think that the text "Einfaldlega betra en RÚV" (in all caps) needs to be removed from the image File:Skjareinn.svg. This text is in Icelandic, and translated it would be "Simply better than RÚV". RÚV refers to Iceland's national public-service broadcasting organization.--Snaevar (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can file a request at "Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop". — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Did that.--Snaevar (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 02

Transcripts on file pages

Hi! There are transcripts on the file page of File:Sextortionagent interview.ogg. Should they remain there or should they be moved to Wikisource? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As it is, it's not of very great length. AnonMoos (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Each individual transcript is not very long, but how many language versions should be posted until it is moved? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mug shot

I cropped File:Leona Helmsley.jpg for use in her en:wp infobox because of our policy about mug shots. I noticed it is still full size in other language projects. Do those have a similar policy and should it be changed out?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should ask respective projects. Ruslik (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unilateral changes to look of Commons:Community portal page

Did anyone else notice the change to the colour scheme on March 31 ( does anyone else care? Should we leave how the community pages look to the whims of individual editors-or is it the kind of thing that should be discussed first?--KTo288 (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't protest this user's reversion but not everything needs to be discussed and decided —Mono 20:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Changing the tables to div elements was an improvement. The grey decorations looked fine to me; of course it's a matter of taste. However, other pages on the site (this page, Help:Contents, and the main page) have blue and yellow decorations, whereas Commons:Contact us has blue and grey. The site would probably look most pleasing if the colors were the same on the various pages. Rybec (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright license

I emailed the Publications Manager of the Australian War Memorial regarding using one of their images. They replied that Wikipedia was free to use any of their copyrighted images for free as long as the original caption and AWM catalogue number was used in the summary description. This is their copyright page. What copyright license should be used for this? WLRoss (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did they say that only Wikipedia is free to use them? For Commons this is not enough. Ruslik (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although I enquired about a specific image for a specific article, he simply said that all their images can be freely used in Wikipedia articles. I have changed my email address since I got the reply so no longer have it but I can always email again for specifics. WLRoss (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just noticed that the copyright page has been greatly expanded since I last saw it. We may be covered by "fair use." Someone with copyright experience needs to read the page to see what we can do. WLRoss (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair use is not allowed on Commons. Under "Australian War Memorial Copyright", they state that "[u]nless otherwise noted, the versions of the images made available on this website which are Australian War Memorial copyright are provided under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Australia (CC BY-NC 3.0) license", which is not a free license. You could ask them for permission by email. — Ralgis [mantisreligiosa]  —@ 13:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Labeling of languages - Traditional Chinese mistakenly labeled as Simplified Chinese

At File:Sextortionagent interview.ogg I notice that the listing of subtitles gives "Simplified Chinese" twice even though one set is Traditional Chinese. How should the labeling be fixed? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tervuren confusion

Tervuren is a Belgian municipality. Some doglover a confusing redirect to a dog type. I renamed the redirect to Tervuren (dog), only the original redirect stil exist. Most people are looking for a municipality when they type in "Tervuren", not a dog (sub)breed.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Searching for "Tervuren" now takes you to Category:Tervuren. Also, "doglover" is fighting talk where I'm from --moogsi (blah) 02:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Doglover" is illegal in my country. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 04

Claiming copyright on a drawing by Leonardo da Vinci

See: File:Aile mobile Luc Viatour.jpg. The phtographer is claiming copyright and demanding (not asking) for mentioning of his name. In his template he even warns against "illegal use" of this reproduction. Shouldn't this be simply marked up as {{PD-Art|1=PD-old-auto|deathyear=1519|country=Italy}} and then mention/credit Lviatour as the photographer (without assigning any new copyright to him)? Whaledad (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The opinion of the foundation lawyers is that a faithful 2D reproduction of a 2D public domain work is itself 2D. However, if ever they will change their mind (due to some case, for example), then we will need to track down and see if a new copyright is in order. Putting image under a free licence in such a case is a good thing to do. Also there's a slight 3D element here, as I can see it the paper isn't exactly 2D in this case, and since the community is crazy enough to even allow cave paintings to be condisdered 3D, I think that once again nobody knows how this one would play out. I find nothing bad about this case. It's clear that on the description page there's a note about Da Vinci's work being in public domain. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I applied {{Art Photo}} template, which should clarify the situation. Other option is to use {{Licensed-PD-Art}} so reusers from countries like US can assume PD, and reusers from countries with different laws can choose photographer's license. --Jarekt (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course "a faithful 2D reproduction of a 2D public domain work is itself 2D," but I presume you meant to say, "a faithful 2D reproduction of a 2D public domain work is itself public domain." - Jmabel ! talk 16:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I meant that it it also PD. Sorry. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a slavish reproduction of a 2D piece of artwork. The author is not Luc Viatour, the author is da Vinci. Luc Viatour has a copyright on this image like I have a copyright on the Mona Lisa. His copyright tags should be removed and the work properly attributed, though he can be noted as the photographer of this public domain piece of art. He may be the photographer, but he has no "copyright" claims whatsoever on this image. The file should also be renamed to something more appropriate. – JBarta (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the US it's that simple. Elsewhere it's not - see Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs#Belgium. Rd232 (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understood. Does any such exception apply in this case? – JBarta (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nevermind. I was thinking the painting was in Italy (therefore the photo was taken in Italy), but if the guy is in Belgium and he first "published" it on his Belgian web site, then the rule you mention applies. Thanks for slapping me in the head with yet more copyright nuances. – JBarta (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Requests for comment/Files For Upload

There's not been much input into Commons:Requests for comment/Files For Upload (proposing a facility to allow users to request someone do an upload on their behalf). I've suggested integrating such a request facility into Commons:Upload help. Some additional comments at the RFC would be nice. Rd232 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

password protected embedded files

The issue of uploaded JPGs containing embedded password protected archives has come up. I proposed adding this as a criteria for speedy deletion. Comments on that talk page welcome. – JBarta (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rather poor close on a DR

Ad hoc categorization within a set of icons espoused by admin

The discussion, about an issue which is sadly not new, is going on here: Talk:BSicon/Categorization#Axpde's single-tree idea. -- Tuválkin 19:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 06

Suggestions which SVG errors should be detected and fixed

There is a discussion about a bot running over all SVGs at Wikimedia Commons. SVGs are not attempted to be rendered during the bot-run. Only errors that can be detected by accessing DOM nodes and attributes can be detected and fixed. -- Rillke(q?) 11:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why was my comment deleted?


I posted a request for non interaction, which was deleted. In the history it point to the administrator´s noticeboard, but it is not there. Or shoud I start a new diiscussion there? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Really, isn't that evident from the name Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems (COM:ANU)? --Túrelio (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The post was deleted and NOT moved. Check it yourself. At a minimun then, a note should have alerted of the deletion and a request to post in COM:AN --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
well the second part is, the first part is contrary. But it doesn't belong here according to our policy. Penyulap 21:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two posts were deleted, with the intention being (I assume) that you would repost them at COM:AN/U (it's better to avoid reposting on others' behalf, it easily causes confusion). You can still do that reposting now. Rd232 (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UK Geograph images now automatically categorized at County level

After extensive testing last year, Faebot (talk · contribs) has been quietly busy going through UK Geograph photographs in the following locations. We believe the location within the County boundary is highly accurate, better than any automated use of geo-coordinates in the past, being based on the latest Ordnance Survey Open Data. Something in the order of ½ a million photographs have been categorized, and I welcome feedback on any errors or other problems before sending Faebot off to finish the rest of the UK over the next few months (around another 1.5 million). Example regions done include:

These categories are particularly useful for spotting photographs with the wrong location categories, or to assist in correctly identifying locations with similar (or identical) names. They are also a lot of fun to browse if you know the area well. Credit is due to Nilfanion for support and advice during testing. Feel free to raise any issues you spot on my talk page. Thanks -- (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm quite happy to hear that someone finally picked this up. Could you please publish your source code under a free license so others can improve on this? Multichill (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll think about it. I'm holding out for a teensy bit of gratitude from certain people 'in authority' after certain unfortunate events. Give it at least another month. Thanks -- (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 05


Need some help with fixing the broken Template:Distinguish. It is not working when there are only 2 parameters used. It seems like it's missing some code, see Category:Simeon for an example at the top. Thanks, Funandtrvl (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to work if you replace "2" with "4". More generally, it seems to work if the 2nd category is numbered "4", the 3rd category "3" and the 4th category "2". It's not obvious. It could indeed use some modification to make it be more intuitive. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and I don't know enough code to fix it, somewhat like the coding at w:Template:Distinguish, but with using categories, instead of article names. Funandtrvl (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that this edit should fix it. --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 18:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wonderful, thanks much!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How do I make the lines in the description field look like that in the image? The most important tasks are that I need a fat line for "Östergötlands län" and "Samtliga medtagna län (översta kurvan)" and a thin - but short - line for "Jönköpings län". --Årvasbåo (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can copy from that description. Ruslik (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 08

