Commons:Village pump/Archive/2015/03

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

Pictures of pigeons that might be copyvio

one example

Hallo, is there someone able to read these pages (from April 2007)?

Here on Commons are some pictures uploaded 2007-06-19 that might be copyvios (same user uploaded other pics as "own" from different sources, like Alex Sell[1] and a french(?) page[2]). My question is: is there a licens given for these pictures? Or might they be copyvios by themselves (there are also pics from featherside). It would be a loss to delete them all, they are also used to illustrate articles.

Thanks for your help, --PigeonIP (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eight years ago, too late for simple TinEye researchs. The uploader sticked to two camera models and some images without Exif, all about your Pigeon topic. And you already invested time for the Konigsberg Morehead. I'd assume good faith and vote keep for INUSE. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 01

"Female humans"

There are no pictures directly in Category:Male humans. There are (at this moment) 556 photos directly in Category:Female humans. Recently, someone added the latter category to some of my photos, which is how I became aware of it.

I really dislike this. It seems like a reduction of women to their gender rather than seeing them as fully human. I particularly dislike this when it is done to photos I took, because it feels like reduction of the subjects of my photos to their gender.

I think that the correct solution to this is that neither Category:Male humans nor Category:Female humans should directly contain individual images. - Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with above. I warned this user, but he continue editing nevertheless, so I blocked him for 2 hours. And I removed this category with VFC. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Yann. Even though I'm an admin, I always hesitate to do something like this without having some sort of indication it's not just my solo view. I've suggested to him that if this is (as he now says on his talk page) part of a process of classifying more deeply that he use a hidden category as his temporary holder. - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being 'bold' about this (since it seems obvious) I added {{Categorize}} to both, which might help in the future. Revent (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry about the mess - I agree that there is no need for a lot of pictures in this category. It was intended to be only a temporary stage. Jmabel suggested a great idea of Hidden categories under my username. If this is acceptable to you would be happy if you pass to Category:Temporary categories for User:Chenspec Cat-a-lot - Female humans all the pictures that were in Category:Female humans. What do you think? Chenspec (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chenspec: Use {{User category}} instead of {{Hiddencat}} for this, please. Other than that, don't know why anyone would complain about it as a temporary manrker. Revent (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Revent: Excellent - done. Now, how do I pass the pictures to the new category? Need to restore ... Chenspec (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, a user category is more appropriate, sorry I didn't think of that. And I'm not sure what you mean by "passing" pictures to a category. You can place them in a user category or hidden category exactly like any other category. - Jmabel ! talk 01:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: All the pictures were removed from the category "Female humans" and it took me a long time to collect them. Do I have to find them again manually So I can categorize them in "Category:Temporary categories for User:Chenspec Cat-a-lot - Female human", or there is a way to restore them more effectively? Chenspec (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you know who removed them, they are probably all more or less in a row in his/her contributions list. Failing that, your own contributions list would probably have them reasonably close together. And, yes, that categorization seems appropriate to me. Sorry you got blocked on this, I didn't mean to take it to that level but I guess that happened before we had time to discuss it calmly. - Jmabel ! talk 17:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: It's OK - The main thing is that everything worked out for the better. I will try to restore the pictures. Thanks for the help and guidance for the new category! Chenspec (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just noting here for the record, just added (per a request on Yann's talk page) 583 images previously added by Chenspec to 'Female humans' to his user tracking category. More useful than would be apparent at first glance, nearly all are images of Wikipedians in various contexts with no categorization other than 'this is a Wikipedian'. Revent (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chenspec: I am sorry, but what is the befenit of copying pictures from Category:Females with birds. Where do you want to pass this pictures? other than "with birds"? --PigeonIP (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understood that it does not matter what pictures I put my user category. Regarding your question - there are pictures that fit more than one category, according to what you see in them. If there are more categories they will be eligible to I'll put them, if not then do not. I hope this answers your question Chenspec (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 22

Smithsonian copyright claims

I came across this image of a wartime radar system in Europe. This is clearly taken by Army personal, the only people who would have seen one in the field. Yet the Smithsonian claims copyright on it. Do we, as in the case of other examples, ignore their claim for these cases? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I probably would, while noting the dubious claim of copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 17:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From what I see, they don't seem to be explicitly claiming a copyright in this particular image (they credit it to the National Archives). The Smithsonian's Terms of Use make it clear the 'general' copyright claim on their website is to "the compilation of content that is posted on the SI Websites, which consists of text, images, audio, video, databases, design, codes and software" and that "the Smithsonian does not necessarily own each component of the compilation." They just seem to engage in the (highly questionable, but common) practice of telling users they must license anything obtained from their website regardless of if they actually own the copyright in the particular work. Revent (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The institution is free to make whatever claims they wish, even if they are not legally enforceable. If they have added value in the metadata, such as writing descriptions or adding lots of structured detail, then they can make a valid claim of creative ownership for that metadata. Automatically created metadata, such as what the source was, details copied from elsewhere, or basic facts like a date or the original author/photographer, are not creative enough to make a claim for.
If anyone wished to scrape information and images from the, it would be a smart move to first write to the website contact and explain what the plan was, and give them a chance to object to it and explain if they have a legally valid claim that you may be unaware of. Putting aside this specific case, as I expect the Smithsonian to encourage open knowledge, if an institution were to issue take-down notices or legal challenges against a Commons uploader, having a previous good faith correspondence on record would be a great way of dismissing such actions. -- (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyway, the Smithsonian is part of the U.S. Federal Government, so it's questionable whether they can have copyright. {{PDUSGov}}. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adam, I believe the Smithsonian is actually something of a special case (though I'm not sure of the details and it wouldn't apply to this photo). As I understand it, a lot of their work is created by contractors who are not technically federal government employees, and so it can be copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 00:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The US Government can not (in most cases) claim copyright in it's own works, but can own copyrights transferred to it by others (this is explicitly stated in 17 USC § 105). Not that this applies here, but to state that the US Government cannot own a copyright is mistaken. Revent (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i do not see a copyright claim here. you are making a guess about who took the photo. having had conversations with smithsonian people: they have a legal department, and practice of trying to pay for digitzation with fees. they tend to put NC on PD images. however, they do not issue takedown notices for PD claims over their NC. the smithsonian institution is a hybrid with federal support and private money. they are a repository of government and private collections, i.e. you cannot know what the copyright of an item is, but with research of the metadata on a case by case basis. we can go to the National Archives, who is the repository of the Naval Photographic Center, and find this item, or related film [3] but it does not appear to be digitized there yet. see also [4] Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 01:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Smithsonian Institution is not the US Government. It publishes copyrighted materials on a regular basis, and actually pays photographers itself for its publications. Trying to say "you are the government so you do not own what bears your copyright notice" is unwise. [5] is clear. If they assert copyright, then you must abide by their terms of use. Collect (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Collect: I do not think anyone is trying to say that copyright is not a 'real and valid concern', as you put it in your edit summary. It's simply that, with experience, Commons editors have learned that assertions of copyright from certain sources, including the Smithsonian, need to be evaluated critically (hence the discussion). This image, for example, is on the same website, with exactly as much of a 'copyright assertion' made. Are you going to claim that it's not usable on Commons because the Smithsonian asserts a copyright? Revent (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am saying that folks who conflate the Smithsonian and the US Government are making an exceedingly grave error. The proper procedure is to contact the Smithsonian as they ask, and ask whether that particular image is covered under any copyright, not to assert "the Smithsonian can not assert copyright on anything" because that position will fail the second a lawyer sees it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
not very grave at all: nobody died from wishful thinking. and since they have not issued a DMCA, you would have a greater chance of federal court with a FOP german statue photo, where we have cases of a DMCA. in this case the metadata is pretty clear PD-USGov, but lets go scanning at Archives II where the original is. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 00:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay; if I assert copyright on that picture, then must you abide by my terms of use? A bullshit assertion is bullshit coming from me or them. Wikipedia says "More than two-thirds of the Smithsonian's workforce of some 6,300 persons are employees of the federal government" and by law, anything those employees create as part of their employment is not covered by copyright. It's true that the Smithsonian is the effective origin of a lot of copyrighted work, and it's rather unfortunate that it's a waste of time to try and contact them to get the correct legal copyright status of much of their work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
welcome to the internet. this is a common institutional attitude, that the researchers will come to them. the institutions tend not to have drunken the "free" kool-aid of license purity. the world does not exist to give you clear licenses. beware, you cannot separate the employees into fed and non-fed. they work on both fed and non-fed funded projects. and they are not going to share their time sheets for your convenience. you also have institutions sending nasty notices asserting "sweat of the brow"; and institutions not partnering with commons because admins don't like their name. it will take a long time hand holding, to change institutions. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 14:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to perform complex file searches in Commons

Hello, I am wondering if there is a way in Commons to carry out advanced search of files such as the following (I list them separately just in case one is feasible while another one is not):

1.-"Files with extension X (say .png)" & "Linked from Wikipedia Y (say, French) more than Z times"

2.-"Files with extension X (say .svg)" & "uploaded in the last Y days"

3.-"Files with extension X (say .svg)" & "uploaded in the last Y days" & "Uploaded by user Z"

4.-"Files with extension X (say .svg)" & "Belonging to category Y"

Are the above and similar complex searches feasible in Commons? If so, how?

