Commons:Village pump/Archive/2015/01

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


Request to admin. Please create these messages [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6][7]. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

January 01

No thumbnails from pdf files? Like File:WorldAviation.198409.BackCover.pdf

I recently uploaded two PDF files, but they are not thumbnailing correctly. The main thumbnail has this error:

Error generating thumbnail

There have been too many recent failed attempts (4 or more) to render this thumbnail. Please try again later.

All other thumbnails mention:

Error generating thumbnail

Error creating thumbnail: convert: no decode delegate for this image format `/tmp/magick-Q7mDp41v' @ error/constitute.c/ReadImage/532. convert: missing an image filename `/tmp/transform_7542ce3e507e-1.jpg' @ error/convert.c/ConvertImageCommand/3011.

I found this link, which talks about "purging", but I do not know how to do that.

The other one is File:WorldAviation.MiddleTwoPages.ICAORegions.pdf

Someone has a clue? Thanks in advance!

6th Common Sense (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I created Cat:PDF Files perhaps you could put files in an appropriate category there Thanks WayneRay (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

WayneRay, thx. I can add them there, but that wouldn't solve the problem or would it? 6th Common Sense (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
When I tested File:WorldAviation.MiddleTwoPages.ICAORegions.pdf on my own computer, it worked, but ghostscript took a really long time to render it. I think the image is just taking longer than allowed to display on Wikimedia servers, and that may be the problem. Bawolff (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks; they do indeed open correctly. It's only the thumbnails which are not displayed correctly on Wikimedia. I should maybe try to optimize and upload them again now that I have Adobe Acrobat Pro (instead of Paperport and PageManager). Is there any standard way to replace the same files? Or do I go through standard upload procedure? 6th Common Sense (talk) 09:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Considering that the PDF seems to be just a ‘wrapper’ for scans of the original document, I’d recommend extracting the images and uploading them as PNGs (under new names, as one format can’t be uploaded over another). The restricted colour palette in the images should make for fairly small files with no loss of quality—and the servers are unlikely to have any trouble rendering them. (Ideally the two-page spread would be stitched back together.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
This problem looks like phab:T72734#764455 - I've added a comment in the bug tracker. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

December 27

Raname polish air event

Look this category Category:Małopolski Piknik Lotniczy. What do you think? Need rename this for english? Małopolski Air Picnic. Another air event in Poland Category:Góraszka Air Picnic already with english language.

There also exsist Dutch airshow Category:Open Dagen Luchtmacht and call Luchtmachtdagen in dutch lang.

Johnny Rotten (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Check out COM:REDCAT, if you are confident that your English version is okay, if there aren't too many affected files and sub-categories, and if there's not a snowball's chance in hell that this could be controversial just do it yourself. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Piet Mondriaan Victory Boogie-Woogie, bought by the NL government at the end of the Dutch Florin (Guilder) and at the introduction of the Euro.

Language links

Hello everybody. Perhaps this is not the correct place to post it and English is not my mother language, but here we go anyway. ;) Inside every page here in Commons we are able to add links to related to Wikipedia pages, just in the same place we are used to do dealing with interwikis under Wikipedia. Take, for example the Heinrich Harder one and you all will know what I am talking about. But... despite the example given, there is a lot of pages here that are just "Category" ones, and I, personally, think that theres not much reason to keep and deal both Heinrich Harder and Category:Heinrich Harder, eg. So, my doubt is: is it correct to add Wikipedia article links to "Category pages" here in Commons, or we must add "Wikipedia Category pages" to the "Commons Category pages"? Second question: why dont we use just "Category pages" here? Regards, Sturm (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Did you search the Village Pump archives? I vaguely remember multiple discussions. -- Rillke(q?) 04:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Sturm, the short answer is: Yes, Commons’ categories should link to regular wikipedia pages in any language, for a useful, productive result, in more than 99,9% of the cases. Telling you the reasons for the current implementation in the way I feel adequate to express it would properly get me blocked for a week due to insults to our esteemed colllegues who are working in the Wikidata project, so you better inform yourself and form your own opinion by browing the past discussions Rillke refers. -- Tuválkin 15:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikidata has three separate properties for linking to Commons... P1472 (Commons creator), P373 (Commons category), and P935 (Commons gallery). In the case of Heinrich Harder, the link between his Wikidata item (Q570965) and the gallery was missing, until I added it just now. That being said, the linking from various Wikipedias to Commons is not 'controlled' by any of those, but by the "Pages on other sites linked to this item" at the very bottom of the Wikidata page. It can be set to link to the Gallery, Category, or Creator page, but only one of them, and only the one that is 'linked' in that field will get automatic interwikis, the others will need to be manually defined. I added the 'missing' ones manually to both of the category and the gallery, though for the category page they are a bit redundant since it is the target of the 'pages on other wikis' on Wikidata. If it is set to the 'category' page for a specific topic, as Tuvalkin recommends, then the interwikis on the gallery need to be set manually, and if a Wikipedia wants to link to the gallery also it will need to be done with some template like en:Template:Commons.
I would 'recommend' that instead of setting 'manual' interwikis on categories (and all the wikipedias) you just set the field on Wikidata to link to the category, as it's less effort and will be updated when new articles are created on other wikis, and leave the galleries to 'manual maintenance', since that's needed to update them anyhow. Revent (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Deprecation of tags and attributes for compatibility with HTML5

The HTML5 standard released about 2 months ago and our web page is expressed in HTML5. To comply the new web standard, we have to fix and maintain many templates in accordance with the HTML5. You can find the list of obsolete tags and attributes here. I think cellpadding and cellspacing attributes for table are most used attributes which is now obsolete and deprecated. Expected problems while fixing are, fixing all templates would cause massive load for server, and in case of custom templates in user pages, it may be offensive to their owners. Any ideas? – Kwj2772 (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

There are various perfectly harmless obsolete tags and attributes, e.g., if you check chapter 10 you'll find that browsers of course are supposed to and will forever render the "obsolete" <tt> like the "valid" <kbd>, because billions of web pages expecting this exist. And the shorter tag wins in any UI not designed by committee.
I'd never use this crappy standard unless I'd need one of its new features (not counting the redefinition of "URL" in violence of a full Internet standard, or the charming "ASCII is Latin-1 is windows-1252" approach to reality, or keeping the horrible <u> while deprecating the fine <tt> with a rationale supporting the opposite.) Sadly MediaWiki didn't adopt the XHTML variant, but it used "tidy". Is that still the case? If yes folks can type <tt> if they want (also in templates and scribunto), and it will be rendered as <kbd> to get the important valid or at least valid with warnings stamp.
Some really obsolete hacks, e.g., abusing <font id="foo" /> to get an anchor when only this element was allowed, could be replaced by a bot (outside of templates, scripts, and system messages, otherwise it needs a manual intervention/review.) Fixing all align= (etc.) could be a good idea, if it comes with CSS saying something else, or a bad idea, where it's required for ancient browsers, XHTML basic agents, or similar. Above all the output must be valid. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we still use html tidy. Mostly to ensure that people have closed their tags (Often especially a problem with tables). Personally I wouldn't worry too much about html5 - by all means use current best practise's when creating new things. But using <tt> isn't going to hurt anyone, and really shouldn't be a user concern imo. It all works (Although font tag is evil..). Bawolff (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe the overall majority of our templates are created using Copy & Paste from existing templates. Therefore applying current best practise's to the most known templates could pay off in the end. -- Rillke(q?) 12:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Rillke, fix Infoboxes and top 10-50 Most Transcluded Pages and the rest should follow. --Jarekt (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

December 29

USAID Tanzania

Hi. I am familiar with the Federal US Government's general copyright policy i.e. unless otherwise stated, it is mostly in the public domain. I want to use some images from USAID's Tanzanian Flickr stream but unfortunately they are uploaded as "All Rights Reserved" Can I therefore use an image from this photostream using this template: Template:PD-USGov-USAID that allows me to upload it? Thank you. Ali Fazal (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Images on the USAID Flickr feed that are specifically 'attributed' as a USAID photo (the one you linked is 'Photo by Megan Johnson, USAID Tanzania') are probably fine on Commons, as 'official works' of a USAID employee ('personal' photos taken by a government employee are typically attributed as 'courtesy of...'). Flickr does not allow the 'correct' copyright statement for some works... for example, the 'nasa2explore' Flickr feed only contains PD images, but they are all described as 'some rights reserved'. Given that the profile of the Flickr account directly links to the USAID privacy policy, that states their images are PD 'unless being identified as subject to copyright protection', they are probably PD. That being said, it would be best to contact the Flickr user directly and get clarification... the Flickr review bot is going to probably try to 'autofail' those images on review given how they are currently marked. Revent (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

OTRS + Twitter

Has anyone come up with a good solution for how to request OTRS permission via Twitter? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

A bot can sniff a twitter stream and do almost anything you want, including copying requests to an OTRS queue. However I would rather see a system that made public declarations, if people are corresponding publicly. A page with cross-links to twitter archive posts is the sort of alternative and would be something that anyone could verify, rather than the handful of Commons contributors who are also allowed to access to the WMF's OTRS database. -- (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
And how exactly does one go about asking and verifying permission in 140 characters or less?! Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
How about creating a page explaining what you want in your user space here on Commons and then posting a link to it? It seems hardly possible to me to squeeze the actual request into a tweet, let alone the legal text that they need to send back. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 18:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

"Standard Reference Data" copyrighted by US government

Has anyone tried to make sense out of stuff like "© 2011 by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce on behalf of the United States of America. All rights reserved." [8] They're claiming that "standard reference data" can be copyrighted and sold, but what's not clear to me is just how bad this is. [9] How is this defined? Wnt (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, the SRD act states that ""Notwithstanding the limitations contained in section 105 of title 17 of the United States Code, the Secretary may secure copyright and renewal thereof on behalf of the United States as author or proprietor in all or any part of any standard reference data which heprepares or makes available under this Act, and may authorize the reproduction and publication thereof by others." (15 U.S.C. § 290e authorizes to secure copyright for works produced by the under the Standard Reference Data Act, says en.wp) ViperSnake151 (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Kandinsky and Mondrian

Happy new year to you all! Yesterday, when I visited the wonderful exposition of Mark Rothko's work in The Hague, I came across Victory Boogie-Woogie by Piet Mondriaan. Just like another modernist abstract painter, Wassily Kandinsky, Mondriaan died in 1944, so I think the work of both important painters may be uploaded on Commons. I am not aware how and where to start, but I would love to help. Is somebody operating a bot to realize this? A lot of work of these famous painters is available on the internet. One work of Mondriaan I found in the Google Art Project. Elly (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year see Category:Undeleted in 2015, many of the files we had to previously delete, including many by Mondriann and Kandinsky, that have now been undeleted.--KTo288 (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that is a step in the good direction :-). but now all the rest.... Thanks, Elly (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
There are some photos uploaded to the English and other Wikipedias; these can be transferred to Commons right now. Otherwise, just upload what you like and, even better, try to use already uploaded files -in Wikipedia articles, or, best of all, write dedicated articles about specific paintings. For oeuvres of Mondriaan, Kandinsky, and Munk it should be pretty easy to find sources for every canvas.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Oke, thanks. Elly (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
For Mondriaan, you might want to take a look at Category talk:Paintings by Piet Mondriaan. For other painters, similar problems may exist. (In short: some of their works still may be copyrighted in the US.) Lupo 06:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

January 03

Regionaal Archief Nijmegen

Does anyone know if the images found in: "Archive Zeepfabriek Dobbelman 1807-1998" housed at:(Regionaal Archief Nijmegen), are considered to be public domain in the United States, I have sent an e-mail twice, but they have not responded...The images in the Dobbelmann Collection have a blank space for the creator line... Does this mean the creator is unknown? Would like to use some of the images, but not sure how to determine if these images are p.d... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meamilou (talk • contribs)

I've been in contact with the Gemeentearchief Nijmegen, and they have been open and helping with getting public domain images on commons. Your question is a bit vague. Can you please link to some images you are asking about? Some images have "onbekend" which is dutch for unknown (but the question is whether unknown to them means it is an anonymous publication and sometimes the question is whether there even was a publication). Mvg, Basvb (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
You can search on images until a given year (images until 1944). If those are published anonymous (bit tricky how to determine that, company published) those will be PD in Dutch law. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 11:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

January 04

Picture requests

Maybe is time to archive a lot of outdated Picture requests? [10] -- 20:40, 4 January 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rippitippi (talk • contribs)

@Rippitippi: : how such request could be outdated when not fulfilled? --Dereckson (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

January 05

Nazi symbol template and anti nazi symbol

We have a {{Nazi symbol}} template to identify nazi symbols. We also have a Category:Anti-nazi logos witch such symbols, stroked.

My first idea were to add such template to files.

Then, on File:Hakenkreuz im Verbotsschild.svg, I can read “NOTE: After a long legal dispute about its legality, the Federal Court of Justice of Germany finally declared this symbol legal. See also the corresponding section in the article "Strafgesetzbuch § 86a".

Should we create a {{Anti-nazi symbol}} to explain the law in several countries and this court interpretation specific for Germany? --Dereckson (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Uploading local images from other projects

Where is the best place to ask about uploading local images from other projects to Commons? I recently found this image on the Romanian Wikipedia: [11]. I would like to see that uploaded to Commons so I can use it on the en-Wikipedia article en:Arcul de Triumf. The image would also go in Category:Arcul de Triumf. But I'm not sufficiently familiar with Romanian to be sure that image is OK, or where it came from (it appears to have been taken from a stamp of some kind). Can anyone here help, or point in the right direction? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Appears to come from a postcard. I don't see any basis to presume a date. It's in ro-wiki on a "fair use" basis (no clear license). - Jmabel ! talk 01:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Oh, OK. Thanks. I've just found out there there were six triumphal arches in Bucharest between 1846 and the present day, not three - gleaned from a translation of this article. <sigh> At least this explains why so many of the artworks of the 19th century ones look different... Would the one here (published 1922) be PD? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure if in Romanian law publication date matters. It's a matter of author's date of death. If the author died before January 1, 1946 it's in the public domain. If this was genuinely anonymous, I'd guess it's now PD, but I'm not sure. More expertise usually available at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 04:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Usage of all files uploaded by user

Is there a way to display a list of files being in use on different wikiprojects uploaded by particular user? I can click on users contributions and then check file by file where there are used, but I am asking for an aggregator of those information. Thanks--Wesalius (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Glamorous can do this, with some limitations (files that have been overwritten by another user will not show up). Check the "show details" option to individual files. MKFI (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Replacing a JPG by an SVG file

Is it possible to globally replace File:Logo der Freien Demokraten.jpg by the correct SVG version File:Logo der Freien Demokraten.svg automatically? --Komischn (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons:GlobalReplace Bennylin (yes?) 13:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! --Komischn (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

January 08

Wdsearch gadget

Screenshot of the Earth test search, with this script adding links to Wikidata, Reasonator, Commons, and Wikipedia.