PD-Art files without a source

I've noticed that some people are deleting {{PD-Art}} files which don't have a source (example, for admins: File:'The Lonely Monk', oil on canvas painting by Enoch Wood Perry, Jr.jpg). Question: normally sourcing is critical for determining copyright status; but logically, as long as it is a PD-Art case, the sourcing of the photo doesn't matter for the copyright status. So shouldn't we just keep these files? Either way, it would be helpful to clarify this and add a note to Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, because it does come up occasionally. Rd232 (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think people get way too much happiness by deleting stuff in general for the thinnest of reasons. Sorry, maybe not the most constructive comment, but I think an accurate observation nonetheless. – JBarta (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I always leave them alone. I don't think the source is essential if the license is PD-Art –⁠moogsi (blah) 10:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep and offer to undelete all that have been deleted by over-eager admins. -- (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Provided the image and artist are as the description says. Dankarl (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Source does often help with that. For example if I say that source is "" I am not sure if you can verify artist from it. --Jarekt (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Many types of license does not require source to verify license status: {{PD-old-100}}, {{PD-text}}, {{PD-shape}}, {{PD-medical}}, {{PD-US-patent-no notice}}, {{PD-1923}}, etc. I restored that one file, but that is very troubling, since a lot of work goes into curating proper metadata for the artworks, so mistaken deletions of files waists everybody's time. Even after images are undeleted, they are not automatically re-inserted to articles. We do have over 41k files in Category:Images without source but that is not a reason to delete them. For PD old artworks we usually add {{Unknown|source}} to such files. Is there a way to search for deleted "no source" PD-old files? --Jarekt (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The point of the source in cases of PD-Art is to provide evidence of the author/date which corroborates that license. This is per COM:EVID. Adding a no source tag (without first making a rudimentary search) is lazy, and linking directly to an image file is inappropriate (again, per COM:EVID). This is how you do it. We simply need a third-party connection of the image to the author. Эlcobbola talk 14:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The point of the source in cases of PD-Art is to provide evidence of the author/date - but it's not necessary (and the source doesn't always say, either). For PD-Art cases it is often possible to find the same content from other sources, so you can confirm the author/date, without being able to say what the source of the digital file is. Rd232 (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • "In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain." I didn't say the file had to be sourced; what needs to be sourced is the evidence (authorship/date) information. Эlcobbola talk 15:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • But it almost never is. If the user just says "own work", and "this is an image of the following painting by artist So-and-So", we don't demand sourcing for that. Rd232 (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Well, COM:L, COM:EI, COM:EVID, etc. do actually demand it, we just aren't particularly good at enforcing that demand. Эlcobbola talk 16:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Yes, but enforcing that demand is a separate issue. I'm happy to discuss that too, but as I've tried to clarify in a new subsection, it's an issue that's beyond the scope of what I intended this thread to be. Feel free to start a new thread - I can already think of some ideas on the topic :) Rd232 (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What should be required is a cleyar statement about why the image qualifies as {{PD-Art}}. It could be so simple as the name of the file (for instance File:Las Meninas - Velázquez.jpg, even if with no further information, could any reviewer to determine that Velázquez was a famous painter and he died more than 80 ago, and that Las Meninas is one of his works. However, if the name is sort of File:Rubbish name.jpg without further information, then it could be argued that it could be deleted on the grounds of lack of source information. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • You're basically right but slightly confusing sourcing and description. A source is primarily a source for the digital file, and only secondarily a source for the content. You can very easily end up with having a file where it's clear what the content is, but not where the digital file came from. Rd232 (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @Ecemaml: it isn't really that simple. For example, I've not heard of Velázquez, so that name has no particular meaning to me. Similarly, Caspar David Friedrich is very well known to me and most Germans, but I doubt the average American, for example, would be familiar with him. Эlcobbola talk 15:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Normally the description should contain enough information to identify the subject. The issue is the level of proof needed that the identification is correct. Rd232 (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why exactly would an uploader not provide source information? Surely they know which website they copied the file com, or from which book they scanned it? Not providing source information is sloppy work that should not be encouraged. --Rosenzweig τ 16:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's true. But the question is whether if an uploader has been sloppy, and it's not a recent upload where we can try asking them to fix it, a missing source is grounds for deletion, in PD-Art cases. Rd232 (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have a lot of sloppy uploads sometimes with minimal matadata. But sometimes there are legitimate reasons: Like downloads from databases that do not offer stable links Category:Images from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum come to mind, images from ebay are another example. Also images might be no longer available as websites blink in and out of existence. I had cases where source website was on some black-list for spamming and it was not possible to save file with it's URL. In all of those cases it would still be good to provide the source URL, but it would take a lot of effort.--Jarekt (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrary break

To recap: there are always two sourcing issues with a PD-Art file (sometimes more, but never mind that...):

  1. Source of the content - eg the painting. Who made it, when, and where? This is normally provided as part of the description. Evidence for it is usually lacking if the file hasn't been copied from the web, where the source website will often provide documentation and usually (not always, eg if it's Flickr) constitute a good source.
  2. Source of the digital file. Who made it, when, and where? Often there's an "own work" claim, which has its own issues. Often it's taken from the web, so there's a URL to check. Sometimes a printed source is given, as the user has scanned it. Sometimes no source for the digital file is given at all.

The issue that prompted me to start this thread was that sometimes we have files with no source for the digital file (failing 2.), but a clear description of the content, often verifiable by looking online (meeting 1.). Sometimes 2. is also fixable by searching online - aha! that's where it came from!. Other times, it's not.

There are of course a range of issues around the level of evidence needed for both 1. and 2.; but my question here is really limited to what to do in this specific case, where we accept 1. is OK but 2. is not. Normally for this we'd have to delete, but because 2. doesn't matter for PD-Art copyright status (in the US...) it seems logical to keep these cases, tagged as unknown-source (maybe with a custom tag to help clarify that some effort has been made to find the source). Rd232 (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ideally all PD-old files by notable artists will also have one (or more) of creator templates which would make verification of license requirements easy. In such a case source of the binary file is not necessary. Same with lets say books, if you can prove that is was printed in US prior to 1923 than you can use {{PD-1923}} without providing exact URL link for the website you downloaded it from (however it would be great if you do). --Jarekt (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conclusion: Well, this thread seems to give a clear answer to my question: yes, PD-Art files should be kept as long as the PD-ness of the art can be verified to a reasonable standard, even if the origin of the digital file is unclear. Rd232 (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added to Commons:Verifying permissions (a draft proposal that will hopefully go somewhere at some point). Rd232 (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:User pages

A recent minor incident prompted me to review guidance on user pages. This incident is easily explained if I link to User:Bebop7 (this version, if it changes) without warning visitors that it's "Not Safe For Work", which I don't think is a warning that should ever apply to a user page. But I wouldn't do that, so you have been warned.