Thank you!--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

4 can be achieved to a large extend by simply searching for "svg incategory:Y" (link) this will also catch some extra stuff you don't want but in the results you can do "ctrl-f" and then search for ".svg" another way (for categories with up to 200 files) is to go to the category you want to search (link) and above the media files (below the header) you can select the filetype, however I've found this to only work for small categories as it only filters the 200 results on the current page. For point 3 you can simply use the user uploads page and search again with ctrl-f for .svg (only works for up to 500 files). There are likely other and better ways to achieve this (for example using API-queries), these are however some quick and easy ones to start with. Basvb (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the suggestions. For the first one, I found the category has to be quoted if its name contains more than 1 word (svg incategory:"Historical SVG maps in Greek"). For the second, I am afraid I have not been able to see where to select the filetype yet... I have tried searching for it in a small category] but I did not find where to filter by filetype within it... Maybe I need to enable some configuration option to see it?--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ow I forgot you can also use catscan, that scales up better. I've looked it up and you indeed have to enable a configuration, namely the "GalleryFilterExtension". Mvg, Basvb (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aha, I can see the extension menu now! Good indeed for quick filtering... Thank you for the tip on catscan. It seems to be more complex than I expected or else I am doing something wrong, though. If I try something simple like "Categories=Maps of the Battle of the Nile+Last change Max age=24" I should be getting a couple of maps I have uploaded a moment ago but I get nothing... I guess I need to check somthing else in the form to make it work...--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When using the search on commons, I find doing intitle:svg can be a good (not perfect) way for finding things with a specific file type. You may also be interested in fr:Spécial:Fichiers_les_plus_liés. All four of these queries can be done via sql access (For example: #1 [6], #2 [7], the last two can also be pretty easily done as well), but that's probably two complex to be usable by average commons user. Bawolff (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will keep that in mind too. About the URL, I did not know the tool but, though relatively complex for me I think I could manage to create the queries I need by comparing with others and it does look very flexible... However, I wonder where we can find the different fields and variables available to build the query. Is there a list somewhere or does it have to be deduced from the output of a query to a file? Thank you again for all your suggestions.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just one quick question related to the SQL syntax to use: would it be possible to filter also by category name text? For instance, would this be feasible:
  1. SVG files with "map" in at least one of its categories, linked 5k-10k times from the French Wikipedia & uploaded during the last month.
Playing around with the tool, I got as far as this (searching for "map" in the file name but not in the category as I do not know how to search the categories or whether this is possible at all). I think I would be able to add the time condition using the above examples but I have no clue how to check the categories...--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the schema (list of available variables) is available at and specificly the public parts you are allowed to use at (note its even possible to do crosswiki queries which combine fields from separate wikis. See for example the collapsible section on the bottom of [8]) the mediawiki wiki also has some information, e.g. mw:manual:categorylinks table. For your question about categories try something like (untested): use commonswiki_p;Select img_name, cl_to, count(*) from image inner join globalimagelinks on gil_to = img_name

inner join page on page_namespace=6 and page_title = img_name inner join categorylinks on cl_from = page_id where img_media_type = 'DRAWING' and img_major_mime="image" and img_minor_mime = 'svg+xml' and cl_to like '%map%' and gil_wiki = 'frwiki' and img_timestamp > 20150200000000 group by img_name , cl_to, having count(*) < 10000 and count(*)>5000;. Bawolff (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To me the first four powers of 10 in this SVG appear as identical blobs in any browser window I can create. Is it possible to fix this file? Otherwise I doubt it's utility for illustrating the Powers of ten article on en:WP and elsewhere. Rich Farmbrough, 02:26 1 March 2015 (GMT).

The utility is up to editors at "en:WP and elsewhere", as they are the one deciding which graphics to use. But I agree that the creators of this graphics failed at show first 4 powers of 10 and I doubt that anybody will be able to show objects differing at 12 orders of magnitude on one graph. --Jarekt (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It can be done as a video (a surf on Youtube will find a few that go from sub-atomic particles and zoom out to the entire known universe with a powers-of-ten countdown) however unless you show a logarithmic scale, it cannot be done in a static graph as the resolution would have to be 1012 pixels wide. :-) -- (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wouldn't that be the cube route of 10^12, or 10,000 pixels? But still way too big to fit within a 2000 pixel image. Delphi234 (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 02

Crowdfunding campaign for a macro lens for Jee

Hi all,
this is just a short note to let you know that a small group of Commons contributors have started a crowdfunding campaign at Indiegogo to fund a new macro lens for our very own @Jee.

The campaign was coordinated at User talk:Jkadavoor/campaign and will end on March 24, 2015. Please have a look at the campaign page to see if this is something that you're willing to support. Thanks, odder (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the announcement, odder. We in the campaign team were not sure if it was appripriate to announce a campaign run on a commercial website for a specific user here. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool! :) Rehman 14:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice campaign. It is better done than previous ones. Maybe too much figures, I would have emphasise the description of the volunteer and his work (with a quote or an example of a photo report). Some remarks for the next campaigns: i) for a commonist, we should see his work on the main page, ii) avoid specific terms commonly used on Wikimedia (FP, QI) or explain them, iii) don't forget to create an hashtag to make a viral campaign. Pyb (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pyb: : Thank you for your feedback.
  • You may be right about the balance between facts about Jee and the campaign and slides with pretty pics. In a previous version of the promotional video for the campaign, there were many more pretty pics, so at least that aspect has improved, and I think the balance depends on the target audience - which was actually a bit hard for us to establish. Should we target Wikimedians or a completely different audience? We tried to do a bit of both, but it appears, so far that the the vast majority of donations is from Wikimedians with a high concentration of active Commons users. Maybe, as the campaign progress, it will attract a wider audience. Anyway, it seems like we are not doing too bad as 93% of the pledged amount have been sponsored already here on the launch day and there is still a month to go Face-smile.svg. (This should not keep people from donating though, as there is plenty of other useful gear, which could be of use for Jee (macro flash, bag, tripod, remote control, wildlife lens, spare battery, ...)). --Slaunger (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • i) I am not sure I understand what you mean about seeing his work on the main page? Do you mean the Main Page of Commons? Do you mean today? I am sure several of Jees pics have been picture of the day previously. I do not think it would be appropriate to try and coordinate a campaign done on a private web page for a single user with the Commons Main page.
  • ii) I am not sure I understand this thing about avoiding specific terms either. We do not mention the acronyms FP or QI anywhere. We mention featured pictures in the campain text explaining they are among the finest and linking to the actual Commons page. In the campaign video featured pictures is mentioned, but I do not think it necessarily needs further explanation at this stage. I think most people would understand that featured is something that somehow stands out as being especially good (which is sufficient).
  • iii) A hashtag is probably a good idea. I have no experience when it comes to hashtags and how that can aid the campaign. You mean something like #MacroLensForJee ?
Again, thanks for your comments. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wonder if Pyb's comments refer to the Commons page where we planned the campaign, rather than the Indiegogo campaign itself? I can't really match the comments up with either the video or campaign page. I (and I suspect Slaunger) are too old for this hashtag stuff, but if anyone here is more social-media-aware and wants to help make this viral, please do so or offer suggestions on the User talk:Jkadavoor/campaign page. We set a modest target for the campaign but there's plenty very useful equipment that could be purchased if the goal is exceeded. -- Colin (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I refer to the previous campaigns which didn't succeed or didn't succeed very well (Poco a poco, Tony the Tiger and Ryan Hodnett). I've nothing to say about Jkadavoor campaign because I like it ;) Pyb (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, we do have clients, like a for-profit outfit, yet we fund expenses on goodwill, like a non-profit. Sweet. What could ever go wrong…? -- Tuválkin 19:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hi Tuválkin, as I don't speak very well english, can you precise please, is it a question or is there an issue for Commons maybe? -- Christian Ferrer 21:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People who send eMails to Wikimedia eMail addresses are called "customers" (English→Malayalam→English translation might have made this "clients") in OTRS, by the software. Regarding the lens, I think it's WMIN's job to fund its purchase (and lend it the WMUK Mac mini way).    FDMS  4    20:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FDMS4 It would be nice if WMIN sponsored such projects, but from browsing their site it does not appear to me that they have any kind of grant program. They have a lot of information about how to donate to WMIN, not the other way around AFAICT. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be nice if WMF + regional groups did more grant making for things like this. But it doesn't seem very high priority to fund individuals or they want to attach all sorts of strings (a loan rather than gift). -- Colin (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In regards to grants, WM-AU has a camera equpment program. I got the large equipment support grant ($1000) which covered half the cost of my camera but I did reinvest the $1000 for a 50mm lens, more SD cards and a flash unit a few years ago. Bidgee (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Slaunger: There is a Grants page, which redirects to a page called "Microgrants". However, no matter matter whether they would, I just think they should fund such projects.    FDMS  4    22:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That grants page seems a bit dead, with nothing listed as "approved" for ages. There are differences between Australia and other developed nations, and India and other developing nations -- camera equipment costs about the same yet wages and labour and local costs are hugely different. This may influence whether it is more cost effective to locally-fund activities such as training or hiring rooms vs purchasing equipment. And anyway, the money comes from donations whether via WMF or our own efforts. But I would like WMF to consider funding such grants, which are cheap compared to the cost of organising a conference or paying US salaries. -- Colin (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Btw, in case anyone where Jee is, he's had to go away for a short while for family reasons, so doesn't have wiki access. I'm sure he's very touched, as I am, by the generosity and goodwill shown. -- Colin (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm very happy to report that the modest target of $750 has been met in one day. Clearly we underestimated the generosity of the Commons community. We were encouraged to set a low target since failure to meet the target incurs hefty penalty fees from Indiegogo. But there is more equipment that will be very useful for Jee, from the essential components of every serious photographer's kit (good camera bag, tripod) to the specialist equipment to take the best macro pictures in poor light (a macro flash). So further donations are very very welcome and will be wisely used. Of the 1000-odd photographs Jee has uploaded to Commons so far, more than half are illustrating Wikipedia articles, which is a strong measure of high quality educational photography. -- Colin (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

$1.635 now :). --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2.000$ now :). Face-smile.svg 718smiley.svg Awesome! Clin -- Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks all for your helps and supports. I was away for a few days to to some unexpected personal matters. Back now and catching up. Jee 08:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fantastic work. Congratulations to everyone involved. --99of9 (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, this is Ravi from Wikimedia India. I am happy to know about Jeevan Jose's excellent work and the support he has been receiving from the community both on-wiki and off-wiki. Wikimedia India is well aware of needs like these and has put a Infrastructure Scholarship program in place for providing equipments and services that enable more and better contributions from already active community members. Wikimedia India is working under a limited budget. But, we will try our best to meet such needs. This is done under a FDC grant from WMF. So, in principle, the larger movement recognizes and supports needs like these.

