Commons:Village pump/Archive/2014/07

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


Upload of 500+ video's of birds

Spoonbill at sunset

I have just finished uploading over 500 video's of bird filmed in The Netherlands by a professional film producer. This is a donation made possible by the Foundation for Nature Footage (Stichting Natuurbeelden) and the Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision. The collection contains beautiful and unique footage of different bird species, in a variety of landscapes displaying different types of behavior. The entire collection can be found in the category Stichting Natuurbeelden on Open Images.

How can you help?

  • The meta-data is in Dutch, however the Latin bird-names are contained in the meta-data as well, which should make it possible to still find these videos. Adding the English birdnames to the videos would still be a great help though.
  • Because the collection consists of raw, uncut shots, usage in articles on Wikipedia will often profit from the start-end functionality of the Wiki-syntax. E.g. "[[File:Filename|thumb|300px|start=5|end=12]]" will start a certain file at 5 seconds and will end it at 12.
  • For bird-enthousiasts that don't have a lot of experience in editing articles on Wikipedia, I made a brief ad-hoc tutorial on how to add a video from this category to an article. It can be found here, feel free to share.

Have fun browsing these videos and spread the word! Thanks. 85jesse (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks to all involved, especially the donor, looks like a great resource. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
+1. Its not often you see mass uploads of videos. Thanks to everyone involved. Bawolff (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both! More might be coming up from the Foundation for Nature Footage. The more these video's find their way into articles the more they are inclined to upload more material, so thank you for spreading the word! 85jesse (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Comparison Template:TrimmingTemplate:Remove border

Because in the most cases there is no feedback on "specific" pages/templates (often there are faults for years and nobody recognize it, but this is another matter) I put the matter here. In most cases nobody cares if someone do larger changes, also do the unwritten rule, no answer mean agreement. But I would get more clarification. So I think the new template: Trimming could be easy merged with template: Remove border, as it was in the past also done with template: Remove caption which was simply redirected (to template: Watermark) by a single user (without agreement(. User: Perhelion11:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually I stumbled across {{Trimming}} some time ago an did some major fixes, since it was pretty broken back then. Later on I discovered {{Remove border}} which was redundant in parts. I was thinking about ways to resolve this conflict, but I figured that both templates had their pros an cons and none could replace the other entirely:
Remove border
– seems to be more popular
– is much more detailed on some specifics of images with borders
– is limited to image with borders
– does not accept any parameters to give further information
– is less popular (probably because it was a mess before I cleaned it up and badly maintained)
– is much more general an therefore flexible
– is not limited to borders but can mean any trimming imaginable (e.g. a finger in front of the lens Face-wink.svg)
– can be feeded date, comment and source parameters to precisely explain what needs to be done
Therefore – although {{Remove border}} seems like the generally accepted version to tag images for trimming – {{trimming}} (it's even in the name) is much more flexible and covers a lot more use cases (also in my personal opinion it's prettier with the nice scissors Face-wink.svg). Plus it's much shorter while achieving basically the same, which is the way to go (image description pages or maintenance templates shouldn't replace help pages but only tag images that need work in the shortest possible way).
So if you still want to merge the templates (I chose not to for the above reasons back then) either merge {{Remove border}} into {{Trimming}} or port all the functionality from {{Trimming}} to {{Remove border}} which will result in pretty much the same. --Patrick87 (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for detailed clarification. So the border template could be theoretically easy merged with a border parameter (and so the sorting cat). But if no one seems to be interested in a simplification, I also don't see a significant necessity for a merge. User: Perhelion21:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

June 30

WikiSense down?

I wanted to once more update the number of all children files of this category, and followed the usual link to There I arrive to an unexcpeted CatScan V2.0β form page, devoided of any of the parameters passed by the url, and showing this enigmatic and frustrating message:

If you're upset because you wanted WikiSense and got this page instead, complain to Daniel, not me!

linking to — Well, upset is a good word: What’s going on?! -- Tuválkin 06:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you ask Duesentrieb via e-Mail (a friendly one) whether they are inclined to port their tool to tool labs. As you probably know, Toolserver was shut down on June, 30 and not all tool authors ported their tools. -- Rillke(q?) 06:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Reworked duplicates

Flickr - …trialsanderrors - Panoramic view of Lyon, France, ca. 1899.jpg
File:Lyon croixrousse congres.jpg

This Flicker image seem to be the same as File:Lyon croixrousse congres.jpg. Do we keep both and under wich license?Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes we keep both. They are two variants of the same image, but they are not exact duplicates.
  • As for your license question: could you be more precise about the issue so each reader here doesn't have to do their own research? - Jmabel ! talk 16:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I suspect the Flickr version is a modified version of the original library of congress version. I would like to know wich is closed to the original version. Or maybe it is a scan of another separate printed version (not a library version)Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The flickr page specifies that its source is the LoC image, links to it, and specifies that the image is in the public domain. The CC tag was on the flickr page probably only because flickr does not seem to have a public domain tag available for ordinary users, and using a CC tag may be a trick some flickr users find to have those public domain images found when someone uses the flickr search to find free images, although their specific mention that the image is actually in the public domain clarifies that they're not actually claiming a copyright or a CC license. And then, the CC tag got copied to Commons probably only because that's how the operator programmed his bot, to automatically tag all his uploads with a CC tag, not with the actual copyright status specified on the flickr page. You can remove the misleading CC tag and indicate the actual PD status. Anyway, there doesn't seem to be an advantage to upload a copy of a copy from the flickr page, with the potential loss of status and source information in the process, when the image can be uploaded and sourced directly from the LoC. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Personal acquaintances goes international

The "Personal acquaintances" tool for Wikip/medians to confirm that they have met a real person behind a user account was started in 2008 in de:wp and has meanwhile been translated into 7 languages and spread to more than 13 WMF projects. Over 1,500 users have given more than 50,000 confirmations since. The English language pages in en:wp, de:wp, wmflabs and Commons are looking for native speakers to improve the text and for more Wikimaniacs to go to Meetups and connect to each other. Spread the word and let's make it a big thing at the upcoming Wikimania in London (please help improving the English text for the Wikimania leaflet). Looking forward to meeting you! :) --.js 21:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Does one still have to come through de-wp to use this? If so, it might be good to come up with some very precise instructions about that part of the process. - Jmabel ! talk 16:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. Set your de:Special:Preferences to English language.
  2. Go to de:Spezial:Einstellungen#mw-prefsection-gadgets Section "Veränderung der Oberfläche" and check the box at "Erweiterte Benutzeroberfläche für Persönliche Bekanntschaften aktivieren, um Bestätigungen hier vornehmen zu können." (the only text that has no translation yet afaik).
  3. Go to de:Wikipedia:Persönliche Bekanntschaften/neue Anfragen (it will be in English if you followed step 1) and register yourself.
  4. Once you have got confirmations by three users you can start confirming yourself. (Post your username into this list to receive bot-messages for all confirmations you receive.)
  5. Go to de:Wikipedia:Personal Acquaintances for more information if you want. – Feel free to improve the English explanations there (and here and here), they were all written by non-native speakers, so better wording is very much appreciated!
Good instruction? :) --.js 20:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Too complicated. Stopped reading after #3. A Finnish guy recently told me, Germans are unable to produce easy-to-use software and I tend to somewhat agree :) Also looking forward meeting you, .js. -- Rillke(q?) 20:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I am still trying to figure out what is the purpose of this tool. What is the advantage of confirming someone or being confirmed. In my view it is fine is some users never meat others in real life, or if they are robots or dogs, as long as they have valuable contributions. --Jarekt (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
If it is international it should be moved imho to metawiki and translated there. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@Jarekt. It is nothing more than a part of German Stammtisch culture. Anyone who knows it, will also guess the reason for the high level of administrative tolerance for destructive users in de.wp. With other words, not the users with most productive article work are most renowned ones on de.wp, but those with most real-life "friendships", preferably with admins and meta discussants. I don't think that we need to adapt kind of it on Commons. --A.Savin 21:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
first, yes, unfortunately there is a high level of (not only !!!) administrative tolerance for destructive users in de.wp, but this is no direct result of the stammtisch culture. -jkb- (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

July 02

Template for text book cover

During transferring File:Eszperantó-Magyar Szótár (Pechan Alfonsz, 1983).jpg from Esperanto Wikipedia I found no license tag for text book-covers (similar to Template:PD-textlogo). Instead I used Template:PD-ineligible, but it seems to be too general. There are many text book-covers on Esperanto Wikipedia, which could be transfered so I would like to know the recommended way and recommended templates. (or respond in Esperanto in Diskutejo) Thanks! --KuboF (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

{{PD-text}}? --Jarekt (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Download all files ?

There used to be a "Download all files" button on category pages.

Has it gone? Is there a way to get it back? Jheald (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

i think it was a default enabled gadget possibly removed by Bawolff (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Activate the ExtraTabs2 gadget now! -- Rillke(q?) 17:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Why does that still work, in fact? That gadget links to a tool on the Toolserver, which I believe shut down? darkweasel94 17:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


File:Sant Basil The Prayer.jpg This picture say that it has a permission to use. Why are they deleting it now? here discussion ? --Hafspajen (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no problem here. Images were uploaded without proper proof of permit from the painter, than they were deleted, proof of permit from the painter was received and the images covered by it were reuploded or restored. That is all. Everything is OK now. --Jarekt (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, great. --Hafspajen (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Overwritten picture

Why has the first version of been overwritten? It is a different picture, with less resolution, but more clearly visible und not so much cut off. -- 21:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No idea, but it was done a long time ago. There'd be nothing wrong with uploading it again under a different name (and at a higher resolution if available.) --ghouston (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done See File:Train wreck at Montparnasse 1895 - 2.jpg--Jarekt (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Better to {{split}} the upload, make the earlier version a different filename and retain the upload history, rather than re-upload. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

July 03

Media Viewer software feature

Reminder: @Rillke, Jkadavoor, Emw, RP88, Alvesgaspar:@Taxiarchos228, Jebulon, Ipoellet, Johnbod, Smiley.toerist:@Kelvinsong, Russavia, Keegan (WMF), Jmabel: You have all expressed interest in what happens with this feature; I want to make sure that you see, I did start the RfC, so you might want to consider moving or adapting any statement you made above in casual conversation, for this more formal discussion: Commons:Requests for comment/Media Viewer software feature A few of you have posted there, but many have not. -Pete F (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

My previous input on Media Viewer was in the vein of a bug report, and I haven't thus far been very concerned about the merits of Media Viewer as an idea. If I do participate in the RFC, it will be as a general Commons contributor - my participation will not flow from my previous comment. — Ipoellet (talkf.k.a. Werewombat 23:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

June 26

File summary—upload date vs date of creation

On the file pages, the date entry is ambiguous, especially when one uploads another person's creation (which usually has a much older creation date, and likely an earlier publishing date). I therefore propose to change the entry from "Date" into "Date of creation".