Anyway, this prompted me to draft Commons:User pages as a proposed guideline, which offers some generally useful advice I think, as well as a part (Commons:User_pages#Galleries) which specifically arises from that incident. Before taking it any further, I'd like to see some initial comments or improvements. Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, we still have no COM:Locker room policy as that fell flat where I raised it here a year ago, or any common understanding of what NSFW means in the Commons context. I would prefer any guideline to take account of the potential for administrator action in response to complaints being raised and that there is a documented consensus for the particular issue. For example if someone wants to pick their favourite top ten topless under-18 girls to make a gallery on their user page, then I suggest that (a) if nobody cares enough to raise a formal complaint, then it should be ignored, (b) a consensus is required if no prior consensus exists for the particular topic (in this case 'user galleries of nude under-18s' or similar) for an administrator to take action and delete the page, or to block the user if they persist in recreating the galleries. In the case of (b), anyone would be free to attempt to create a new consensus, though one might expect that reasonable time limits would apply. -- (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I considered putting in a section about enforcement, but I thought it might be simpler to just leave it. But if we were to have such a section, I'd put something like "Content should be moved on request by the user, if anyone asks them to. If the user declines, content may be moved to a subpage by any administrator, and may not be moved back unless there is a consensus following discussion at COM:AN that the content is in fact acceptable for a userpage; non-admins may request any admin to act, or post at COM:AN.". That, plus maybe some examples as we get them from practice, would cover it without making a whole Thing about definitional issues of this and that. Rd232 (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've just noticed a partial overlap with some of COM:PSP policy - Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories#User_pages.2C_galleries_and_categories. It's a rather odd little spin-off of COM:SCOPE, I think (what's the P even stand for?). If we make Commons:User pages a guideline and finally approve COM:CSD, then it'll be pretty well redundant. Rd232 (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Serious question - Does this not apply Commons:NOTCENSORED Kiltpin (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Serious answer - no, COM:NOTCENSORED is about hosting educationally useful files despite those files being offensive to some. It is an obvious and transparent abuse of the meaning of the policy to try to use it to claim that we must tolerate graphic sexual images anywhere and everywhere on Commons, including user pages, and I can only hope no-one is so foolish as to try to make that claim. Rd232 (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I asked the question, because I did not know the answer. Now I do. Thank you for your swift reply. Kiltpin (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for asking - it was bound to come up, I suppose. Rd232 (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. The level of jackassedness around here in general is astounding. Sometimes I'm almost embarassed to be a part of this community. – JBarta (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The suggestion to limit the size of people's galleries would never gain support but would be directly on track for a head-on collision with the best contributors the project has. Penyulap 15:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the best contributors are likely to be among those more amenable to argument. In this case, as the WMF move to developing mobile access should remind us, not everyone always accesses Commons via broadband. Large galleries can impede user pages from loading, and since user pages are something that you should be able to take a quick look at (to find out key details that are hopefully there like language skills and user rights), that is a problem. Fortunately, it's an easily solvable problem, with userspace galleries on a user subpage, linked (can be very prominent!) from the user page. Rd232 (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This part of the proposal has my wholehearted approval (it is a real pain to have your browser freeze because of some ridiculously large user page), but I am afraid I have to agreee with Penyulap on that one − this is going to be a mess to enforce. Jean-Fred (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A concrete example has been brought to my attention: User:Heralder is over 20mb on disk when saved in Firefox as a webpage. Which may actually be a fairly simple way of enforcing this: set a guideline of X megabytes for "large", it's not hard to measure that way (I've not found any good online way to measure it). Rd232 (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think enforcement need be a huge mess. We can simply politely notify those with humongous user pages of the discussion, then if the policy is agreed, give them another polite notice of 30 days to meet the policy/guidelines, after which any admin is free to move their huge browser-breaking user page to a sensible sub-page and leave a link with a suitable note. This may have to happen for users that are inactive and may be uninterested in making any changes, rather than due to any philosophical objection. -- (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, it's a failure of an idea which can only get as far as it is rolled out at a creeping slow pace, you'll only be able to start idiotic arguments with good contributors at a rate that doesn't exceed the number of people who like to argue in favour of the proposed 'policy'. If you bite off more than you can chew at one time, they'll just crap all over your policy. Pretty simple equation. If these users didn't want to display their work on their userpages it wouldn't be there in the first place. If you don't want to view someone's userpage, then hey, don't view it. If there is a problem loading a user's talkpage because that user does mostly high bandwidth work, then they can have an alternate account just for that stuff and a regular account for ordinary chat. I recall researching that at a time I did a lot of 4 meg gif's for people, but it didn't appeal to me. Gif's load automatically unlike videos, so they choke bandwidth, My talkpage archive is a great example of a large talkpage. the 2012 archive in particular is a browser killer. As a conlimited point to argue with a small number of people it's a goer, as a widely acceptable policy it's a flop. Penyulap 18:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If these users didn't want to display their work on their userpages it wouldn't be there in the first place. - most people do it because they've seen others do it, and would go along with a guideline saying otherwise if they understand the rationale and are pointed to a good alternative (user subpage). Muddying the waters with other issues like auto-loading GIFs and user talk pages isn't helpful: this discussion is about user pages. (I created User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup for user talk pages, and I think that works pretty well.) Rd232 (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Advice like "If you don't want to view someone's userpage, then hey, don't view it" seems to be a popular refrain in these types of discussions. The trouble is that a person has to visit the userpage in order to know that they don't want to see it. And knowing that any userpage on Commons might contain whatever it is that the person does no wish to view is likely to discourage them from looking at any userpages. That probably won't make them feel welcome or want to contribute their time here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"If you don't want to view someone's userpage, then hey, don't view it" - no, absolutely not. That's perfectly reasonable for something which is optional to look at, like a userspace gallery, especially with appropriate warnings; but user pages are an intrinsic part of Commons' communication infrastructure, it is normal to view them in many contexts when users want to find out more about a user, and they are linked from every signature. No, no, thrice no. Rd232 (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't really see the need for galleries of user uploads, but I generally have no objection to them. The userpage that prompted this discussion was a gallery of genitalia. Some of the images had been originally uploaded by the user and others were images that the user had edited. The questions here isn't "Is it ok for users to have galleries on their userpage?", it is "Is it ok to put a gallery of dicks on your userpage?". Talk of "warnings" is really beside the point, since they will only be seen if an unsuspecting user loads the page. Anything other than a guideliney which means that any user can blank such a gallery and point to the guideline is a waste of words here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it's not necessary that any user can blank anything they deem too graphic, and even suggesting that makes it less likely that a guideline will be approved. So thanks for that counter-productive comment, DC. In the first place, a guideline is needed to establish the community disapproves of certain things; enforcement is a secondary issue, and only if pointing to the guideline proves not to be enough do we absolutely need to pin down a specific enforcement process. (We could choose to build one into the guideline pre-emptively, but I'm inclined not to.) Rd232 (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons has a nice clear guideline about why we don't accept any more images of white dicks (COM:PENIS), but it is ignored almost all of the time. Sorry if I seem to keep going on about penises again, but lends itself to being used as an example here. If you want to write guidelines that people will ignore, I think you're on the right track. If you want to deal with the issue, you're wasting your time. Again. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those are totally different enforcement challenges. Most userpage galleries are from long-term Commons contributors, who to some degree are aware of and care about sticking to policy, and interact with others who do too (who will raise issues one way or another). By contrast, most files covered by COM:PENIS are uploaded by new users who are unaware of policy. Rd232 (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It isn't the ignorant uploaders who I am blaming for ignoring COM:PENIS, it's the very experienced, long-term contributors and admins who vote to keep those images (and those who close DRs as keep in spite of COM:PENIS). How would your proposed guideline address the situation at hand? If it doesn't result in the removal of that gallery of genitalia, it is pointless. Is it ok to have a gallery of dicks on your userpage? If it can't be used to determine an answer to that question, it is not going to be useful in dealing with the type of people who are likely to put up a gallery of dicks on their userpage. If "it's only a guideline" is a valid reason for not removing such a gallery, you've wasted your time. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you read the wording of the draft? It would be more useful to comment on that than to vaguely worry that it might not succeed. Rd232 (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I have. A user could make use of any of these three loopholes to justify keeping a gallery such as the one that I removed: "It's only a guideline, not a policy"; "These are educational"; "I put a warning on the page". A reasonable person might remove a gallery when the guideline is pointed out, but I don't think that's what we're dealing with here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first one is weak tea; anyone using that is liable to lose the argument once more people get involved. (It's also the sort of silly wikilawyering which is thankfully less common on Commons than English Wikipedia.) The other two are non-arguments; you have to badly misread the draft text to think the text permits them as loopholes. (User pages are quite obviously not a "specific educational context (such as a Wikipedia article)", and once that is conceded, those two loopholes disappear.) Rd232 (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait and see, I guess. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Any "safe for work" requirement. Per Penyulap. People are too busy trying to protect those who can't see a picture of a vagina, but yet what about somebody (like myself) who is honestly offended by the proposals such as this one. You people claim that you want everybody to "feel welcome" but what you actually do is the creation of the culture of harassment, where it'll be easier to troll somebody by forcing that person to place some warnings on one's user page or to remove one's own uploads from there. Please stop being so one-sided. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no voting here; this is initial discussion. People are too busy trying to protect those who can't see a picture of a vagina - I fully expect that most of those supporting the proposal are perfectly happy to look at pictures of nudity in an appropriate context (be it educational, like a Wikipedia article, or decidedly non-educational... which is none of our business here). Showing some consideration of others is something some people are oddly allergic to; it's not an attitude I understand. Also, making this purely about graphic sexual images misses that not all images that merit warnings when not shown in an educational context are graphic sexual ones. Images of graphic violence may also merit warnings when shown outside an educational context where users will expect it. Rd232 (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I Symbol support vote.svg Support voting it's fun, especially since this is as close to any kind of policy that this obvious tool of harassment will ever get. Which I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose btw. So let's Symbol keep vote.svg Keep the harmless and fun voting ! It's the best part of this discussion. Penyulap 23:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Large userpages

I know this is slightly off of the original topic of this thread but so is much of the above. I have what some would probably consider a relatively large user page. It shows a gallery of what I consider some of my best work, almost certainly under 1% of what I have uploaded to Commons, but I've uploaded a lot. While perhaps I flatter myself, I would think I a considered a good contributor to the Commons. If I were told that I could not display these samples of my work, I would object strenuously. Having an image-heavy page does not significantly slow down the time for the HTML to load in a browser, and I would think that in any decent browser you can view a page while images continue load in the background, and can kill the load if you don't want them to continue downloading. What modern browser won't do this? And if one does, why use it? - Jmabel ! talk 01:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is precisely on the topic of this thread Jmabel. And I agree with you 150%. User:Bebop7 is the reason that Rd232 is on this crusade -- the guy creates a few sexuality related images which are in use on various projects; he displays them on his userpage, Delicious carbuncle comes along and removes the images, Bebop7 reverts, Rd232 then comes along and moves the entire userpage to a subpage and is now trying to push through a poorly thought out guideline that will obviously affect editors such as yourself who contribute content to the project. It's sad. russavia (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Russavia, how do you suggest we accommodate users ike Jmabel while still dealing with users who want a userpage full of genitalia images? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a solution... an age requirement. Editors must be at least 9 years old. And while we're at it, admins must be at least 12. Probably solve a good number of problems all the way around. – JBarta (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've personally, even on broadband, found that large userpages give a momentary loading "blip" during which I can't scroll the page. (To pre-empt the nearly inevitable: that's a minor irritation that in no way factors in the proposal.) But it makes it easy to believe that on slower connections, or older machines, the delay before the page is usable is more substantial. And some contributors have reported exactly that, up to and including browser-crashing. Your comparison with a category page is interesting, and could be a reasonable benchmark. Some testing suggests categories with 200+ files are about 2.3mb on disk (eg Category:PD-Art (PD-old default)); your userpage is 5.85mb. But particularly when we're thinking about mobile (which is the future, right?), then we may have people uploading images, but not doing much browsing; but then needing to do some interaction around the upload, which might involve looking at userpages (especially of deleting admins...).
In short, moving these sorts of galleries off userpages doesn't seem a lot to ask. We do have Category:User galleries and {{User gallery}}, which could be expanded and developed to make it easier to navigate such galleries. Userpages are not the perfect solution for presenting user galleries, even from the point of view of the galleries! Let's try and be a bit more flexible and open to change here, folks. Reducing galleries on userpages to at most the equivalent of 200 category thumbnails is not a lot to ask, when it comes down to it. Rd232 (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That has nothing to do with internet speed, that's your computer allocating memory for the browser to build the page. The blip will be the same length for a given machine regardless of the speed of the net. Penyulap 20:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Possibly (but FYI my machine has 6GB ram). I'm not sure what difference it makes for the proposal... but in the back of my mind is not just people on slow connections or mobile, but also (and Wikimedia is keen to encourage such users) people from the developing world who may have older machines. Rd232 (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doesn't matter how many bottles of coke the store has, you still have to spend the time to go there and get one regardless of how many there are. Same with ram, it still has to be allocated. If it runs short, then it takes even (painfully) longer as it uses the swap space to empty ram first.
If you're using windoze and Internet Explorer all is not lost, you can speed up the process using a bucket of water {Penyulap smiles and starts nodding} Penyulap 21:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content that merits context or warnings