Hi everyone, I just added the "Wdsearch" gadget to Commons. When you enable the gadget Wikidata will also be searched when you search here on Commons. You can enable the gadget in your preferences. See screenshot at right. See more info via Magnus and Gerard. Have fun. Multichill (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

January 09

Viewing my uploads from Flickr2Commons


Is there a way of showing only my uploads that I have done using the Flickr2Commons bot (User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske))?

Many thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Add a hidden category for them each time they are uploaded? Delphi234 (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

January 06

Free sounds

See It's a repository of CC-licensed sounds. Many would probably be fit for here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

{{Freesound}} exists, have fun. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

مشکل با عکس

من یک عکس در ویکی انبار اپلود کردم و وقتی میزارم داخل ویکی پدیا بجاش یه عکس دیگه که مال من نیست رو نشون میده.مشکل از کجاست؟ -- 06:41, 9 January 2015 T.najmi

Hi, more specific steps might be helpful, for example where exactly that problem can be seen. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing a watermark from a PDF

I'd like to upload two issues of The Philadelphia Inquirer to Commons (so that the citation on a Wikipedia page can link to them) but the uploader of the PDFs added a small but bothersome watermark. How would I go about removing the watermark? The issues are from 1876 so obviously in the public domain. Knight of Truth (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you can remove them without any problem. Ruslik (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
As far as 'how', it depends on what software you have available and how the watermarking was done. Hard to give any advice without seeing them, but you will almost definitely need to convert them to individual page images. Link? Revent (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

January 10

All Indonesian government pictures are copyvio

Starting from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joko Widodo official.jpg declaring that the official picture is not {{PD-IDGov}}, then it was re-uploaded by another enthusiast user at File:Joko Widodo official Portrait of President.jpg, which no doubt will be speedily deleted, I tried to dig in, whether there were other images that were taken from the same source, and whether other Indonesian presidents pictures are really PD or not, I found out that they weren't. Therefore, I suggest just delete all of them.

1.File:Presiden Sukarno dyk.jpg File:Presiden Sukarno.jpg - from[dead link], definitely not PD-IDGov
Picturae is a Dutch provider for hosting images. Many archives use The copyright sign is completely unrelated to the license of the picture. About PD-IDGov, do you have any reason to believe why this is not PD-IDgov, as it is an official portrait. About URAA, I don't know, if you would like to know please contact the Royal Institute of Science in the Netherlands or the Wikipedians in residence. Together with Wikipedia Netherlands they are responsible for contributing this collection ( --Hannolans (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Since around 1949 the photographers could be Dutch, it could be anything. But since it stated onbekend/anonymous, and therefore nobody could claim any copyright. Is that correct?
Under the 2002 Indonesian law, the state holds copyright in works where the Author is unknown, 'for the interest of the Author'. For pseudonymous works, the publisher holds the copyright, again 'for the interest of the author'. I don't know if the newer law changed this, it's not on WIPO yet. As far as any possible URAA issue, Indonesia didn't join the Berne Convention until September 1997, so the relevant date is 1998. @Hannolans: I'm not saying this is under copyright in Indonesia, but it's not really PD-IDGov either. It's PD in Indonesia due to copyright expiration, and any URAA problem would need more detailed info to show exact date and if a copyright was claimed at initial publication. Without an argument 'proving' such URAA concerns, it's IMO fine to keep. Revent (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
2. File:President Suharto, 1993.jpg - no link to the source, definitely cannot be confirmed as PD-IDGov. Delete.
The copyright is related to the book, not to the picture. In the library you can probably find that book and check the copyright of that picture. --Hannolans (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
3. File:Bacharuddin Jusuf Habibie official portrait.jpg - idem
That is autogenerated copyright statement, purely based on the publication date. On that page is stated "Copyright status may not be correct if data in the record is incomplete or inaccurate.". Besides, the copyright is about the book, and not about the pictures in the book. --Hannolans (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
4. File:President Abdurrahman Wahid - Indonesia.jpg - ditto
5. File:President Megawati Sukarnoputri - Indonesia.jpg - same as above
6. File:Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.png - from, definitely not PD-IDGov, plus there's that "copyright" footer

Other files from are blantantly anything but PD-IDGov

Anything from (presidential library), well, according to it's main page, they're also copyrightd. So bye to:

From Well, beside Commons:Deletion_requests/File:SBYApr2909.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-PresidentofIndonesia, the 6th president's site's no more, so kiss good bye to:

Okay, what about the representatives website Surely they would be PD-IDGov. Oops, the webmaster didn't think so. So bye to

What about the Election Committee? Well, I'll let you guess the fate of these files:

Statistic Bureau You're next

Internal ministries Lemme think.

Provincial and city level site such as It's small, but it's there.

In fact, I believe most of these 797 images from * are indeed not PD-IDGov, are copyrighted by the government, and therefore the Indonesian government should order a massive takedown to this site:

In fact, the * websites that didn't put a copyright footer should be ordered to do so immediately, lest, the pirates would violate the sacred copyright of those images.

Don't forget to update {{PD-IDGov}} saying that the source file could be from anywhere that are not * or from the internet for that matter, since it's apparent that the word "PD" and "IDGov" should not be on the same name. There's more than the above 797 files in Special:WhatLinksHere/PD-IDGov, such as president #2, 3, 4, and 5 above indicated. All 2.121 of them. The oldest being from 2006

Go ahead. Why are we keeping these files anyway. People can find it elsewhere, anywhere but here. Bennylin (yes?) 22:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Related discussion:

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joko Widodo official.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-PresidentofIndonesia
See also:
Let's not even start about Indonesian stamps. They're state owned company, they're not even the government, why would the stamps be PD-IDGov? Bennylin (yes?) 22:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


What a strange action. The first picture for example you mentioned (File:Presiden Sukarno dyk.jpg) is part of the collection of the Dutch Royal Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. It's a cropped version of this file: File:Presiden_Sukarno.jpg The picture is from 1949, and the copyright was expired around the year 2000 ({PD-ID}). Ok, the license of the first one could be better PD-ID instead of PD-IDGov. The fact that you will see a copyright sign on a website doesn't mean that work that is already in the public domain is again copyrighted. We could check with the Indonesian government or the webmasters if the images are copyrighted. --Hannolans (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I didn't declare that. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:SBYApr2909.jpg (May 09), Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-PresidentofIndonesia (June 09), and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joko Widodo official.jpg (Nov 14) (among others) did. Bennylin (yes?) 23:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
If the copyright expired on 1996 or later, then the images are {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, so they should be erased. Alpertron (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure. But is your suggestion to erase part of the collection of the Royal Institute? Please contact this Institute first, it is an important collection for the history of the Netherlands and Indonesia. --Hannolans (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
What about the other 2.120 files? Bennylin (yes?) 23:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Most of the files listed above are recent, and fall under Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Indonesia jurisdiction. Bennylin (yes?) 23:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I personally think a general copyright sign on a website, doesn't say anything about individual photo's or even texts on a governmental website. For example, a law text on a copyrighted website is public domain. A governmental website is never the primary source of governmental information, it's re-used content. They didn't take that portraits for the website. So you should check in the media library of the government if they have a explicit copyright there. We might assume not, as governmental information is normally pd and those kind of pictures are usually also sent to media for free use. --Hannolans (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I subscribe to that thought. Maybe instead of DR, I should start an RFC instead? Bennylin (yes?) 11:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, much better. But this discussion is not new. I mean that you can't base license information from a general copyright sign on a website if that website is re-using content. In the Netherlands I have it the otherway around, all the content of the Dutch governmental website is explicitely CC0, but it contains television clips from the commercial television. I'm at the moment asking them if that is really CC0 or a mistake before I upload that. --Hannolans (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
If there's any precedent that website's copyright sign cannot be used as a base to the image's copyright status, it might reverse the whole thing around, resulting in undeletion of the pictures I mentioned above. Bennylin (yes?) 17:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. See for this article for US government websites (note here it is the other way around: US gov websites are PD, but the conclusion is the same, an image should be looked at separately): "[...]Unfortunately, these possibilities mean that there is no categorical way to determine the copyright status of images hosted on government websites. Each image will have to be analyzed to determine if the government created it, and if not, who holds the copyright." For the portraits, as they are all official portraits (some with insignia), there is certainly a common policy, but independent of the copyright of a website. --Hannolans (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Bennylin, I can't figure out what your goal is here. You are a steward, elected because the community believes you can remain impartial and cool-headed even under the most trying of circumstances. Do you actually believe all of the above files are copyright violations? As Hannolans pointed out, a mass deletion request would appear to be inappropriate as one or more of these may be PD. Is this instead some sort of protest against the logic applied by the closing Admins in the two DRs you mentioned? If so, please consider filing an undeletion request. Alternatively, if you think Commons has a systemic misinterpretation of Indonesian copyright law, surely you can start a discussion of the problem in a manner that is clearer than this! —RP88 (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, in case I didn't make myself clear, I don' want to protest against the DRs. They're right. This is just the implication of it. All copyrighted items must not stay in Commons. There is no misinterpretation of the law. The law is as it is. I hope it sounds cool to you. I've replied to Hannolan, and I agree that the KITLV case might be different than the rest of the files. Bennylin (yes?) 23:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, that is indeed much clearer. I am not familiar with Indonesian copyright law, but if I thought, as you do, that thousands of files on Commons are copyright violations because of the misuse of {{PD-IDGov}}, here is what I would do:
  1. I would discuss the problem at Commons:Village pump/Copyright (but I suppose here will do...).
  2. Depending on how the discussion goes, I'd propose adding a warning to {{PD-IDGov}} and some explanatory text to Template:PD-IDGov/doc.
  1. I'd make the changes to the template and its documentation.
  • Would have to wait until further discussion. And since I'm not good at law-speak, somebody else need to do it. (There's another copyright law in effect last year also, I'm in the middle of transcribing it to id.wikisource) Bennylin (yes?) 13:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. If my changes to the template are not reverted, I'd pick 10 or so closely related files that all have the problem and are from the same source, and open a DR for them, pointing to the results of the discussion and the warning on the template.
  2. If that DR was successful I'd create a new maintenance category for the problem and add a mention of the category to Template:PD-IDGov/doc.
  3. I'd categorize the the most obvious of the files with the problem into the newly created maintenance category and start a new "Files in category X" DR, referencing the successful DR from step 4.
  4. If that DR was successful I'd categorize the rest of the files myself (or if there are too many, maybe ask for assistance or open a bot work request).
  5. Open a new "Files in category X" DR, referencing the previous successful "Files in category X" DR from step 6.
  6. Leave it to the community to police itself from that point forward.
RP88 (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your ideas. I'll try to apply them. Bennylin (yes?) 11:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Hannolans: Consolidating this down here. Under the 2002 law (it's here (again, I can't see if the new law changed it, it's not on WIPO and the Wikisource link above seems broken), if the author is unknown or not stated, the publisher either 'holds the copyright in trust for the author', or 'is deemed the author unless proven otherwise'. If an uploader indicates a specific book as the source, and gives the publisher as the author, then unless it can be shown that that was wrong (and there actually was an author indicated for the photo), or that the work was previously published, then the copyright on the book would also apply to the photos. As far as the copyright statement at the NLA, you are correct that it is not authoritative. Someone really needs to check the books themselves to be sure, but in the absence of that we can't 'guess' that such statements aren't correct. Revent (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Revent: in the files from the books, as author is mentioned the government of Indonesia. The digital source of a file is not also the author of the file, I can't follow that reasoning. And for an official portrait of an official, the author would always be the government (and not anonymous), otherwise it is not an 'official' one, we might assume that official pictures are cleared. For pictures of a government that has pd by default, we can assume that, unless there is explicitly a copyright in or license text in the picture, below the picture or in the metadata, we can assume pd. I'm meanwhile a bit curious about all this, is there a actual case for this to be suspicious? Are there newspapers, photographers or a government office writing that wikipedia or any other re-user is misusing those pictures? --Hannolans (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@Hannolans: Based on the description of the book as the source, by the uploader, we can only assume that the 'digital source' was a scan of the page in the book. If the book itself is under copyright, then the image in the book is under the same copyright unless it can be shown that the image was attributed to someone else, or was previously published by the government without a copyright notice. The description of the publisher of the book as the author by the uploader would indicate it was not attributed to someone else. It needs to be established that either a previous publication of the image, or the book itself if it's the original publication, had no copyright notice and no attribution of the image to an author other than the government to 'prove' they are PD. Without that, what level of assumptions we can make is a matter for debate, which is going to come down to if someone DRs them. I was not saying 'these should be deleted', just giving more information. The PRP would IMO probably win such a discussion without more evidence, though. Revent (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: I don't understand, I am talking about the two first files that have a book as resource:
* File:President_Suharto,_1993.jpg this image has as author: State Secretariat of the Republic of Indonesia
* File:Bacharuddin_Jusuf_Habibie_official_portrait.jpg as author: Office of the Vice President The Republic of Indonesia
The government is mentioned as author by the uploader. This all seems fine. We don't have to 'prove' as governmental is pd by default. If you don't trust the uploader, i think it's a good idea to send a mail to the information office of the government. --Hannolans (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to make what I am saying clear one more time. You said 'a copyright on the book would not apply to the picture'. Under Indonesian law, as I read it (and unless the newer law changed it) this is wrong. Unless the photo was previously published or an author is attributed in the book, a copyright on the book would also apply to the images, and as you said the uploader credited the publisher as the author. That does not mean the photos are copyrighted, it means if the books are copyrighted, then based on what we know the photos are as well. Generally, you should not 'assume' something is PD, but instead have evidence to show it is. That ID-Gov publications are PD by 'default' as a valid point, though. If that is 'enough' to let us assume they are PD in the absence of evidence they are not (someone specifically looking at the book itself) would be a question for a potential DR. It can't just be 'assumed', because that would be the opposite of the 'normal' assumption. Revent (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The book is published in 1998 at the end of his term, the official portrait is from 1993. So the thesis is: the government made an official portret, but didn't publish that portrait, only after five years at the end of his term it get published in a book? Something like 'unique never seen official pictures'? Again, why suspicious? And if so, just verify at the office of the government if that picture was first published in 1993 and if it was under free use. Hmm, it would be handy if governments put their media library online --Hannolans (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
No, the 'thesis' is a lack of evidence. Use of an official portrait, by the government itself, for a purpose such as hanging copies on the wall in office buildings would not be publication. I didn't start a DR for these, I'm not 'saying' they should definitely be deleted, what I'm saying is that in general evidence is needed to prove that something is PD, and that we don't have that evidence, we have a assumption based on the 'default' status of such works under Indonesian law. I'm not convinced, given that they have copyright notices on their websites, that we can assume the lack of a copyright notice without someone specifically saying 'I have seen this physical item and it has no copyright notice.' It might have been the intent of the uploader to say so, but it also could have easily been a misunderstanding, and if the photos were previously published (which is quite possible) we need to know about it.
I'm not personally going to try to contact the government in a country where I don't speak the language, but a lack of a 'complaint', or a belief that such a complaint would be unlikely, does not let us keep a work if there is a reasonable doubt as to it's copyright status. If the doubt in this case is 'reasonable', given the Indonesian law, is a question for a DR if someone starts one. Revent (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Exposing a photograph in public buildings will fit as a publication (like a museum or gallery will do as well). Hmm I hoped you would be able to contact the government publication office. Hope someone will do. --Hannolans (talk) 08:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Getting off topic, but merely displaying a photograph in a public place does not 'publish it'. See en:Publication#Legal_definition_and_copyright, with the 'caveat' in this case that Indonesia is a party to the Berne Convention, but not the UCC. Publication is defined as 'distribution of copies to the public'. Sale of a work in a gallery or at public auction is publication because the work is being publicly offered for sale, and hanging a work in a museum is only publication when the museum expressly allows people to sit and sketch copies (which is common), or itself publishes it (also common). The mere 'possibility' that someone will duplicate the work without permission because it is on public display does not publish it (with exceptions for things like sculptures and buildings in some countries). Revent (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
thanks didn't know about that --Hannolans (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