As Bidgee points out, there are also precedents in the Wikimedia World.

Wikimedia Australia once had give a scholarship for the purchase of camera to User:99of9.

WMAU has documented their learning for the wider movement here.


The most recent innovation that is beneficial to the broader Wikimedia movement is our wmau:Proposal:Camera equipment program, which supports volunteers and improves Wikimedia Commons. Before the WMAU program was approved in January 2012, the committee had approved one small grant for camera equipment in July 2011 (wmau:Resolution:Toby Hudson's Small Grant). With the program in place, we have approved reimbursement for camera equipment purchases of $1600, and are currently reviewing another application for reimbursement of $500.


Having said these, I would also like to highlight that grants for equipments like these have to be properly accounted by each organization according to the laws of the countries they have been registered. Some times, it can be impossible or may involve lot of paper work (especiallywhen foreign grant money is involved) and risk in case of damage or loss of the equipment. So, it is up to each organization to figure out how to support these needs. But, there is no second opinion that movement funds should be used for meeting such needs. Thanks.--Ravidreams (WMIN) (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The precedents aren't particularly impressive or indicative of a healthy regular grant support for Wikimedians. The one for 99of9 (Toby Hudson) wasn't (from what I read) a "scholarship for the purchase of camera" but a grant of $200 towards a $900 macro lens he was buying. In return he promised a certain number of usable images, which has been achieved. The Australian program page looks fairly dusty (is there another page where applications are discussed/approved?) and seems to have rather stiff requirements (such as 1000 images in 1000 categories). It seems more concerned with quantity than quality (size requirements of 1000px are ridiculously meager and indicative of a history by some of only donating small size images to Commons while retaining full-size images for commercial sale). The India program has offered $79 towards the loan of a scanner. I understand the limited budget, which is why I think this is something WMF should be looking at, for whom $79 is small change. -- Colin (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From what I know of WM-AU, it is almost a zombie chapter, slowly eating its way through funding and offering very little back to the community or Wiki projects, arguably with the exception of those photography grants I suppose. I have a feeling that it's largely down to the lack of interest of its members, and partly due to the large geographical distances making it hard for members to meet and organise... I recently asked why WM-AU hasn't been involved in Wiki Loves Monuments, and the response was that nobody was interested in organising it. It's a shame. Australia is a relatively 'new' country but it has plenty of interesting 19th century monuments, and certainly not devoid of talented Wikipedian photographers (although history shows that the wildlife and landscapes are more of an interest than buildings!). Diliff (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Diliff: I don't think that's a fair characterization. I'd say it's simply a small chapter in comparison to some of the behemoths we know and love. I'm not on the committee but am a happy member. There is very significant support from WMAU for activities in the GLAM sector (see the GLAMWIKI newsletter for month-by-month details, including stacks of library training and engagement). It's not always financial (because as you say we haven't applied for major central funding, apart from the country-based fundraiser). The committee networked with Wikibomb + and Wikimedia in Higher Education organizers to provide volunteer support. The photography equipment grant scheme discussed above is still in operation, and although the numbers sound low, there are not that many of us contributing high volumes on Commons. Commons also benefits from the GLAM relationships: I now have ~monthly contact with State Librarians in my state who are now established Wikipedians in their own right, and have managed to convince their institution to properly acknowledge the permission status of out-of-copyright works, enabling mass uploads of 12,000 items of historic media so far. And that's just the stuff I've benefitted from... There's also been a lot of work on wikitowns, and I believe there is a standing offer to support meetups (which is sometimes taken up in Melbourne). @Gnangarra: and @Kerry Raymond: are both Commons contributors on the current committee and may have more to add (sorry if I left out others). To find out more, please consider attending Wikiconference Australia 2015, another event they are organizing. --99of9 (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm happy to stand corrected then! I'd like to see the chapters more involved, but I guess we can't magic interested participants out of thin air, and it has to happen organically. Australia used to contribute a lot more active photographers in the past than seems to be the case now. I know that the images we see on QI and FPC are just the tip of the iceberg, but there used to be more active participation from Aussies than seems to be the case now. For what it's worth, I will one day soon (this year or perhaps next) be returning to Australia, so I suppose I shouldn't upset my future local chapter. :-) Diliff (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This probably isn't the place to have a conversation about WMAU and WLM, but the problem is not the organisation of it. The problem is that that we must upload datasets of monuments to the WLMdatabase. In most cases the datasets (which are maintained by a number of govt agencies plus some non-govt ones) are not avaialable to us. For example, we could do it for Queensland because I have negotiated access to that dataset, but we could not do it for most other states. To collect and enter all that data manually is a massive task, which understandably nobody is very keen to do. Also we wanted to include war memorials, which are very important culturally in Australia and particularly significant with the Gallipoli cententary approaching, yet we were told our war memorials were not acceptable for inclusion in WLM. If WLM would be more flexible about its requirements for participation, then we would probably be taking part. Also, our chapter is very active in outreach with programs of edit training and public talks (for any group or individual that asks us) at no cost (see our Past events page for details). We are rolling out hundreds of new articles using content that we have negotiated CC-BY access, we have the two WikiTowns projects running, etc. We have the camera scheme as previously mentioned. Where we have not been so successful is in organising local meet-ups, as turn-out has been pretty discouraging and we really don't know what we can do to improve that. So I am really not sure why people might think us inactive; perhaps we are just too busy doing things to have time to blow our own trumpet. Kerry Raymond (talk)
@Colin: I agree that the WMF should (centrally or via chapters) expand something like the WMAU Photography equipment scheme more broadly. Contributing photos to Wiki*edia can be much more costly than contributing words to Wikipedia. IMO it was good to start with requirements on the stiff side, and small co-contributions ($200 of $900) to ensure the system is not gamed, and goes to genuine contributors rather than those in it for the $$$. Maybe other schemes could set a lower bar but achieve this with a strong oversight and screening process instead. Like you, I argued for quality (specifically the QI process) as a metric when the scheme was being set up, but it was considered complex as it is, and Wikipedia often values images that fill an important niche more than super high quality that we snobs on Commons look for. --99of9 (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
. Although it's great that we're a repository for the world's media, we have to keep in mind that most of it gets very little traffic. One great image that is used in multiple articles on multiple language Wikipedia articles is (IMO) much more valuable than ten or one hundred sub-par images of some obscure object or building, only a couple of which could ever conceivably be used on Wikipedia. Both ends of the spectrum have their place and I'm certainly not saying we should sacrifice one for the other, but the potential utility of an image should be a factor in valuing it and I think those super high quality 'trophy images' of the sort that feature in POTY should be a strategic goal of Wikimedia chapters just as much as bulk dumps of images from GLAMs. Diliff (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the other hand, I took a series of photos at the Harvard Natural History Museum, e.g. File:Epomophorus labiatus Harvard.jpg. As you can see, that's not going to win any POTY competition, but it happens to be our best only photo of the Ethiopian epauletted fruit bat. OTOH, File:Swallow flying drinking.jpg is a striking photo, but the descriptions don't agree on what species it is, and the mainspace pages it's actually in use on have a good selection of alternate images for whatever species it is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The way I see it: ultimately we want quality reader experience, which is roughly: eyeballs * quality. Eyeballs is roughly: project_usage * coreness. Project usage depends either on identified nicheness/rareness (eg Prosfilaes) or best-in-class quality (eg Diliff). So both are obviously good targets. GLAM is mainly useful because it's a fast way to get a *lot* of diverse/rare images (and it's also a place where the officialness of chapter backing reaps credibility rewards). It's interesting to compare two straightforward sets: modern quality mostly identified CSIRO images, 603 used + low quality but historic QSA images, 204 used which are roughly on par with my total QI contributions, 1246 used but about 500 of those are Jesus. Obviously I spent a lot more time getting the photographs! --99of9 (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's interesting analysis, I haven't seen Glamtools before. OK, but lets break the numbers down:
QSA media. 4572 images, 204 total image uses and 156 distinct images used across the Wiki projects, meaning 3.7% of them are used at least once.
CSIRO media. 3527 images, 603 total image uses and 314 distinct images used across the Wiki projects, with 8.9% of them used at least once.
99of9's QI media. 143 images, 1246 total image uses and 139 distinct images used across the Wiki projects, with 97.2% of them used at least once.
Diliff's FP media. 156 images, 11685 total image uses and 154 distinct images used across the Wiki projects, with 98.72% of them used at least once.
This is not an attempt to toot my own horn (but toot toot!)... It just goes to show that user-generated content, particularly the 'best-in-class' images are orders of magnitude more useful to the Wiki projects. Whether this is because they are genuinely more useful images, or whether they are used more simply because the users who created them have more of an incentive to find appropriate homes for them, I don't know. I suppose there is the relative obscurity of QSA and CSIRO's images compared to the more commonly referenced subjects that most of us tend to photograph. Either way, it seems like a strong case for the Wikimedia chapters valuing user-generated content. Diliff (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that someone who is going out and photographing content that they know is needed in existing articles is always the most valuable contribution, because those people both upload to Commmons and then use the photo in articles. But we have plenty of people just uploading photos for which we don't yet have articles, just as we have people writing articles for which we don't have photos, but slowly the two do converge. I write a lot of new articles and I am often amazed at how often I find a photo on Commons uploaded many years earlier, so a photo unused today isn't a never-used photo, just a not-yet used photo. And collections like QSA (which I know intimately as I categorised most of it) which are bulk uploaded will also slowly start to get used more as time passes, but of course I would never expect them to be as heavily used for two reasons: being out-of-copyright means they are mostly old low-res black-and-white images - of course we'd prefer high-res colour images where we have them. Secondly, bulk uploads tend to have a particular collection focus and possibly have too much on niche topics. For example, the QSA has hundreds of images of the construction of the Story Bridge. OK, we will never need all of them for Wikipedia articles, but we can and do include the Commons Categories in the article for anyone wanting more images that don't get included in the GLAM tools reporting. As I mostly write historical articles, I do draw on those collections. Can any Commons contributor take a photo for me of a 19th century politican? For historical people and historical events, we do depend on GLAM uploads to a large extent as our only source. Wikipedia's coverage is currently strongly skewed to the present day. We need both kinds of contributions. Kerry Raymond (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Diliff: GLAMorous is a super-useful resource. To make the case you are suggesting, you first should tick "Main namespace only", whereupon my percentage drops to 70.63%... but more importantly it's worth notionally dividing the usage by the effort+expenses. For me the effort required to upload the entire QSA database was roughly equivalent to obtaining one Featured Picture! or about 20 QIs. Anyway, I don't think we're really arguing - I totally agree that Chapters should continue to value and support user-generated content. But they should also continue to support GLAM content. --99of9 (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ravidreams (WMIN): What do you mean by "there is no second opinion that movement funds should be used for meeting such needs"? Are you looking for a second chapter to set up a similar scheme (cf Wikimedia CH have a lending scheme that seems quite productive)? Do you take the absence of a second scheme as an indication that the chapters/communities disapprove of using movement funds this way? --99of9 (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I were to offer advice to another chapter or similar thinking of running a Camera Scheme, I would say "don't have too many rules, instead trust the judgement of your own people". It's tempting to add lots of rules about quality, quantity etc, but as the conversation above demonstrates, different images are useful in different ways. And you can over-worry about people gaming the system. The rules should never be "tick these boxes and you get funded". They should be more guidelines of "these are what are likely to make your application successful". If you pick a small group of people in your chapter who are active on Commons to make the decisions, they will easily be able to assess if the person is making a good faith effort to contribute useful photos or just gaming the system. The "quality trap" is that past contributions may be made in low-res because the person is using old equipment, but, if you helped them upgrade to newer equipment, then their future contributions would be higher quality. The scheme should always be focussed on what they will do in the future with the camera, not what they did in the past (other than as a demonstration of their commitment to good faith contributions to Commons). I note as well as the Camera Scheme, WMAU also has a general Volunteer Support Scheme to assist financially with any reasonable expense needed to contribute to Wikipedia in some way (again, using past contributions as an indicator of good faith applications). This includes things like reference books and travel to specific locations and events relevant to the person's normal areas of contribution.Kerry Raymond (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you. Local or on-wiki knowledge plus AGF is more important that 1000 images in 1000 categories (I'm struggling to think who might qualify for that and who I also regard as a great photographer?). And yes, local travel expenses might be one way to help a photographer rather than equipment, particularly if the local expenses are cheap vs imported electronics. Please do away with low-res thresholds. There hasn't been a camera made in the last 10 years that can't do a decent 6MP image. -- Colin (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Several chapters have some kind of Equipment lending scheme − Wikimedia CH was mentionned, but also Wikimedia Österreich, Wikimédia France, Wikimedia Sverige or Wikimedia UK (and maybe others). Jean-Fred (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and also the biggest one, WMDE: Wikipedia:Technikpool, Wikipedia:Festivalsommer/Technik. See also the specific projets that intensively use lending programs to cover sports events (fr:Projet:Sport/Photo) or music events (de:Wikipedia:Festivalsommer. Pyb (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 23