  • There's not much point in turning user pages into a child-safe zone while the rest of the site is uncensored. I don't think many people come here with the intention of only browsing user pages.
There may be some possibility of using meta tags to help users of filtering software, as described at [3] and [4]. As described at those pages, inaccurately using the tag can cause problems. If this is done, I think it would make sense to do it on the whole site, not only user pages. If it's done for user pages, I would hope that, if it's done, it would be in a way that isn't burdensome for contributors who want to have a user page.
A disclaimer like "this site contains user-contributed media that some people may find offensive" could be added to Commons:General_disclaimer. The closest I see there is "nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals with the expertise necessary to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information."
Making a multimedia site like this accessible to modem users isn't impossible, but I think a better place to start, rather than user pages, would be the regular category and gallery pages. The example that was given was a user page that had thumbnails of 9 images, whereas category pages show 200 thumbnails at a time by default. I think it's fair to expect low-bandwidth users to selectively load images. NCSA Mosaic (first browser to show images alongside text) had this feature and so do modern browsers. Another commonplace browser feature, as Jmabel said, is the ability to interrupt loading of a page by using the stop button or the use of the escape key.
About Bebop7's user page, it seems like valid content for a user page: it just lists some nine of the user's contributed or edited images, with thumbnails and captions, essentially saying "this is the stuff I've made" or "this is stuff I keep track of." I would expect that filtering software would recognize from the captions on the images that they are about human anatomy and procreation. If a contributor improves Commons' collection of images of genitalia and wants to be recognized for that, I don't see a problem in it. Most of the contributors to Commons don't get paid; recognition is an incentive to continue working. Rybec (talk) 08:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jmabel, Rybec, and I would think Russ already knows, don't worry about it, it will not have success. This idea is exactly like a cartoon vampire, one of those ones that turns to ash the instant sunlight falls upon it. It could be raised up from the dead somewhere secluded, some quiet talkpage and a few people working evil magic can animate it and use it to annoy a few unsuspecting victims, but as soon as it is exposed to the communities' attention, Fffthhh and it's history.
There is another aspect to this idea that I won't talk about in public, but am happy to discuss with most people via email. At the end of the day, the only thing it needs is a wooden stake with RfC written on it driven through it's cold, dead heart. Penyulap 10:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
a child-safe zone - sorry, but who mentioned children? The wording is images of a graphic violent or sexual nature, or other images which users are likely to not wish to encounter outside of a specific educational context (such as a Wikipedia article) without any warning. Those kinds of media, if they are educational, we should certainly host, but not present to people without context or warning. Unless you're the sort of person who goes around with the goatse image on your T-shirt, you can probably concede that such images exist. All we're asking is that such images not be displayed on userpages. Is that so much to ask? Rd232 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, allow me to rephrase: the value and practicality of ensuring that user pages are safe for a general audience, including children and adults with delicate sensibilities, while the rest of the site remains uncensored, is not apparent to me.
I used the term "child-safe" partly for the sake of brevity and partly because the example chosen shows clinical-looking images of human anatomy, of the sort that older children might see in sex education or biology instruction (at least, in the parts of the world where such things are taught). In most Western cultures, I think there would be a concern about small children seeing such photos and diagrams; not so much adults. This kind of imagery abounds on the site, and there are images that even the typical Florida adult may find disturbing, often with little to no context or warning (see the earlier discussion about File:Scrotum.JPG). If the image were released under a free license, I believe it could be hosted here under current policies.
If anything, of the various pages on the site, user pages are among the least likely to be viewed by casual visitors to the site, and more likely to be viewed by regular contributors who should be aware of COM:NOTCENSORED. Contributors and administrators who have delicate sensibilities, or whose career would be ruined by accidentally opening "a gallery of dicks" would be well-advised to browse with automatic image loading off, use filtering software, talk it over with the boss, avoid browsing from work, avoid viewing random user pages or recently uploaded files or uncategorized media, etc. Or the whole site can be censored so they can participate fully without doing these things...suppose while looking through the recent uploads I noticed a blurry photo of a penis. Before reading this thread, I might have requested its deletion with a remark like "out of scope and poor quality" without explicitly warning people that it may be NSFW. I think it is proper for administrators to view images before deleting it: awkward conversation with manager or IT staff ensues?
As an example of the lack of context, file names on this site often don't clearly identify the subject. Some of the following are NSFW or may be disturbing to adults: can you tell which ones without viewing them?
Some file examples
File:Kirloskar Group.jpg
File:Ai Group.jpg
File:Local Group.JPG
File:Girl's best friend.jpg
File:Girl 28.jpg
File:Biker girl.jpg
File:Street Girl's End.jpg
File:Sukumizu Girl.jpg
File:Lead Photo For DonateImage0-9753871150314808.jpg
File:Lead Photo For DonateImage0-33781672385521233.jpg
File:Lead Photo For DonateImage0-7562751534860581.jpg
File:Lead Photo For Special-DonateImage0-5715908450074494.jpg
File:Lead Photo For DonateImage0-7204441225621849.jpg
File:Lead Photo For DonateImage0-029924112604930997.jpg
File:Lead Photo For DonateImage0-9899163385853171.jpg
File:Lead Photo For DonateImage0-6938995397649705.JPG
File:Lead Photo For DonateImage0-4173831020016223.jpg
File:Achille Devéria Les petits jeux innocens.jpg
File:Márcia Imperator.jpg
File:Marcia Imperator back.jpg
File:Marcia Imperator 2.jpg
File:Marcia Imperator.jpg
File:Saline 3.JPG
File:Saline Ball.jpg
File:Akiba Tolim.jpg
File:Akiba jinja 16.jpg
File:Johnny sack.jpg
Rybec (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, you mention In most Western cultures which is interesting, since we are of course trying to encourage contributions from other cultures. Wikimedia outreach might have something to say on the matter. Second, userpages have a particular purpose - namely to identify users and provide information about them that supports communication with them. No amount of whataboutery can justify subverting that purpose, which is ultimately what you're arguing for. And yes, casual visitors may not look at userpages, but new users may well do, particularly if they upload a file and run into problems. If a user tags a file for a problem, or deletes it, a fair proportion of users trying to investigate will end up on a userpage. Many users won't get that far; confronting those that do with entirely unexpected graphic images is unlikely to contribute to the retention ratio, is it? Finally, I don't know what your point is about the filenames, unless it's a "I'm not doing the washing up, people are starving in Africa" sort of non-argument. Rd232 (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Complete nudity

A complete nude, drawn 140 years ago.

Does commons allow images of complete nudity? Because there are some. And it's not appropriate, and not helpful for encouraging people to release their own work on here.--عبد المؤمن (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The answer is 'yes', but bearing in mind that 'COM:Project scope: the aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide media realistically useful for an educational purpose', how is a picture of a nude pornstar useful for an educational purpose?--عبد المؤمن (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am glad you answered your first question with a good answer.
Many images featuring "complete nudity" of the human body are educational based on their medical, sex educational, cultural or historical value. I agree that there are some organizations and people that have concerns about putting their own work on this website where nudity and sex education media exist, but the majority of users believe that censoring all nudity, or just complete nudity, would reduce the overall value of this project. Media without educational value do get routinely and regularly deleted. You are free to raise any image you believe has no educational value, up for deletion review against the scope policy. Thanks -- (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To echo what Fæ says above, there are many, many images of "complete" nudity here. Commons is a project where images of ejaculating penises are of equal value to images of historical treasures. Although there are probably more images of penises. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The site was invented by Jimbo wales, who as far as I know is a US citizen, it appealed mostly to US citizens and US cultural colonies around the world. It won't ever be able to penetrate as well into other cultures across the world because of it's limitations created by it's structure and scope.

Other websites and projects will flourish as a result of the efforts to 'keep the status Quo'. There are countless editors who try it and find it doesn't suit them. They find that 'what's written on the box' isn't what they find when they get down to trying to contribute. There are already hundreds of other wiki's created by editors who weren't encompassed and included in the wiki community and scope.

Other more successful models will emerge with better structures and some of them will take more seriously the idea of putting knowledge into the hands of everyone across the planet, including the many countries and cultures that don't consider full nudity to be essential to a child's education. I don't bother to assist the project much if at all, for exactly that reason, it's a failure from the start and can't penetrate the society with such an absurd model (from the indo culture point of view, or indian point of view and so on). I see very few Indian editors, Japanese editors, basically anyone with a 'polite' background is positively repelled from this place. Penyulap 18:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's important to use qualifiers here: Some of the nudity on Commons was uploaded with a legitimate educational purpose and use in mind. Some of the nudity was uploaded without a specific use in mind, but is of high technical quality and does have educational value. The vast majority of the nudity on this project was uploaded with no specific use in mind and is not of high technical quality. These files are uploaded by 1) exhibitionists, and 2) people who upload every piece of nudity that they can find as a social/political statement. How many of this last group are doing this as a political statement specifically against the way that nudity is handled by Commons editors is impossible to know, but undoubtedly that exists. Commons would be much better off if we could encourage the first two groups (specific purpose and no specific purpose but high technical quality), and get rid of the people that fall into the last group (uploading for the sake of uploading). Now, lest you think that I'm a prude, I take much the same attitude towards all types of uploads here. If you replace "nudity" with "cat photos" my statement holds up equally well. Sven Manguard Wha?
Penyulap, if this were run by people with a polite background, you would be bounced from it in a second. The fact that you would say such things and upload the first coprophilia file to Commons is quite a bit hypocritical.
I don't know how you can have an image repository for all the Wikipedias that supports the part of the world that accepts that humans should taught what their own species looks like and doesn't make such files available.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't possibly agree, the most competent and hard-working contributors here all seem quite tolerant to my idiotic antics and art, who was it said 'there are no good and evil people, just charming and tedious'.
crap-to-fill-it-up-what ? is this about the hysteria caused by the exposure of Jimbo's bellybutton ? we have pics of jimbo wearing lipstick that don't cause as much concern. I think it's because there too many rocky-horror-picture-show fans. They don't like babies or toddlers or men and women living together and doing what is natural, they prefer that toy made in the lab of the rocky horror show that had no belly-button at all. Ban the belly button ! Now there is a cause I can get behind, it'd work, and the no nudity fans would be like 'meh' or slightly positive about it too. Penyulap 10:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see my nude wife almost every day, such things does not disturb me. I saw naked people even more often when I was a child, that did not disturbe me even then. Belive it or not, sometimes I even have sex with my wife, such things does not disturb me either, I enjoy it. But pictures like those in sv:Nanjingmassakern disturb me, they give me nigthmares! I have blocked them, but there are others... -- Lavallen 07:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh that is shocking ! I wear a scuba-diving wetsuit in the shower and haven't seen my naked body, or anyone else's since I was 5. Plus, I never accept links or candy from strangers. There is some site called which had a pic of someone whose face was torn up in a motorcycle accident, looked like mincemeat, they survived apparently. Best to learn not to follow links. There are things you can't un-see. Penyulap 10:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I don't see this thread going anywhere. Can I suggest that the question of what to include and what not to include in Commons, and how to police it, is exactly the topic of the current Commons:Requests for comment/scope? Rd232 (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation blogpost

Today, on the Wikimedia Foundation blog: “Breaking through walls of text: How we will create a richer Wikimedia experience”.

An interesting read about some future Multimedia projects the Wikimedia Foundation will undertake − and it is always nice to know our awesome project will get more love :)

Jean-Fred (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Geocoding problem

I have a (minor) problem with gecoding. See for example this image where a warning Error: Invalid parameters! appears. I can not find the source of this error. Also clicking on the Google Maps link takes me to the right location (while no mark for the image appears there as it usually should). Is it something with the 'heading' parameter? It works just like that on other images, like this one. Any hint would be appreciated. --Tsui (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Parameter 9 has its elements separated by underscores rather than pipe symbols. Hardly the easiest looking format to use. :-) -- (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! --Tsui (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 10

Costumes vs. clothing

Potentially this is a very politically weighted issue, so I am bringing it here rather than the less-attended Categories for Discussion.