The upload form furthers the use of the wrong date, as the upload date is suggested when you fill in the form. I therefore propose to give only the YYYY-MM-DD format in the upload form, to let the uploader think about it, but tell in which format to write. Furthermore, the clocktime is not really useful, if not misleading. --Wickey-nl (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There are templates like {{taken on}} and {{published in}} that are supposed to be used there to clarify what you mean. Sometimes the date of publication will be the only information you know, and that can be very relevant information e.g. for copyright reasons. darkweasel94 08:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If the photograph has an EXIF date of creation, then I think that this date should be suggested by default. This date is more likely to be accurate than today's date. There are still going to be some errors, but fewer of them. For example, if you scan a mediæval manuscript, the date when the document was scanned might be filled in as 'date of creation' in the scanner's EXIF data. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The date= parameter is often useless (f. ex. with BSicons), so in my opinion it should disappear in the {{information}} if left blank, also, not providing any date should be possible in the UploadWizard (and the case if otherwise the date of uploading would be used).    FDMS  4    20:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes the date field has always been ambiguos, but changing the infobox entry to "creation date" would just make the data it contains wrong on an awful lot of files and definitely should not be done. The upload date may well be the date of first publication which is more likely relevant to copyright than the actual creation date. Separate date fields for creation and publication might be sensible as it would make parsing the field easier for bots etc (do many files have both {{taken on}} and {{published in}} ?). --Tony Wills (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I came at the issue because of the upload form, which may be a more urgent point. The explanation is hidden behind a button. Once you have used the form, you are inclined to ignore it the next time. It must be not difficult to fix that. And I think two entries in the infobox is a good idea. It forces uploaders to think about it. If kept empty one of them, it will simply not appear on the page. --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Link to {{edit request}}

When you click "view soure" in proteced pages appears a message that links to {{editprotected}} but it is now a redirect. Could someone change it in {{edit request}}. thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 08:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

And what's exactly wrong with a link to a redirect? The redirect will stay forever. -- Rillke(q?) 08:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
We keep some old, cryptically brief template redirects that say nothing about what they're supposed to be used for, like {{db-f9}} or {{editprotected}}, for the benefit of those who are already used to them. In instructional texts, it makes sense to use real template names if they are more readable (i.e. use full words with spaces between them) and descriptive. LX (talk, contribs) 21:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
thanks LX --Pierpao.lo (listening) 10:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done by an admin--Pierpao.lo (listening) 10:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

A user has requested a discussion, but there is no comment in the page now. see the link above.
p.s. HappyMidnight, You don't have to apologize, since Commons is a multilingual project. --Puramyun31 (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Date formatting used by {{Information}} and other infobox templates

As some of you might noticed some in last month template {{date}} was rewritten using Module:Date, allowing us to use parser functions to internationalize/localize/translate dates displayed by {{Information}} and other infobox templates. The outputs of the new {{date}} are in most cases identical to the old version (preserved as {{date/old}}); see Module talk:Date/sandbox/testcases. Localizations for new languages can be set up at Module:I18n/date, so if you know other languages and the dates do not show up correctly in them please modify that file or request edit at it's talk page. The new code should be easier to maintain and customize than the old template. A question was raised about how to format dates from 1st to 10th centuries. Old template {{date/old}} have different behavior for each language, but in English it did not do any formatting of the year string, while {{#time}} always pads the dates with zeros, so the dates are always 4 digit long. What is the formatting we would like to use on Commons. Options are:

  1. trim dates, so we might have years: 1999, 999, 99, and 9. This is the behavior of {{date/old}} for many languages
  2. pad dates, so we might have years: 1999, 0999, 0099, and 0009. This is the format used by {{#time}}
  3. hybrid approach, depending on language and/or on date range
  • One proposal was to pad dates on 0-99 range and trim in 100-999 range, so we might have years: 1999, 999, 0099, and 0009.

Padding dates makes them easier to understand, for example "August 23" may be month-day or month-year, but "August 0023" is clear, on the other hand en-wp (like en:Caligula article) does not use padded dates but dates in "22 January 41 AD" format (due to backward compatibility we can not add "AD" automatically to such dates as they might be added separately)
So what format should we use? I am inclined to use the proposed hybrid approach of padding only dates in 0-99 range, may be with added overwrite option to allow trimming is desired. --Jarekt (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Change to other resolution line on image description page of svgs

Just a heads up, starting on tuesday, the other resolutions line on the image description page will change for svg files (bugzilla:6834). Previously it only showed other resolution links for sizes smaller than what the width and height attribute on the SVG was. The end result was usually the other resolution line was not shown for SVG files. To see what the new functionality looks like, compare File:CC_some_rights_reserved.svg on beta wiki vs commons. Given that SVGs are vector images, it will now shows other resolution links for all sizes regardless of the source image size. Given this change, I think it would make sense to disable the SVGThumbs function in mediawiki:Common.js, as it essentially duplicates MediaWiki functionality (but with slightly different size choices). Bawolff (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

That's great news, thanks! -Pete F (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. We can then drop function SVGThumbs() { from MediaWiki:Common.js. Less code. Less maintenance work. Less JavaScript load. Superb! -- Rillke(q?) 09:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

CirrusSearch now live for all users on Commons

As part of our continued rollout of the new search I've enabled CirrusSearch as the primary search engine on Commons. If you're having any problems searching, please let us know in this thread or on Bugzilla. If you're looking to compare search results to the old search engine, you can do this by appending &srbackend=LuceneSearch to your api.php queries and Special:Search queries. Thanks so much for your feedback and patience :) ^demon (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Pleclown found a query that's worse in the new search. I started a list at User:Bawolff/search_result_comparision. Please add to it if you find any that are worse in the new so we can keep track of them somewhere (Perhaps that page shouldn't be in my userspace. I didn't know where to put it). Bawolff (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The search that I run on a regular basis to search for copyright violations grabbed from Google which looks something like "source: google" -"book search" -"" -"booksearch" -"google art project" -"google books" -"google scan" now returns no results. How do I use negations with this thing? LX (talk, contribs) 08:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I had better luck with insource:"source: google" -insource:"book search" -insource:"" -insource:"booksearch" -insource:"google art project" -insource:"google books" -insource:"google scan. Bawolff (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

July 08

File:WM Sport National.png

What is the base image for this map? It may be required for attribution purposes (policy says that we need it even if not). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 07:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks much (but not exacly) like File:BlankMap-World-alt.png. We have thousands of maps like this, most of them lacking attribution of the original source or even intermediate sources like File:BlankMap-World6.svg. It seems however, that they are ultimately based on the CIA Factbook (=Public Domain). It would probably take months to clean up this mess … --El Grafo (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

New RfC: Proposed overhaul of the "Which files should be renamed?" section of Commons:File renaming

An RfC has been started at Commons talk:File renaming, with a proposed overhaul of the criteria for which files can be renamed. Your input would be appreciated. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

July 09

Confusing gadget documentation

I see the following pages:

Should some of these talk pages perhaps redirect to others, as is done with, say, MediaWiki talk:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete? If not, someone needs to improve the documentation at the top of each talk page, because it all seems very confusing. - dcljr (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Certain pages extremely slow in Firefox

Pages such as Paris are extremely slow in loading and navigating in Firefox 30.0. The CPU uses 100% and the used memory is 1.1 GB. After 10 minutes I have to force stop Firefox, start Firefox again and immediately delete the page where I was looking at. Then it is back to 7% CPU. My Mac with OS 10.8.5, 2.9 GHz Intel Core, 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3 apparently can’t handle it. The same applies for certain Wikipedia pages with a very long list to links to Wikipedia pages in other languages. The strange thing is that I have it with Firefox and not in Safari. The use for Safari is 2% CPU and 100 MB. As I prefer to use Firefox I like to know whether there is a solution to adapt it so it works better? Wouter (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Your link doesn't work. For me, the page Paris loads within 3 seconds, also with Firefox 30, but on Windows 8.1. --Magnus (talk) 07:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Link is broken, plus wondering if that also happens with a fresh profile and no add-ons in Firefox. No problems here. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
If you can generate and post a js profile in firefox it might be able to diagnose where the problem is (Yeah, I know, those instructions aren't exactly user friendly). Bawolff (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Wouter, please note that all slashes in URLs must be like this: "/", and not like this: "\". But actually, in this case you could just use an "internal"-style [[wikilink]], as Magnus did. I've taken the liberty of fixing the original link. Anyway, now to my comment: FYI, that page loaded in about 7 seconds in Gentoo Linux FF 17.0.9, with no noticeable slowdown when scrolling... which I offer just for comparison sake. I occasionally run across pages that behave as you describe (not on any Wikimedia sites, thankfully). I don't know what causes it, but when it happens to me, I suspect bad Javascript code. I know this is an insultingly simple thing, but: have you tried reloading the page by clicking on the URL and hitting the Enter key (not using the Reload button or keyboard shortcut)? Sometimes whatever was causing problems is bypassed or fixed, or somehow fails gracefully on the second load, and things go back to normal. But usually not. [g] Worth a shot, if you haven't tried it. - dcljr (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I think my "fix" only works (to the extent that it does) if the page is still trying to load. Nevermind. - dcljr (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. Now the behaviour is normal again. When I have it again I will try the suggestions. Wouter (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking for an image

I am wondering if anyone can help me find a better copy of a wartime image. You can see the image here:, I am looking for the aircraft between Stuffy Dowding and the ambulance. This is Avro Anson K8758, which acted as a target aircraft for K6260, which was equipped with the first production air-to-air radar system. Google image search didn't turn anything up, but I strongly suspect on of the usual suspects here will know how to find this in one of the archives. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find the K8758, though there are around 200 matches at the IWM for Avro Anson link and many of there are in Avro Anson. -- (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Geogroup template dead

For example, Category:The Bronx, New York City does not lead to maps of the pictures as it did a few days ago. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

See here; it's a WMFLabs issue, not an issue with Commons alone. I've requested help from the maintainer. Nyttend backup (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
It's now working, at least at en:wp. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

July 10


E pluribus unum.jpg

What do you think of my image? Is it OK and why? --Alex‘s SeeSide 14:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Photography critiques is a better place for these kinds of questions. darkweasel94 14:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
It would be a lot more useful if you could add the location where it was taken, please! - MPF (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
What is it for? No More Cats (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

"Donating" images?

For those interested: I posted a topic on the Mediawiki Talk Page about the use of the word "Donate" for the commons mobile app. --Gambo7 (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

July 11

Question DR - keep duplicates of SVG because IE6 support.