Video quality fixed incorrectly

File:Diamond Trust of London - Kickstarter.webm defaults to a shit quality transcode in the player. There is no setting to change the version being played back in the default viewer. The only way to get the original quality is to open up the file manually in the browser, bypassing TimedMediaHandler. Fairly sure this is a bug. - hahnchen 21:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, it really should be choosing the original file as the source on browsers supporting webm. (The reason it only does crappy transcodes is because the height of the video is less than 314px high, and the smallest webm transcode we do is 360 px high. But in these cases its supposed to use original webm). Problem appears to be in player javascript. It works correctly with js disabled. Bawolff (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Silly TimedMediaHandler. It detects the video as video/webm; codecs="vorbis, vp8", but refuses to play it because it thinks it only supports video/webm; codecs="vp8, vorbis". This is definitely a bug. Bawolff (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Filed phab:T91431. Bawolff (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FFmpeg log on the talk page JFTR, but obviously encoding one MP4 bit in four WebM bits did not really help.:tongue:Be..anyone (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 03

Licencing query

Not sure what to do with this file - File:SoutheastAustralia MapLocator.png. It is good for using for ranges for southeastern Australian organisms but is the licencing a problem...also...does Tasmania look a little big on this? Do we think it is fixable? Casliber (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. It looks just right. --Dschwen (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

25k PD-old photos by Pedro II of Brazil

…where are they in Commons? Here the tantalizing catalogue in Brazil’s National Library, but I could not find a single entry among Common’s photos credited to Pedro II of Brazil (1825-1891), let alone the mentioned 25 thousand. Any ideas? -- Tuválkin 00:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Any better link on that Brazil National Library thing? Because that one comes up empty for me. - Jmabel ! talk 23:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a quaint weird thing: I didn’t noticed it before, but you need to click on the button with a big bold ">" on it, next to the search box where there’s already pre-filled the search term "colecao|d.|teresa|cristina|maria". The search lists items which are mostly photos or photo collections and links to their descriptions (the book icon), but is shows no photos, not even a tiny thumbnail. Face-sad.svg It is like they don’t want to have it online at all (maybe because they know it would be impossible to enforce an exclusive copyright?). -- Tuválkin 02:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its the online version of a en:library catalog, not an online copy of the content registered in that catalog. --Martin H. (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pages with no revisions

The following pages seem to exist but have no revisions:

Instead of seeing any revisions, I see an error message:

The revision #0 of the page named "Commons:Village pump/Archive/2015/03" does not exist.

This is usually caused by following an outdated history link to a page that has been deleted. Details can be found in the deletion log.

What is this caused by? --Stefan4 (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strange, must be some broken database, page from first link is at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pjy 2014-02-21 14-32.jpg a --Denniss (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I deleted Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sltung-FB.png (sometimes deleting & restoring is crating page id in database). But now all revisions seems completely lost :/ --> --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Created a bugreport: phabricator:T91679 --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a strange one: Category:James B. Weaver is an uncategorized and recent category that is a duplicate to the older Category:James Weaver. All files but one can be moved to the other category. But the one picture (File:James Weaver - Brady-Handy.jpg) leads to a warning message and seems to generate an automatic subcategorization of Category:James B. Weaver under Category:James Weaver. Is there any template sorcery involved or am I just to dumb to do it the right way? --Rudolph Buch (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

like that? Mvg, Basvb (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Errr - yes, exactly like that. When I tried this (and I did try several times) I got strange error messages about transcluded blocked templates and such. But thanks... --Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-Latin-script page titles

Browsing around pages like 東京 and Улаанбаатар, I take it there must be some kind of policy that city/country/similar pages' names be in the language that the place that they are describing uses. This is fair enough, and I understand that pages like Tokyo do redirect, but, if you came upon a page like ላሊበላ by some means other than typing in the English/Spanish/... redirect, then you may have no idea what the page is about.

As a proposal, for logged-in users, at least, could the Commons software: (a) take your user language (say, Spanish), (b) if it isn't the same as the language the page's title is in, check Wikidata whether that wiki (i.e., es.wp) has a name for the Commons page you are on, (c), display the page title for you as something like "東京 [Tokio]" or "ላሊበላ [Lalibela]", so that you had a better chance of understanding it? Note that not all articles have translation-boxes (e.g. 東京 does, but ላሊበላ currently doesn't), so these aren't always availalble for users. It Is Me Here t / c 20:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if there's any policy which requires galleries to be in native script, but some of the users who are speakers of such languages prefer it (especially since categories are currently required to be in Latin alphabet). AnonMoos (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New York City help sought

Last October there were over 4000 images in Category:New York City. I've been able to assign a more specific location category to the vast bulk of them (usually with a precise location such as a street address, particular building, etc., except for those which are, for example, a general Lower Manhattan skyline). I haven't lived in New York since the 1970s, but in some ways that was an advantage because many of these were historical photos of now-demolished buildings.