I notice that Category:Native American costumes includes many pictures of what appear to be Native Americans in traditional dress. I believe these should all be moved to Category:Native American clothing, and that the term "costumes" should be reserved, in this context at least," for people who are not Native Americans in traditional dress; e.g. File:Dedication of Chief Seattle statue, 1912.jpg where Seattle civic boosters are dressed as Chinook natives. The two categories should be cross-linked with text explaining this distinction.

There may well be other similar pairs of categories that deserve similar treatment.

Note also Category:Native American dance regalia for the stylized regalia of Native American dance, which may have certain aspects in common with "costumes" but which most Native Americans would consider it an insult to call "costumes". - Jmabel ! talk 14:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd think that native and non-native is a problematic distinction, for example, if you are Japanese and goto Britain and wear ordinary clothes, you'd be wearing a British costume.
I'd suggest that costumes are worn on special occasions or for special purposes and clothing is an everyday thing. That may make it easier to categorise. So the Japanese man would be wearing British clothing, unless it was a special occasion and he and his British hosts all wore traditional clothing, and then they'd all be in costume. That way where there is a crowd you don't need to know who is in the crowd and their ethnic origins, nor make a distinction between the same item being a costume or a piece of clothing depending on who wears it, if it is on a coat hanger, not being worn, what is it ? Penyulap 15:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jmabel -- I think the word "costume" is meant as in Category:National costumes, and not in the sense of Batman outfits... AnonMoos (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that category is poorly defined in it's blurb as well, just mixing up the two in a random fashion (get it, fashion?)
Costume better defines something you wear to make you look like something you're not. Dress doesn't, but people (especially men) might avoid using the word 'dress' to describe what they wear everyday, to avoid the ambiguity of being a transvestite. I don't think there is a need to avoid it when referring to mixed groups of people, as it's the dictionary definition. 'national dress' would be less derogatory than 'national costumes', it avoids the transvestite thing by referring to a whole population, and avoids labelling that population as 'silly' which often goes with the concept of 'costume'. Should ask for opinions of grammar and language experts, or consult the best references available. Penyulap 17:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However, "national costume" seems to be the established standard term. AnonMoos (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe we should go with it then, but if confusion is the standard, time to open the big books and work it out. 'national costume' vs 'national dress' might have different popularity in different parts of the world. I'm definitely more familiar with the latter as the standard everyday dress, national costumes are something schoolchildren might wear on a special occasion. Penyulap 19:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about Category:Native American clothing and costumes?? Then an assimilated native American photographed in 1889 dressing up in his old indian clothes for a party won't be argued over which category he belongs in (because he could belong in either). Maybe the key is to not draw such a fine distinction category-wise and instead concentrate on clear image descriptions. Just a thought. – JBarta (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • AnonMoos (and others): the thing is, in the specific case of Native Americans / American Indians, as I noted above, the term "costume" has enormous potential to give offense, and while "national" works north of the US-Canadian border (where the term "First Nations" is prevalent) it's a bit confusing in the US, where quite a few prefer the term "tribe" (just to make it complicated, a few, such as the Cherokee, definitely prefer "nation"). Whatever we do, I think it is very important that traditional clothing and modern regalia of Native Americans worn by Native Americans not be called "costume", because the term is considered insulting by the people wearing that clothing. It is similar to why we don't use the term "Gypsies" even though it is probably more widely understood than "Roma people": the people it refers to generally find it insulting.
I had no idea Gypsies find the term "Gypsies" offensive. There's just no end to what people will get offended over. Me, I'm offended by being called "really hot" and anything that refers to my unusually high intelligence. Just burns me up to no end. – JBarta (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Jbarta, I agree that there is always a bit of a tricky mater in separating "costume" from "clothing", especially in the case of people assimilated to a culture wearing clothing of a culture identified with their past. And maybe the "clothing and costumes" category is the solution, though I'm not sure how it fits our existing hierarchy, and I'm not sure it avoids the issue of offense. I'd really love to have a few Native Americans in this discussion; I am guessing that none of the people who have chimed in are Native American, but correct me if I'm wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 00:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using the term "costume" for Indigenous clothing worn by Indigenous Americans is offensive. The term might have different connotations outside of the US, but within the US, it's not appropriate for traditional Indigenous clothing, especially ceremonial clothing. Category:Native American dance regalia and Category:Native American clothing are sufficient for Native American dress. Category:Clothing of indigenous peoples of the Americas covers all non-US indigenous peoples of the Americas. Other members of WikiProject Greenland could probably speak to the category Category:National costumes of Greenland. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)UyvsdiReply[reply]

Garments sounds like clothing which no-one is wearing, like laid out in a museum case or table. Penyulap 07:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Native American traditional dress,
-Native American clothing
-Native American theatrical costumes
-Native American ceremonial dress

Penyulap 12:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Agree with Uyvsdi: To REPEAT: To call Native American traditional clothing a "costume" is VERY Insulting. At pow wows and such, the term "regalia" is the correct word. Otherwise, "clothing" will do just fine. To distinguish what is "traditional" from what is "ceremonial" is a fine line and one that has too much variation from one culture to the next; the information in each individual photo or image can do that bit. This is really a rather critical point; when we are discussing the clothing of Native people of the Americas, at least North America, don't say "costume," period. Now, what to do with junk like File:MGD06JesusSaysBuyMoreArt.jpg where we have white people wearing a dime store headdress and thinking they are dressing up like an Indian, sheesh... can we have Category:Culture vultures for that?  ;-) Montanabw (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like a harmless not-planning any mass-murders kind of a person. People who don't bottle it up can be trusted a lot more than those who do, or those who hide it (and divert it) well.
agree, I think it applies to any real people, not just native americans. When I say real people, I mean it's perfectly ok to say 'zombie costumes' or elf/leprechaun/storm trooper costumes. I think the idea that costumes covers a lot of scope including silly and whimsical things produces the effect that the word costume can be used as a derogatory description for the dress of a real people.
I think we could propose not using the word 'costume(s)' to describe the dress of any real people and just use any of the more agreeable alternatives. Penyulap 20:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the right general track, maybe instead of "real people" say, "authentic regalia/dress/clothing of a culture group" or something. But yeah, you get the point that's trying to be made here. Zombie costumes or even say, me dressing up like a football player (I'm so not) is a "costume" - someone pretending to be what they aren't. People dressing to emphasize who they ARE (or were, or once were or whatever along those lines) are not in a "costume." yes. Montanabw (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's the meaning you assign to "costume", but there's ample evidence that not very long ago (and still by some people today), the word "costume" has been used with other meanings... AnonMoos (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is mostly solved. Category:Native American dance regalia‎ is a subcat of Category:Native American clothing, which is simple and neutral. If Category:Native American clothing needs to be further broken down, it can be done so through types of clothing, ala Category:Moccasins. Then Category:Clothing of indigenous peoples of the Americas covers indigenous peoples of the Americas not from the US. Meanwhile, Category:Native American costumes is for people wearing Halloween costumes, Madri Gras Indians, etc. Categorizing by concepts like "traditional," "assimilated," "ceremonial," etc. is way too arbitrary and could not be determined from low-resolution public domain images. People wear t-shirts and jeans to ceremonies all the time. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)UyvsdiReply[reply]

So, back to the image that engendered the question in the first place: File:Dedication of Chief Seattle statue, 1912.jpg: members of the Tilikums of Elttaes, a civic booster group in Seattle who used pseudo-Chinook titles, newspapermen & businessmen wearing what I would call "costumes" (and so categorized in Category:Native American costumes) but I see Montanabw has now recategorized as Category:Native American clothing. I dropped Montanabw a note, haven't heard back... - Jmabel ! talk 05:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went ahead and switched it back. Montanabw is totally on the ball but probably accidentally reclassified the picture because it's black and white and the Chilkat blankets look fairly convincing. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)UyvsdiReply[reply]
Yes, I erred on that one, seeing the black and white image and jumping to conclusions, absent a thorough check. But otherwise, I posted some of these links elsewhere, but they may be helpful: consensus about "costume" seems to be coalescing to define a costume as something you wear when you are pretending to be something other than what you are. Thus, native clothing is NOT a "costume" because it is an expression of who that person actually IS. Thus, traditional or derived-from-traditional Native American clothing IS properly called something other than a "costume." Here are a few examples from multiple geographic areas (there are zillions more if you google): [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], some people consider wearing Native "costumes" to be as racist as white people wearing blackface, and examples, and even the Mardi Gras guys who dress like Indians (some of whom are, actually) don't like the term "costume" for their outfits, either. Montanabw (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Similarly, any ideas on Category:Sami clothing from Lule lappmark and Category:Sami costumes from Lule lappmark, clothing I think would be better than costume here too.--KTo288 (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe use of the word costumes where it relates to the dress of a real people can be changed to 'dressed as' so it's not 'people wearing Japanese costumes', it becomes 'people dressed as Japanese'. As for the US Vs North America thing, eergh, complicated. Penyulap 21:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you think of the copyright status of File:Minesweeper 2013-04-9 21-10.jpg

I didn't want to jump to the deletion request right away, I feel that it may just be considered simple enough design which comes out of the rules of minesweeper, and thus not copyrightable. What do others think? Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would probably put it locally for less trouble. There are open source minesweeper games, maybe they have some truly free artwork. Penyulap 05:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to be single-handedly deleted. Shame. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is something of a problem with
  1. The copyright status of the output of non-free software (Minesweeper)
  2. The copyright status of the output of a non-free operating system (in this case Window's window manager, this is definitely less certain)
Even though both in this case are of dubious originality/copyrightability, it's better to be cautious in cases like this. See also COM:SS#Software –⁠moogsi (blah) 23:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Boeing X-45A UCAV.jpg

seems to be working as the thumb on the page Sinnamon Girl (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Boeing X-45A UCAV.jpg