As I tagged some duplicate images of SVG in the past which were deleted, now a DR was speedy closed (with false reason, there was only a template use on arabic wiki) with a PNG rendering copy.

Is this DR really invalid? I mean we really don't need IE6 support of transparency, which does simply add white background, which is also for this image "nearly completely" irrelevant. (The interpretation of Commons rules seems completely arbitrary and between decisions are worlds apart.)User: Perhelion13:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Do what you want, I only want understandable justice. However, some admins seem to be incompetent here.User: Perhelion14:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhelion -- I didn't use MSIE 6, but with MSIE 5.5 the handling of PNG images with alpha channel was definitely more complicated than filling transparent areas with white. Often a mysterious grey appeared, and occasionally black... AnonMoos (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Imo the DR was closed correctly. (We can not delete Files which are in use at other projects). --McZusatz (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Files which are in use should not be deleted. Also, if lots of people use IE6 in China, then files which work with IE6 are needed by some people, for example Chinese Wikipedia. I don't know what the files look like in IE6 as I haven't used IE6 for at least a decade. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
As I put the DR I was not aware of the high usage (it was not displayed for me) anyway this image is now deleted as duplicate (which I was also not aware). Anyway, nobody should support IE6 anymore (apart from the fact that even the IE 9 is set punishable)

✓ Done Thanks for response User: Perhelion21:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Photo with questionable copyright

I have questions about the claim that this photo is copyright free. It was taken in 1933, so unless the photographer died within 10 years of the photo being taken, it is still under copyright. What's the rule about photos where the photographer is unidentified, but the date of the photograph is known? LK (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

See File:PD-US table.svg for the likely applicable terms. As the image was taken in Chicago, it was likely also first published in the U.S. --Túrelio (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
No newspapers outside New York renewed copyrights prior to WWII, so if this was first published in Chicago, or simultaneously in a number of US newspapers, this will be out of copyright in the US. US copyright law is a lot different then that other nations, and death of author matters only for US works in cases where the work wasn't published prior to 2003.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes:: On a side note, that "no newspapers outside of New York" is new to me. If it's true, maybe we should put it on one of the U.S. copyright pages as a general hint. Where did you get that? --Closeapple (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
John Mark Ockerbloom discovered this fact when putting up (which really just a summary of what that page says.) (Though it looks like he's corrected it a bit: e.g. "Chicago Daily News: no issue copyright renewals found in CCE or registered works database; contributions renewed at least as far back as Jan. 20, 1923; see 1950 Jan-Jun", "Chicago Daily Tribune: issues renewed from July 15, 1946 (v. 105 no. 168); see 1974; contributions from prior to 1923 renewed; see 1950 Jan-Jun", "Oakland Tribune: no issue renewals found in CCE or registered works database; contributions renewed at least as far back as April 1, 1923; see 1950 Jan-Jun".) I assume syndicated material that was published in a huge number of papers at once would need its own renewal, and it's possible it got it at some points.
So that statement may not be entirely accurate, but it's basically true that there's a ridiculous amount of non-syndicated material and photographs that is PD in the US, probably all the way up to 1963. Virtually every semi-major figure should have PD photos in some local newspaper. Those contributions are probably a negligible volume compared to the PD newspapers; unfortunately, they mean a non-negligible amount of work checking for renewals.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
A few years ago I interviewed a magazine editor/publisher who was active from 1946 to 2003. He said that many companies didn't think it was worth the effort for 28 year old articles. There was a lot of recording keeping and paperwork involved. Gernsback Publications and Ziff Davis rarely if ever renewed a copyright. This changed with the Copyright Act of 1976. -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The 1976 said that works not published before 1978 didn't need a renewal. It was the 1992 act that said that renewals for anything published after 1963 weren't needed.
I have mixed feelings for it. The renewals put a huge amount of material available to everyone, but it really feels random what was and wasn't included (and a lot of people felt screwed by bureaucratic rules here) and figuring out that something wasn't renewed can be pretty complex. A relatively short copyright consistently applied would be more fair and less taxing on reusers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
And then USA signed a copyright treaty which restored the copyright to all of those works outside the United States.[1] The idea with a renewal requirement is that "unimportant" works quickly enter the public domain and become accessible to everyone, whereas "important" works remain protected for a long time. It helps people who occasionally need access to "unimportant" works, but also makes things difficult to people who need to use "important" works. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Help needed: fixing a file

Good afternoon. I found a minor typo in this map: just above Verona the municipality of Grezzana is misspelled 'Grezzano'. While I can upload a corrected version of the file without trouble, I've no idea how to substitute the new file to the old one so that it gets replaced in all of the pages where it's used. Thank you Cloverleaf II (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

And doing that will overwrite the incorrect original file? Alright, thanks! Cloverleaf II (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Laptop on old photo

Please help me to discover the laptop on this image. Looks like ThinkPad 750. Thank you. --Переславская неделя (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

try w:WP:Reference desk/Computing, unless you get lucky here. Wnt (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons wont accept a word doc

Commons wont take a word doc, which is what i have. what can i do?? Stuart roche44 23:37, 12 July 2014‎

Convert to PDF (try this). But content that was originally in MSWord format is very likely to be off topic in Commons, and your converted PDF may be flagged for deletion soon. Depending on its content, you may want to isolate any illstrations or diagrams as individual images and upload them separately, leaving the text to be added as such to any of the content projects (Wikipedias, Wikisources, Wikibooks, Wikiversities, Wikivoyages, etc.). -- Tuválkin 06:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Stuart roche44 -- Commons is mainly for media in free file formats with a fixed visual, audio, or audio-visual form, and Microsoft Word files don't really satisfy either part of this definition. PDF files are intended for externally-generated documents, not really for new user-generated documents (user-generated text content should be added to a suitable language-specific project, user-generated graphic content should be uploaded as image files, etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

July 13

Proposal for naming of staff accounts

After an incident a couple of days ago on the English Wikipedia, it seems more relevant than ever to reconsider how Wikimedia Foundation staff accounts with powers for office actions should be distinguished from personal accounts with no non-community granted special rights. This has been created at:

Your opinion is welcome! -- (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

broken template

The {{Header}} on Commons:Geocoding seems to be broken showing the wikicode and comments. Anybody has time to debug it? The template itself and the Commons:Geocoding page were not changed recently. --Jarekt (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism or whatever in Template:Lang-GEO. -- Rillke(q?) 12:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe it was whatever: An edit made with VisualEditor which messed up the code, maybe? -- Tuválkin 13:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely. VE edits get a tag and VE is disabled in the template namespace. -- Rillke(q?) 18:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

July 12

Cat-a-lot unavailable in User uploads

Cat-a-lot used to be available in User uploads, but it is no longer - not for me, at least. What happened? --Jonund (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

That would have been a feature I am not aware of. Visual File Change was and still is. -- Rillke(q?) 18:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Encouraging iPhone/iPad users to use VLC app to view our videos

Just a heads up, starting on Tuesday, we will be strongly encouraging people on iOS devices who play our audio/video files (from the desktop site. Mobile site is not included in the change) to download the free VLC app in order to play the file (Previously we just totally failed on those platforms). If you have an iPad/iPhone you can test the change now on (Including on files "from" commons, provided you're looking at them at the domain). This change does not affect people on other platforms. Bawolff (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

July 14

Flickr2Commons: inadvertent censorship?

Flickr2Commons (on labs) apparently sees (and therefore can transfer) only those Flickr images which are marked as "safe" in terms of which Flickr users may view them: e.g. no visible female human breasts, no visible genitalia, etc. (Yes, some people mis-mark their Flickr images in this respect, but they are cruising for getting their accounts blocked on Flickr.)

In theory, at least, Commons is not censored in this respect, and images of nudity, etc., should be exactly as available for upload as any other images. This came up because I was uploading from my photos of this year's Solstice Parade, and the bulk of the images of the naked, body-painted cyclists never showed up in the list of images to be transferred. As a result, at present Category:Solstice Cyclists in 2014 consists entirely of rather anodyne and unrepresentative images of this aspect of the parade.

I first brought up this Flickr2Commons limitation in an online meeting with some of the Labs folks about a year ago, at that time with respect to my photos from the 2013 parade, and was told it would be addressed, but obviously it hasn't been. Now that Bryan's tools are no longer available and labs effectively has a monopoly on such uploads from Flickr, I think the matter should be considered reasonably urgent. I really don't want to have to re-upload all of these images from my own computer: it is markedly faster to transfer them from Flickr. - Jmabel ! talk 05:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Censor, shmensor. No censorship involved. The uploader would need to have a Flickr account to see "non-safe" images, which would be technically quite a bit more complicated than the current implementation. I think this matter is of very low priority. And this is the wrong venue anyway; talk again with the people who maintain that uploader. They're the only ones who could do something about it, so you'll have to convince them that spending their time on this was time well spent. Lupo 07:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As I said, inadvertent censorship. But since the only tool we've got is completely unaware of the images, most people attempting a bulk upload will never see these, which effectively carries Flickr's filtering into our domain as censorship. As for venue: I pinged Magnus, who is the relevant person from Labs to see this. Other than him, it is mainly relevant to people at Commons, not Labs. - Jmabel ! talk 17:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I checked the API, but there is no easy way to do this; requires MD5 signature, oauth token, whatnot. Gave it a quick try, didn't work. Unlikely to fix anytime soon. --Magnus Manske (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
While Jmabel knows this perfectly, others may not and be wondering: It is always possible to upload these (or any) images from Flickr to Commons manually, with more work. -- Tuválkin 10:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Then no one should have assured me a year ago that this would be fixed promptly. And, yes, eventually I will upload these from my own machine, but I have a rather slow connection at home, so uploading twice (once to Flickr, once to Commons) is a pain. It is normally far simpler for me first to upload images I want on both to Flickr, then bulk upload from there to Commons. Apparently, this is not (and will not be) the case for anything Flickr considers "moderate" or "restricted". At the very least, this deserves a note at Commons:Flickr files, which I will add. - Jmabel ! talk 17:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I find the new OAuth verification a bit more complicated than the previous TUSC identification:
  • Verification is made on Mediawikiwiki (not Commons), so I must log in as mw:User:Stefan4. As I do not have an SUL conflict on that project, I typically do not use that user name there. Also, Commons users must enable SUL and eliminate SUL conflicts on Mediawikiwiki in order to use the tools.
  • If you disable all third-party cookies, then you need to reauthorise the tools each time you delete your cookies. If you have SUL conflicts, then you have to disable all third-party cookies, as SUL's autologin otherwise makes it very cumbersome to go from one project to another project. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Just tried to load the "new" Flickr2Commons, and for me, it doesnt't even load properly. It just doesn't stop loading, the browser window flashes constantly, and every now and then you can glimpse some input fields which are gone again in an instant. If you hit the stop loading button of your browser, you get the message "IF YOU SEE THIS, THINGS HAVE GONE VERY WRONG! Wait half an hour, then complain to [mailto: management]." What a disgusting mess is this? --Rosenzweig τ 21:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone tried importing them via UploadWizard? UploadWizard can import Flickr files (or entire photosets) if you have the ImageReviewer right. Kaldari (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

July 05

Upload of 200,000 Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) high resolution images

Main HABS category · Batch upload Project Page · Live Catscan list

151.8% — 303,504 files uploaded out of 200,000 (as of 20 June)


This huge upload of high quality photographs and plans is from the archive of the U.S. National Parks Service. Over the last couple of weeks I have been uploading most of those available from the Library of Congress. The images date from a year or two ago, to more than a century. Some are archives of the first photographs taken of buildings, others are surveys of buildings in ruins, and they vary from details of door knobs, through to landscape views of lakes and mountains. This first class collection provides Wikimedians and other re-users photographs to illustrate and learn about American history.