January 07

Name of a category

Hi; I’m not sure how to name a category. There’s Category:Je suis Charlie which right now contains (too) many files, including the actual ‘Je suis Charlie’ images (for instance File:Je suis Charlie.jpg), its translations and adaptations (for instance File:Ja sam Charlie.svg), and all photos, videos and drawings containing the original image or slogan (for instance File:2015-01-08 18-02-07 manif-charlie-hebdo.jpg). The idea now would be to keep the original category for the original picture and its adaptations, and create a new sub category for other files only using the original image or phrase. I’m not sure about how to name this new category. Category:Files featuring Je suis Charlie? Category:Uses of Je suis Charlie? … What would be the most suitable? Thank you, ~ nicolas (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I created Category:Uses of Je suis Charlie for now. If the name isn’t right I’ll take care of the renaming procedure. ~ nicolas (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

January 12

Ideas for Commons:Language guide by subject matter?

Certain languages may be prominent in certain subjects (when specific countries are not discussed). For instance French is still a major diplomatic language while German was very prominent in the sciences. I started the essay Commons:Language guide and I wonder how these work?

Subjects (non-English languages listed):

  • International relations - French, and for UN subjects... then Spanish, Russian, Arabic, and Chinese
  • Science and medicine - German
  • Console video games - Japanese (Japan has a historical console market)
  • PC games - Korean and German (because PC games are prominent in Korea and Germany)

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe add…
Chess - Russian, German
Math - German, Russian
Are you sure that this should be here, instead of, say, Meta? –Be..anyone (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Well I put it here because it's about adding descriptions to pictures and media. However a similar effort to build articles across Wikipedias could be done from Meta. That's actually a good idea! WhisperToMe (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

January 11

Images from Korean Wikipedia

Just for your information: Korean Wikipedia recently (last month) decided to redirect all free media upload to Commons, (and host nonfree media only on local) and I have set Campaign:ko and tracking gallery for uploads of users from kowiki. Of course I will have a look at them as much as I can, but your assistance is welcome.

— Revi 05:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Now I understand why there are relatively small numbers of pictures on Korean subjects in the Commons. I needed to create a lot of new categories when I uploaded pictures of my Korea trip. The Koreans take a lot of pictures but only of themselves. There is a real selfies craze going on there.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
{{subst:No permission since}} has put to all those selfies. Doesn't look like own work as claimed. All free images on local will be eventually converted into Commons (though kowiki has +12,000 local file....) — Revi 07:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Check bulk global usage

The bulk global usage tool (Daniel/Wikisense) has been down for a very long time now (it must be 7 or 8 months) and obviously isn't coming back. Does anyone know of an alternative tool that will do the job? Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Will Gadget-Glamorous and Gadget-GlobalUsageUI be viable replacement options? -- Rillke(q?) 10:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I will take a look. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The second tool is certainly useful, but not a useful as the original tool, which allowed exporting raw figures against different projects. Still, in the absence of Wikisense... Thanks again, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Rocky passages

Do we have a category for this kind of passage/walkway?Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

From a geolocgical standpoint Category:Ravines (or better Category:Ravines in South Korea) seems to fit (see en:Ravine). --El Grafo (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way I have accidentaly made a special effect picture File:Lens condensation.jpg. Is there some special effect category? Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"Category:Photographic effects"? — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Wait, what?

I came across the discussion on this page, and it flies in the face of everything I know about Crown Copyright. The IWM is claiming that the person in question was indeed an active member of the 'forces, but that since he wasn't an official photographer, CC doesn't cover it. Well that's completely the opposite of anything I've ever heard on either side of the pond, and frankly, I don't believe the IWM is correct. I know for certain that their argument about the equipment is completely fallacious, as the recent monkey-selfie case demonstrates. That leaves only the "not official photographer" argument, which I know does not apply here in Cannukia, at least. How do we find out for sure? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC) @Ankry: @Rcbutcher:

Having uploaded 50,000 of IWM's photos I have spent quite a bit of time assessing these, along with the IWM's copyright claims. The claims are not enforceable and cannot supersede the rights of the Crown. It remains "not unlawful" to make false claims of copyright so long as these are not knowingly fraudulent. Refer to User:Fæ/email/IWM.
I am not an admin, so I cannot see the deleted file, however I am presuming it was not one of my uploads otherwise I would have been notified. (Addendum: Checking the logs, I can now see that the uploader was Rcbutcher as pinged above.) User:INeverCry, could you reconsider your closure on this one and undelete. Anyone who believes there can be a non-Crown claim on this image is welcome to reopen the DR and I can again lay out the facts of UK copyright law as it pertains to servicemen during WWI.
By the way, as I no longer have access to OTRS, can someone ask the IWM if we can publish their email, if necessary a redacted version, so at least the rest of us volunteers can talk directly with knowledge of whatever statement they have made to other unpaid volunteers? I would be pretty certain that no OTRS volunteer would claim to have superior abilities to assess a statement made by the IWM in secret. Thanks -- (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest an undeletion request be filed for this image since another admin and editor were involved, and there was an OTRS ticket. INeverCry 17:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Could someone else lead on this please, maybe @Rcbutcher: if you are about or INeverCry if you have a moment to start the discussion? I'm happier chipping in with relevant section of the copyright act along with anything we can pull (again) about the DOI/MOI which claimed all rights (representing the Crown under their charters) for photographs taken by service personnel during their service, there being no such thing as "private" photographs during active service (which distinguishes this photo from portraits taken "at home" where a soldier may be in uniform but have their photo taken by a local photographer to send to their family/sweetheart and the copyright is obviously not the Crown). -- (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
How certain are you of the legality of "there being no such thing as "private" photographs during active service" ? The IWM I believing is drawing on the narrow meaning of the wording "in the course of his duties" and saying, photography is not his duty, soldiering is, so it's outside the scope. Note the CC wording does not say "while on duty for His Majesty". This is an interesting situation where if a copyright holder does not choose to exercise their full rights, the term actually increases substantially. Rcbutcher (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Nobody is clear on this point, there has been no case law defining what are definitive "private" creative moments during British military service such that they override the default aspects of the copyright act. However the DOI and then the MOI had sweeping powers on all forms of communication during the war, this applied to all photographs that servicemen took on cameras whether they were "official" or not (and frankly, how does a soldier get a camera onto the battlefield without his regiment supporting him in doing so?).
I believe that we, and the IWM, should stick to the 1911 copyright act as applied to the photographer when he pressed the shutter button, in that "where the author was in the employment of some other person under a contract of service or apprenticeship and the work was made in the course of his employment by that person, the person by whom the author was employed shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright..." which makes this photograph the property of the Crown unless there is a verifiable agreement otherwise. It is not credible to make completely unsupported claims that a soldier was on holiday when he was in the middle of a battlefield, facing the enemy and in full uniform, and imagine that this might void the claim of the Crown to all works from the time they were created during active service. -- (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I wrote up the undeletion request while watching Newsnight, hence it's on the long side here. -- (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm very glad I asked this question. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Jack Boucher & Jet Lowe

There seems to be some confusion whether certain HAER photos of the Brooklyn bridge were taken by Jack Boucher or Jet Lowe. It looks like government records are inconsistent (also as to whether these are pictures from 1978 or 1982. The following is copied from User talk:Martin H. where he and I have been discussing this. Does anyone have a suggestion on how to work out which is accurate? - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Begin copied discussion

I know it's been a while, but do you have any basis to attribute File:LOC Brooklyn Bridge and East River 3.png to Jet Lowe? It's very similar to File:View looking E with towards Brooklyn. Jack Boucher, photographer, 1978. - Brooklyn Bridge, Spanning East River between Park Row, Manhattan and Sands Street, Brooklyn, New York, HAER NY,31-NEYO,90-11.tif, which HAER attributes to Jack Boucher. - Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The page for this item --Martin H. (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Huh. I guess they both shot roughly the same view from the top of the old World Trade Center. - Jmabel ! talk 01:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
with 4 years difference... If you look at e.g. at the street at the right side of the pillar at the Brooklyn side. There is a (grey) truck on both pictures and a (yellow) truck behind the other truck. There is a bus on the other side of the street. This photos have been taken the same day. The info on Commons is correct but our source (LoC) is wrong about. --Martin H. (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Not sure I follow what you are saying there, but if you can annotate the images appropriately, I'd be all for that. - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC) --Martin H. (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
So do we have any way to know which photographer & year is accurate? - Jmabel ! talk 23:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
No way that I know of. --Martin H. (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

End copied discussion

The 'source' of the discrepancy seems to be apparent from the original photo caption 'documentation', here. The initial batch of 73 photos, including the B&W image, were in the initial set, with individual dating. Three later groups of images were then provided by Jet Lowe without individual dates. I think the later photos would just have to be 'prior to'. Revent (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: , I'm not sure I understand quite what you are proposing, is there any chance you could make the relevant edits? - Jmabel ! talk 18:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Doing so. For the photos numbered 73 and below, we have a specific photographer and date for each one (from the PDF), it's only the 'later' photos that are vague, see this edit to a later one, as compared to this edit for an earlier one. If this is 'okay', I'll run through the whole set of them and make similar changes. Revent (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Go for it. - Jmabel ! talk 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
After a bit of a 'side trip' to add Jack Boucher's creator template to a ridiculous number of his images, this is done for all of the tifs. There are some various older jpegs of various crops of a few, but I'm not going to stress those. Revent (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! - Jmabel ! talk 17:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit tools in Special:Upload don't work

Since tonight, edit tools (clickable buttons) under the edit window of Special:Upload form don't work. The buttons look normally but when I click whichever of them, the corresponding action is not executed.

When I edit an existing page (using action=edit), the edit tools work normally. --ŠJů (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This should be fixed with Special:Diff/146440013. Thanks for reporting. -- Rillke(q?) 03:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

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


Microsoft Windows or Linux macOS
Internet Explorer Press Ctrl+F5
Mozilla Firefox Hold down  Shift while clicking Reload
(or press Ctrl+F5 or Ctrl+ Shift+R)
Press  Cmd+R (reload page) or
 Cmd+ Shift+R (reload page and rewrite cache)
Opera Press Ctrl+F5 or  Shift+F5
Apple Safari Hold down  Shift+Alt while clicking Reload
Press Ctrl+R Press  Cmd+ Option+E (clear browser cache)
or  Cmd+R (update)
Chrome Press Ctrl+F5 or  Shift+F5
or hold down  Shift while clicking Reload
Press  Cmd+F5 or  Shift+F5
or hold down  Shift while clicking Reload

Date field for uploads

Was this an experiment to leave the date field blank in the upload window, or an accident? For a while it was blank, and you had to put in a date yourself, but now it is back to being preloaded with the current date and time. Years ago it was preloaded with just the date, but for quite some time now has also had the time. And 2010-02-11? Where did that come from? I clicked on the calendar like I always do, but what was entered was 2010-02-11. And yesterday I got 2012-01-30 03:22:47. Yikes. The field is being preloaded - but with 2010-01-13 03:19:30, so when I click on the calendar, I am clicking on a calendar for January 2010. I never look at what I am clicking on, I just click on the highlighted date - which would have been 2010-01-13. Has the date gone screwy on one of our servers? Delphi234 (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And now the date field is blank again, but the calendar is right. Delphi234 (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And now the date field is being preloaded again - with 2010-01-13 02:58:01. My guess is that one of the servers is messed up and does not have the date/time synced. Delphi234 (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the photos EXIF-time? Maybe your camera has the wrong time/date, causing the Upload Wizard to read that the photo was taken on that date? Josve05a (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually you have something there. One of the files has an EXIF of 02:58, 13 January 2010, even though it was created in 2007. I was not aware we were looking at the EXIF data. That must be something new. These are Adobe Illustrator CS4 files. Delphi234 (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
So this file File:NREL-eere-pv-h-districtofcolumbia.jpg, with no EXIF data, did not preload a date. So we only use EXIF, and if none is found, leave the field blank? Delphi234 (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This photo doesn't belong to Afridun I. It belongs to mongolian emir. Please help me to delete or rename it.----Kim Yushin (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Put a {{rename|new name.jpg|1|optional reason}} on the page, 1 for "author request". Fix the description and the categories to match the new name, ready. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Except without the tlx. Like this {{rename|new name.jpg|1|optional reason}} not like this {{tlx|rename|new name.jpg|1|optional reason}}. It should be moved soon. Delphi234 (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Some new categories

I have recently created several new categories for things that in my opinion deserved to be grouped somehow, but for which I was unable to find anything precise enough. I'm not a native speaker of English, so I may not know some special terms for them. So if anybody finds out that categories for this stuff already exist under some other names, or that they should be located in some other place in the category tree, feel free to correct me. Additions to these categories are also welcome!

-- YLSS (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

At least some "Star effect" images should fall under Category:Lens flares... -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I think they can go to both at the same time, can't they? YLSS (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they can. Category:Star effect should probably be moved to Category:Star effects per our plura rule or even Category:Starburst effects, since that term seems to be more widespread among photographers. However, the terminus technicus among astronomers seems to be en:Diffraction spike. --El Grafo (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Singular "effect" is better in any case, since this is a term for a single phenomenon and not for a family of related effects, cf. various subcats of Category:Effects. WRT "star" vs. "starburst": I dunno; feel free to rename if you think that would be better, I trust you. YLSS (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you're right about the singular (think about Lotus effect) → moved to Category:Starburst effect --El Grafo (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The official international term for Category:Aircraft warning lights would be Obstacle lights. See e.g. ICAO Annex 14 [12] and note that en:Aircraft warning lights probably doesn't reflect international standards (not a single reference to ICAO-material) --El Grafo (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
✓ Renamed YLSS (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Combining different formats into a single page?