Hey folks, not sure what is going on with File:Boeing X-45A UCAV.jpg. I uploaded a higher resolution version, and while the dimensions of the new image are showing, the original thumbnail and downsized image are being used, resulting in a stretched photo. I can't seem to get the purge function to fix it...not sure what to do now. Any suggestions? Huntster (t @ c) 03:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Help:Purge perhaps. Also try to clear the cache of your browser. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 04:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Done and done. Are you seeing any problems (vertical stretching)? I've tried it on three different computers, and all show the same issue, so it is not my browser at issue. Huntster (t @ c) 04:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've come across stretching before and it usually clears in a day or two, if it is still there in a few days then it's time to worry, but not before. The website software is at fault and it's very very buggy when you do a lot of this kind of thing. Penyulap 04:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
120px does seem to be a little stretched. But that will probably go away. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Pen. Sinnamon, yeah, newly generated thumbnails will be fine, it's just the thumbnails that have been held over from the original image. Okay, will wait a couple of days or so, see what happens. Thanks. Huntster (t @ c) 04:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It isn't even the thumbs themselves. This is 120px thumb, it has the correct dimensions, but the MW software generates HTML which stretches it, which implies that there's some problem with the database storing incorrect dimensions. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for reporting this! It's the same problem as bugzilla:46976, I have reported it there in comment 11. Should be fixed once I get hold of an operations team member later today. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This should be fixed now thanks to Leslie of the Operations team (I cannot reproduce it anymore). Again thanks for reporting and sorry for the problems. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for such a quick response, and thanks to Leslie for the fix. Huntster (t @ c) 23:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Backstage pass tour/ editathon at Queen Street Mill, Burnley, England

A backstage pass tour and Wikipedia editathon will be held at Queen Street Mill Textile Museum, Burnley, England on 4 May. There will be opportunities for photography, audio- and video- recording. All welcome, but booking is essential, please see Wikipedia:GLAM/QSMM/event. Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Event notices are probably more effective if raised as a geonotice requests. Though interesting, they are not really a discussion. Thanks -- (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Upload vs. Special:Upload

Hi, probably I just did a bad job at searching but how can I set the link "Upload file" on the left to use Special:Upload by default instead of Commons:Upload? In fact I even want to use the basic upload form form but there's a preference to always use it on Special:Upload. -- Patrick87 (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you not simply bookmark in your browser any upload page you want? – JBarta (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but the "Upload file" button on the left is always at my hands while I'd have to search the bookmark first. Furthermore it doesn't really make sense to create a bookmark for every action I want to perform on Wikipedia/Commons. Exposing those is the job of the Mediawiki UI. -- Patrick87 (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I put a link at the top of my talk page in my notes section. If you speak other languages you my wish to deal with the Leona H. issue there as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Try putting the following into your vector.js or common.js:
var d = document.getElementById("n-uploadbtn");
d.innerHTML = d.innerHTML.replace("Commons:Upload", "Special:Upload");
MKFI (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, this works fine. Sadly without the gadget ImprovedUploadForm the preview butoon is missing from the (then basic) upload form. Therefore it seems I still need the gadget but have to use the URL which makes the JavaScript slightly less clean but works nonetheless:
var d = document.getElementById("n-uploadbtn");
d.innerHTML = d.innerHTML.replace("wiki/Commons:Upload", "w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uploadformstyle=basic");
Thanks for this!
One further question: Is it possible to hide the help from the Upload page? That means all the stuff like "It's all about freedom" and "Describing your uploads"? -- Patrick87 (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merging {{Tl}} with {{Tlx}}

Please read this discussion and comment. --Ricordisamoa 19:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where are we supposed to look for category renames?

I have an image in my history that says "Robot: Moving category Birth and childhood of Jesus to Birth and childhood of Jesus Christ". I went looking for why this neutral category name was changed to one less neutral, but could find no link to discussion, no talk pages for either or these categories. Should I suspect that this was unilateral action by Foroa, or am I not finding where this would be discussed?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Supposedly COM:CFD, although in many cases harmonizing names across the category tree is done without discussion –⁠moogsi (blah) 01:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Prosfilaes, as a long-term user you should know that for cat-names on Commons political correctness is far less important than effectiveness in achieving the purpose of categories. Besides, if you scan through the lemma-names in the Wikipedias, you will find "Jesus Christ" and its other-language equivalents still the most common. "Jesus of Nazareth" would be another possibility. But, "Jesus" alone is ambiguous, as it is/was also a not so rarely used name in romanic countries. --Túrelio (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then why is Category:Katherine Hull still a mess?--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Jesus of Nazareth" is not ambiguous. And I don't think it unreasonable to expect some note somewhere be left on why a change was done. Instead, all I get was "Foroa (talk | contribs) deleted page Category:Birth and childhood of Jesus (Moved to Category:Birth and childhood of Jesus Christ.)" We encourage people to use edit summaries; surely changes on hundreds of files deserve at least that, particularly undiscussed ones.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you can for example see here], User:Smuconlaw did already a very good job in harmonising the countless Jesus/Jezus Christ/Nazareth combinations in the names to one single name. As should be done, he took the name of the root category Category:Jesus Christ to harmonise a substantial part of the names. I will check if we can make SieBot to auto generate a "Harmonisation" summary, as this is the reason for moving around 10000 categories per year. --Foroa (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Turelio Prosfilaes that non evident category renames should be anounced and discussed somehow. A message in category talk page could be a good starting point.
A policy about category names would be very useful, too.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pere, you surely meant to refer to Prosfilaes instead of me. --Túrelio (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I did. Thank you for pointing.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, somebody uses this script? To load images by means of at me it turns out, and this bot it is impossible.

C:\Python26\pywikipedia> -set:15905961 -addcategory
What category do you want to add? Magnitogorsk
Finished running
Total photos: 0
Uploaded photos: 0


And so always, what photo of any license of any user I wouldn't try to load. I can't load any photo though I choose only under free licenses. Perhaps correct work of the bot requires something additional? I checked, it seems I did everything as is written to instructions. Thanks.--Анима 09:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In your example, you're specifying -set:15905961. According to the documentation, the set parameter refers to the user ID, but there is no user with that ID. (There is, however, a photo with that ID.) LX (talk, contribs) 15:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I'm sorry. But even if to enter user_id of the image aren't loaded:

C:\Python26\pywikipedia> -set:7604686 -addcategory
What category do you want to add? Testing
Finished running
Total photos: 0
Uploaded photos: 0


7604686 is my account. Free license. But it is impossible to load the image all the same. Thanks.--Анима 18:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mobile Web Uploads turned off in stable

In case people missed the announcement - the mobile web team has removed the upload lead image feature from stable for anonymous users, so it will be available only to users who specifically log inopt in to the beta. Uploads should be back to pre-April 4 levels, and you can track them on the mobile reportcard. Thanks. YuviPanda (WMF) (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a correction - it has been turned off for logged out users in stable, available only for logged in users. Fly out menu based uploads are still available in stable. Upload volume should still reduce drastically, however. Updated above to reflect. Thanks. Yuvipanda (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks. I note that Faebot has not added any mobile uploaded images to the Category:Mobile uploads lacking EXIF data categories in the hour since this change. I strongly commend investigating options such as my experiment with Category:Mobile uploads lacking EXIF data and with multiple Tineye matches‎, which turned out to have an apparent 100% success rate in finding images that were copyright violations - certainly a similar routine that checked the number of matching images on the (free and unlimited) Google image search facility for identical images but with size variations would be a useful feature, even if it only added a warning template to the top of image pages with 2 or more images found. If WMF dev does not test something similar, then I may get around to hacking it next month; for fun. Addendum based on Faebot's timesheet this morning, the 'non-EXIF' matches have reduced to something like 1/10th of what they were. I have extended the cycle time to making checks every 2 hours rather than less than an hour. Thanks -- (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • That's rather good. And it's exactly the sort of automated usefulness we need more of. Rd232 (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yep, the devs have started looking into the EXIF data check, and it appears that there are some existing Javascript libraries we can use to do this pre-upload. We'll start work on building out some sort of pre-upload gate-check/confirmation notice for uploads missing EXIF data in our upcoming iteration. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Good news. There's a lot of value to be gained by data-mining the EXIF data intelligently at the time of mobile upload, particularly spotting odd inconsistencies, such as incompatible licence declarations and then usefully alerting the user (a simple "are you sure?" with a "click here to learn more" would go a long way to avoiding copyright violations). I look forward to seeing some early test results being publicised. Thanks -- (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will definitely let you know the impact this has once it's deployed. I'm going to overhaul the now somewhat outdated uploads page and add an R&D section to house stats on mobile upload quality, deletion rates, etc. I can post periodic updates here, too, since it looks like there are quite a few interested parties :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, please. My rough figures of the files in Category:Uploaded with Mobile/Web are as follows: about 1,500 uploads. About 1,000 have been already deleted. About 100 are under deletion request process. About 200 don't have source or permission and will be deleted. About 190 files are linked from articles (but many of them will be deleted since its source or permission are dubious). No more than other additional 50 files are categorized... That is, only about 15% of the uploads are useful somehow. And it has taken a lot of time and effort, verifying each upload with tineye or google images, opening deletion requests, closing them... I wouldn't define this service as a success --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 13:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's what I just got from the database (pulled out all mobile web uploads, then all deleted mobile web uploads + reason for deletion, then did some simple grepping for copyvio and scope):
Mobile web upload deletion stats.png
Looks like about a quarter of the files are still there, and about half were deleted for copyvio. There are raw numbers and some more stats tables here. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some hand-made statistics from the files in Category:Uploaded with Mobile/Web (453):
  1. Images used in articles, categorized and with no known issues: 41 (2%)
  2. Images used in articles, categorized, but with issues (usually lack of sources or permission): 4 (0.2%)
  3. Images used in articles, not categorized, with no known issues: 66 (3.4%)
  4. Images used in articles, not categorized, but with issues: 50 (2.5%)
  5. Images not used in articles, categorized and with no known issues: 57 (2.9%)
  6. Images not used in articles, categorized, but with issues (usually lack of sources or permission): 5 (0.3%)
  7. Images not used in articles, not categorized, with no known issues: 91 (4.6%)
  8. Images not used in articles, not categorized, but with issues: 139 (7%)
Most of the images in items 2, 4, 6 and 8 will be deleted. Images in item 7 are mostly useless as lack enough information to determine what they could illustrate. That is, from the 23% that you mention as kept about 9% will be deleted and 4% is useless. That leaves a 10%. Not impressive. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for doing it, and thanks for announcing in this way. (There were concerns about "spamming" mentioned by WMF; we'll let you know if too many announcements become a problem...) Rd232 (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A typical MobileUpload-image: File:It means fun♥♥ 2013-04-11 14-08.jpg, harmless, useless and the filename says it all ;-) . --Túrelio (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Works from Commons put on paysites

Old revision of File:Arms of Ordo cisterciensis.svg.

Is stolen from File:Coat of Arms of the Republic of Venice.svg

Is stolen from File:Coat of arms of Curaçao.svg

There are a lot of other stolen images, from page 10 onwards on this profile. While commercial use is allowed, this is simply plagiarism.