Sample gallery

There are a significant number of plans uploaded as TIFFs over 50 megapixels resolution but of a modest/small filesize. Derivative versions are being created as PNG files which can display on Commons, at precisely the same very high resolution though with a larger filesize, and there may be a minor/imperceptible loss of quality so it is important to keep the original file. See Uploads by Fæ (over 50 MP). Other systematic improvements are gradually being made to add geographical coordinates, fix minor format problems, add missing place categories, identify color photographs from the image EXIF data and cross-link sheets of drawings from the same archive document.

As well as the main HABS files, the collection includes the archives of the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) and the Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS).

Uploading is going to take several more weeks at a rate of around 2,800 per day. No special kit was needed, this is an example of an independent project with no funding or special support. I'm using my 7 years old macmini with a free installation of the Python programming language, and I have a 1GB freebie memory stick as a "swap space" to convert very large resolution TIFFs to PNGs when necessary (though I do have to turn off some processing when doing stuff in parallel is overly ambitious for my old machine and I start getting the wheel of death Rotating Pie 2.gif). -- (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. --99of9 (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
+1, Yes. Nice work! :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Things you can do to help with the HABS uploads

Corinthian style column in Pension Building (now the National Building Museum), Washington D.C., taken 1959—NRHP:69000312
  • All images need better categorization. Individual sites or buildings can be found by their location category, which is being added to files by finding the nearest existing Commons category matching the places listed on the Library of Congress record. Additional categories are needed relating to the image content, such as decoration styles, particular events or special categories for the building to help users find the images they might need.
  • Descriptions tend to be weak. Better explanations of the significance and background to a building and links to other articles or images would be helpful.
  • On the English Wikipedia, you can discuss issues such as whether to include images on articles, or create articles for the historic site or building at the WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. The photographs probably cover all major buildings currently on the National Register of Historic Places (84,000 sites). There is currently no automatic way to link to NRHP references, though {{NRHP}} can be used to add any that are spotted, volunteers are needed to explore and discuss the best way of identifying NRHP sites. At the time of writing, 200 photographs were already identified with NRHP numbers, see this live catscan report.
    • Update Where NRHP numbers are available from the Library of Congress (parent) record, these are being added to the images automatically now. As a result the number with the template has jumped by 500 in one day. On the English Wikipedia a handy bot report is available to show new images that have been added to NRHP marked categories, you may want to add it to your watchlist there: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Unused images
    • Update This HABS "category wanted" backlog is being generated to make it easier to see where Commons needs new categories for some NRHP registered sites. Remember to add {{NRHP}} to the new category page.

I am hoping to finish, or mostly finish, the uploads in advance of Wikimania in August, to use as a case study for my talk about the GWToolset. If you have ideas for improvement, or are using the images to create Wikipedia articles or use elsewhere, please do leave a comment. :-) -- (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Not forgetting to add a single representative image for each building to its Wikidata entry, if one exists (or create one!), using property P18, "Image". Great work, Fæ! Andy Mabbett (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Using the new search engine to categorize HABS uploads

Thanks to the new search function on Commons (thank you to everyone involved), it is easy to produce relevant lists of images and use Cat-a-lot to sub-categorize along with the new "incategory:" filter. Obviously the results will get longer as the main HABS category gets populated with the archive, so worth running searches again in a few weeks. Some example searches to get you going:

Great stuff to discover and reuse in there. :-) -- (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Transcription template needs language switch

Category:Needing transcription is pleasingly busy, but has images of text in English, German Russian, and possibly other languages. The associated template, {{Transcribe here}}, needs a switch, so that language code ("en", "de", "ru") can be entered, which will change the emitted category accordingly. Can somone help with that, please? Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

As I see there is only one category? Ruslik (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)



Commons:Tools needs a big update with replacement by WMF labs links. I am looking the replacement for [2]. The gadget needs updating too (as well as several others). Regards, Yann (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Some tools are listed but accounts are also listed. But I don't think a replacement tool exists (yet). Bidgee (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Updated the page (removed old broken ones, except daniel's) and added a few news tool. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Wanted: Clashing of the Swords

As I've commented at Jimbo's page, there are news reports that France (specifically w:Bernard Cazeneuve) is preparing to introduce draft legislation that "will not tolerate messages calling for or glorifying jihad to be shown on its soil with impunity." I think that this (like their previous actions on hate speech) will turn out to be a spectacularly counterproductive idea, and that a freedom of navigation exercise separating Commons from this idea would be useful.

Presently in the news is a very depressing but very instructive video, "Clashing of the Swords IV", being distributed by an al-Qaeda media center called "al-Furqan Media Productions" on CD. They seem very eager to have the world see it, though I don't think it will help their cause; for our part, well, I saw more IED attacks in that footage than I've seen in two decades of media, and that is alas by no means all that is in it. Presumably we want the whole series. The problem is, is there some way that we can see clear to claiming we have permissions on this content? (If so, we may need to find a version closer to the source - I don't know if those subtitles are al-Qaedas, and I haven't even figured out how to rescue the Liveleak content from its Flash prison. We want it in a format that is easily subdivided and stills taken at full resolution to assist commentary web-wide) Will we have any trouble seeing clear to getting this content for Commons? Wnt (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I should add that on searching, I found we have a current ongoing issue with a file from ([3]) which is under a flag for unknown copyright status at File:AbuBakrBagdadi.jpg. I remember there was some contention over "PD-press release", but seriously, is there any way we see clear to hosting content that is obviously being disseminated in an unrestricted way by the author's permission, when it doesn't use the formal magic words "public domain" because the people who made it tend to burn their passports and limit their legal issues to sharia? Wnt (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
They may want their video disseminated, but presumably there's no explicit licence that permits modifications and commercial use. Perhaps they aren't likely to sue regardless, but that's meaningless for Commons. --ghouston (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Commons cares about copyright even when a copyright owner does not. (Admittedly, sometimes that sucks.) --El Grafo (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The curators at have hosted these videos and have assumed a Creative Commons:Public Domain license. It has the appropriate license, so can they be used? - Technophant (talk)

Something wrong with an "OTRS" image

The image says it is from 2010, but this is impossible. The woman in the middle, Nastassja Kinski, would have been 39 years then, and in 2009 she looked like this: -- 09:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The movie is en:Maria's Lovers and has been shot in 1984. Pleclown (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The date given in the file description corresponds with the Date and time of digitizing in the EXIF data. Should probably be changed to 1984 if the permission is valid. I'll leave a message at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. --El Grafo (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
@Pleclown: Sorry, didn't notice you have OTRS access. So the permission is valid? --El Grafo (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
As I don't speak or read hebrew, I didn't even try to see the ticket. I was just pointing that the date of the photo is likely 1983 or 1984 and not 2010. Pleclown (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Alright, then let's see if someone else can help here. --El Grafo (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Why is this here instead in the photo’s talk page: Better, why not simply fixing an obviously wrong date introduced as an artifact of a well known mechanism (exif date from scans). And why would a wrong date question an OTRS validation? -- Tuválkin 13:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Who does look on a talk page? How should I know the real date? How should I know what exif is? How should I know that this might have been added automatically? And if someone says "This is my picture and it is from 2010" but it is form 1984, then why shouldn't this question the validity of the permission? -- 15:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
You dont know what EXIF is yet you know what is OTRS? Very selective. -- Tuválkin 16:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
This is the way you treat people here? Before assuming people are liars, you should have a look at the picture page. There is a big box explaining OTRS, and somewhere at the bottom is a paragraph "Metadata", where the word EXIF is mentioned. Even if one scrolls to the bottom, how should one know that "exif" could have anything to do with the date added to the page? -- 19:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
You did fine by asking here. Just don't pay attention to the inappropriately confrontational behaviour of one individual. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Asclepias is right: This is the way I treat people here, while most others, especially admins, are ultra mellow with newbies: the dumber and destructive the newbies are the mellower the reception — they save their fangs to rip apart interested and hard working contributors. As for Mr./Mrs.’s concerns: Yes, an IP/annonymous request that comes to the Village Pump trying to asperse doubt in the work of the OTRS team on transparently bogus claims and then backpedals to say «Oh, I dont even know what a manner of frivolity an exif is, my good sir»… nah, I dont buy it. If you’re a genuine newbie, well, here’s a handy link, but I don’t think you are. You’re someone with a grudge on a fishing expedition. -- Tuválkin 01:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

July 16

Copyright status of works by the North Carolina government

North Carolina General Statutes § 132‑1(b) holds that "The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people. Therefore, it is the policy of this State that the people may obtain copies of their public records and public information free or at minimal cost unless otherwise specifically provided by law. As used herein, "minimal cost" shall mean the actual cost of reproducing the public record or public information." Is this statement enough to consider works by the NC government automatically in the public domain? I'd like to get photos #9 through #11 from this page onto Commons, though I could settle for the Coast Guard ones, as well. (Uploading atm.) Cloudchased (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