Somewhere under 200 images remain in Category:Unidentified locations in New York City and Category:Unidentified locations in Manhattan. Perhaps half of these are hopeless (simply not enough visible to place them) but I suspect that someone who knows the city -- especially the present-day city -- better than I do could pin down another 50-100. - Jmabel ! talk 17:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice work Jmabel! I think that for some of the images, such as portrait images or buses without any background, the location is not a relevant property of the image (and they are near impossible to find). I would suggest removing such images from the unidentified location cats. Other files such as File:Verkoopakte Manhattan.jpg are relevant for Manhattan, but don't have a location (It's the sale document of Manhattan from the Dutch). Mvg, Basvb (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the most part, I agree. User:Epicgenius placed that particular Verkoopakte file in that "unidentified location" category, not me. As for bus and taxi photos, in general I'm not the one who put them in "unidentified location" categories (although in some cases I may have moved files from Category:Unidentified locations in New York City to Category:Unidentified locations in Manhattan because I could tell exactly that much), but it's remarkable what little details of locations are sometimes enough to tell the tale. I got some out of photos like that (e.g. File:Academy MCI D4500 8950.jpg, which even shows one major building that has since been demolished) and I bet there are still a few that can be pinned down by someone else. For example, [:File:Orion hybrid bus in New York city-3.JPG]] and File:Orion hybrid bus in New York city-4.JPG are clearly the same location as each other, and I'd be almost certain they are on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, but I don't know quite where. - Jmabel ! talk 03:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are definitely many images that I can easily identify, since I live in NYC, so I'll be cleaning out Category:Unidentified locations in New York City and Category:Unidentified locations in Manhattan in the next few weeks or so. Epic Genius (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Epicgenius: Wonderful! - Jmabel ! talk 19:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inspire Campaign: Improving diversity, improving content

This March, we’re organizing an Inspire Campaign to encourage and support new ideas for improving gender diversity on Wikimedia projects. Less than 20% of Wikimedia contributors are women, and many important topics are still missing in our content. We invite all Wikimedians to participate. If you have an idea that could help address this problem, please get involved today! The campaign runs until March 31.

All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive, positive feedback on ideas is appreciated, and collaboration is encouraged - your skills and experience may help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign and help this project better represent the world’s knowledge!

(Sorry for the English - please translate this message!) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a very important and very needed outreach and I wish it full success. I have however a question about a minor point — one that is stated above and often repeated elsewhere: How can it be said that «less than 20% of Wikimedia contributors are women», or any other such exact value, when so many of us chose not to disclose any information about their gender?… -- Tuválkin 00:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All I can see is the Wikimedia Foundation/UNU-MERIT survey and a couple of papers listed at It looks like it's all based on opt-in data from 2011 or earlier. --ghouston (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Besides that, even perfect data about the number of contributors wouldn't be the whole story. A wiki with one male contributor with 10,000 edits and one female contributor with 1 edit would still be male-dominated. --ghouston (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is based on a survey they did a while ago. Really there is no way to know exactly what the percentage is for certain. I would pose this though. For any of you who have ever seen the pictures from the meetups or from Wikimania, just scan those photos for women. There sure seems to be an awful lot in those pictures to me. Not as many as men I admit, but still a lot. For example, I just looked at 3 different Wikimania group photos and there are approximately 63 women in each one. Using File:Wikimania 2012 Group Photograph-0001.jpg as an example, it appears that women make up at least 20% of the crowd. Reguyla (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some Alaskans here? We need to photograph the Iditarod

Hello, I hope to contact some Alaskan editors here. I work on sled dog racing on several wikiprojects (Wikidata, Commons and several Wikipedias) and I need photographs of, well, about anyone, actually. So if some of you are in Anchorage on Saturday, in Fairbanks on Monday or on any of the checkpoints of the 2015 Iditarod, could you please go and photograph them? We have actually photos of several mushers but most of the participants this year doesn't have any free pictures (and when we have free pictures they are several years old most of the time). So any new photo, at all, would be pretty good. We need photos of every musher, even rookies, if possible. There are several categories on Commons, like Category:Mushers and subcategories, but you can just import on Category:2015 Iditarod (it doesn't exist right now but I'll create it once we have some photos) and I'll clean them up. Thank you very much. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Harmonia Amanda: Not that I am a Twitter person at all, but this seems like something where there is probably a relevant hashtag that could be poked at. Revent (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I also did this announcement on twitter, and on Wikipedia. No one has yet responded to me but I still hope! --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upload error

Getting repeated message An unknown error occurred in storage backend "local-swift-eqiad". Will try again... AnonMoos (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same here, glad it's not just me. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 16:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uploading broken, reported to techs: phabricator:T91761 --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People are looking into the issue. Current theory is a recent config change broke things. They're going to try and revert it to see if that fixes it. Bawolff (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should be fixed now (Thanks to Reedy). Bawolff (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Worked for me, thanks!!! mr.choppers (talk)-en- 17:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal for Main Page migration into new translation system

Hi! I propose migration of Main Page into new translation system. This will simplify the centralized maintenance of all language versions, it will be easier to add new translations and all versions will be generally synchronous. Current scheme with localized page names will be saved. Any objections? --Kaganer (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose. Some mainpages like to add individual notices/style. And it is also a problem with all the individual protections. And it is creating /subpages like /de /fr but mainpages have a own naming here on commons, like /de = Hauptseite. Not a good idea imho. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Kaganer said that the «Current scheme with localized page names will be saved»; I assume that means that Hauptseite will become a redirect of Main_Page/de, or one will be transcluded in the other. It should be transparent for users who access it, I think. -- Tuválkin 04:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, trancluded, as in Meta. See explanation. --Kaganer (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weird behaviour of MediaWiki message delivery

It just posted some notification at discussion page of my template in my userspace:User_talk:Pbm/Credits? Why it posted it to template page instead my user page discussion? And how it's targeted - why I'm getting messages in Ukrainian? Paweł 'pbm' Szubert (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because you are listed on Commons talk:Wiki Loves Monuments in Ukraine/3 years total number of objects pictured by uploader. Sent by @Ahonc: . Looks like a list generator error by the WLM Ukraine team. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That list was generated by user:Ilya, I only sent message.--Anatoliy (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I think I know how I got into the list - I have some photos from Ukraine. And recenly I had User_talk:Pbm/Credits as template in Author field (it's now fixed and moved to some other field). Thanks for explanation. Paweł 'pbm' Szubert (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upload from Google Art Project

Hi! Can someone upload the new best version from same source of this file, please? --Micione (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done by Yann (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, but why the other version? --Micione (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried to create manually a better version with the FireShot plugin, but it doesn't work as advertised. Yann (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for my English. I wanted to say, why it is uploaded in this file, instead in this? Is from Google Art Project? --Micione (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Manually upload Geograph images?

What's the route for doing this these days?

I've been trying to use but had no joy from it today. Tried re-registering TUSC (which has been known to fix it in the past). Now can't login to TUSC.

Does any of this still work? Has it been replaced by something else?

I'm after if anyone fancies a useful import test image!

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have uploaded the file at File:Leawood Pump (geograph 2682446).jpg. I agree the geograph2commons tool does not appear to be working correctly at present. I just got it to work as far generating the file information which I then copied and pasted in to the basic upload form and manually uploaded it that way. There may well be a better or at least more convenient way of doing it that I am not aware of. Rept0n1x (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

French translator needed

Hi friends. There's an ongoing discussion regarding some emblems from France in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Oursmili. @Oursmili: has referred to a discussion in the French Wikipedia that, if I've understood it correctly, supports that this kind of emblems is in the public domain. However, I'm not being able to completely verify it, as I can't speak French at all. It would be helpful if some French speaker with some knowledge of the English language translated (or at least summarized) said discussion. Best regards --Discasto talk | contr. | analysis 20:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do a bunch of categories have in their main page, "This category has been improved by the Wikipedia Takes Manhattan project"? I would think that, at most, if any thing like this is tracked it would belong on the talk page. I've improved literally thousands of category pages, but I don't go leaving marks like this on them. - Jmabel ! talk 15:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging @Pharos: the organizer of the project. --El Grafo (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this project was from 7 years ago (!), so standards were not quite established then, and I agree it would be better to put it on the talk pages now. The reason for the effort is this was a large collective project with dozens of photographers participating.--Pharos (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slow uploading?

Myself and a few others have found uploading to Commons to be rather slow, not sure if anyone else is experiencing the slowness but it is painful to just upload one 2 Meg file (in some cases it takes up to 10 minutes). Bidgee (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'm supposed to be getting 40kb/s uploading, but Commons is not giving me that either. I had thought it was just my connection. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eye iris.jpg

I recognised a Commons picture in this film (00:11:50) as I edited the related article once upon a time and I have an aptitude for facial recognition. They had special thanks to everyone at the finishing credits for permissions but not a mention of us even though User:che specifically says "Please credit as "Petr Novák, Wikipedia" in case you use this outside Wikimedia projects." Naughty millionaire producers who download and use random pictures of the Internet!

Here is a still image from the film. I guess it is fair usage now.--Abuk SABUK (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creationists being dishonest? Why am I not surprised…? -- Tuválkin 05:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Woww, you have a good eye for an eye :)!! As this is notable for the image I added the information. See File:Eye iris.jpg#Usage. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that you can also use {{Published}} on a file talk page to indicate the usage of a file. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Photo challenge: Anybody interested in a challenge for analog (film) photography?

Lifeguard making sure film won't die while it's enjoying its autumn years at the beach (together with vinyl records and handwritten letters). By Christopher Crouzet, taken with a Hasselblad 500.

Dear all, most of you probably have heard of (or already participated in) our monthly Photo challenges. Recently, the idea has come up to do a special challenge that doesn't have a fixed subject picture-content wise, but would be restricted to photos taken with analog equipment. The challenge in a nutshell (see proposal for how it might look like + discussion):

De-dust whatever old analog photography equipment you can get your hands on, shoot whatever you like (must fit COM:SCOPE of course), digitize the results and enter them in the challenge.

The photo challenges were always intended to encourage people a) go shooting, b) try something new/different and c) have fun doing it, and I think this challenge would fit this spirit perfectly. However, analog photography takes a lot of time: You need to finish a roll of film (unless you're shooting polaroid – which would be fine!), have it developed and digitize it. We would probably account for that by letting the challenge run longer than the usual month, but we are still a bit concerned that this may deter people from participating, so:

What do you think? Could you imagine shooting some film in order to participate?