I came across two images for the same thing, differing only in that one is .tif and the other is .png. Is there a way to re-combine both into a single page? Here's the .tif: [13] Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

So then how do we find "the other" so we get the right one in our articles? There appears to be no link between them. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz: That's what the "other versions" field of the Information-Template (or in this case {{Photograph}}) is for. The {{Otherversion}} template I used here is optional, but it makes formatting easier. --El Grafo (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Ahhhh. That is painfully non-obvious. Perhaps there could be some help text here, along the lines of "other formats"? Also, when I upload an image that already exists the system tells me. Could the same not be done for different formats? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Wondering why these files were deleted when permission was granted to ORTS

Why were these files deleted when the owner (National Archives of Malawi) had clearly sent permission to ORTS months before the incident?,_15_March_1964.jpg

The files were on this category:

Please help a newbie.

--Michaelphoya (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jcb: since you handled this, could you comment? The deletion reason was "no OTRS permission for 30 days". Looks like OTRS got the e-mail, but apparently it was an insufficient release; the OTRS team then asked for clarifications and then never got back an answer. Lupo 15:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. We never got an answer to our 31 October message and the permission comes from some archive, not from the photographers. Jcb (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Dr Lihoma at National Archives of Malawi never informed me about the clarification from the OTRS team. Will look into it. --Michaelphoya (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Lupo and @Jcb: , this is a GLAM project in Malawi. The photographs are historic and were donated by the National Archives of Malawi, the photographers long dead. Surely this should be treated as other GLAM donations, say from the Troppen Museum, etc.? 12:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
According to COM:CRT, Malawi has for photos a copyright term of 25 years since the photo was first published. If you look at the actual text of the 1989 law, you'll see that it actually says "first published or made" (13(1)(g)). So, for File:50_Malawi_Party_election_candidates,_15_March_1964.jpg, we'd need to know when this was first published, if at all. If not published before 1990, the copyright expired on Dec 31, 1989 (25 years after it was made). If published before 1990, it was copyrighted until 25 years after that first publication. It would be out of copyright today in Malawi (at worst: if published 1989, copyright would have expired on Dec 31, 2014), but it might have gotten a U.S. copyright due to the URAA if it was copyrighted in Malawi on Jan 1, 1996. For File:Dr_Banda_with_members_of_parliament_outside_the_old_Parliament_in_Zomba_Malawi.jpg, we'd also need to know creation date and, if it was published, date of first publication. Lupo 14:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Lupo for explaining this in such detail. So, just to be clear, the publishing date of every single photograph from the National Archives of Malawi (or any Malawian GLAM partner) has to be detailed in the upload, despite the OTRS permissions being given by the institution to which they were donated? Don't Archives have special copyright powers, or am I being naive? But, then again, if every photograph in Malawi was first published before 1990, then they are now officially in the public domain, yes? How can we check the whole US copyright/URAA thing? Islahaddow (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't want to give general guidelines on how we do in GLAM collaborations. I don't know how we deal with, for instance, the Dutch Tropenmuseum. I do know that in the German Bundesarchiv uploads, we basically trusted the archive to get it right and let them upload under their CC license; subsequently, we discovered quite a few errors (not just factual errors, but also cases where the archive probably didn't have the rights, and sometimes (don't remember how often that occurred) they even corrected their own website and removed some images where we had pointed out copyright problems). But the Bundesarchiv uploads were the first of their kind; maybe the GLAM teams handle this differently nowadays.
I would suggest you get into contact with other GLAM volunteers; the links at COM:GLAM probably are a good starting point. Ask them how they handle licensing and determining whether something is PD in their projects. In any case, including as much info about when and where something happened seems to me the thing to do. For instance, at File:Dr Banda with members of parliament outside the old Parliament in Zomba Malawi.jpg, it said "source: National Archives of Malawi", "author: National Archives of Malawi" and "date: 2014-07-04 10:31:27" -- the first is correct, the other two are clearly wrong. The author is certainly not the archive, and by "date" we typically mean the date the work was made or first published, not the scan or upload date. Lupo 15:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
re: if every photograph in Malawi was first published before 1990, then they are now officially in the public domain, yes? In Malawi, yes. (If that 1989 law linked above is still correct. If some newer law changed the rules, then I don't know the answer.) The URAA thing is, well, a contentious issue here at the Commons. Basically every photo that was still copyrighted in Malawi on Jan 1, 1996 would have gotten such a U.S. copyright (i.e., made or first published in 1971 or later, assuming that the 25-year term applied already before the 1989 law, which might be implied by article 57 of the 1989 law). Whether there's anyone who would like to enforce such URAA-restored copyrights in the U.S. on Malawi photos is then a different question... Again, maybe other GLAM volunteers can tell you how they deal with that. Lupo 16:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The '1989 law' linked above appears to actually be 'as amended' in 2001... WIPO also indicates that the 2001 amendment is the current version. Revent (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

January 14

Combining different formats into a single page?

I brought this up before but received an unsatisfying answer, and then soon found several counterexamples.

When SVGs are uploaded, a page is created with the SVG available for download, along with several versions converted to PNGs at various sizes. Like File:Blank US Map 48states.svg. This seems like "the right way to do it".

It appears the same is true for tif files. The I came across the Template:JPEG version of TIF

So what is the story here? Why do we have orphaned versions of the tif in jpg when the system does these conversions for us? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Historically there were issues where tiff > 50 MP big were not converted. Also there used to be (still kind of is) different sharpening settings for jpegs vs tiffs, making the automatic tiff thumbnails look blurry according to some people. Now the status is that > 50 MP thumbs work, have sharpening settings much closer to JPG (<50 MP still has old sharpening settings, I guess those should be made consistent). 16 bit grey scale tiff files (e.g. File:A_street_in_yorktown_va.tif) still don't work properly due to a bug in VIPS (Its possible to work around said bug, we should really do that). Some very very large tiff files still do not render (e.g. File:Zoomit2.tif), but files of that size are very few and far between (I think last time I checked, there was something like a total of 10 tiff files on all of commons that were too big). Bawolff (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
s/Works/Works to some degreee/, cf. Andromeda_Galaxy_M31_-_Heic1502a_Full_resolution.tiff (1.69 GB). –Be..anyone (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz -- TIFF is actually more a kind of loose envelope for various image sub-formats, rather than being a strict standard as such. That means that displaying every possible type of theoretically-valid TIFF file is a very major undertaking, so it's not too surprising that not all TIFF files have displayed on Commons... AnonMoos (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
That got me thinking: Has anybody tried what happens when you upload a (non-photographic, possibly multi-layered) en:GeoTIFF? I'd guess it's more or less impossible to get a meaningful render/thumbnail out of that automatically … --El Grafo (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
a very quick skim suggests geotiff is just tiff plus some extra metadata tags. I would expect that the extra metadata would be ignored, and the underlying image would be displayed as normal minus any geographic annotations. Re AnonMoos: mediawiki blocks uploading tiff files where it doesnt regognize the compression algorithm so that sort of thing shouldnt be too much an issue here. Mostly anyways. There is a major bug when images have 16bit colour channel and probably other exceptions. Re: Be: wowsers 1.6 gb... *shakes head*. Bawolff (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Upload Wizard affected by Adblock Plus in Firefox and other Gecko based browsers

If you can not use the Select Mediafiles button on the page but you do see a button for Sharing Flickr files, it's because of a bug. Disabling Ad Block Plus on that page (& doing a browser refresh) will most likely solve the issue. This may possibly also apply to Chrome users that use Adblock Plus. Regards, --OSeveno (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

January 16

Decentralized (P2P?) MediaWiki

Best regards,

Before we begin, I would like to clarify that this post is a thought I have had for a long time, I hope it is taken seriously by the community.

I've been watching the interests of the Wikimedia Foundation often impede the progress of their projects, creating chapters and elites that eat away like cancer, best of users.

Some improvements to mediawiki are also detained simply because it is not the priority, or by different explanations often inconsistent.

I think it is time to think about a mechanism that does not require a centralized server, which is not subject to the laws of a country and a company.

My knowledge is not able to find a solution to this problem and perhaps at this time is a dream. However, with the evolution of P2P networks and different protocols, could be created a decentralized and replicable mechanism changes that support mediawiki. --The Photographer (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue with decentralized hosting is that there won't be? an entity caring for legal stuff like DMCA takedown requests and some governments could feel to be forced to block the network entirely or claim it'd be illegal. Well, what you need is someone with a big pocket of money than you can overcome almost every "challenge". -- Rillke(q?) 16:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Some governments block Wikipedia articles, websites pages of Wikipedia in general, I consider that won independence is greater than the legal obstacles. We are seeing several attempts super powers that go against the spirit of collaboration and the grounds on which the project was created. I think a P2P network is a means and not necessarily be illegal. I have faith that in the end the common sense and moral reign. All this is now a utopia, a dream that probably destroyed itself by the community. --The Photographer (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The Photographer -- I think this is somewhat of a solution in search of a problem. The main current WMF nonsense -- spending huge amounts of time and effort on sluggish half-baked code constructs which then have to be abandoned (LiquidThreads) or are forced upon projects whether they want them or not (MediaViewer) or never quite seem to be ready for prime-time (VisualEditor) -- doesn't directly affect Wikimedia Commons all that much. Otherwise I'm not sure what you mean when you complain about WMF policies. A peer-to-peer network without centralized nodes is mainly for evading government controls, but Commons wants to comply with relevant laws. A peer-to-peer network with centralized nodes would have to be located somewhere and be administered by someone... AnonMoos (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
A example, Media Viewer graph of opt-in and opt-out events on the English Wikipedia, from June 27 to July 20. This graph shows a 26% decline in opt-outs during that period, with fewer logged-out users disabling over time, as shown in this dashboard. Learn more about Media Viewer
The issue bears more relation to Wikipedia, but also affects. For example, the display of images of Wikipedia affect the participation of users in commons from the point of view of usability. In commons we have done miracles with mediawiki, has fallen short and unattended for new features, for example, QIC section impaired edit conflict. Mediawiki has not changed much in so long, to the extent that the computation progresses we are falling behind (future projection of users) because of the bureaucracy that diverts resources to non-priority cases. I really do not want to concentrate on the problem, but a solution that had a separate mediawiki and for that to happen a separate protocol respectful of the law, of course is needed. Thinking P2P, encourages illegality is a mistake and think that what happens on Wikipedia does not affect us, it is also a mistake. --The Photographer (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@User:The Photographer,@User:AnonMoos: I suggested something along this line at Meta:Usenetpedia (later finding out I wasn't even the first on Meta to suggest it!) It's not trivial to do, but if we had a mass of people behind it we could make it happen. This is, among other things, the best solution I could come up with for a collapse of Wikimedia that I think is ever so slowly yet inexorably approaching as participation goes down but outside interest in gaining control over the site grows ever stronger. Wnt (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, I'm not entirely sure what problems you think affect Commons specifically (as opposed to Wikipedias). If the Wikimedia Foundation somehow administratively implodes at some future date, then almost all the content will be preserved outside Wikimedia servers and be available for reuse in non-affiliated projects AnonMoos (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Page views on EN, FR, IT, ES, PT Wikipedias 2008 - 2014. Statistics from Erik Zachte. Dates for rollout of Google’s Knowledge Graph panels and red arrows added by Gregory Kohs (Google’s Knowledge Graph Boxes: killing Wikipedia? by Gregory Kohs,, January 6, 2014)
My great fear is that this might take the wrong way and instead generate a solution could generate a major problem. I'm not speaking from a technical point of view but from the point of view of the community. The community needs a leader and this leader does not exist, we only have a character asking for money each year on behalf of the community working without any interest.

My suspicion is that the main obstacle is political, not technical. It is clear that a community can not grow without leadership, is like a ship adrift. I'll consider your advice to put this in a more visible place. I have added some graphs to better illustrate this section. --The Photographer (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I've also been thinking about this sort of thing recently (Although its probably above my skill level. Certainly outside of the area I am experienced in). Mostly because I think it would be interesting in its own right - even if such a system existed, it seems unlikely Wikimedia would move to it imo. I also don't think it would solve many of the problems that you state. Many of them are communication issues - people who fix the problems are unaware of the issues that affect day to day users or are don't properly understand their severity [And sometimes people just prioritize things stupidly too, but much of the time developers aren't even aware of what the issues are]. That's a (rather complex) social issue that's not going to change with any technical change. Bawolff (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

communication issues – I'm convinced that that's the main issue behind all those recent problems between the community and the WMF/developers. I might be wrong, but it appears to me that back in the days, the leading developers were at the same time among the most active community members and hence knew exactly what needed to be done. I've been wondering how much time the average WMF employee spends on-wiki, doing things the average user would do … --El Grafo (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Are you kidding me? I can opt out of Media Viewer? I never knew that. I would have done that long ago. It sure is not obvious that you can do that. But from the chart with absolutely no logged in users "opting in" and far more opting out than opting in it is blatantly obvious to make the default for both logged in and logged out users to not use media viewer by default. Seriously that should be a banner at the top saying that you can opt out of media viewer. Delphi234 (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Re El Grafo: There's probably been quite a lot of demographic changes in mediawiki devs over the years. It was recently noted on the mailing list [14] that MediaWiki (At least as used for Wikimedia) isn't really a project developed by a loose-knit community anymore (as is typical in many open source projects) so much as a hierarchal organization. Bawolff (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

January 13

Car parking system

Do we have a category for the type of car park shown here? I don't readily see anything. - Jmabel ! talk 05:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Check out Category:Parking_facilities, I found it with query "parking car" limited to the category namespace. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Category:Vehicle storage racks‎ is right. They seem to be known as stack parkers. --ghouston (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The single photo in 'Vehicle storage racks' describes the depicted location as being a vehicle dismantler and recycler. Not the same type of thing, I think. The cars there are not supported on their tires, they were mostly likely put on with a forklift.
The 'device' in this photo is a type of Automated parking system, but as far as I can tell there's not a specific category. Revent (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
"Automated parking system" was actually one of the searches I did and found nothing. I'll put Category:Automated parking systems under Category:Car parks. Very surprising, these things are pretty striking and not uncommon, we must have more photos of them. If anyone wants to improve the new category, feel free. - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

F. Tayler

I'm unsure about an artist and would appreciate information about him so we could set the records straight.

I created Category:John Frederick Tayler for a series of illustrations to Chevy Chase signed F. Tayler, which I uploaded. Now I strongly suspect that John Frederick and F are not identical, as motives and style differ, but I'm unable to find information about this other "F. Tayler". A separate category for him would be appropriate, but I would prefer to know more before I do anything. Anybody who has access to information? --Jonund (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

see d:Q3985773: en, it; last paragraph of the file description: File usage on other wikis shows you more information. More information usually is were the file is used.--Oursana (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

January 18

Bad behaviour just to troll or lack of reading?