NC government works are public domain, the statute just allows for admin fees if they are relevant. If media is already released online, then it can be taken as PD. {{PD-US-GovEdict}} is probably the best license to use. Take care if images are taken by independent citizens and uploaded to a NC Gov website, as these may not be PD. -- (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
en:Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Humanities/March_2006#North_Carolina_public_records / en:Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_23#Template:PD-NCGov concluded the situation is not clear. Available to the public does not mean public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I briefly looked through the template deletion discussion from 8 years ago on the English Wikipedia, and I found it bizarre. The close appears to go against an overwhelming consensus to keep, and I note that the closer has not contributed to the projects for the last 5 years. That discussion should not be considered to represent an existing consensus for Wikimedia Commons. If you wish to find an example uploaded file that is public domain under the North Carolina general statutes, you may want to either take the time to write to the NC local government IP department, or create a DR on this project to test the matter. As far as I am concerned, if the local government has stated in a binding statute that the intellectual property in their works is to be owned by "the people", then it is intellectual sophistry to interpret that as anything other than public domain, as no individual or organization can ever have a claim of copyright in the work that they could defend in a court of law that could stop "the people" (i.e. us) from reusing the works as we see fit. -- (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The regulation is even older, so its hard to simply ignor previous discussions. But sure, it always worth reviewing someting like that. You say that "property of the people" means "public domain" and is not only related to public access. Can you provide a source for that? --Martin H. (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Ownership of property typically goes hand-in-hand with an ability to decide what can be done with that property. I don't think a source is needed, though it definitely couldn't hurt. Rather, I think a source would be needed for the opposite -- "you own this, but you CANNOT use it." That, it seems to me, would be a very strange thing for the authors of the NC law to have said, and I would definitely want to see a source for a conclusion like that.
It should be noted -- like PD-USgov, this is "public domain" for a limited group of people -- in this case, the people of NC. I don't have a clear idea how much that should affect our approach to NC gov-authored works. -Pete F (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
That does not mean that each individual has a choice over how it is used, as I said below, releasing the works -ND-NC would meet the policy, the state (for the benefit of its Treasury and thus the People of the state) could then licence the works for a fee. LGA talkedits 00:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The statute is about public access, it says nothing about copyright. The people - the sovereign - also decided that there is a copyright law, its not up to us to make a different decission. --Martin H. (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict × 2) @: I don't see the outcome of the enwp debate as bizarre, rather thoughtful "This issue cannot be solved by a vote. It requires us to do legal research, and possibly obtain legal advice" shows a high degree of common sense in fact. That aside, if the North Carolina government released it's works -ND-NC it would be complying with it's own policy so we need to have a more definitive source as to how they are licensing the works to host them on Commons. {{PD-US-GovEdict}} is not appropriate unless the works are of an administrative nature such as "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments or public ordinances", none of the images listed by the OP are such. LGA talkedits 23:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
This discussion about various U.S. states keeps coming up, and for some reason people keep wanting to reply by looking at laws, requiring public agencies to provide access and copies, and re-interpret them as laws about the right of random private people to copy things from other random private people when neither of the people were the creator. Just because a state law says that a public agency has to allow you to get a copy from them, it doesn't necessarily mean that you have a license or any other right to copy it to others. The laws are usually written to be a required behavior of public agencies; remember that public agencies are created and ruled by the state, and the state can tell them to do anything the legislature wishes. That is not the same as the state releasing the copyright or any other rights over the intellectual work contained in the copies. If a book author gave you a copy of a book as a gift, would you consider that to be permission to make more copies and distribute them? Copyright law does not make a distinction between a state or local government work and a private author's work. (In the U.S., any part of the work that is an edict of government cannot be restricted, however, regardless of its source.) For North Carolina specifically: I am not a lawyer, but I think the phrase "the property of the people" is more rhetoric than any legally defined meaning; many legislators are lawyers, and if they meant to say "public domain" they would say it. Absent specific law, court ruling, or order by the state to limit the power of the state to restrict further copying, I would say that North Carolina doesn't have a law releasing its (non-edict) works from copyright. --Closeapple (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm tired, but this discussion seems rather pointless, verging on discussing what the word "word" means. Creative works which "are the property of the people", and nobody can make a valid sole claim of ownership without overturning a statute, is pretty obviously intended to make the property public domain. To make this real, real easy, (A) the file uploaded and displayed to the right of this text has been made and published by the North Carolina state government, so that could be a suitable DR if anyone feels like setting a precedent and (B) if anyone wants to actually write and ask the North Carolina government, you can contact the Governor at or there is a phone number for the NC Secretary of State at -- (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
this upload is so clearly POINTY that I would think the first administrator that comes across it should speedy delete it as such. The North Carolina State Legislative Building is owned by the people, that does not mean anyone could demand to hold a meeting in either of the chambers, the same goes for these documents, they need a specific copyright release from the state not someone trying to bend a law to imply something that is not clearly intended. LGA talkedits 07:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Please follow either A or B above. It's easy, you can even see some past examples of my writing letters to governments at User:Fæ/email, I just don't see why it should always be me that does this when so many good contributors have time to put up hypothetical reasons against keeping PD works.
As for pointy, nonsense. I am well known for uploading over 300,000 public domain government works; this is just another on that pile and perfectly valid based on that experience. I just don't hang around talking about uploads, rather than getting on with it. -- (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not that familiar with US law (not living there), however the distinction between physical property and copyright is made in Title 17 U.S. Code § 202. Consequently property law pertaining to public buildings is quite a separate matter from IP law. -- (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
My appreciation for your dedication. But one tip: It would be very helpful if you lable your personal opinion as such. "NC government works are public domain" is not a fact, it is nonproven or unprovable and it is very much possible that others conclude different on the basis of the same legal framework. Its your personal opinion. Just dropping it here like a fact can be seen as very disruptive by others - at least by me, dedicated to reliability rather than number of files. --Martin H. (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Your use of the words "very disruptive" has a conventional meaning within the Commons:Blocking policy. The words you have chosen to use appear to be a warning from an administrator which I do not find appropriate if we wish to encourage open discussion. I have no intention of qualifying every comment I make on the Village pump with a disclaimer saying that I am not a lawyer or that my views are my own rather than any organization I am associated with; it can be presumed that applies to every comment that everyone makes here, and were I to start doing it, it would probably be quickly complained about as pointy and sarcastic. My viewpoint is based on both my experience over several years with government copyright issues and as supported by the precise wording of the NC statute, as explained above, which I find convincing unless there is some evidence that the North Carolina government defines media files belonging to "the people" as something other than public domain when not (as the statute goes on to give an example case of) specifically qualified otherwise.
With regard to the idea that just because one Commons contributor creates ten times or a hundred times the number of uploads compared to another, that they must be more sloppy when it comes to copyright; if you wish to provide feedback on my uploads, I would appreciate some real numbers, perhaps you could spend a moment statistically comparing accuracy on copyright on uploads for this year before jumping to assumptions. Before I start a major upload project such as the HABS upload of 200,000 images above, I run tests, discuss options on a specific project page and canvass for opinion on improvements to accuracy and template use. During the upload I continue to respond to feedback and improve the process and make corrections to existing uploads. As a result the percentage accuracy in terms of copyright statements for my uploads is highly likely to be a magnitude more accurate than the vast majority of regular contributors to this project. Faster is not always better, however it is a lazy assumption that faster must always be worse. -- (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


If any other volunteer has a moment, particularly those that actually live in the USA, perhaps they could write or phone appropriate contacts as per if we don't get a speedy reply from the Governor. -- (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick thought on this debate. South Carolina also has a Freedom of Information Act which permits the public to have access to public documents (with a few exceptions involving on-going police investigations and stuff like that) at a very low cost. But, that has been interpreted by a court as not surrendering the copyright in the documents. It's the same idea as a library. Just because I have a right to access the materials for free doesn't mean I have a copyright in them. (Yes, I know there are differences, but it's an analogy.) Also important is who the "People" are in the law. In Virginia, it is only citizens of Virginia who can get cheap copies of government documents, not everyone. So, that would be a problem on Wikipedia.ProfReader (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
It is worth looking at the specific wording of this act. The whole leading sentence of sec. 132-1 is "The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people." The term "public information" would include the map above. Even if "property of the people" were interpreted by a court to mean "property of [citizens of North Carolina]", this would mean that if an uploader to Commons were a citizen of North Carolina, basic property law would mean they could provide a free release when uploading any media files published by NC government. A natural corollary would be that no court would bother hearing a case by an agent of the NC government to enforce copyright on such files.
Anyway, this is a bit overly hypothetical when we can get an answer direct from NC government by simply asking them. -- (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
They would not be able to do that on their own, they would need the consent of the rest of the population of the state. LGA talkedits 22:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
A literal legal reading would indicate that rather than consent from all citizens, all we would need would be a release from a single citizen. Just phone one up at random. :-) -- (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I contacted an acquaintance of mine at the State Library of North Carolina. She told me that it is the opinion of the State Library that North Carolina public records are public domain. However, she cautioned that the State Library is aware of no definitive ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction on this matter, nor is the library aware of a clear statement to that effect by a relevant official. Consequently, the official position of the State Library contains a few weasel-words and is as follows: "Public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people (G.S. § 132); consequently the State Library of North Carolina considers this item to be in the public domain according to U.S. copyright law (see Title 17, U.S.C.). Responsibility for making an independent legal assessment of an item and securing any necessary permissions ultimately rests with persons desiring to use the item." The official State Library of North Carolina position is here, a link to which can be found on any NC state document in the North Carolina Digital Collections (e.g. following the Rights link at the North Carolina state government flag guide leads to that statement). While the statement from the State Library is not as official as we might like, the State Library is part of the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, which is a state agency of North Carolina. We could probably build a template {{PD-NCGov}} with that statement as a reference, somewhat along the lines of {{PD-MAGov}} (assuming we agree that PD-MAGov is itself valid). —RP88 (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Draft template started at {{PD-NCGov}} so it can be hacked about and discussed. It probably should stay draft until we have a statement from NC Gov itself. -- (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Please re-tweet!

As there has been more than a week since my email to the Governor of North Carolina, I have tweeted here.

Please retweet! This can often get the attention of politicians more quickly than one email (especially from someone who is not a local voter). :-) -- (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@: Your tweets are protected. It is impossible to retweet them. odder (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Now unprotected! -- (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

July 07

Crimea: NoFoP or not? that is a question

hello there! Russia has occupied Crimea (old news, i know) and Russia is going to have a limited FoP soon (October 1, 2014, everybody is looking forward to it, i am sure). what exactly means 'the legal status of Crimea is disputed' on Commons? practically. are we going to allow uploading pictures of buildings in Crimea as it will be ✓OK for buildings beginning 1 October 2014 in Russia+Crimea? or is this 'disputed' too much, thus Ukrainian law (actually) will prevail? --アンタナナ 15:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that Commons should keep to stricter law, in this case Ukrainian, to keep ourselves out of possible legal problems. But perhaps someone could pick WMF legal team? Those WMF teams never respond to my emails so better it'd be someone else to ask. --BaseSat (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
okay, let's do it this way: @GeoffBrigham (WMF):, @LuisV (WMF):, @Mpaulson (WMF):, @Slaporte (WMF):, @YWelinder (WMF):, @AVoinigescu (WMF):, @Dchen (WMF):, @MBrar (WMF):, @RPatel (WMF):, @JVargas (WMF):, @CRoslof (WMF):, @Philippe (WMF):, @Jalexander:, @Mdennis:, @PEarley (WMF):, @JEissfeldt (WMF): please would you be so kind to help us here? --アンタナナ 21:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
For the WMF US law will apply, and since the US (as well as the UN) have not recognized Crimea, in any case where local copyright law was relevant, Ukrainian law would probably apply (though admittedly none of us can think of a case quite like this one!). Of course, for any uploader physically located in Ukraine, Crimea, or Russia, those local laws may apply much more directly, so individual uploaders in those areas should look to local law, and if they wanted to be conservative, comply with the most restrictive of the two potentially applicable laws. Hope that helps.—Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
This is not an issue for the legal team, AFAIK. The legal team is only concerned with US law, period. We honor local laws purely out of good will in order to keep the spirit of free works (and, admittedly, possibly to keep local Wikipedias from being blocked by home nations, a situation that doesn't apply here). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
@Luis Villa, thanks for your assessment.
@Magog the Ogre, our policy sounds a bit less chauvinistic. --Túrelio (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
thanks, everybody --アンタナナ 13:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

July 15

Vandal ?