Thanks for your input, --El Grafo (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Might sound odd, but I quite frankly can't think of a single place where I live that develops film. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No I can't imagine shooting some film, but I can imagine dusting off some old photographs and scanning them. --Jarekt (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Most argentic pictures I have which have some educational value are already uploaded here. I don't have an an analog camera anymore, and I won't buy one, even for a contest. ;oD But otherwise, why not?... Yann (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This would encourage shooting lower quality images than with digital equipment. Not to mention that majority of users already don't have film cameras. It would be surely better to ask for scanning of existing analog images --- [Tycho] talk 15:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Existing analog images taken by the uploaders, naturally (as that is part of what the photo challenge is about). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2D photo releases of 3D artworks

Are there any good examples we can point to of 2D photo releases of 3D artworks? I.e., the underlying three dimensional artwork remains copyrighted, but the artist has agreed to copyleft a particular 2D photographic view of it. This is for a partnership project with a museum, fwiw.--Pharos (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can not think of an example of a single photograph of a sculpture being approved for by the sculptor of still copyrighted sculpture, but I do not see an issue with it. I would suggest using {{Art photo}} template for description where you can most clearly separate 2 works (the sculpture and the photograph) and the 2 authors. We would need OTRS letter from the sculptor and possibly the photographer. --Jarekt (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I upload a non-free company logo?

I've searched all the village pump, and archives and help for specific instructions about non-free company logo images, and how (specifically) to upload them. The last time I tried to upload one, it was removed with speedy deletion because I'm sure I just filled out the information wrong. If someone can clearly explain step-by-step like say for example the Starbucks logo got put into Wikimedia Commons, I'd like to upload one just like that (same process). Thanks! Zul32 (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons doesn't accept non-free files. You'd need to convert it to a free logo by getting the company to officially release it under a free license. Alternatively you could try to upload it to a Wikipedia project instead using a fair-use rationale. --ghouston (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the Starbucks logo is accepted here, it means either it's not considered to be a non-free logo, or nobody got around to deleting it yet. --ghouston (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are talking about this file, it's on Wikipedia, not Commons. --ghouston (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a Category:Starbucks_logos here, but that's a logo I wouldn't upload here, the usual excuses like {{PD-textlogo}}, {{PD-shape}}, etc. aren't applicable for a seriously complex logo. As Ghouston already said, "fair use" with an upload on a Wikipedia (not commons) permitting "fair use" is a different story. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christmas crossword

EFF Crossword Puzzle 2014: The Year in Copyright News

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has published this (copyright related) crossword which you can play online at It makes a nice break from feeding yourself with Christmas treats. Happy holidays everyone. :-) (talk)   16:57, 25 December 2014‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can be archived, I guess. --McZusatz (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Turning an individual djvu-page

Hello, I need to have turned this djvu-page [9]]. Can someone do that? --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Probably you can just make this request on the page with {{Rotate}}, but if you don't think anyone will follow through on that for a djvu document, you could bring this to Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop. Not exactly an illustration, but I think that's where you'd be most likely to find someone who knows djvu. - Jmabel ! talk 01:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My understanding is that you have to 'decompile' the djvu to individual images, rotate the particular one, and then convert it back to a djvu... major pain. Hopefully someone knows an easier way. Revent (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions. I couldn't put rotate on the page, which should rotate all pages of the File. I finally choosed to download this one page, turn rotate and type the texte on my computer, and publish. --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fake claim of origin


The uploader claims that this image comes from a "Offical Military Newspaper 1923". It is however taken from the Andrew Mollo's book The Armed Forcds of World War II. Uniforms, insignia and organizations (Crown Publishers, New York) 1981.

Creuzbourg (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See: Royal Yugoslavian Air Force Rank Chart Creuzbourg (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creuzbourg, this belongs in a deletion request, then. (And I think you’re wrong, by the way.) -- Tuválkin 06:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And where would I find that? You Wiki-guys are really not weary user friendly, acting more like stereotype DMV bureaucrats. Creuzbourg (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You’re as much of a “Wiki-guy” as anyone else here (including the bad temper and the creative rudeness, present at least in some of us). You nominate a file for deletion by clicking a link on its filepage that reads "Nominate for deletion" (it shows on the left side column on my screen, probably also in yours). That will open a separate discussion page where people can chime in to discuss the deletion request, present arguments, and support or oppose the request; after a week, give or take, an administrator will close the matter and delete, or keep, the file. (I guess a DMV bureaucrat would tell you to look it up…) -- Tuválkin 12:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SVG- and Commons-related travel grant (endorsements welcome)

Example image drawn by Kevin

Hi community,
it has come to my attention that there is quite an interesting Commons-related grant that's just been submitted as part of the Travel & Participation Grants programme on Meta (jointly organised by the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia Deutschland and WMCH).

In short, Kelvin Song (@Kelvinsong) — whom some of you might recognize as a top-class creator of educational (and in, my opinion as a basic SVG creator, absolutely mind-blowing) SVG images — is asking for a grant to represent the Wikimedia community, and Commons in particular, at the Libre Graphics Meeting, which is due to take place in Toronto, Canada, at the end of April/beginning of May this year.

I don't usually follow TPS grant or advertise them in such a manner, but as a huge fan of Kelvin's outstanding work, and a SVG creator myself, I think this is an excellent way of at least attempting to bring new skills and people to an under-discovered area of Commons.

The grant page is on Meta; any help with copy-editing of the text as well as endorsements will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks! odder (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes; Kelvinsong's illustrations are mind-blowing! Thanks for the info. Jee 12:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Always positively delighted when I see these wonderful educative and artistic works. Especially because my attempts to draw SVGs hopelessly failed. -- Rillke(q?) 21:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WMF to file suit against the NSA

Hi, I first checked that we were not on April 1st, but no, this is real. So the WMF decided to file suit against the NSA, the United States Department of Justice, and the United States Attorney General. I don't know which practical results that would bring, but bravo to the legal team to take up such a challenge.

Regards, Yann (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reuters, The Independent, PC World. -- Cirt (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Templates "by year" leading categories to show up as uncategorized

Hi, there are some categories "by year" that are listed at Special:UncategorizedCategories although they are categorized automatically by a template. Examples are

Can this be fixed? Thanks, --Rudolph Buch (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has been a problem for a while not just for the categories but even for the files themselves. I think the only way to Fix this, because of the way that report is generated by the software, would be to create a sort of tracking category to account for it. Maybe something like Category:Categories with only template categories and Category:Articles with only template categories for the articles just so they will stop showing on the list. Adding the category to the ones that have any of those templates (or others) would be trivial to do with AWB or through any number of other methods and would greatly reduce the backlog of files in the Files with missing categories categories. Reguyla (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
moved from COM:AN --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its because the categories for the page wasn't regenerated when the template changed (They are supposed to be regenerated whenever a template changes, but sometimes the job queue barfs). I've forced the categories for everything the first 545 entries on that list to be re-evaluated. In three days the list should be updated with such entries removed. Bawolff (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That´s great, thank you. There are about a dozen categories with the same problem that I didn´t list above, please allow me to make you aware of them on your talk page after the next refresh of Special:UncategorizedCategories (but please don´t feel obliged, it surely is a low priority issue) --Rudolph Buch (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm basically just clicking to , waiting about 30 seconds and then increasing the last number (gqpoffset=0) by 30, and repeating (Stupid rate limiters are making me only do about 30 at a time). So far I'm up to 305. This will force mediawiki to re-evaluate categories of everything on special:uncategorizedcategories (That's the gqppage=Uncategorizedcategories part of the url). Anyone should be able to do this. If you are in the admin group or the bot group then you could probably do all 5000 things on Special:Uncategorizedcategories at once. Bawolff (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good, I´ll try this. I guess it´s going to be easier as soon as the special page has fewer entries which should be the case in a week or two. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did up to 545 as well as the numeric section, but I've stopped for now (sorry, but it was getting tedious). Bawolff (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal: Hashtag for Twitter images

Many people share images of what they see on Twitter, including images of notable current events (sport events, airplane crashes, etc.). As people want to show to the world what is happening, many of these people wouldn't care (or would be even proud) if these pictures are used by others. However it's not allowed to upload these pictures to Wiki Commons. Because of that I propose that an official hashtag would be created, that if people write this hashtag while posting the original image on Twitter, that it is allowed to upload the image to Wiki Commons. As there are several regularly used licenses Creative Commons licenses I would propose #CC-BY and #CC-BY-SA. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I’m all for social media pictures (on WP we desperately need images of taylor swift on her 1989 tour for example) I would be very surprised if “#CC-BY-SA” ever gains any usage outside the open source fandom. It simply contributes no meaning to your tweets (even though it might carry a lot of meaning commons-wise and legally). Also there’s the issue of people tagging that who don’t actually know what CC is—Kelvinsong talk 23:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 10

Untangling the Web

Fascinating publication, if anyone hasn't come across this yet. -- Cirt (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

=b, I didn't know that a copy made it to commons. Related: WMF to file suit against the NSA. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finding the rigth Berlin S-Bahn station

Wall paintings S-Bahn Berlin 2008 1.JPG

I took some fascinating pictures of Murals in an Berlin S-Bahn station in 2008. Unfortunatly I dont remember wich station. Same station in pictures (Wall paintings S-Bahn Berlin 2008 2) and (... 2008 3).Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These murals at Bahnhof Berlin Savignyplatz are indeed fascinating. -- Rillke(q?) 01:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have a winner (25M)