What can be done against this? Lemmens, Tom (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a result of only commercial licenses being permitted on Commons. Nothing we can do about that. FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually this is copyright infringement" The files on Commons are licensed with a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC BY-SA) license. That means they can be used on the linked website (even commercially) but the original author has to be attributed and the files have to be published with a compatible license (and only CC BY-SA licenses are compatible). -- Patrick87 (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The hoster seems to be located in Germany[12], meaning there is no DMCA excuse, they are fully liable to litigation by the copyright holders. Getty Images agency once won 10,000 € for unlicensed use of 6 of their images by a company in Germany[13]. --Túrelio (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you simply contact the website and show them your proof, they might suspend the account of the user who uploaded. That's something any user can do, you don't need to be the owner. You only need to be the owner if you want to start with claims and lawsuits. TheDJ (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, depends. At least in Germany this might be troubled water, as per law[14] not everybody is entitled to give legal advice. --Túrelio (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

not caring works for me. (feel free to hit me, it was worth it)

You'd need to be the owner, and have deep pockets to start off a case against them. You could look at their payment options and approach those companies with a short case that they are selling stolen property. Penyulap 16:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CC licenses are not really free. For use of the image the user must ask how the author wants to be attributed the image, and the author´s conditions must be met, even if she/he requires watermars, links to her/his site, etc. You can send a cease and desist letter and you can report the site and have it take it down. Legitimate users will always comply, and ask before hand how the author wants the attribution. Legitimate ignorant users will take the images down, or attribute the image appropriately, or even pay for the use if they do not want to comply with the attribution requirements. Ilegitimate users, well, if you have the time, the resources and the will to fight a long battle with uncertain results... But it is always a good idea to educate the people on the attribution requirement. I put a notice on my images informing possible users of the attribution. That is really all we can do, and hope for users of good faith. Possible misuse or lack of attribution are inherent dangers of uploading here, so one must must decide between sharing for the common good with the possibility of non attribution or play it safe and don´t upload. In anycase, as a photographer, I have found Commons to be a good venue to be known to the world, and the cost has been a few dishonest (and a lot of ignorants) using my images without attribution. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sea otters holding hands, cropped.jpg
There is too much attribution, a site that attributes a commons image to 'Penyulap', but I never uploaded that image, and here is a nice site and a lovely pic which I didn't take, but simply cropped. What do you do when people give you too much credit ? can I ask them to stop ? Can I give you some of the excess amounts that I get :D I would if I could. Penyulap 09:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could stop uploading copyright infringements like the otters to Commons, that's what you could do. (Yes, it is a copyright infringement when you remove the author's name from a CC-BY-SA image.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nowadays people are much concerned about if their works are commercially reused and try all efforts to stop it. But unfortunately it results in the failure the achievement of the Common's goal. We should have to educate people that Common is for free contribution including commercial reuse; anybody can simply walkout if they can co-operate with it instead of spoiling the system. I've much hope in the new proposal. JKadavoor Jee 13:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one ever properly attributes works from Commons; the best you can usually hope for is for them to get attributed to "Wikipedia" and a link back to the image page on Wikipedia. I think people would be much calmer about commercial works if they weren't fairly consistently so lazy. But we see from Penyulap's examples, many on Commons aren't any better.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found this image of mine with correct attribution so at least one site is following the rules. The CC site has a list of lawyers and you may wish to contact them to see if they want to take it on pro bono. They would get their % and the more users they can contact and sign on then the bigger the pie to split. has a few listed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 12

Image with useless borders

There is two similar images: with useless borders and without borders & cropped. I think the one with borders could be deleted. It is ok to nominate the image with borders for deletion or to use superseded/dublicate tags? --Kulmalukko (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

probably good to keep both, as it is possible to get a more greedy crop from the original, to include the aquatic plants in the foreground. Penyulap 10:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. --Kulmalukko (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi all, I've written a very short guide about how to include wikilinks from the ones stored in wikidata in commons galleries and categories. It's in Spanish and can be found here. Would it be useful to have it in Commons:Wikidata (translated into English, of course)? If deemed useful, I'd like to have a skilled translator doing the work of translating it into English. Opinions? --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 14:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Screenshots with no or little photographic content should be uploaded as PNG, not as JPEG. JPEG compression artifacts are just ugly. --Leyo 16:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks. Beside that (I'll try to do it as you suggest), have you got any other suggestion? Best regards --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 23:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The "Here" above is a dead link. - Jmabel ! talk 05:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Apparently speedy-deleted at user request. Anyone care to explain what's going on here? - Jmabel ! talk 05:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ecemaml is on a break, so pages they made are... also on a break? –⁠moogsi (blah) 06:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leave sepia or grayscale?

With files like: File:Malachi Throne Ida Lupino It Takes a thief 1968 crop.jpg should be left as sepia or grayscaled? There may be a guideline somewhere but I couldn't find it. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you feel that a grayscaled version would look better in an article, feel free to create one but I would suggest not overwriting the original. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Greyscaling is always indicated where there's distracting false color (e.g. File:Conquistador Pedro de Alvarado.JPG). A uniform sepia is much less problematic. AnonMoos (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello!i have the permissions of the artist and the newspaper for pulication items that you have deleted. To whom should I send?--Ceceroni (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To (OTRS). However, next time ask the admin, who notified you, directly. --Túrelio (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 13

Daily purge

Could someone set up a bot or script that purges the main page every day at UTC 00:01 to refresh the POTD and MOTD? —Mono 01:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons Android application beta - feedback needed!

Hello everyone! The Wikimedia Commons App for Android beta 7 was released a couple of days ago (Install link). This is a native mobile app, not the mobile web which released an upload image feature a few days ago. If you have an Android device (2.3+), please do install it and give us feedback! We iterate fast - one release every week, so the earlier we can get your feedback the better :)

Current situation: We've not really been publicizing the apps that much, and despite that the Android app has had more than a 1000 images uploaded using it. We're targeting the app at existing Commons users, so the quality of contributions have also been 'not bad' - ~10% deletion rate, and that includes Test images. And unlike mobile web, there is little risk of Commons being flooded with low quality images / copyvios - there is no user registration, so only people who already have a Commons account can use the app.

Future plans: We're planning on setting up a Watchlist notice on enwiki and commonswiki about the App sometime next week. Since we're putting it only on the watchlist notice where usually only experienced editors see it - should not cause too many issues. A tutorial explaining to users what is commons and what is acceptable / not acceptable is being developed to be included with the app. We will not enable new user registration on the app until the tutorial is done and tested.

Feedback!: Test the app out on your device! You can leave your comments here, and I'll triage them and create bugs appropriately. Looking forward to help increase the number of undeleted mobile uploads to commons :) YuviPanda (WMF) (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

4am Project

Some of you will be interested in the 4am project, whose aim is "to gather a collection of photos from around the world at the magical time of 4am". The next, global, activity is on 14 April. Andy Mabbett (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EBay as source?

Several images were uploaded and sourced to EBay. I opened a deletion discussion on one, and the others were mentioned by another editor in the course of the discussion. The uploader claimed they were PD and from the Library of Congress, but made no effort to update the links, and left off information on the artists that the sellers actually had included. To me, the images have obvious color retouches, aside from being lifted from a seller's page to boot, and thus aren't PD licensable.

I saw nothing in the archive recently that indicated that EBay was acceptable as a PD image site, but the deletion discussion was closed after two days (which is almost unheard of on Commons anyway). I also felt I had found a scope issue that was left unresolved. On inquiry, the closing admin considered the discussion finished.

However, the crux of the matter is that to me, EBay is a commercial site made to sell goods, and thus isn't CC-BY-SA compatible unless the sellers release their photos, but that's not what they're there for, so why would they? So what does this fall under? MSJapan (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all, if the picture is a faithful reproduction, it does not matter who made the reproduction as regards copyright. This is the Bridgeman vs Corel that people keep mentioning. This reasoning is also visible in {{PD-scan}}, which asserts that any restoration that has been done is not original enough to attach copyright. See Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. –⁠moogsi (blah) 21:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought that in some countries you can copyright a reproduction of a pd image. Penyulap 21:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes - see Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs. The UK is probably the most significant example of "definitely can copyright a well-made reproduction made via photography". (Many other countries it's less clear.) However, if you're talking about mere mechanical copying (unenhanced scan of a 2D PD work), that's never copyrightable AFAIK. Rd232 (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant it doesn't matter as far as Commons is concerned. Your mileage may vary depending on location –⁠moogsi (blah) 23:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
eBay may be a source of images, but it's not a good source of information for establishing whether or not a photo is in the public domain, or not. My understanding is that unless other reliable information regarding the licencing is referenced then the image should be deleted. Danrok (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

eBay is a bad source, even images which are definitely in the PD need a trustworthy source to be useful for encyclopedic usage. --Polarlys (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

eBay's not a great site, but given that we take individual submissions, I don't see why eBay is that problematic. The no-notice photographs are problematic, but they wouldn't be any less problematic if we had some user directly scanning them. If we can clearly ascertain that a file on eBay is a copy of a PD source, it's fine. (Our scope is "educational", not "encyclopedic", and again, there's a lot less trustworthy sources here.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 11