Please show at the contributions of this anonym IP here. Thank you very much. --DenghiùComm (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem with them. (Nearly) all of the talkpages were correctly tagged as being out-of-scope. --Túrelio (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Talk pages out of scope? They are part of the category! I think a talk page cannot be out of scope... Perhaps the discussions in it, but sure not the page! Cheers, --DenghiùComm (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure, it's the content which is oos. Nevertheless, it's standard practise to delete such pages. --Túrelio (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the information. I did not know that it's a standard practise to delete such pages. Thank you again. --DenghiùComm (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

flickr2commons down?

I just tried unsuccessfully to upload photos using flickr2commons, several times: I always get the red box («Transfer failed [1] :») for all photos: They are all confirmedly absent from Commons, the licensing is compatible, the suggested filenames include nothing weird, I confirmed my OAuth… What’s going on? -- Tuválkin 10:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Works for me: File:33 Lazarettgasse (5155209623).jpg. darkweasel94 10:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Dankon. Afero mia, do. Nu, des pli bone. -- Tuválkin 10:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Separation of advanced user privileges

Hi community—I just started a request for comments on the idea of separation of advanced user permissions. The proposal aims to prohibit users from holding more than one of the following functions on Wikimedia Commons: bureaucrat, checkuser and oversighter, and is currently awaiting your comments. Thanks a lot for your time :-) odder (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

July 17

Commons communication concrete (English)

Because here are many not native English speakers (or readers and English is the main language), so it would be very very helpful, more or less, for everybody, if someone who replies, is invited at the same time to correct the text on coarse misspellings (for example, it is desired in the German WP). But it seems forbidden in the English WP!?! I've never seen this by other users here (and here are really many and big misspellings), this an clear evidence of (social) incapacity of Commons. So I propose this clearly, somewhere to mention this in a recommendation page. Greetings User: Perhelion05:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I've seen it, and personally I'm glad when someone corrects me. But on the other hand, I don't feel comfortable directly editing other people's messages and pointing out errors "publicly" in an own message feels too much like smart-assery (ist that a real word?). --El Grafo (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Whether "smart-assery" is a word in English, "ist" definitely isn't. :) SCNR darkweasel94 11:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
darkweasel, you made my day! I was laughing so hard, I had to step outside for a minute to come down again :D --El Grafo (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@El Grafo: Ok, an user-page is somewhat a bit others (good to see a 5 years old edit :P). In your second link, I don't see any correction!? PS: Sorry, thats not my humor. User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)20:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@Perhelion: yeah, sorry, that's probably not exactly what you had in mind: I had written "neither" in my comment (which was wrong) and two edits later Jee responded with a friendly "either. :)" – pointing out my error rather than directly editing my comment and correcting it. --El Grafo (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Friendly edits and correction are fine. But it is always wise not to edit comments by people to whom we have problems. :) Jee 08:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

July 19

Custom Search

How can I search for images by upload date?--عبد المؤمن (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A proposal of limitation of applying Commons:Courtesy deletions policy

While the status of the policy is proposed and in development, I have seen an example of the application of the policy which can significantly affect ordinary Wikipedia articles. As per this discussion about the issue with a WMF staff, I fear that Commons:Courtesy deletions policy can be misused by thousands of public figures as a form of censorship at this way, since "just they don't like hosting their image here". So I propose that the application of the policy shall be with limitations, at least including this case "taking and publishing a picture if the person depicted is a public figure and the picture is taken in a public event or in a public space, open to everybody". Most of laws of democratic countries allow taking and publishing a picture of a public figure in a public event or in a public space, open to everybody to support freedom of speech and press/right to know, even Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Libya do. --Puramyun31 (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Unless I misread, "courtesy deletions" have to be requested by the uploader, so I don't see how your concern would apply. - Jmabel ! talk 15:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see the need and it is not a policy (Mabye a {{guideline}}?) --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It is actually quite hard for a notable person to get their photographs removed as a courtesy from Commons. My understanding and experience from real past cases is that Administrators and OTRS volunteers are pretty resistant to deletions based on claims of personality rights, when photographs are taken in public places, such as conferences. Please keep in mind that there may be reasons discussed in confidence for a small number of deletions, such as contractual disputes with a photographer, or the possible falsification of a release, these hardly ever remove images from Commons that cannot be replaced by existing alternatives.
It should be true that Commons is not heartless, if a photograph was snapped by a fan at a conference of a celebrity at a bad moment, it is not unreasonable to consider deletion on request, so long as there are better alternatives. Sometimes discussions like this on OTRS result in their PR agent releasing better alternatives on a free license, an outcome I am always pleased by and only happens by being nice rather than a ruthless wikilawyer. :-) -- (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
What do you think, should {{guideline}} be added to the page? --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Fæ, unfortunately Commons have no alternative of the deleted images of the person I mentioned as an example of Commons:Courtesy deletions. "Sometimes discussions like this on OTRS result in their PR agent releasing better alternatives on a free license" does not apply in this case. --Puramyun31 (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: yes, though for a guideline it raises more questions than it answers. -- (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
@: Do you really want to strengthen Commons:Courtesy deletions rather than limit? If a person never permits hosting his/her images here, we will never be able to host the images and Wikipedia will never be able to use the images in the article about his/her? --Puramyun31 (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing in the guideline that would specifically endorse the DR you have referred to, though I have been involved in confidential cases of public photographs in countries with FoP that were deleted based on expectations of privacy, even in a public place; in my view there are circumstances where this is the best outcome. I suggest you go ahead and raise it at Undeletion requests. By the way, opinions from WMF employees are nice to have, but this is neither consensus, legal advice, nor the way Commons establishes its policies. -- (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
says that «it is actually quite hard for a notable person to get their photographs removed as a courtesy from Commons» — well, not: All it takes is a DR that gets closed by Fastily, as this one, among many: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Melanie Tipton.JPG. -- Tuválkin 20:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
As an editor, photographer, and admin, I've generally been sympathetic to anyone's request to remove a picture when we have (or they will offer) other pictures of them that are clearly as good or better, but if the person is at all notable and we don't have other pictures and they won't offer one, then I'm completely unsympathetic. - Jmabel ! talk 23:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
As the admin on the grill for this deletion, I think it would have been a good thing to at least notify me...
This was a courtesy deletion, and courtesy is not a vain word in french.
Pleclown (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated the images for undeletion. --Puramyun31 (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Fortunately, the undeletion request is concluded as undeleted. Thanks for Commons community, and User:Mdennis (WMF). best regards. --Puramyun31 (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

U.S. county seals

Hi there. I noticed a user adding a lot of seals for U.S. counties, such as this one. I found a copy of the seal online on the Mercer County website [4]. I didn't want to tag a bunch of images for deletion because I'm not sure of the copyright status of county seals. Thanks for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

One more question... I'm trying to undo this edit, but I'm getting a message telling me it's already been undone. However, there's no history of an "undoing", and the picture hasn't changed. Thanks again! Magnolia677 (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The current version and the previous version of the description page being identical, the system interprets your undo command as if the non-existent change you are telling it to undo has already been undone. Perhaps you are trying to revert to the previous version of the file. You can do that by clicking "revert" to the left of the corresponding thumbnail in the file history. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
An editor made corrections to the photo, and that photo is not to be edited. I'm tying to "undue" the edit but it's not letting me. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Did you find the "revert" link? -- Asclepias (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes! It was way over on the left side. This was an old NARA pic that had been photoshopped. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

July 20

Complete Darwin posted online

See here This is a real coup for Commons and Wikisource if someone has the wherewithal to upload it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I will look at the books in French language for a start. Thanks a lot for this notice. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
After a short research, it appears that most French books are already available elsewhere, notably on Internet Archive in a better quality. E.g. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres and the Dictionnaire des sciences naturelles. The manuscripts are probably not available elsewhere however. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Problematic user (wrong categories)

Please excuse me if there is a more appropriate forum to this subject. Parabolooidal (talk · contribs) seems to be well intentioned, but it keeps doing a big mess with categorization, removing right categories, putting redundant ones, creating duplicate categories and others with poor or wrong categorizations, etc. I contacted him the 8th of July and someone had already had done it the 30th June but it didn't solve the problem, which is aggravated by the fact that he changes a lot of photos

How do we deal with such cases? Anyone who ever tried to organize a couple of categories knows how tedious and complicated that is and often reverting wrong categorizations more complicated than just looking for the right categories. --Stegop (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

July 21

Clifton Royal Adams

According to [5], Clifton Royal Adams died in 1934, so the lovely colour pics on that page should presumably be PD. Any reason they're not? Anyone have a tool to scoop them up? Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


«1st uploaded as the 22,000,000th file in Wikimedia Commons»

Meh… I was uploading a batch of 87 mostely lovely photos of Lisbon taken in 2012 by flickr user Sharon Hahn Darlin when it crossed the line from 21 to 22 million… So I have this counter added to every my upload’s description (under {{Information}}):

| other_fields={{Information_field |name=1st uploaded as the|value={{subst:formatnum:{{subst:#expr:{{subst:formatnum:{{subst:NUMBEROFFILES}}|R}}+1}}}}<sup>th</sup> file in Wikimedia Commons}}

It turns out that number 22M got given to a derelict façade crocodile graffiti, which is located in a central spot in Lisbon and gets lots of tourist camera attention — not my favorite subject, not a really good photo, either (though interesting as it is framed on the balconies, not on the superimposed image). If I had cheated the system, I’d have chosen a better pic… -- Tuválkin 22:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yay! Congrats :)
(Not sure how reliable your system is though − after a quick look I noticed that File:Lisbon, Portugal (Sharon Hahn Darlin) casa amarela.jpg & File:A whopper of a graffiti art (Sharon Hahn Darlin).jpg whare the same number).
Jean-Fred (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
There were no deletions at that time, so it seems the counter takes some seconds to update. Still better than the manual method, though. --McZusatz (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

July 22

Monthly contests : Where?