Recently User:Hubertl did a atrocious composition and I modify, cropping in a new file, and now every single piece of editions that I made to improving photos he came with a speech that "the author did not authorized the modification". And not he is denning QIC and FPC as a form of blackmail the proposers to revert modifications

Cropping or changing pictures of other without asking them is like adopting a child without information to the real parents. Make your own pictures and nominate it (the same for Rodrigo.Argento) or get in close contact before you nominate any pictures of others! Don´t play the copycat, its serious a question of respect!


Have you asked NorbertNagel?


obviously without explicit permission of Llez.


Free licenses necessary allows modification (for those who never read: Commons:Licensing and deeper [18]), so I'm thinking here, some volunteers needs a better reading, better tutorials, more clear values? Where did we made a mistake? Where we need to improve to fix this issues? Or some people is just this? In this case, how to handle if this issue?

Observation, for those who have the same view of this great volunteer, take a article of the WP, like ball and said to me how is the owner. We need to ask him to improve the article? The File:Edvard Munch - The Scream - Google Art Project.jpg we need to ask the creator to make modifications? -- RTA 16:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The general Commons policy is at COM:OVERWRITE. There are certain cases when overwriting other people's uploaded images can be uncontroversial, but if a specific overwriting becomes a point of controversy, it's usually better to upload the new edited version as a separate file under a new name. AnonMoos (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
RTA, it would be clearer if you mention which file you talk about. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Best would be not to overload any image of someone else with an improved version, but to upload as a new file with a different file name (see Overwriting existing files). Especially in case the original author reverted your improvement, refrain from doing another revert. It is good practice in case of QIC etc. to inform the author of an image of the problems you identified with her image; which can be done by QIC comment, image annotation and on the user discussion page. I would not recommend to use private email for that purpose, as it is not traceable for third parties (Have you asked NorbertNagel?). But, I do not remember having been asked for this change by Hubertl either. And it would be fair to invite a person you mention for discussion, what I'm doing herewith: @Hubertl. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing more to say, that Llez fully agrees with me. It is not acceptable, that someone, who blocks his own discussion page changes a picture after promotion to QI (sic!) but though within the nomination process with an even significant worse one, RTA has obviously a lack of technical skills to make some sharpenings without increasing the noise level significantly. So I declined my promotion and informed the nominator. Llez than reverted the changes. Thats it. Right now, RTA again reverted the picture against the will of Llez, who is wellknown as a very advanced photographer with 99 FP, 1000 QI and 1048 Valueable Pictures. With skills, where RTA are far, far away. Right now, I had to decline the nomination again, because I promoted Llez´s picture not the other, the worse one. @Llez: --Hubertl (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I've history cleaned the file to the original upload and full-upload protected it due to the revert warring by Rodrigo.Argenton. I've also warned him about it. I would suggest bringing any further issues with RTA to COM:AN/U. INeverCry 21:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Making a map from KML routes drawn on Google maps

I am busy drawing the whole FEVE metergauge network in north Spain. I still have a lot of work to do (go the whole to Bilbao and then back to Leon) but I want to check if I can convert the lines to a SVG map. The KML file can be exported from FEVE lines. If not give me feedback.

When I Google for (conversion KML to SVG) I find the website However this tool does not seem to functioning as I see (WEBSITE IN MAINTENANCE) and the message (The searched document is not found) when I try this tool. Does anyone know a working solution? Or can do this conversion for me?

My purpose is to make two maps:

  • One for the Asturias region (lots of lines)
  • The whole FEVE network

Stations, tunnels, etc will be added later on.Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You probably know this, JFTR, Google will ditch KML (like everything else working as it should for more than a year) in a few weeks wrt their maps. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I took the precaution of backing up all my Google Maps links in KML files. I have made quite a lot of Google map links in Dutch Wikepedia. I suspect Google wil keep the existing Google maps active but maybe not allow exports. Can you make SVG maps with qGIS?Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
If that you was about me, no, but there is a maps lab somewhere on commons, and a w:de:Wikipedia:Kartenwerkstatt project exists, maybe w:nl: also has something in this direction. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is possible to export maps to SVG in qgis. It's pretty much straight forward if you have some experience with Geographic information systems, but if you don't it might be best to ask someone else to do that for you. Unless you really only want your network lines to show on the map, you'll need some additional (vector!) geodata to create a base map – Natural Earth is a good source for for free (Public Domain) geodata. I've got some experience with stuff like that, so feel free to come back to me … --El Grafo (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer of help. I wil try first myself and if I get stuck I wil ask for assistence. I am worried that Google will shortly be no longer be working with KML files. I hope I still wil be able to export KML files from Google Maps in the future. My first priority is to get the routes for Asturias complete. Then I wil try to make a FEVE map for the Asturia and Galicia region. I prefer to have a background map with as little clutter as posible. Certainly the coastline, an indication of mountains, rivers and built up areas, but no roads.Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
[19] may be helpful, though of course it's for making road maps. --Rschen7754 06:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist: If you have saved the KML files to your computer, you can still use en:Google Earth instead of Google Maps to edit them . See e.g. this tutorial on Youtube --El Grafo (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Please make the KML files available, too. Google maps may not support them, but the WikiMiniAtlas still does. --Dschwen (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I have saved a lot of KML files wich I use in Wikimedia articles (via Google map links) but I cant upload them to Commons as the KML format is not accepted. And Wikipedia discussions (and most forums) dont accept attachments. Where can I upload the files?Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
We do use w:en:Template:Attached KML on enwiki, though obviously they can't be used on other wikis. We have asked Wikidata to take them but adding support is unfortunately low on their priority list. --Rschen7754 04:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I installed Grass GIS on my laptop. However the software demands a location. I try to make a location (a new directory is no problem) but then I have to chose a projection type (there are other choices) without any explanation as to the types of projection. Basically I want to define the location as seen in this OS map. File:North Spain backgroundmap for FEVE an EuskoTren railnetworks.png. The selection coordinates in OSM are upp: 43.799, left:-8.361, rigth:-1.741, down:42.480. I checked out WikiMiniAtlas but this is only a JavaScript plugin, not a database/location to store multiple KML routes information. (The KML file is already 156 kB) Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist: GRASS is not easy to learn even for people who are familiar with GIS software in general. Also (afair) it's primarily aimed at raster data while you'll probably mainly be working with vector data. I'd highly suggest to try qgis instead. --El Grafo (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I went to the upload website and downloaded the qgis 64bit version for windows. The downloaded file QGIS-OSGeo4W-2.6.1-1-Setup-x86_64.exe (274.707 bytes) installed Grass GIS instead of Qgis. What is going on?Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist: Most likely it installed GRASS in addition to qgis (GRASS can be called/used from within qgis for more advanced raster calculations). qgis should be installed somewhere on your machine as well … --El Grafo (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I checked the installed maps and programs. There is qgis map wich contains some ddl files but no program executable and a grass subdirectory. It looks like only the minimum of qgis file was installed for the GRASS installation. I didnt see any option to install only Qgis during the installation. At the time I supposed that GRASS was a new version of Qgis. I managed to install a location (EPSG::2062/Madrid) in the GRASS application but it is heavy going with no real documentation.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Archiving Old Discussion


How can I archive my talk page. I want to do it but when I insert the syntax to archive it turns up but it does not show the archive box. I want to keep the archived documents so my mates don't think I am a bad influence on Wikimedia Commons.

Could you give me a hand please - Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Talk page guidelines#Automated archiving. LX (talk, contribs) 14:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

January 20

Same category

Hi there. There's a category called "Metro (supermarket)", and another called "Metro (grocery stores)". I'm pretty sure they're the same thing, but I'm not sure how to merge them. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Template mod needed

I left a comment at Template_talk:Cat_see_also#Layout a while back. Can anyone who is into coding take a look at it? Regards. Alan Liefting (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Is an X-ray of an old painting in the PD?

Rembrandt painting X-Rayed

I would very much like to hear the opinion of some Commons copyright experts. Is an X-ray of an old painting, such as the one shown here (a painting of Rembrandt dated 1662) within the public domain? The X-ray of course is relatively recent (1955). It is very interesting to see the changes Rembrandt has made in this painting. Elly (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Theres plenty other optical/semi-optical research methods for paintings, inluding UV-photos and infrared reflectographic photos. All of these, including X-ray, need a special setup to be taken, and all of these do not aim to reproduce the painting. instead these methods aim to visualize details invisible on normal reproductions. so its definitely no reproduction photography, where PD would apply. Please delete. Schmelzle (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The merit (special setup) for creating a photo should not taken into account according to the copyright law, same for the purpose (so it doesn't matter that it is not aimed for reproduction): "[...] be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account."
If it is an purely technical image, it could be pd-ineligible or pd-scan. --Hannolans (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
You name the point: it's technical. To be precise: technically modified. By applying technical alternations in opposite to plain photo reproductions, the author of the x-ray (UV-, IR-) photo puts own effort and own point of view in the photo, so copyright applies. Schmelzle (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what technical alterations that X-ray photographers do that "plain" photographers don't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
They use stuff "plain" photographers don't have and can't operate. If you think that anyone can take an x-ray photo of a painting, then go out and take one. If you bring one, then you're right. Schmelzle (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
So do any professional photographers of paintings. You don't buy a camera from Walmart and get a color-controlled high-resolution photo of a painting. In any case, that has nothing to do with the definition of PD-Art; Bridgeman v. Corel was clear that technical challenge was irrelevant, just because professional photographing of paintings is not trivial (and was less trivial then.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
It's a simple photograph. The choice to display the photograph in visible wavelengths instead of the wavelengths the photograph was taken in is technically unsurprising and uncopyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW: German wikipedia decided in may 2011, that x-ray photographs of paintings have a threshold of originality, so copyright applies. Schmelzle (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

German Wikipedia is hardly an authority on this subject or over Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Their concerns about threshold of originality are nevertheless a respectable argument (that i fully agree with). Schmelzle (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I see you are not agreeing on this. I personally think taking an X-ray of a painting is not an original work. As you can see in this example, the technician(s) made this image by putting photographic sensitive material directly behind the painting, enlightened with an X-ray tube, and mounted the plates or photographic sheets together. The photographic sheets will even have the same size of the original painting. Of course, you have to take the picture from the wall (with permission of the owner) and have to use an X-ray tube in stead of an ordinary lamp, but in my opinion it is not an original creative work. The only thing you need is an X-ray tube, you can buy them (but be careful, X-rays are dangerous if you use them from close by ). Elly (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I have seen several of these x-ray related discussion in the past, try searching the archives. As our conventions of 'faithful reproduction' of public domain art is itself public domain, applies to a two dimensional surface, any techniques beyond that, are going to be debatable unless there are legal judgements or acts that one can refer to. In this way, I believe surface photographs, such as ultra-violet spectral scans, are still faithful reproductions of the 2D object. However as soon as techniques such as x-rays or ultra-sound are used, then by definition the object is 3D rather than 2D, as the image shows what it not visible on the surface at any wavelength, but beneath the surface.
This argument seems dubious, since the photograph is still taken the same way: from a single, obvious perspective lined up the same way as any other 2D photo. A true 3D photo could be taken from any number of perspectives as chosen by the photographer. Even if some sort of optical sectioning or focusing technology were used to choose a slice out of the painting, that would still be a slice that existed at some time as a surface and which is now PD. Though you can set the exposure one way or the other, the same is true of a normal 2D photo. Wnt (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I do not feel comfortable with giving a firm opinion, apart from stating that we really could do with a guideline. A community RFC might help were there enough interest in compiling a case book of examples. -- (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 Comment There is much less creative possibilities in a X-ray picture than in a "normal" picture, specially in term of lighting. So if a normal 2D reproduction is OK, a X-ray reproduction is certainly also OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Bottom line. While you could logic this endlessly, there is no logic -- to start with, few paintings are really 2D since the brush work stands out; I don't even see the distinction from a coin where you've ruled the other way. This is all arbitrary legal mumbo-jumbo like all copyright stuff. Everything is allowed, everything is forbidden, depending on which side the lawyer is arguing, and nobody could predict a court decision in advance - whether you're an Aereo, a Google, a Napster, a YouTube, who can tell? It's just a question of what the WMF guesses it can succeed with. We'll have to ask them if they're willing to defend it. Wnt (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This is clearly {{PD-Scan}}. Obviously this scanner is a little more complex, but it has no originality at all. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

January 19

Copyright status of allegedly ancient document that may be fake

I've asked this somewhere before, possibly on Wikipedia, but no-one weighed in with opinions. The Grolier Codex is an allegedly 13th-century pre-Columbian document of dubious authenticity, with many scholars believing it to be a 20th-century fake. Testing has been unable to definitively say either way, but has produced some results suggestive of it being a fake. Faithful images of the codex pages are available here. Any ideas to the copyright status of these images? Does {{PD-old}} apply? Simon Burchell (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, the good thing is that we can be sure as hell that this is an anonymous work, which tends to make things much easier. If we believe the story in en:Grolier_Codex#Discovery to be true, it's also at least 50 years old ("found" in 1965) which would make it PD per the Berne onvention{{Anonymous work}}. However, things become more problematic if you read the fine print of that template. For all we know, the country of origin is Mexico, which has extended copyrights for anonymous works. And since we also require works to be PD in the US, we have the same problem there as well. --El Grafo (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply - the country of origin almost certainly is Mexico. Thanks for the link - it lead me to this: Current treatment of anonymous works is not clear; the 1996 Act does not mention them. In 1982 the term for anonymous works was extended to 50 years after publication, with anonymous works entering the public domain after 50 years where the authorship is not disclosed within those 50 years. which would suggest that it just became PD in Mexico. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Whoops, I must have read the wrong line in the table, thought it was 70 years. Note however, that for Mexico it seems to be 50 years after publication, not creation. So the question would be if those events happening on a Mexican airstrip in 1965 count as a publication – afaik there are different opinions about this around … --El Grafo (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Publication requires the consent of the author. If the author didn't consent to publication, then it doesn't count as publication. If the author is anonymous and the work was "found" in 1965, then it could either still be unpublished (if the author didn't give consent) or published in 1965 (if the author did give consent). Also, doesn't the current law say 100 years from publication, instead of 50? The 1982 law is not the current law. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, as far as I can tell, the first reproduction was 1973, and in the US. I suppose it depends whether the creation of a supposedly ancient book counts as publication... Simon Burchell (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd say the display at the Grolier Club in 1971 would probably count as publication as well. --El Grafo (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Possible deliberate fakes of ancient/very old works are not that hard in terms of intellectual property. To publish this work, one need only make reasonable efforts to determine if there is a claim of copyright outstanding on the work. Unless the creator or their estate comes forward and states they created the work as a deliberate fake (highly unlikely in this case), then one should proceed on the basis of what the copyright is based on the presumption that the work is of the apparent original artist. As an example that I have worked with, the British Museum paid two million pounds for the Warren cup, which has been challenged several times as a possible fake made at the beginning of the 20th century. We have both videos and good quality photographs of it, on the presumption that it is an ancient artwork, even though suspicions have been published about it.
Should someone try to take a reuser to court after it were proven to be a modern fake, then no court would award damages, so long as any reuser can claim that they had made reasonable endeavor to determine existing claims of copyright at the time that they published. Similarly on Commons we are open to anyone coming forward and informing us that a claim exists, and our volunteers make all reasonable efforts (and sometimes go way beyond reasonable effort) to determine any potential claim on an uploaded work. -- (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
That is very helpful - in that case, time allowing and assuming no-one objects, I will upload the images onto Commons and use them in the article. Many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
"Posthumously published works have a term of 100 years after publication, if published within 100 years of the author's death" (Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico). But the "discoverer" claims it was created 600 years ago. In any case, if copyright for some reason was created by this publication for the first time, copyright would be owned by descendants of an anonymous person who died 600 years ago. No court on the planet would uphold any claim to ownership of such rights today. The only way copyright could exist today is if somebody claimed that it was created in the last 150 years. Which isn't happening here. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - I have uploaded one of the images, and somebody else had already uploaded a few that I hadn't used , because I was unsure of the copyright status. They are all in Category:Grolier Codex; I have used the PD-old license. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Errors in names of HABS/HAER images