Main courtyard of the Mevlid-i Halil Mosque, Şanlıurfa, Turkey

We reached a nice milestone today! Multichill (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice! (How was the counting done?) -- Tuválkin 20:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Counting backwards and selecting the only file that didn't seem to be uploaded by a banned user. Multichill (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice, I was so hoping that the 25M image wasn't porn related!. Great job, congrats. Reguyla (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why? Is there a lot of porn in Commons’, however loosely defined? No there isn’t. There are more photos of trams in Commons’ than there are of naked people. You’re watching too much Fox News if you think otherwise. (Not sure how Fox News feels about trams though, but I bet they aren’t too hot on mosques, either…) -- Tuválkin 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like I was the first one to use this file to illustrate an article (on the English Wikipedia). I am sure we can improve this usage.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

25 millionth file

The 25th millionth file will soon be uploaded, it'd be nice to mark the mile stone, is anyone thinking of doing something ? I was thinking of maybe doing an article on Wikinews, any other ideas?--KTo288 (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Twenty-five is a nice “round” number (in base 10, anyway), but the not less nice number 24 million went apparently unnoticed (*), and before that the 23-millionth file uploaded merited but a brief mention in this village pump… The problem is that the 25-millionth file may be an unremarklable item, as the 22-millionth was. -- Tuválkin 23:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(*) The (first) 24-millionth file was uploaded between November 30th and December 7th, 2014, yet no mention of it in Commons:Village pump/Archive/2014/12. -- Tuválkin 05:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, we can estimate when it will be close to 25M and upload a lot of remarkable files in that minute/hour/day --- [Tycho] talk 09:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The last time this was discussed, I found it distasteful in the results to see there was deliberate engineering of batch uploads as a form of carpetbagging. I would like to see those with special bot accounts and funded equipment refrain from this temptation and leave it as happen chance.
Let's not let this become just a "brand marketing opportunity". Thanks -- (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you a bot, parent, guardian or dependent of a bot or an employee of a bot. Sadly, you are not eligible for this contest. This promotion void in New York, Oregon and Massachusetts! :-)Reguyla (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The last milestone to be marked on the community page was the 20 millionth file, last January. That's 5 million in just over a year. The difference between 24 and 25 doesn't seem to be that great, unless you work in base 12. There's always a number of files that the xth file can be, I guess we can try and pick the most "likely" candidate.--KTo288 (talk) 07:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
24M was noted on Commons:Milestones. Jean-Fred (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See #We have a winner (25M). Multichill (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blinked and we're over already.--KTo288 (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 09

Help correcting image


Could someone upload a new version of the following image. The nitrogen that's floating free isn't supposed to be there, there's supposed to be, where the 'N' is, a line going up to the 'R'. Other than that it's good. Nagelfar (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m not sure what you’re asking & I not a chemist but I did my best. BTW idk what app generated it but that the file is extremely poorly coded but whatevs—Kelvinsong talk 23:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, *almost* perfect. I suppose the line on the other side should be closer 'up' toward the "R" but otherwise it is exactly what I requested so you have my thanks. (the other guy who made it for me dropped off the map upon finishing and never corrected the error) Nagelfar (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done && np!!—Kelvinsong talk 02:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upload Wizard can't handle files with the same names but different file extensions?

It's common to have two files with the same name but different file extensions: File:Example.png and File:Example.jpg. I often upload large PNGs and accompany them with smaller JPGs, but the Upload Wizard doesn't allow this if they have the same file name. This sis a serious hassle, especially when uploading a large number of files. It's not Commons that disallows this—it's Upload Wizard. Can Upload Wizard be altered to allow this? Curly Turkey (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is one of the ways phab:T48741 manifests. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So it's a bug? And one that not much progress has been made on from the looks of it. What a hassle. Curly Turkey (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can always ignore Upload Wizard and upload files using other tools. I, for one, have barely used it, if at all. -- Tuválkin 02:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 13

Upgrade of image rendering servers

Hi all,

Its planned to upgrade the image rendering servers to Ubuntu trusty. This will hopefully fix some issues with some images. In particular:

This is also an important step towards making Opus audio tracks on video work.

The downside, is some large animated GIF files that were on the edge of rendering previously might stop rendering

The new image scalars will only be used for uncached renders (That is if nobody has looked at the particular image at that particular size, or if somebody has ?action=purge 'd the image recently). Additionally, at first (starting Thursday) only one server will be changed to make sure that there is no problems, so you will have a 1 in 9 chance of getting the new server.

Anyways, in the unlikely event that you encounter any image not working, especially if it used to work, please report it here (or at phabricator). For the technically curious, the upgrade is tracked by phab:T84842. Bawolff (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's excellent news. Do you think it's feasible to code/implement upload-through-stream? Like something sending an Opus-encoded stream (with or without container) but doesn't know its final (file) size while it is sending. -- Rillke(q?) 21:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure. In principle I don't see why not (particularly if its not true streaming, but chunked upload that doesn't know the final size until the end). Bawolff (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 11

Image was uploaded as "own work" using the "CC 4.0 International" license. Same image is also being used as the official logo of the Shotokan Karate Union. Uploader (Rachael reiko murakami) has stated here that she has no affiliation to the SKU. I opened a thread on here on user's Wikipedia user talk page to try and find out what is what, but I'm not sure what to do in the meantime. Should the file be tagged as COM:CSD#File? Should a license review request be made? Should a request for OTRS permission be made? Should I just wait to see how the uploader responds to my talk page post? - Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right, DR created: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shotokan Karate Union Logo Rising-sun-enso.gif‎. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The image was being used as the official logo of the Shotokan Karate Union. Uploader (Rachael reiko murakami) and my reply was "The SKU website says "Copyright MCMLXXXV All Rights Reserved" and i have fallen foul of placing the image in the wrong wiki area, but i would never be so presumptuous as to assume that i could just use the image without asking permission therefore my personal standards of courtesy led me to asking for that permission prior to downloading it and then uploading it to the wiki site, albeit in the wrong section. I may relocate it to the non free area as i wouldnt wish to breach the Wikipedia policies regarding images. But there again i may decide to delete it altogether in fear of making yet another mistake in the process of relocating it." But in the meantime as you were perplexed being "not sure what to do in the meantime" I have taken the uncertainty out of it for you and have opted for the later option and "decided to delete it altogether in fear of making yet another mistake in the process of relocating it" now you have waited "to see how the uploader responds" I hope that my decision sets your mind at rest. I am struggling though to see how and where to upload it so that i can use it and "satisfy all the criteria for non-free content" Regards Rachael (Rachael reiko murakami)

Thank you for the clarification Rachael. Basically, even if the SKU told you it was OK to use their image, Wikipedia Commons has no way of verifying such a thing. What the SKU needs to do is clearly let Wikipedia Commons know that they [SKU] intend to release the image for use under a free license. They can do this by email. Everything is explained at "Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?" and "If you are not the copyright holder". Finally, when you sign your talk page posts please use four tilde (~~~~) and not {{u|Rachael reiko murakami}}. The four tilde not only add your username, but it also adds a time stamp to your posts. The template you used is not for signing posts. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply for Marchjuly

Thanks Marchjuly I have read your recent comment above several times and i think that i understand it now, and i will endeavour to retain your current input of information for future projects, as i have no need of it on this current project because as i stated above i have deleted it form the current project and i intend on replacing it at my convenience with an image that i personally have complete copyright over. Therefore I am also requesting its immediate deletion form wiki commons. What do i need to put a request in to do so ? or as you instigated the enquiry in the first instance then will that deletion request deal with it ?

This current faux pas of mine just goes to highlight my need for immediate assistance, and I refer you to the request for help that i sent you on my userpage.

"Its reassuring to find out that someone with your skills and knowledge of the wiki ways was once a green novice such as I. And No; under different circumstances your enthusiasm would be a breath of fresh air but its just that I am making so many mistakes and offending the delicate nature of so many unknown new friends that I never knew i had, that makes me to reiterate that i was 100% serious when i asked you to tidy up my draft page to suit yours and wikis standards of compliance. Having looked back upon the numerous comments that you have left me all with good intentions im sure, as no one would spend as much time trying to prove to other how much they know by humiliating others while stating that they are trying to help others, would they! After reviewing your many contributions to my failing project i can appreciate the time and effort that you have given to familiarising your self with my project, it could almost be said that the sum total of your contributions are a master class in the wiki ways that are aimed at the complete novice such as I, and in total sincerity for that I am very grateful. But when one compares the inordinate amount of time that you must have spent on producing the master class i guess that you could have if you had redirected that effort into tidying up my page, then could have got it in to shape several times over by now and not attracted the numerous humiliating comments that are serving to highlight my short coming as a contributor to this site. That is why again i am seriously asking you to tidy up my page and help a struggling damsel in distress and then i will have something reliable to work from for any future pages that i submit and i will always be grateful to you for your help"

Regards Rachael Rachael reiko murakami (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I don't think it is a good idea to use such template. Could someone with a bot replace it by {{Information}}? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. It seems that this template was mostly used by User:UWCTransferBot, used to transfer images from the Ukrainian Wikipedia. I guess this template allows/allowed to transfer the files easily, without the need to transcribe the Ukrainian information template. Nevertheless we should use the standard {{Information}} template here. --Sebari (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Detrimental bot move

Can anyone explain to me why File:Indu amerika rebuild-plant.jpg and File:Sarah Anderson Weiss.jpg were recently bot-moved from Category:Unidentified locations to Category:Unidentified countries? Both are clearly in the United States; the former even has a category saying as much. I'm not so much worried about these two files as that if this was a bot move probably the same incorrect move was made on a lot of other files, and I suspect that the activities of this bot in that time period should be investigated. - Jmabel ! talk 16:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just noticed the same as a couple dozen files from of my (small) mass uploads were recategorized by ButkoBot away from Category:Unidentified locations arbitrarily to Category:Unidentified countries, and from there by user:Butko into an equaly arbitrary subcat — often slightly incorrect, some times grossly incorrect.
I’d say that Category:Unidentified locations is a legitimate categorization and the only unproblematic dissimination would be further into Category:Unidentified locations in Country (and still excluding international waters and off-Earth locations).
-- Tuválkin 16:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some contrasting examples:
Although one wonders why the quirky fixation on countries, this is not wrong, as brick walls are seldom found on international waters or in outer space. Still, Category:Unidentified locations would still be a good categorization and these two moves did not add anything to Commons.
Now that’s a problem because people (unlike brick walls) are known to move about and it is unclear if the photographed subject is abroad or in her home country (which is known, trusting the description, and was already clearly identified as Category:Women of São Paulo (state), itself a subcat of Category:Women of Brazil).
In short, user:Butko should perhaps stop this bot and bring the matter of Category:Unidentified locations to discussion. -- Tuválkin 18:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SUL finalization update

Hi all, please read this page for important information and an update involving SUL finalization, scheduled to take place in one month. Thanks. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone with ChemDraw help please?