Sometimes I get a ban or an advise about a monthly theme contest going on: Colours, pairs of objects, insects... But now if I try to search for them I cannot find any link to get into. I searched on the main page, on the village pump, I digited Commons:Contests but noting happens... Would it be possible to link them in an easy place, such as the main page? Or to make a resuming page with all the links (like Commons:Contests). That would be a way to make them more popular too. Thanks --Sailko (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The thing you mean is called Photo challenge. darkweasel94 16:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I think a link can be added to "Participating" in "Main Page". Jee 17:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure about the main page, but Commons:Community portal might be a good place as well – made a proposal for that --El Grafo (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
If by ban or an advise you mean the notice appearing on top of your watchlist, there's a link to the photo challenge main page right at the beginning of the message … --El Grafo (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Video editing software

I am planning to upload some videos to Commons, including video of a presentation about Wikipedia. I am trying to find free video editing software that supports OGV and WEBM. Does anyone have suggestions? I am using Blender but it has minor problems with synchronizing the audio and video. --Pine 18:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I've never used it, but have you tried w:LiVES. Bawolff (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
You could try Shotcut (all major operating systems) or Kdenlive (Linux, BSD, etc.). darkweasel94 07:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

July 23

More admins


Admins are constantly overbooked on Commons. The only long term solution is to have more active admins, both for a better service to other contributors, and a better review and speedy deletion of copyvios. Therefore I would like to start a discussion how to recruit more admins, and how to engage existing, but dormant admins, to be more active. All ideas and suggestions welcome!

To show the extent of the problem, look at Category:Media uploaded without a license as of 2014-07. Currently contains 652 images, on which probably 90% are copyvios. Help wanted! Regards, Yann (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

As well as a recruitment campaign for admins, the normal process of approaching someone who looks suitable works well. More current administrators should consider taking the initiative this way.
The issue of a backlog of copyvios is actually separate from granting sysop rights. If backlogs of this type are becoming unmanagable for the small community of administrators, we could look at unbundling the rights a little more. There is no particular reason why file deletion needs to be tied in with the right to block accounts, in the same way that significant rights such as filemover or license reviewer do not require going through a RFA. -- (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
But only admins can see a deleted file. Little chances that such a right (seeing deleted contents) will ever given to non admins. Jee 12:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why. Non-admins do a lot of trusted stuff than can be argued to be rather more tricky than looking at deleted files, anyway to be an OTRS volunteer, one frequently has to examine and make decisions about deleted material, and yet this does not require being a sysop. The most difficult sysop right, in my view, is making decisions about account blocks.
Saying this, the same discussion about unbundling has been had several times over the years, it has yet to result in significant changes to what is expected of administrators, even though a few additional rights have been conceived; so I'm not really expecting anything to change, just putting a stake in the ground so the option is not overlooked. -- (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
If seeing deleted files is an issue, wouldn't it be possible to create a new user group of Janitors (for the lack of a better naming idea) who only get the right to delete files but nothing else? Concerning recruitment: I agree that simply asking people might be a good approach. The admins currently working in the file deletion area probably know best who would be suitable candidates. --El Grafo (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Such a proposal has been rejected in the past, though it doesn't necessarily mean it would be today, now that admin tasks become more and more complex. -- Rillke(q?) 16:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Conversely, what you are proposing means that the rights to block accounts and pages remains concentrated into the hands of a small group with a low turnover, making the whole community look like a darwininan food chain with a small group of selfish predators at the top. Teofilo (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
What is time consuming is not deleting files per se, but reviewing them, and evaluating all arguments in complex deletion requests. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Yann: concerning reviewing, I've been wondering for some time: Do Symbol delete vote.svg Delete-votes plus a short comment at the simpler DR's which require no or only little research (quick example, another one) actually help the admins? Or is it just a waste of time that could be invested better into patrolling new uploads because you re-check them yourselves anyway? --El Grafo (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The first case is an obvious copyvio (now deleted). No need for input here. FoP are usually more complicated. Laws vary quite a lot between countries, and there are plenty of issues: age of the art work, 2D vs. 3D work, public or not public places, permanent or not permanent, etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Alright, then I won't start adding delete-votes to the obvious ones – that's all I wanted to know, thanks. --El Grafo (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Imho we have too much inactive admins. We need a better inactivity policy and not moor admins. And maby a new user group "deleter" --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm; when I checked the list, the most inactive admin is a very valuable user here. So we can't simply measure them based on the activity. I've no objection to the new usergroup, if practical. Jee 15:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
In terms of recruiting new admins, I wonder if you could make a list of non-admins who have a moderate number of contributions here, and are also admins or filemovers or other relevant rights at any other project? That might increase the number of non-English admin candidates in particular, which can only be helpful for a multilingual place like Commons. Also, for people with an en.wp focus, advertising the fact that Commons does not have an en-wp-style "hazing ritual", and/or directing them to training materials for the copyright questions that they can expect, might be helpful in convincing people to agree. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Have a guess what broken record I'm going to play... In all seriousness, I'd like to see former administrators who became inactive BUT are now active (x number of edits, number to be agreed upon) be eligible for re-sysopping (and I'd like the inactivity window extended to 1 year, even if it means nudging up the number of logged actions marginally). I'd like re-sysopping to be simple and uncomplicated - ask and get, subject to some checks that you didn't leave to avoid censure, but if necessary, we could grant returning inactive administrators temporary adminship, say three months or so (very much in the spirit of the temporary permissions given to users on smaller projects) and if they stay active, their adminship becomes permanent, if they're not active enough, their permission is removed. That can either be repeated once, then you force a new RfA, or it could be repeated ad-nauseam (like my thoughts on this whole subject) as it's only a log entry. The reason I bang on about this is I think (from personal experience) people dip in and out of Commons, and it's easier to find you've gone six months without an edit or logged action here than you might think. That, in turn, I think makes people hesitant to commit to adminship here, because they feel they have to be doing administrative action more regularly than they might be able to commit to for work/college/other personal reasons. Nick (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I second Nick's viewpoint. --Dschwen (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment See Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#New_group:_Deleter --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I support with both Nick's proposal and Fae's suggestion. My own opinion is that Commons has a woefully small number of active admins e.g. I can count on two hands the number of admins that I see regularly in deletion requests. At times the response time in speedy deletions is lightning fast but sometimes there is a backlog of up to a day. However I'm a big fan of evidence-based decision making. There are over 250 human admins, but I think it would be useful to have more numbers about them so we can gauge where the shortages are. For example how many languages do our admins understand between them and how many admins speak/read/eat/drink each language. Is it possible to have information about what times of the day/night admins are most active or most busy. Are there times of the day/night when we don't have any or few admins online? Nick mentioned former admins, so is there a list of such people? Barring admins who perhaps left under clouds, I would support a much simpler system of resysopping former admins e.g. a request at the birocrats noticeboard followed by an announcement at village pump. If there are serious objections, then they would need a fresh RfA but otherwise let's reduce the red tape. The other thing that is really needed is for currently active admins to think of potential candidates and prod them along a bit. I've only recently become active at Commons but so far I can think of several long-term-active non-admins who have consistently displayed the maturity, knowledge and patience needed for good admins. Green Giant (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Here is some of the data you are requesting: Commons:List of administrators by language, Commons:List of former administrators. --99of9 (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

July 24

RfC on the scope of file renaming criterion 2

Pursuant to the closing of the RFC "Proposed overhaul of the "Which files should be renamed?" section", a second RfC has been opened at Commons:Requests for comment/File renaming criterion 2 specifically to address the scope of criterion 2, which currently reads "To change from a completely meaningless name to a name that describes what the image displays."

Please note that I fully anticipate that the first few days will see a number of additional options proposed, so it may be a good idea to check back periodically on the RfC.

Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

July 25

image annotations broken

I noticed that adding annotations does not work correct. The Gadget-ImageAnnotator always adds |h=undefined| (h = height) so that there is no box but only a 0 or 1 px horizontal line for annotations, eg. see [6] how it happens. Can someone fix this please? Holger1959 (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Schau mal hier. -- Maxxl² - talk 14:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Auwei, that looks bad (lot of users know the problem for several days already). So if Krinkle is not active who else can help? Must be someone who understands this gadget. Maybe a developer?
I think we need help with finding all images with this sort of broken annotations. Holger1959 (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Only those edited recently show the fault. As it is obvious to the editor immediately after implementation I guess there is no need for such an action. -- Maxxl² - talk 15:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Any Commons sysop could do it. As already mentioned in the relevant talk page, they could begin by correcting the line 645 in the page MediaWiki:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js. It is just one letter to remove to fix the typo in the line. I really don't know if that will fix the problem, but it can't hurt to fix that broken line anyway. Hopefully, it will be enough to repair the gadget. If not, they could just revert the whole thing to the state where it was before Krinkle broke it. Krinkle seems to believe that his code is cooler or whatever, but from the point of view of users it just not useful to have pretty code if the tool doesn't work. It's better to have the good old code and a tool that works. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: Jmabel just fixed it [7]. Thank you! -- Asclepias (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
thank you all for the comments and Jmabel for fixing! Holger1959 (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
@Asclepias: Just to clarify a few things. I have no interest in "cool" code. Applications require maintenance to keep up with changes in the industry. In our case there are three factors relevant that drove me to update the gadget: 1) Browsers change, 2) jQuery changes, 3) MediaWiki changes. Keeping the old code as it is will not work forever! One of these days the entire gadget is going to be broken without having changed a single thing because it is relying on obsolete functionality that will change in web browsers, in jQuery, or MediaWiki. It'll do you no good to have a gadget that once worked on MediaWiki 1.16 in Firefox 4 when all your users have upgraded to Firefox 32 on a wiki now running MediaWiki 1.24. These kind of changes are generally a good thing, as they improve things (simpler, faster, better language support, compatible with newer browsers, etc.). And they're announced months ahead of time (on wikitech-l, mediawiki-l and wikitech-ambassadors mailing lists). Usage of deprecated features is also detected in the browser developers' console. Commons is one of few wikis with the luxury of various users experienced in javascript dedicated to keeping gadgets up to date. However there are still certain "large" gadgets that developers tend to avoid because they're so large and complex. ImageAnnotator is one of those. While updating it to accommodate for changes in the environment, I updated the coding style along the way because it makes a big difference in maintainability and readability to have consistently formatted code. It's like a dialect or accent in spoken language. One could learn any dialect, but it's much more productive to convert it to a dialect known by the developers active in the community today (incl. myself). The majority of our scripts and gadgets here on Commons are already written this way. The original maintainer(s) are no longer available to maintain it, so keeping it in that "dialect" only makes it harder others to work on it. So yes, I took it upon myself to try and update it before it's too late. In doing so I kept testing it to ensure it works properly and in the end made a stupid typo and typed 'sh' instead of 's' in an identifier string. I didn't revert it when I heard it was broken, I instead installed the old version as a separate gadget and disabled the new v3 gadget so that we can continue to work further on the new version. –Krinkletalk 17:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Krinkle: Of course, the words from Asclepias (to this changes) were a bit amateurish, but it was also unprofessional not to correct the obvious detected fault immediately. (PS: I found another small fault in one of your scripts, which I'll tell you later over a different way) User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)23:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Featured pictures on Wikipedia, Malaysian

Does this belong at Category:Featured pictures on Wikipedia, Malay? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd say so, since the Malay Wikipedia is Malaysian (the Indonesian Wikipedia is also a variant of Malay). --ghouston (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Fixed, it was a template issue. --ghouston (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Photos not PD in the US

About the images with URAA problems and the discussion generated about this issue, my question is: was there a decission about the latest files uploaded not in the PD in the US? For example, this photo (1975) and recently uploaded is in the PD in Argentina but not in the US.