What are we supposed to do when we encounter errors in names (or for that matter other imported content) of HABS/HAER images? For example, the following images all have a wrong address embedded in the title:

The church in question is actually at 346 West Twentieth Street, not 436 West Twentieth Street; 436 West Twentieth is a 19th-century townhouse. - Jmabel ! talk 04:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue. When uploading 290,000 images, there has to be automation of file name choice and there is a balance of "smartness" versus available programmer time. Unfortunately we have found some errors in the source catalogue data, such as misleading addresses, typos or poor geolocation data. I have been cautious about leaving plenty of information on the image page, for example the full LoC catalogue title is both in the information template and hidden as JSON style text left by the GLAMtoolset, this can be reused by bots or editors to correct filenames. Files can be renamed fairly easily individually (if you have more than 1,000 sensible edits you can get the filemover right and do these yourself), however if there is something that is a good automation candidate (like fourty → forty) and will affect hundreds of files, then I can run a small script that I can let Faebot run and check a category of files at a time, if necessary all 290k of them; just leave a request on my talk page and I'll get to think about it (eventually). -- (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

New template required

Given the mix of Commons and User essays in Category:Commons essays there is a need for a {{User essay}} based on the {{Essay}} template. My eyes glaze over when looking at code so can I get someone with the skills to do it? Cheers. Alan Liefting (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Stuff in the user namespace showing up elsewhere is rather suspicious, what is it supposed to be, an unfinished draft, an evasion of OWN, an error, a temporary test, something pointy, or what else? IOW, as far as I'm concerned you can remove user essays from the commons essays. But check the history, "userfied" could be an acceptable excuse. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Derivative of deleted image

Hola amigos. There was a picture that was deleted. However, I had made a derivative work of the original (/ here). Since the original is deleted, how do I properly source the derivative now? Put the original author's name? thanks Emphatik (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Placing name of the file and the author should be sufficient. --Jarekt (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
thank you Emphatik (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Technical SVG question

Is Commons:Graphics village pump still being watched? I have a outstanding question about a possibly corrupt file. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Answered there.User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  00:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

January 21

Hello community!

It's 2015 and the Features Picture process for 2014 is therefore over. As the result, we have 981 new featured pictures. Traditionally at Wikimedia Commons, we are going to invite the whole Wikimedia Community to look at these wonderful works. (We actually organize a ballot for that but the positive side effect is that these Featured Pictures get a lot of views during the time they are voted on.)

Now we ask for your help: We have sorted the candidates into categories to achieve some kind of split up of this huge volume of works. However, we are just humans and we might have failed to sort some of them into the correct categories or a work might fit better into another category; we are also having a discussion about creating some new categories this year to adapt to this year's works. We'd appreciate if you'd find a minute of spare time to join our discussion and to test whether voting works (your eligible votes, if provided for an eligible candidate according to the rules will be counted but you can revoke and re-vote at any time until vote closes).

Comments not covering categorization can be left on Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2014. Hope to see you.

On behalf of the Picture of the Year's election committee -- Rillke(q?) 09:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Atomium Copyvio

The Atomium has a problem. This pictures are related work and copyvio.

Sorry, in Dutch. Elke vorm van afgeleid werk is verboden. Dus ook deze uitvoeringen, ik weet niet welke fantast het in zijn hoofd heeft gehaald dit hier neer te zetten en onder een licentie vrij te geven die commercieel gebruik toestaat. Het is namelijk een verzinsel dat deze afbeeldingen niet beschermd zouden zijn. Wel zijn amateurfoto's op een niet commerciële site toegestaan, Commercieel gebruik is echter uitdrukkelijk verboden, ook hiervan. Sir Statler (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC) (PS is er hier een verwijderlijst of zo? Ik kan hem niet vinden, anders gaarne naar de goede plaats verhuizen)

There is a Commons:Deletion policy with some translations, but no Dutch, yet. On the page for Template:Delete you'll find "Nederlands": Dit of deze template is genomineerd voor verwijdering. Hopefully that won't work, but you are free to try it anyway.:tongue:Be..anyone (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
But there is not a list to give a motivation? Best regards, Sir Statler (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I will nominate the second and the third for deletion now. With the first one I see no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the third one os PDF-trivial; the second one has been nominated for deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: The second one is in Austria, where there is FoP. Could you please read the description where there is {{FoP-Austria}} before nominating a file for deletion? Regards, Yann (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I obviously saw it, but the original is in Belgium and not free. Thus, it is a derivative of a non-free original.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I mean my reasoning may be wrong, but this is what deletion requests are for.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, this is what an expert told me. @Yann, I don't know. They original is in Belgium, the Austria one is related work. It is real, real difficult. My English is to poor to give an tecnical explanation. This is work for a specialist. Sir Statler (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for this interesting conversation. I agree, the copy is in Austia. Something in between, not quite clear. But interesting. Thanks. Sir Statler (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
JFTR, the speedy keep is logged on Deletion requests/File:Minimundus117 (edit).jpg. Indeed, interesting.:-)Be..anyone (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

But I think this picture has a problem. [20] Here. The not-for-profit organisation, Atomium does what it can to make sure that the image of the Atomium, protected when it was built by its engineer, the late André Waterkeyn, and a symbolic icon, is not misrepresented, misused or used ill-advisedly (for racist, anti-democratic messages etc.). I think this is not an normal picture, it is a "point" picture and not allowed What do you think? Best regards, Sir Statler (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Blacked out details are pretty normal here for the pyramid at the Louvre, and the remaining black shape on the "censored" picture is a {{PD-shape}} for me. And it's INUSE, and so by definition "educational", or "in scope" (lots of peculiar magic words here, but Wikipedia is worse.) –Be..anyone (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
This file is 34 times used for "Wiki politics" about Freedom of panorama. So, this is not normal use, this is misrepresenting. In Dutch: De vzw Atomium ziet erop toe dat dit beeld niet wordt vervalst, vervormd of misbruikt in een negatieve context (racistische, antidemocratische slagzinnen, enz.). So, they don't allowed this use (misvormen, exact the correct word, the Atomium is "misvormd" , misbruiken, yes, this is "misbruik") and will take (legal?) action against this kind of use. Sir Statler (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The image of the Atomium is not used, the image solely contains the environment of the site and a black blubby shape. The vzw Atomium has no copyrights on the environment and has no copyright on a simply black shape. Romaine (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
How the picture is used is another question. Lots of pictures here could be "abused" in any sense from "really" to "only me". Folks are free to be unhappy with no FoP, and express this opinion as they wish. Better ask a lawyer, otherwise your guess is as bad as my guess. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Our their lawyer knows the answer. Also possible. Beste regards, Sir Statler (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC).

January 17

Naming standard for categories for individual airliners ?

I am reviving the discussion archived at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2014/12#Naming_standard_for_categories_for_individual_airliners_.3F because IMHO no decision was reached and we need a decision. In summary, the current system of placing identified civilian aircraft in a category ABCD (aircraft), where ABCD is the civilian registration, is unsustainable, because aircraft often have multiple registrations during their lifetimes, and the same registrationb may be reused for different aircraft. We hence get the idiotic outcome such as Category:B-2219 (aircraft) which is a dumping ground for images of two different aircraft. see We also get multiople categories for the same aircraft if it has mkultiple registrations during its lifetime. Hence IMHO the existing "system" is worthless, akin to identifying people by their phone numbers.

Is there an aviation task force for dealing with such issues ? My preferred solution is to incorporate the manufacturer's serial number into a unique key e.g. Boeing 747 12345. Others pointed out we don't necessarily have the serial number available, but I have found details for every aircraft I have looked up, at websites such as An alternative is ABCD (Boeing 747 1999) indicating it was registered as such in 1999. This has a similar problem. Third alternative is ABCD (Boeing 737). This has the problem that airlines may reuse the same registrations when they replace old aircraft of similar model : this has actually happened with 737s. Another alternative is to end this practice of categorizing individual aircraft because (a) we can't do it properly (b) Commons is not a planespotting fansite and (c) folks can find images of a particular aircraft by searching on its registration number, but they must still check visually that it is the particular aircraft registered undered that id that they want. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The "aviation task force" is Commons:WikiProject Aviation and its talk page, I guess. --ghouston (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thanks, I'll take the discussion there : Commons_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Naming_standard_for_categories_for_individual_civilian_aircraft_.3F. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I've long recommended we do it via manufacturer name, model and serial number, which eliminates some of the problems following aircraft around when they change registration and paint. This also affects new build aircraft when given a temporary registration and being flown around unpainted (mainly an Airbus thing). I should imagine some of the workload will lighten in the coming weeks and months now our most prolific uploader of aircraft imagery has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation though. Nick (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No subject

Has anyone heard of V.D.Vegt a Dutch painter born in early 1900 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 01:07, 21 January 2015‎ (UTC)

I presume V.D. stands for van der. Van der Vegt is a fairly common Dutch surname, so you will probably need to provide more information, but unless your question concerns something related to Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository, your question is probably something for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities rather than the Commons village pump. LX (talk, contribs) 20:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Foundation blog features 100,000 Wellcome Images upload to Commons

Meet the uploader :-)

Good news everyone! The target of uploading 100,000 high resolution historical images from the Wellcome Library to Wikimedia Commons was hit last month, and there is a Foundation blog post telling the story out today. See the above link.

Top 6 "most edited" files, see project page for more reports

It is a great collection to illustrate not just medical history, but ancient history, British cartoons, Chinese history, religions and many others. In terms of quality and range, it is one of the most prestigious collections of high quality scanned drawings, paintings and photographs on Wikimedia Commons. The upload of 300 GB of images ran from my home laptop from a USB hard disk that the Wellcome Library kindly posted to me. :-)


  1. I have pinned a suggested tweet at, and there are share buttons at the bottom of the blog post too if you wish to help promote the free collection on twitter or Facebook.
  2. You can find today's recommended images for improvement, i.e. better categorization or reuse in more Wikipedia articles, at Wellcome Images/improvement.
  3. You can browse and help categorize the entire collection at Files from Wellcome Images: 98,287R.

-- (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Public Domain Project

See here For lots of free media. Does anyone want to sift through it? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Vague impression, hardcore spam site, requires AdBlock or similar to see the spam otherwise hidden by HTML5-popup boxes. I expect only bad things from this site. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Their 64,639 PD photos most likely are all already here at the Commons. They just grabbed and redistribute photos from USGov sites, like for instance the NASA. And their 12,373,867 stock photos definitely are not free. Lupo 16:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Requesting assistance with three JAXA images from the ESO image archive (CC-BY-4.0)


According to a confirmation I got by mail, these three Category:(25143) Itokawa pictures by JAXA that can be found in the ESO image archive are free to use.

Another user has earlier uploaded one of the pictures as non-free, for use on the w:en:25143 Itokawa article, thinking it was exempt from the CC-BY statement as a JAXA picture (although there's nothing that states any separate status). Can someone help with removing the fair-use upload on the different Wikipedias where it has been done, and replace it with one from the list?

Also, since the free status can be a bit vague if you only look at the webpage (it does not specify whether it's images taken by ESO or provided through ESO), would it perhaps be necessary to have an admin confirm it by mailing ( a question about the status again?

- Anonimski (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Once you uploaded it here with a license supposed to survive review simply put {{now commons}} on the enwiki-dupe. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
No, an admin need not re-contact them. Since you are already in contact with them, just tell them to send their confirmation to Lupo 16:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Everything I upload got deleted

I don't understand why all the pictures I've uploaded got deleted. This includes pictures of myself and artwork that I created. The pictures are of good quality and are of reasonable size. I have uploaded these to create a specific Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamera1313 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 22 January 2015‎ (UTC)

It helps if you sign your message, so we don't have to go dig through the history of this page to figure it out. Then we can look at your contributions, and from there, your upload log. There, the deleted files are listed, and if you click on the file names, the reasons for deletion are stated. Copyright infringement seems to have been the reason. This is further discussed in the (now closed) deletion discussion that is linked to from your user talk page. LX (talk, contribs) 19:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't sign the message. This is the first time I'm going this so please forgive me. What kind of proof do I need to show that I am the owner of the artwork, photos and photo of myself? We do have a registered trademark with the USPTO for the band name and own rights for all album covers and photos of the band. I just don't know how to get these posted here without deletion. Please help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamera1313 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 22 January 2015‎ (UTC)

Are you sure your uploads are in line with Commons:Scope? See especially COM:EDUSE. Assuming they are in scope, see COM:OTRS for submiiting proof of license permission. Again, please sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end of each post. -Animalparty (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, you may wish to read Commons:Guidance for paid editors. It looks like you may have an undisclosed conflict of interest that could potentially cause you some problems considering your edits over at English Wikipedia. LX (talk, contribs) 22:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Request: Activate eastern Punjabi (PA) for Template:Translation table

When I used Template:Translation table at Category:Punjabi language I noticed Eastern Punjabi (pa) didn't show up. I'm not an admin so I can't edit the table. I looked through the source code and I can't find "pa" in it. Would somebody mind activating it in the translation table? Thanks! WhisperToMe (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

January 23

"Uploaded with UploadWizard"

Is it really needed Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard? I mean, when was on test it seems ok, even reasonable, nut now contents more than 5 million almost 6 million files!!! Being this the uploaded by default, fulfill this category any function? Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The time probably has come to have Category:Not-uploaded with UploadWizard instead. Ruslik (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I would rather to have some better default upload tool than UploadWizard. Even Special:Upload is better than UploadWizard. --ŠJů (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
But... Do we need a category per each kind of upload tool? What's the difference to upload by one or another? Does it matter? --Ganímedes (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
C.f. Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/12/Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard -- Rillke(q?) 17:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I see... Thanks, Rillke. However, that was closed in 2013, and I'm sure it didn't content 6 million files then. Perhaps it's time to reopen the discussion, since a category of that size seems to be impractical and impossible to handle. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I also think it is totally unnecessary. --Jarekt (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I totally agree, it is unnecessary. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 02:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
On 13th january "Uploaded_with_UploadWizard" have had 5,991,000 files. Today is 6,091,000. If no open a DR, maybe it's time to talk about delink this category to the tool to prevent it continuos growing. I think this is not a minor issue. So, what's next? --Ganímedes (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

January 15

Wanted: Flickr / Yahoo account holder

Could someone upload this video? Looks like you need some special account to download it... and I'd rather not create an account just for this one file... and our tools don't seem to work to upload flickr videos. (BTW, yes, it's not a great video, but better than what we have so far.)