Commons Statute of limitations

I'm wondering if we can have it written down, drafted as a guideline, that the community doesn't care about certain misdeeds after a period of time. This does make a lot of sense, as there is often a problem of hounding that goes on, where old mistakes are never forgotten, I think we could propose a guideline, or obviously an essay, to help guide people in knowing when to forget. Penyulap 07:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that it is not about "misdeeds after a period of time", but rather about a current state of events being more important than other things. Community is built not by punishing everybody for ever misadventure, but by creating a culture where people feel like they are doing something important. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(to Sinnamon) True. I find people don't focus on the project, but get tied up with silly things, for example, someone apologises and has clearly changed, but people want to bring it up ad-nausea. A lot of what makes a community work properly is simple first-nature (not even second-nature) to many people, but to others, it seems to need guidance. I find there are people who just 'get it' and people who have trouble wondering why everyone is not on the same page as they are, maybe a guide like the guides for taking pics and copyright, that sort of thing, for basic conflict resolution, to help guide people through a possibly unfamiliar process. (I honestly think that where a RL process in some countries involves handguns, and that same process is applied to wiki, obviously it cannot work. So the process used in countries where people realise they must live together, that kind of process could help guide people in dispute resolution.) Penyulap 09:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good Lord I can't believe some of the nonsense I see written in these various Village Pump pages. It's never ending diarrhea of childish nonsensical crap with same characters appearing over and over and over. And Penyulap... you really need to find something useful to do around here. You're all over these pages like a bad case of BO. Damn this is a pitiful crowd. – JBarta (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jbarta, if you absolutely can't let a polite word pass from your mouth to the page, please be so kind as to place your personal attack comment in a place that it does not appear as though I agree with it. 123 Penyulap 11:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The placement of the comment was fine and proper. It was you who insisted on moving things around repeatedly. – JBarta (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jbarta, you're quite free to ignore discussions that don't interest you. In any case, please avoid gratuitous insult. Rd232 (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does interest me... that's the problem I guess. I can't help but care what goes on around here. It's why I've been contributing for all these years. Maybe more of the adults in the room ought to speak up as well. – JBarta (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then don't make personal attacks, especially if you believe you're an adult. Do it again and be blocked. -FASTILY 19:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While my language was a little rough, your statement here is an example of some of the backwards priorities around here. As an admin, if you were as eager to elevate (or eliminate) some of the nonsense in these pages as you are to threaten me with a block, we'd all be better off IMO. That said, I'll try to lighten up my comments. Better yet, I'll go back to more useful and welcome contributing. (then again, as things go, maybe I should just settle for useful...) – JBarta (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't know whether the proposal is serious or not... but if it is, it might make sense as an essay, talking about principles, but I find it hard to imagine it as a guideline. The basic idea that things that are long past are less important than things that are recent is common sense, but turning that into actionable guideline about how to weigh things up ("X is OK to ignore after Y years, unless something in category Z has happened since then...") is probably more trouble than it's worth. Rd232 (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it is a serious proposal. As you well know right now, there is a lot of support for ignoring the most serious offences people can imagine, so it is the perfect time to have some guidelines written down. Strike while the iron is hot and all that, rather than waiting until nobody is interested in helping with the new rules.
Sure, it may not make sense at first, same as some of our copyright policies are just crazy, like the Australian aboriginal flag, two colours with a circle, not being allowed on commons, you get used to these new ideas and uphold them, same as any other rules. Doesn't mean you have to agree with them or even that they make the least bit of sense, but it helps to have them written down, so fights don't break out with newbies. Penyulap 20:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"there is a lot of support for ignoring the most serious offences people can imagine" Uh, do you have an example or two? I'm still unable to figure out whether there's any sarcasm I'm missing. --Conti| 20:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, to answer the question you ask, I don't know of any open discussion on the issue, but there was a recent discussion here where voting fraud on commons received popular support, that being the case, then if we have some definite time-frame, then there are commercial opportunities for people who want to make admin accounts, or give them as gifts, I think this would be a little like the flag, strange at first, but acceptable after a while. I mean, a black and red flag, but if you put a yellow circle on it, it becomes copyright. Penyulap 21:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

/NOTES/Шуйская (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

How can I do a "multiple" notes?Шуйская (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I discussed this with Шуйская on their talkpage, and thought I'd found it, but this one is too tricky for a dunce like me to resolved the matter. Penyulap 00:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I talked to the higher-ups, I know people ;) ..ones who know templates (uh-har). We don't have an appropriate template to suit the task required is seems. Penyulap 09:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK to advertise here?

Is it OK to advertise here? In the Seano page I found this:

italiano:Le foto delle sculture dello scultore Seanese Quinto Martini le puoi trovare sul mio sito flickr
English:the photos of the scultures by the scultor from Seano Quinto Martini are on flickr
{ }

The photos are indeed on flickr, along with an invitation to apply to license them from the owner. As far as I know that's fine on flickr, but I'm less than convinced that the photographer should be advertising his wares on Commons. Apologies if I'm wrong (again!) on this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at the edit-history, it seems that the user who created this gallery had meant it as a sort of userpage gallery, which is it not. I have now removed the link to Flickr and the now meaningless hint to the sculptures by Quinto Martini. Not a big issue, but still inappropriate IMO. --Túrelio (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 14

I want to know, the pictures I uploaded "Angry Birds Space Screenshots.png" where infringing?

You said you wanted a free software cross-sectional diagram can be considered free screenshot.Angry Birds Space is free, should not be considered infringement.(I'm sorry, my English is not good)--Yanteng3 (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Software being free to use and having copyright free re-use are two different things, easy to be confused. Angry Birds is '© 2013 Rovio Entertainment Ltd.' and appears to have all rights reserved. This means that no screen shots with meaningful creative content can be released by others on a free re-use licence, as this fails to respect the producer's/creator's reservation of rights. Thanks -- (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know, thanks for your answers, next time I will not upload infringing pictures!--Yanteng3 (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of DMCA takedown

Please be aware that I have executed a takedown under the DMCA. The takedown is recorded at Commons:Office_actions/DMCA_notices#El_caballero_de_la_armadura_oxidada. Thank you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 07:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the notification here. It seems about es:El caballero de la armadura oxidada by Robert Fisher. Given it was a PDF (File:El caballero de la armadura oxidada.pdf), I think the uploader, (who was active at Commons only and did only upload this pdf,) uploaded the whole novel. -- Rillke(q?) 09:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed it is. We really need more people on new-upload patrolling. This is so obvious a copyvio that the only possible reason it hadn't been deleted is that no one saw it. -- King of ♠ 23:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or less uploads or we (and the WMF) starts preferring quality over quantity. -- Rillke(q?) 20:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Browser Issue?

Is anyone having difficulty with Upload Wizard and a few other features using Firefox (but in Chrome it all works)? I want to figure out if it's a system thing or my computer. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you could elaborate on "difficulty", somebody might answer. :) --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was about to ask the same question (for MS Internet Explorer): the Upload Wizard just doesn't load. Highly frustrating... :( MartinD (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure whether this is the same issue, but I recently filed a bug at Bugzilla on a similar problem I've been facing. You may want to register a Bugzilla account (if you don't already have one) and provide feedback there. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Восток - cyrillic rendering bug?

I paste BOCTOK (Vostok) into the text field and then see BOCMOK rendered. If I mark&copy that, I find BOCTOK again in the clipboard. Compare the headline with the source of this post.

Is that just my Win7/Firefox browser?- Mkratz (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably it's the font you're using in your browser. Cyrillic Т/т (that is, the analogue of Latin T/t) looks exactly like Latin M/m in some fonts (particularly in the italic variants and those which emulate cursive—see Russian cursive). —Psychonaut (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Восток is merely the italics form of "Восток". Your computer is fine. 16:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bhavana Mal Actress.jpg

Please take a look at the discussion, Commons:Valued image candidates/Bhavana Mal Actress.jpg. Is it fine, if this is the same image but improved by the new uploader? I don't know what is the correct procedure here. JKadavoor Jee 18:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In general people are welcome to improve images, but I'm not sure in which exact context you wonder whether this is "fine" here. Could you elaborate? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source seems very small compared to the last upload. Any way it is now under DR. JKadavoor Jee 13:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 15


User:NemesisIII recently added Category:Taken with Nikon Coolpix P50 to several dozen of my photos that were, indeed, taken with this relatively cheap compact camera. I would not normally add a category to my uploads indicating what camera the photo was taken with; I'm not really interested in advertising a brand prominently in association with my photos, which seems to be the main effect of this. I can't really see much other use for the category. If someone really needs to know what my picture was take with, it's in the EXIF data.

What is the purpose of such a category? Was NemesisIII correct to add this to my photos? If so, and if this category is considered desirable on all such photos, why don't we just have a bot that pulls it from the EXIF data? - Jmabel ! talk 16:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Further, I notice that some of my images have been miscategorized in this respect. For example, I took File:Georgetown PowerPlant Museum 140.jpg with my Nikon D5000, as can be verified from the EXIF data, but has been placed in Category:Photos taken with Nikon Coolpix cameras. A D5000 DSLR is not a Coolpix. Normally, I try to make sure that content related to my photos that has been edited by other people remains accurate, but I am absolutely not willing to go through my photos and see which of these have been accurately tagged and which inaccurately. - Jmabel ! talk 16:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Sorry for my bad English) It is not advertising, actually I don't think this camera is especially good (this is my camera), but I thought it was interesting to be able to find easily all the pictures made by the same camera; because it is impossible to search in EXIF data with Commons. That's all. I will check if I made mistakes, sorry. Nemesis III (discuter) 16:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting it may be, but is it actually useful for any purpose which serves our project's scope? If not, then you should consider whether maintaining this categorization scheme isn't more trouble than it's worth. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And are uncategorized and without description photos useful? Do they serve our project's scope? So, when I categorize photos, it's useless. OK. Thanks. Nemesis III (discuter) 16:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the categorization is indeed useless. I was asking what use it serves. Perhaps you could explain. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is impossible to find photos thanks to their EXIF data in Commons (why? Google can). So it is the only way to compare pictures taken with the same model of camera, and I think it could possibly used in Wikipedia. Some cameras have a page on Wikipedia, it could be possible to add a link to the category with all the pictures taken with this model of camera (for example en:Nikon D5000). Nemesis III (discuter) 16:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The most obvious use is to provide an objective source of examples of the performance and capabilities of the various cameras. Dankarl (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ask the same question of Category:Photographs by camera and its quadrillion subcats. If you dare –⁠moogsi (blah) 17:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you think it's useful, and you aren't interested in putting together a bot to do it from the EXIF data, would you please be careful to do it accurately? In exactly three that I bothered checking, I found one wrong (as noted above), so it's unlikely to be the only one that's wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 17:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Everyone can make a mistake. And I have removed all the pictures I put in the Category:Photos taken with Nikon Coolpix cameras, so I think that everything is correctly categorized now. Nemesis III (discuter) 18:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NemesisIII, I'd recommend bring it up at Commons:Categories for discussion, you'll get people with more experience offering advice there. It is the best place to start a discussion of this type. Penyulap 22:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, but, finally, I won't have the time to do it this week. I will ask later. Nemesis III (discuter) 21:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flickr Upload Bot

The bot has been slow and difficult to connect to for a couple days, and when I managed to get it to run once it did not upload the picture so I had to complete manually. Not connecting any better today so I hesitate to use it. Is this a known issue? Dankarl (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See ? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)