Would be the correct procedure to nominate this image for deletion? I suppose so, but I have to be sure first. Thanks, Fma12 (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that the file has some issues that warrant a full DR, firstly it lacks full details of when it was published in Argentina so it can't be shown to actually be PD in the source (it is only PD if both 25 years old and published over 20 years ago). If it was first published after 1989 it will be in copyright in the US, likewise if it was published between 1975 and 1989 and it has a copyright notice on the rear of the postcard, even if the publication did not have a notice the URAA would have restored the copyright if the image was not published in the US within 30 days of publication in Argentina which seems unlikely for a postcard image. As for URAA, as per this the URAA can be a reason for deletion, if after the status of the file has been carefully evaluated there remain significant doubt about the freedom of the image under US law it must be deleted. LGA talkedits 04:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


If I have pictures I've taken myself that I want to upload to both Commons and Flickr, is there a "best practice" for how to do this? Should I upload to Flickr first, and then use Flickr2Commons to transfer my files to Commons, just as if I was transferring someone else's images from Flickr? Or should I just upload my images directly to both Flickr and Commons, without using the tool? What if I have images I've already uploaded to Commons, and then later I want to upload them to Flickr, too? Is there a template for "this image is also on Flickr" that I should use? (Which would be similar to, but different than, the "transferred from Flickr" templates.) Thanks! --Ppelleti (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

If they are your images and within scope, then you can upload them in any manner you wish as long as you sort out the licensing. If you upload your own images to Flickr first, make sure you use a free license like CC-BY-2.0, so they can then be transferred to Commons without problems. If you upload to Commons first, it won't matter where you upload it afterwards but preferably you should use the same license. One very effective way to ensure minimal problems is to put links at both your Flickr and Commons accounts to confirm they are operated by the same person. That avoids a lot of uncertainty. Green Giant (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Right, I'm using the Flickr userbox on my user page. --Ppelleti (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I basically upload to Flickr first, use Flickr2Commons to transfer my files to Commons, then make some small, systematic edits to broaden the licensing and make it clear that I'm the same person as on Commons. See history of File:Bon Odori Seattle 2014 - 118A (14742957753).jpg for an example of what I do by way of edits on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 01:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I assume you use the regex replace feature of VisualFileChange? Would you be willing to share your regex, so that I can avoid reinventing the wheel? --Ppelleti (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Perhaps even add it to Help:VisualFileChange.js/samples? --Ppelleti (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Also, is there a reason you change the https to http in the Flickr URL? --Ppelleti (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

July 27

Using precision parameter in location template

For the 200,000+ images in my Historic American Buildings Survey uploads, most have geolocation available and I am putting those in {{Location dec}}. It appears that accuracy of those location points is a little naff, though still of use, perhaps at around 200 meters accuracy. I can add the precision parameter "prec = 200m" to the location dec template, but playing around with it, it appears to do nothing, it does not even change the zoom level in the link to Google maps that it generates. So, for the moment, this looks unused.

Any opinions on whether using the "prec" parameter is a worthwhile change? Though I can wrap this in pending new images (perhaps another 100,000 to come), to be consistent this might also mean making around 100,000 additional changes to already uploaded files. -- (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it can be useful. In fact, it can be useful even in Wikipedias to geolocate articles. Anyway the key point is how we and reusers are using it.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Using the number of digits written down is a good way to indicate precision, usually. -- Rillke(q?) 13:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Very often it indicates false precision. I work with NRHP sources that give coords to D.xxxxxx that someone converted arithmetically from D|M|S, thus claiming highly spurious precision. Even where this isn't the cause, coords are often two or three streets off, when their indicated precision is a fraction of the street width. I have not been adding the |prec:x| parameter when correcting these; merely using the "digits written" method; perhaps that ought to change. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on views here, I'll add the 'prec' parameter set to '200m'. I'll also have a look at trimming the lat/lon numbers where they have "9999..." added on, it's an obvious false precision and seems a common problem. -- (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to mention that almost all outsiders who do coords for building pictures, only try to give the building location rather than the camera. Thus, it should be Template:Object location or its dec version. Apart from pictures from GPS cameras, most camera locations are handiwork and only provided for those few pictures that attract individual attention. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Good point, swapping to using Object location too. -- (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it is a very good idea to add the prec parameter (in general). I did not even know such an option existed!
It is not mentioned in Commons:Geocoding#Parameters as far as I can see, nor mentioned in the massive en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. It is so more natural to specify a precision in meters than by truncating decimals in the most likely latitude/longitude coordinates (and you actually losse information by doing so). Moreover, it is really complex to understand how the precision leads to truncation of decimals. Especially, for the longitude as it depends on the lattitude how many decimals to truncate for a precision of x meters. There is a looong complicated formula for it on the aforementioned Wikipedia page, and by truncating decimals you only get a precision within a factor of 10. That is, you cannot state a nuance if the precision is 60 m or 100 m. A detail which may be important. : where is the prec parameter specified? It would be nice if documentation for its use could be added to the aforementioned pages, but that of course requires knowledge about how it works. For instance: are other units than m allowed? I have often missed such a parameter, for instance for plants I have photographed in Greenland, far away from known infrastructure. Here I have only known the location approximately, but I have not known of any natural way to specify that. Another important case is for threatened plant species where you deliberately want to offset the specified location from the actual location, as the exact location should be kept secret to avoid the plants are removed by plant collectors. In those cases one may want to specify a imprecise precision like 3 km.
Finally, it would be really nice if the Swizz army knife of location templates could be updated such that it would be possible to indicate a precision as well, when creating a geocoding template. I will direct the maintainer of this tool to this discussion en:User talk:Teslaton/Tools/GeoLocator. --Slaunger (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Prec is included in the parameter definition of {{Location}} and {{Object location}}. -- (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer. I have asked Jarekt, who added this parameter in April to flesh out the documentation for the parameter out a bit more in these templates, as it is not very clear (for me at least) how to specify a unit and which unit(s) are allowed. --Slaunger (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I’ve been adding/keeping/correcting a lot of geolocation. I found that often both {{Object location}} and {{Location}} (or {{Location dec}}) add good information to a file page; in categories (about landmarks) only {{Object location}} makes sense, of course. It is also very common that instead of a specific exact location a generic “main square” or “townhall” lat+long is provided, which is useless for us: Most of the times we do have non-numeric categories for cities/towns, and even for individual streets, no need to convey such low grain information by means of (bogus) geolocation. -- Tuválkin 20:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

July 28

A little help - mobile version

I don't know what's going on, I tried to modification one page including "mobileshowonly", but this piece of... is not working! If do not put "display:none" the mobile thing appears in the "desktop" page, but if I put, is not appearing in the mobile version.

Could pleas help me here?

This is the page: Commons:Esplanada/cabeçalho Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia Drifting to the Right?

I have noticed what seems like a right wing bias in a number of articles lately. For example, in 'Indonesian Invasion of East Timor' it says '100–180,000 soldiers and civilians are estimated to have been killed or starved'. That's misleading, to say the least. The 2,500 page UN report estimates 183,000 civilians killed, not 'soldiers and civilians'. The article also says 'the military procured new advanced weaponry from the United States, Australia, and other countries'. Again, misleading (lying). Minimizing US role by including 'Australia and other countries'. From the National Security Archive: 'Ford Administration officials knew from the start that Indonesia launched its invasion of East Timor 'almost entirely with U.S. equipment, and that the use of this equipment was illegal'. Almost entirely U.S. equipment. What's up? Why the falsehoods and obfuscation? Any idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This is the Wikimedia Commons. You should ask this question at the English Wikipedia's Village Pump. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

July 30

Decade-related categories added by templates

I've been working on resolving redlinked categories. I've noticed quite a few of them which are related to decades and are added by templates. In many cases, there are no decade-related categories defined at all for the topic. Some examples are:

Template:InstrumentProductionYear also adds quite a few redlinked "see also" categories (see Category:1980 instrument productions for an example).

There are many others for places by year (similar to Template:South Yorkshire year). Of the templates I've spot-checked, many but not all were created earlier this year (but not all by the same user). I'm wondering if we want to create all those decade-related redlinked categories, change the templates so that they don't add them, or neither. It seems to me that the decade categories aren't necessary in all cases. Comments? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Filtering Latest files

Hello, is there any way to filter Special:NewFiles? Every once in a while, we have experienced users uploading huge amounts of images that don't really require checking. Hiding them would make patrolling new uploads much more convenient. I vaguely remember that there was something like "recent uploads by new users" but all I can find is Special:Contributions/newbies, which doesn't have thumbnails. --El Grafo (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It isn't updated in real time, but I think you're looking for User:OgreBot/Uploads by new users. darkweasel94 10:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I always use -- Rillke(q?) 10:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
added a bit for now :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
right now on special:listfiles, we have filter out bots button. Maybe we should also have filter out autopatrol (as a rough marker of who is "new"). Bawolff (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
That would be truly helpful for Commons. Though, on Special:ListFiles, I can't discover a bot-filter; only on Special:NewFiles. -- Rillke(q?) 08:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear, I had completely forgotten about this. Thanks for the answers! --El Grafo (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to remove the watermark?

 * File:Kigali_Terminal.jpg
 * File:Qatar_Airways_Airbus_A320.jpg
 * File:RwandAir_B737s.JPG
 * File:Kenya_Airways_ERJ170.JPG

These images were watermarked by their uploader. They are apparently licensed as CC BY-SA 3.0. I'm wondering if the watermark can be unilaterally removed, as it is distracting. 01:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for highlighting these photos. The watermark indicates that the images are copyright protected. They appear to be from and together with other similar ones, they have been uploaded by two separate accounts without any evidence of Commons-compatile licenses. Green Giant (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Green Giant (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

July 31