BTW, if you would, you could add this to the upload:

  • Description:

{{de|Eskimorolle: Erster Versuch geht schief (zu viel Schwung -> der Kanut rollt durch und kippt auf der Gegenseite wieder ins Wasser), der zwei Versuch klappt}} {{en|Kayak roll: First attempt failed (two much momentum -> rolled over on the opposite side), second attempt succeeded}}

  • Category:

[[Category:Kayak roll]] Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ibn Battuta: Done at File:Giro esquimal-4322519231.ogv -FASTILY 03:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! --Ibn Battuta (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

January 22

Hey. I wanted to use File:Nibiru-5.jpg in the wiki on the mythical planet, Nibiru. Right now, the wiki claims a star that is 20,000 light years away to have been purported to be Nibiru. But,a cursory search over google will show that much of this conspiracy theory is based on unorthodox lens artifact captured near the sun. I wanted to keep this image to archive that, as well better represent the wiki on Nibiru. P.S. I also edited several of these artifacts into File:Alberto's Nibiru compilation.jpg.

I was told by the admin that nominated to go to COM:UNDEL. But there, I was told the pictures haven't been deleted yet (discussion @ COM:UNDEL). How can i get ppl to comment on this? Or do I have to wait for the picture to be deleted first? (that doesnt make sense, though). thanks Emphatik (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
As stated in the big box on the file description, the discussion is at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nibiru-5.jpg. LX (talk, contribs) 10:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Emphatik: You should go to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nibiru-5.jpg right now and explain your reasons to keep the image before it gets deleted. It's a lot easier to challenge a deletion request than to get an image undeleted.
Since the reason for deletion is the allegation of the image being out of Commons scope, you only need to show that the image has a reasonable potential educative use.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you think the reason I detailed above is sufficient. Personally, I think it betters the existing wiki on this subject. But I have a feeling it will be taken off. cheers.Emphatik (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Bizarre file!

This all started from a report in the en vandalism queue at OTRS 2015012310020468. I can't work this one out... If I play File:Jana Gana Mana instrumental.ogg then up pops a text window and starts "my mom is graet...". I therefore went back to the original version en:File:Jana Gana Mana instrumental.ogg and undeleted it. This one plays with no text window. So I saved the en version to my PC and re-uploaded to commons - and I still get the text with the silly text! Any suggestions? I've left the en version active for now. Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I worked out it's a subtitle track - but where is it stored? It's not part of the file. Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorted it out - when in doubt look at the page source - TimedText:Jana Gana Mana - well and truly vandalised. Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Personal business

Again a issue with sysop power... how much a personal issue, as User:Russavia is always against my position can affect the community? >>> This is totally ridiculous, I already send tons of this type of personal images to deletion, all deleted, and then, a sysop the always attacking my positions keep a personal photo, or the rules changed? Can I post my girlfriends (to not be blocked again just for that) personal photos that should be only on my FB here? Or something odd is happening here? -- RTA 13:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

PS:The deletion request cause copyvio, away more serious, created practically at the same time Commons:Deletion requests/(Copyvio) Uploads by Caio21, did not receive any Russavia attention... ;)
Rodrigo.Argenton I have now deleted the copyvios. If you keep this behaviour up against Beria, you will find that you will receive more attention from myself, or another admin. And you will not want that. Step back and perhaps concentrate on other areas on Commons. russavia (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Russavia I was trying to find photos of S.Paulo, and the this personal photos appears
'"If you keep this behaviour up against Beria, you will find that you will receive more attention from myself", q.e.d. , you can not use your tools in cases that involves me, because you not use correctly, you can not solve personal issues using sysop rights.
A reasonable person could see that I just deleting nothing more than out of the scope images, as this series here:Commons:Deletion requests/selfies at WLE that are same type of photos, or the copyvios, and other things appearing when I was scavenging photos of SPaulo...
Is not a "behaviour", I'm just removing the trash, no matter what was there... (or even that I could not do?)
[21], [22] [23] any of these have a educational purpose??? 2 of them were take in a very important moments, and the another one is the same scenario of the images in question, and none, none of them could be here.
If this photos was take in a Wikimedia event, and used to illustrate that, and was named correctly, and in a Wikimedia volunteers category not problem at all... in this scenario, this is not even close to a educational purpose, and you are lying [24] and abusing of your tool to affect a volunteer...
Why this could happen? Why could you abuses your rights, and none cares? Why others sysops could do the same, and a non-sysop is blocked instead just because was questioning this pattern?
-- RTA 04:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Censorship, [25], nice another level achieved... hooray!!! Wait, this happened in the pass by another way... but ok, hooray!!! Another way of the same...
Peeeace! -- RTA 06:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
RTA, there is nothing wrong in using somebody we know or in relations as models for photographs. What we care is the scope, that is, how much it is educationally useful. Jee 07:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Rodrigo.Argenton -- I really wonder why Russavia still has admin privileges at this point, but I'm not sure that the deletion nomination close is greatly out of line. AnonMoos (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

List of images that should be deleted at the discretion of Rodrigo.

see more

It is very interesting that there is a lot of images that could be erased based on your argument, however, more interesting is that you focus on Beria photos, the only person reason of your previous block. On the other hand, I'd appreciate not reveal personal information, your message is a clear violation of privacy.--The Photographer (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
If you are embarrassing that you have a relationship with her, this not my problem... I did not said anything that was not publish under a free license (i.e.) ;)
For me, yes, most of this photos should not be here... but was not in this category when I found out our "private photos"; I was here: Category:People of São Paulo city, and I really think that File:Persona Fumando en la Avenida Paulista.jpg, and File:Persona Rasta en la Avenida Paulista.jpg, both our photos, are in the context, and have some value, in the other hand, in our personal photos you added a strange subject in the context, and gives away more focus in the strange subject than the important things... this and this makes sense, I can see the structure, this people was already in context... and even this:File:Beria.jpg makes sense, because you are not lying to us saying that this is a photo of a "normal woman in a x context", you are saying here "the subject is this user" and that's it... I'm imagining every single monument in S.Paulo with the Béria's face... ¬¬
More important, the fountain that Beria is in front don't have any photo here, and instead you took a good and valuable photo for the community, you took one s photo of the fountain, focusing in Béria... so how much you care about the educational purpose?
I think you should stop being paranoid, and distort reality to get what you want with the support of not correct people...
Jee, could read three passages with me from our link?
  1. Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on. There are plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose, such as Flickr. Such private image collections do not become educational even if displayed as a gallery on a user page on Commons or elsewhere.
  2. Advertising or self-promotion.
  3. Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality.
For me, this two photos enters in all threes passages, 1. it's a private collection, 2. if you take one photo and put in the middle of important people of one city as equals, 3. already has be covered the "subject" with the File:Beria.jpg and Category:Béria Lima.
So if "What we care is the scope, that is, how much it is educationally useful.", this should be deleted not kept... -- RTA 21:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
From my POV a QI is by definition "in scope", and I volunteer to put that in the policy if folks here agree. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Not at all! To be a QI, you just need one person evaluating a picture, could be, a friend, your partner that you hid from every one...
To be a QI needs to be in the scope, in the other hand, be a QI not grantee the is in the scope...
But, none of the two are QI, so why you said that????????? -- RTA 00:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
#4 and #12 (top + bottom right) in the gallery shown above are QI. These projects (QI, VI, etc.) are in good standing and create their own INUSE cases as they see fit. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm; it is a borderline case. They are personal photos (criteria #1 and #2); but have good technical quality (not #3). I'm not impressed by the categories used. (Abstain from further comments as I may not be considered fairly neutral.) Jee 02:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
This whole discussion sounds to me as an outsider like a personal vendetta between several people. So please quit it and return to constructive work. To me any high quality photo of a person is in scope as there are always uses as illustrations for certain ethnicities, certain hair and clothing styles, or just useful when you need a photo of a person. The "private image collection" clause just means that you cannot upload your personal photos that are of no use to anyone but you. This is mostly a guard clause against countless selfies and similar photos. --Sebari (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
RTA, You are an excellent photographer and contributor. I invite you to engage in more productive matters. It would be unfortunate, that you be blocked by these attitudes of disrespect, harassment and retaliation. --The Photographer (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Sebari, as an outsider looking in, this conversation comes off as extraordinarily petty. Bawolff (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much, yes. Funny to see The Photographer on the recieving end of this dimwitted deletionist tactic of calling “personal photo” every image depicting a human… -- Tuválkin 20:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, Tuvalkin, dim-witted photos of our partner is away different from File:Potter working, Bangalore India.jpg, File:India - Actors - 0258.jpg. And this is a petty from does that don't care about the community stands... in 2020 what we will see on POTY? Selfies around the globe? Sysops dictating what's correct or not? Eliminating pages, and hunting volunteers with a carte blanche? -- RTA 02:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe someone’s partner is an Indian potter or actor…? Anyway — intent of the original photographer is immaterial to determine whether a photo is in scope or not: Even uploads intended for hoaxes and vandalism may some times be useful, let alone selfies and “personal images”. That’s what matters to me, not POTY and other vanity parades. As for the rest — word salad, I’m not going to even make an effort to mentally retranslate it back into what might have been your point. Please ignore me, User:Rodrigo.Argenton, for I’ll be doing the same. -- Tuválkin 04:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

One community based in open communication and you start to ignore people, makes sense... -- RTA 05:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure having a danger sign on your user page and a stop hand sign on your talk page makes even more sense when your goal is to encourage "open communication"... INeverCry 06:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
For INeverCry you cry a lot... ;)
But, I'm here, I'm open, just be careful, cause normally I tend to say truths that you can not properly handle, that's why the signs... -- RTA 06:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Signs like those could be seen as an attempt to intimidate other users or avoid or discourage open discussion. INeverCry 21:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if this logo is public domain. The uploader thinks it's simple and therefore PD. I disagree, because the vast majority of logos are copyrighted. What do y'all think? Kind regards,
 Klaas|Z4␟V08:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it'd be really hard to copyright a triangle, an isosceles trapezoid and three letters. I'm also curious where you get your "vast majority" statistic from. LX (talk, contribs) 09:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about the Netherlands, but you could not copyright that in the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 01:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right. In this case the logo belongs to a tv-program and designed by the authors. I think you need permission — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patio (talk • contribs) 18:00, 20 January 2015‎ (UTC)
What kind of permission, why and from whom? This logo does not have any authors, because it does not contain any authorship. Combining two simple geometric shapes and three letters does not constitute authorship. LX (talk, contribs) 20:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree to disagree. I'm not a lawyer, so I assume you're right.  Klaas|Z4␟V10:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

PD-Art file release CC-BY-NC-SA in UK

I have added a UK copyright notice to File:Fiennes de Clinton.jpg, which is PD-Art by our rules, but in fact Royal Museums Greenwich has released this CC-BY-NC-SA [26] which should apply in the UK. Is there a way I should indicate this on the file? - PKM (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

One possible way is to use the {{Licensed-PD-Art}} template along with the existing {{PD-Art-copyright-notice}} template:
{{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-100|rawphotolicense={{PD-Art-copyright-notice | [[:en:National Maritime Museum|Royal Museums Greenwich/National Maritime Museum]] | {{United Kingdom}} || File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg }} }}
At the current time, there does not appear to be a usable template for indicating that the CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 license applies to a work, likely because the CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 license by itself is not accepted on Commons.
--Gazebo (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. That's a better solution. - PKM (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

January 25

سلام من میخواستم یه عکس در ویکی انبار بارگذاری کنم و از شخص عکاس اجازه نامه دارم اما نمیدونم چه طوری و در کجا باید این اجازه نامه رو وارد کنم؟ لطفا به من کمک کنید و بگید که اجازه نامه باید به صورت تایپ شده باشه یا نه باید اسکن اجازه نامه را بگذارم؟

--زاجت (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

(Google translate) Hi I wanted to upload a picture on Wikimedia Commons, and I am a photographer permit but do not know how and where should I enter this license? Please help me and tell me that authorization must be typed or not to scan my license? Delphi234 (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

See File:متوسلیان.jpg. Does anyone know Persian to help them out? Maybe someone at Commons:قهوه‌خانه? They marked the file with a nonexistent template that seems to say "Photographer This photo has my permission to use this image." (Google translate). Delphi234 (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Pngs and jpgs of the same images


Do we really need to retain both a low resolution jpg as well as a high quality png file? PNGs display just fine in article space so I see no reason to keep both. Do other know or feel differently? In this category I happened to noticed many such duplicates. While server space may no longer be at a premium there seems little point in just using the space because it is available. Ww2censor (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Also discussed at COM:Форум#Удаление файла, where I referred to Help:PNG. So, does that policy still hold true? YLSS (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleting files does not save server space, as deleted files as kept hidden. However I agree that keeping lo quality JPGs when there is a PNG version is useless. It clutters the search at least. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
So should one bother to put such jpgs up for deletion as duplicates or not? Ww2censor (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, go ahead. Please check that the files are not used anywhere before creating a DR. Actually replacing small quality files by better ones is what takes the most time, the rest of the maintenance work is fast. BTW all PNG files had a double extension in this category. I renamed them. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you shouldn't be that hasty. First of all, this concerns not only those Soviet stamps, but also 36,426 files in Category:PNGs with JPEG versions. So if there's any change of policies, such pages as Help:PNG and COM:MFC#PNG photos that require a JPEG version should be updated first. But then, are you sure that those policies do not hold any more? Compare the two pics to the right. At full size (1,902 × 2,157) they are the same; as thumbnail, jpg is better to my eyes. YLSS (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
It depends very much what is the content, and how the images were made. For scans of non-photographic documents (maps, drawings, books, engravings, etc.), PNG is usually better than JPEG, if the PNG is made from the same original source. But there may be exceptions. Obviously if the PNG was made from the JPEG, it can't be better. For pictures, JPEG is usually better. TIFF is another issue. It should be used as a archive format only, even if MediaWiki is able to show a thumbnail version. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

We have many thousands of pictures like File:New York City Boys organize tin club. These patriotic young men not only collected but also processed more than half... - NARA - 196374.tif in both TIFF and JPG format and links between the two. They clutter many topical categories but we have started decatting the TIFF version and leaving just the version link and a huge TIFF subcategory. Some word searches will still be cluttered unless we use a "-tif" to mask them. Good plan? Jim.henderson (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, JPEG is also better for me on thumbnail, same issue of TIFF, TIFF can hold more information, making easier to edit, but for the web, it sucks... for me keep both, xoxo -- RTA 18:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't really see the issue here. Why are the two choices only a low resolution JPG and a high resolution PNG? Surely we can have a high resolution JPG rather than the low resolution JPG. PNGs might be slightly superior for archival use, but they are not at all practical for use on Wiki projects, because the thumbnail rendering is inferior and the file size is unnecessarily large for downloading. Personally, if I was faced with a choice of just one file, I would much prefer a JPG with very low compression than a PNG. The quality difference is very minimal (when low compression is used), but the file size difference is large. Diliff (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I think JPEG is better also. I think that JPEG of 600 dpi is the standard for images of stamps. Let users decide, what format they will take for the needs, maybe every time different. And search strongly complicates not existence one more format, and existence of other images. Let's delete all other images, it will be easy to look for... --Matsievsky (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Why should we delete all images? As Yann already said, this will not saves us space... and we will have a time consumption and a lot warnings, and troubles, furthermore, analysing some cases will be necessary, i.e., I remember to upload a image with a white background in JPEG and a similar one with a transparent background in PNG, for different reasons. JPEG stills losing quality in editions, and modify a image is one attribute required in a free license... -- RTA 19:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Having uploaded hundreds of thousands of TIFFs and discussed whether to have jpegs or other formats instead, there are several learning points which are worth summarizing/repeating:

  1. As mentioned above, jpeg is not lossless. So if a lossless format such as TIFF, PNG or GIF is converted to jpeg, the quality of the image is going to be reduced.
  2. Jpeg is super handy for most reusers, especially for very large images such as archive/research quality scans of maps or high resolution panoramas from NASA, where the original file size is unrealistically big to either view in a browser or easily download to use. 95% of reusers are unlikely to make use of the full high resolution image, however the remaining 5% are researchers and volunteers that want to examine fine detail and these archive quality formats are precisely what they are looking for.
  3. TIFF is a rather special format, being a container where you can put images in various formats. Consequently chosing to 'unpack' the container or reformat the image has to be done with the detailed format in mind if conversions are to be lossless.
  4. Different formats will affect how well thumbnail generation works. For this reason having an image at the same resolution on Commons in TIFF and jpeg, means that it makes sense for Wikipedias to use the jpeg format as it is likely to render down to various thumbnail sizes rather better.
  5. Having an original version of an image on Commons that digitally matches a version held by organizational archives which are our sources, means that it is much easier to check that we have the image on our database already. If we only hold a compressed version, there is no currently agreed systematic way of checking that they are visually the same image.

Thanks -- (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Don't confuse theoretical differences with real world differences though. In most cases, a low-compression JPG is functionally indistinguishable from a PNG or TIF. But as for your other points, I agree. Diliff (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a replacement for derivativeFX?

In the past, derivativeFX (see Commons:derivativeFX) by Luxo (who is inactive) was a very useful tool for uploading derivative works (e.g. cropped, retouched) of images already on Commons. It grabbed the original license, added a "derivative work" notice and the upload log of the original file. It was a Toolserver tool that didn't migrate to Labs when the Toolserver was shut down, see the author's note. So, I wonder: Has someone created something similar in the meantime, or what's your usual approach for derivative works now? Gestumblindi (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

For a simple crop, the CropTool will do - no down- and upload needed. In some cases this helps. On the other hand, UW supports upload of derivative work (it is not my own work), but you have to fill most fields manually. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Categorization through templates

Hi all, I've set the content of {{PD-La Moncloa}} to this text:

{{autotranslate|base=PD-La Moncloa}}{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|File|{{{category|[[Category:Copyrighted free use files from La Moncloa|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}}<noinclude>
{{In category|Copyrighted free use files from La Moncloa}}

The idea is to categorize all images with such a template in Category:Copyrighted free use files from La Moncloa. However, although all the files are correctly categorized (see this, for instance), when accessing the category, it's empty. Should each of the files be edited in order to get categorized? Best regards --Discasto talk | contr. | analysis 16:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

These 19 were edited by me, so I think the files took the right category. Nowadays, there is one hundred. Maybe it's just a question of time (it takes some time to actually put the files into the right category). Best regards --Discasto talk | contr. | analysis 22:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It's probably just a matter of waiting for the category to populate. I know that used to take a while, though I have no idea how fast/slow it is nowadays. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Never mind - looks like it's already categorized! (Next time I'll look at the date of the post before commenting...) – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Something wrong with the UploadWizard?

At Commons:Upload help today, three users, among them myself, have reported being unable to upload any files with the wizard. The error messages are "file name is not allowed", "this type of file is banned", and "badupload_file" (that's what I got). Uploading with the "old" upload form worked fine, at least for me. One of the other two users sent me (per e-mail) one of the files that failed for him with "file name is not allowed"; for me, it failed with "badupload_file". It uploaded fine without the wizard (I have since deleted it). Anybody else have problems with the wizard? --Rosenzweig τ 19:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

+ another report from today at Commons:Upload Wizard feedback. --Rosenzweig τ 19:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they do event tracking; if an adblocker blocks that, the UploadWizard crashes. See the linked bug report. Lupo 20:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's a list of some known bugs. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This is not about the wizard crashing. It displays an error, but you can then remove the file from the upload queue and continue. Disabling Adblock changed nothing. --Rosenzweig τ 22:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I cannot upload any more. I can with the old upload (without the wizard), but this is cumbersome.. I do not have an adblocker installed, but maybe noscript might be the reason. It is a shame, that nobody seems to care to fix the problem. Not even saying thanks for reporting the problem. How many guys & gals out there will be rejected by failed uploads? regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, if this is related to extensions blocking certain scripts, then there is a patch waiting in phab:T86680... Please test with noscript disabled if the problem still appears. Thanks! --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Clearing the cache did not help, same behavior
  • some statistics (I've counted the uploads through UW per day / 24 hours), median is 5005
date (00:00 - 24:00 UTC) catscan call #new files (catscan result) % of max.
15.1. [27] 3986
14.1. [28] 5334
13.1. [29] 5343
12.1. [30] 5005
11.1. [31] 5837
10.1. [32] 4812
9.1. [33] 4422
8.1. [34] 4708
7.1. [35] 5114

so I suspect that yesterday (15.1.) about 1000 uploads with the UW failed. Try no nocscript next. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I tried again with noscript disabled, FF restarted, same effect (UW fails) --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Same issue here without any adblocks. This is definitely not the adblock issue. Schmelzle (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I tried it again today, with a different computer located in another town and with another Internet provider. But now, the very same files I couldn't upload two days ago were accepted by the upload wizard without a problem. Firefox 34.0.5 (Linux), Adblock is not disabled, Noscript is not running, same on both computers. I'll be at the other computer again in a few days and will try there again if it is still helpful. Could it have something to do with the different Internet providers, or doesn't that make any difference at all? --Rosenzweig τ 14:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And why am I suddenly denied access to --Rosenzweig τ 14:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Good question forwarded to mw:Project:Support_desk#Phabricator_down.3F_52984. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Don't know. Possibly because someone posted the full contents of a POST request trying to upload an image. That POST-request contained tokens, cookie settings, and possibly even more sensitive data. BTW, the crucial thing to note in that POST request was that the request already was sent with an empty filename. (I saw it before it was protected.) Lupo 15:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Apparently something like that was the reason, yes. But the result is that apparently no one (except perhaps the creator of the task) can access it anymore. So essentially it is useless. --Rosenzweig τ 18:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Access to the task will be restored as soon as one of the Phabricator admins is back to work. Unlikely that a fix would pass before this happens anyway. -- Rillke(q?) 18:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Generally, the best place for questions about Phabricator itself is mw:Phabricator/Help. In this specific case, someone (rightfully) restricted access to the task because private information was posted. For those interested, mw:Phabricator/Security covers the security policies and behavior of Phabricator. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm back at my original computer again (see above), and again, the wizard gives me the "badupload_file" error message when trying to upload a file. As reported, the exact same file is accepted without any problems by the upload wizard when using my other computer with a different Internet provider. I can try to use the original computer in the other location with the other Internet provider to see what happens, but it will be several days before I'm there again. --Rosenzweig τ 22:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I only have a single Internet provider, but as it is a big one, others should have similar troubles if it were for the provider. For me all files seem to fail (tried about 30 different). Acc. to Special:Version UW is of Jan. 7th (on the 12th everything was working well with the UW), but MW version changed (as I remember on the 14th and again on the 16th (current version 1.25wmf14 (d8660bb))). So if it is in the SW (and not my local config only), MW core could be the reason in combination with my local settings? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
some days gone. My assumption was that the WMF wants to be responsible for the software and configuration and … and the community should be focused more on content. Beside new fancy super features this will include the proper maintenance of the software / configuration and quick fixes in cases like this. UW is not a minor feature used by only some specialists. I did publish all information I could think of to be helpful (and even more). But nobody seems to care, the bug is not even assigned to someone of the SW team. Nor did anybody of the WMF staff try to propose a workaround (using Safari is not a general workaround!). Thanks for support from all the colleagues here and for providing additional diagnostic data. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This error continues. The wizard reports an ogg audio file as "banned" but works fine when the file is converted to flac. It appears that recent changes need to be reverted until someone figures out the error. Khamar (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on my funding proposal to work with UNESCO

Hi all

I’m looking for feedback and endorsement for my Wikimedia Foundation PEG grant to be Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO. I’d very much appreciate if you would have a look, the most relevant objective to Wikimedia Commons is:

2. Make content from the archives of UNESCO and its partners available on Wikimedia projects: This project will facilitate the upload of 30,000 images, audio files, videos, data and other content to Wikimedia projects from UNESCO archives (24,000 images), UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) and other sources including 10 organisations changing their content license to be Wikimedia compatible.

I ran a pilot project that resulted in the images found in the category Images from the archive of UNESCO, here are a few examples:

If you think this is a worthwhile project please click this link and then click the endorse button.

Many thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Dupe. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Just to add that these are breathtakingly great photos, and my thanks and contratulations for them. -- Tuválkin 18:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

January 26

Layout problem

At least for me, the layout of the Category:Lewis County Historic Courthouse page appears messed up somewhere around the inclusion of {{NRHP}}. Can anyone work out what's going on & fix it? - Jmabel ! talk 04:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Works for me, as a quick test I added Template:{{Village pump/Archive/2015/01}} in the category, does that have any effect for you? If yes and it's good, it could be added in the template. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
That fixes it for me. - Jmabel ! talk 17:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Quick fix added to {{NRHP}}, please revert it when it's not more needed. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

چطور مقاله ثبت کنم؟

سلام به همگی لطفا برای ثبت مقاله منو راهنمایی کنید مرسی — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zahrashirazi66 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  • If Google translate understands correctly, this is a question in Farsi asking how to save paper. I have no idea what it might have to do with Wikimedia Commons. Can a Farsi-speaker confirm that this is totally off-topic? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No coordinates

When I click on coordinates I get from, "No webservice" and "This URI is part of the geohack tool, maintained by Dispenser, Magnus Manske, and Kolossos." Someone please repair. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Working now; thanks. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

January 28

Uncategorized pictures increasingly growing

Categorization stats from 2015/01/23

Is this critical? Our backlog goes back to September 2012.--Kopiersperre (talk)

Yes, it is. No category is not much better than no license. Or JPGs of male body parts below 1MB. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Not yet a million? That means it's far from a majority. I am pleasantly surprised. But of course an uncategorized pictures is usually worth nothing. Well, the majority of categorized ones are also useless, but use is very rare for uncatted ones. Perhaps the Upload Wizard should be adjusted to make this matter easier and more urgent. As for easier, a tiny improvement would be to make categories insensitive to case. Bigger improvement would be a tree-walking cat picker. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I personally would enjoy a tree-walking cat picker much more than a media-viewer. Non-english speaking people sometimes categorize their uploads quite well, but sadly in their mother language. There should be something like the Template:Category redirect, for example a Template:Internationalized category.--Kopiersperre (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
There are so many things that could be improved with categories:
  • Category translations (built into MediaWiki, not with templates etc.)
  • Custom link titles in parent categories. (I.e. if I put the following in a theoretical category German great stuff: [[Category:Stuff in Germany|Great stuff|Great stuff]] the link to it will be displayed as "Great stuff" instead of "German great stuff" in that category. The "German" is irrelevant in that case and just makes it harder to recognize stuff.)
  • Category tree views and recursive views, including powerful filter mechanisms.
  • A decent category/files in category search.
But hey, we have a great Media Viewer now. --Sebari (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
How do I active or acces Media Viewer?Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree uncategorized images are a problem. I disagree that uncategorized images are usually worth nothing- high volume automatic uploads (e.g. from Public Domain repositories, Flickr, etc.) often have valuable images that are only in hidden cats like "uploads by user". I previously brought up the issue of organizing a concerted effort to reduce the backlog, ideally with humans assisted by bots rather than the other way around, and with priority given to high quality sources or subcategories. see Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2014/11#Group_effort_to_clear_out_uncategorized_media.3F -Animalparty (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The raw numbers do not appear statistically meaningful as they are not in relation to the sample space. Could someone rework these so that they show a proportion of total images on Commons on the dates they are measured? If the ratio "Uncategorized images / total number of images" is decreasing, then we would seem to be on top of things. I.e. if Commons had 90 images uncategorized, but only had 100 images in total (90%), that is a far worse problem than having 900 images uncategorized out of a total of 10,000 (9%). -- (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@: Please give me the total number of images on Commons over time as CSV, then I can do.--Kopiersperre (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 Comment A couple months ago I've started to add categories to files in Category:Media needing category review by date. I realized than a large number of pictures of the 446,891 files in Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project needing category review (I can't say "all" because I couldn't check) already had categories added with bot; however, "{{Check categories}}" remains. I told (because his bot add these cats) and he told me he has family problems and will check later, thing I respect and why I didn't continue pushing again about this point. Maybe run a bot to fix this problem could help. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it's correct to leave Check categories on bot-catgorized work, since the bot generally just adds a rough location category. However a lot of these geograph images are nondescript fields or hills and realistically will never be used for anything, so it's not really a big loss if they are uncategorised. I have categorised quite a few myself, since categorisation seems to be mildly addictive to me. --ghouston (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)