I need a lot of images for the ton of work I've put into my page to go with the tables I've added:

I just need someone to remake the following images, with suggested names (BME standing for Benzoyl Methyl Ecgonine, the numbers being S. Singh's alphanumeric for the compound, etc.):

[10] BME401a-f
[11] BMEnoncatalyticHapten394, BMEnoncatalyticHapten395, BMEnoncatalyticHapten396
[12] 3alphaModifiedBenztropine
[13] 3alphaDiphenylmethoxyBenztropine

I need a ton more, but this would be a start! Thanks Nagelfar (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess you need help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, Commons:Graphic Lab or Commons:WikiProject Chemistry. -- Rillke(q?) 21:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think there's good reason to think this is out of copyright, but can anyone figure out the exact rationale behind the Smithsonian's otherwise unelaborated statement that it is? Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do you think it is out of copyright? Ruslik (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm guessing it'll be instrument of gift. I'm presuming the Smithsonian isn't just guessing. Which, while it could happen, seems unlikely. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Saturn diagram.svg tutorial on VectorTuts!

Saturn diagram.svg

If anyone was wondering how I made my Saturn diagram, I’ve written a tutorial on VectorTuts! —Kelvinsong talk 23:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Terrific image, many thanks! -- Tuválkin 01:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brilliant. In your very last step please check if a slightly less dark grey for the irrelevant labels also works, they were hard to read on my laptop in a position not tuned for maximal contrast. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't know if you notice that already, but the aurorae disappear when the SVG is opened by Firefox natively. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.)

March 14

President Obama Delivers Remarks on the 50th Anniversary of the Selma Marches

There are higher quality versions at YouTube, and also at

But I wasn't sure if we still have a 100 MB upload limit these days.

Would it be possible to upload a higher quality version?

Or should we leave it as is for now?

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, there's an audio file version in MP3 linked at specifically at -- but I was unable to convert it from MP3 to OGG. Can someone else upload that MP3 as an OGG file separately? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cirt: Technically the upload limit was raised to a 1000 MiB, but from my experience, it is rarely possible to upload files bigger than 250 MiB due to issues with server time outs and response times (it might even be 150 MiB if you're unlucky). The easiest way to avoid this limit is to try upload-by-url which you should be able to use, being an administrator. That said, however, the video of this speech at the highest quality provided by the White House is slightly above 1.1 GiB, so any method other than server-side uploads (requested through Phabricator) is unlikely to work. I'm currently downloading the file from the White House (and it's taking extremely long at a speed of around 56 KB/s), and will convert it to WebM tonight and see what happens then. I can definitely upload an audio Ogg of the speech later today if you can wait :-) odder (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about using a chunked upload? — Cheers, JackLee talk 05:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using the Youtube API, you can find it already has the video transcoded as "webm 1280x720 video 1648k , 30fps, video only, 272.07MiB" and audio as "webm audio only audio 99k , audio@128k (44100Hz), 20.45MiB". I am having a go at converting it to vp8 rather than vp9 to make it "Commons compatible". -- (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

High resolution version of Obama's Selma Marches speech in webm format. 499MB, taking around 9 hours to transcode on a volunteer's home desktop. Click here for 1,280×720 px playback.
Thanks for your help, Odder, Jacklee, and ! Yes, Odder, OGG audio of the speech would be awesome, at your convenience! I originally added the lowest-quality version of the file to Commons for the video because it was large, the FLV version at about 70 MB. So really anything more than that would be higher video quality. -- Cirt (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, as an illustration of how bad things are when having to transcode files due to Commons not taking the most recent open standard codecs, I am now less than 30% done and it has been around 3 hours since I started the transcoding as a background task. To reiterate, I am actually having to transcode an already available webm file that I downloaded from Youtube in about a minute, as Commons cannot play the most current open standards that Youtube makes available.
I could do a lot more in batch uploading video, but these problems make it an almost pointless and unsatisfying time-sink both for my processing time and volunteer time.
We have discussed this at length previously, and the way things are both with how the viewer front-end works and how the uploader back-end is problematic, I do not currently recommend institutions consider Commons as a video file repository. -- (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Transcoding from mp4 -> VP8 will probably be faster than VP9 -> VP8 (im not sure why i thought that. Encoding vp9 tends to be slow relative to other codecs in my experiance, but i dont imagine decoding for transcode will make much of a difference). I'm hopeful for a future where we support VP9. Bawolff (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done New video uploaded, click the thumbnail above to see it. (Warning: It may take an hour or two after upload for Commons to transcode different sizes, this means that immediately after upload, the video may play back in at poor quality, try again later.)
I got cold feet after about 4 hours of transcoding vp9 → vp8, thinking that Youtube probably already transcoded from mp4 → vp9 and "double transcoding" was probably a bad thing for size and quality reasons. I started again, and went direct from mp4 → webm (vp8). Considering this is a 30 minute video, it takes a ridiculously long time to process.
The path for doing all this was all free and open source:
  1. Youtube's API is free to tap into,
  2. I used FFmpeg and free downloadable open source codecs with a bit of a Python wrapper script for convenience (which I have to hand from other Commons projects) to make running the transcode from a command-line a bit easier,
  3. and thanks to Rillke's excellent User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js, pushing the 499 MB webm file onto Commons is pain free; I saw that the uploader handled a 503 error in the middle of the 120 upload chunks needed, pretty cool.
It is less fortunate that the reality is that number of unpaid volunteers that can grapple with how to meet the arbitrary restrictions on Commons to old codecs must be an eye-wateringly small proportion of those that would be potentially interested in contributing video. Even with my background of a couple of years playing with large uploads, I certainly found it hard to understand and slightly mind-numbingly complex to tease out how to set up FFmpeg to run a successful transcode to do this the first time around. It is no wonder that we see so few video related mass uploads on Commons, this project is just ready for them. -- (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for all of your help, everyone above, this is most appreciated! -- Cirt (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not so sure how good FFmpeg VP9 actually is (for 2.5, haven't tested 2.6 yet), but I think if you can get the best available MP4 from instead of YouTube, and convert it to OGV, where FFmpeg achieved perfection years ago, it should be as good as WebM, only the compression will be worse. Please correct me if that's completely wrong. Or slightly wrong. Or kind of correct missing the point.:-)Be..anyone (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may be missing a key point, Commons cannot play VP9 video, only VP8. As for mpeg vs. ogv, I am not sure that the "wrapper" makes much difference if the underpinning codec is identical. Note that to create the video thumbnailed above, the best mp4 available from Youtube was used as the source to transcode to VP8. (Addendum I see that the White House video is larger in file size that the mp4 from Youtube, but I doubt that anyone would find any appreciable difference; especially as the video was taken at long zoom and suffers from noticeable chromatic aberration at full screen size.) -- (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know its little consolation for the rather bad video support, but if converting the video on your local computer is problematic, you can always convert it on (In a detached screen session perhaps, although perhaps tool labs folks would prefer it as a "job") and come back to the file when its done. As bonus points the upload would probably be a lot faster from tool labs as its going to have a better internet connection to wmf servers (being a wmf server) then your computer will have. Bawolff (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Going on a slight tangent, but I would be happy to try something like this out, so long as chunked uploading were part of the pywikibot modules. Is it available now? Also is ffmpeg available? (it is). I found it a drag to sort out the codecs locally, so I would hesitate to start installing this all on my bit of labs. At the moment I'm parking two videos at a time to a USB stick and transcoding, but it is incredibly slow (right now I have a 500MB and a 800MB mp4 file on the go, I would expect them to take a few hours and these are part of a batch of a couple of hundred I hope to add to Category:Ebolavirus DoD videos). -- (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia video playback problem?

This probably has a technical cause, so I'm raising it as a sub-thread.

I can playback the above video perfectly well from Commons, but when I launch it from the English Wikipedia article en:Selma_to_Montgomery_marches#Aftermath_and_historical_impact it takes around 5 seconds to start (I am faced with a black box where the video should be during those 5 seconds) and then "stutters" with a false start, pausing for 25 more seconds, before payback starts. This is using the standard pop-up video player defaulting to WebM 480P from within Firefox. I suspect that the ordinary public reader might not wait for 5 seconds or the following 25 seconds for the video to start. Is this a problem already identified or something limited to very large videos? Thanks -- (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For me it doesn't play at all:
Error: cannot call methods on slider prior to initialization; attempted to call method 'value'
Line 3
-- Rillke(q?) 00:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For me, I get non-smooth playback on both commons and wikipedia. One odd thing is it seems to be both loading the webm and ogg 480p transcodes when launched from the pop-up dialog (It should only be loading the webm afaik). Opening directly also takes a long time before starting (but no stuttering). Perhaps firefox issue? VLC seems to be able to open that url almost immediately. Google chrome also seems to be able to open almost immediately. Bawolff (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am unsure what a next step looks like. It strikes me that:
  1. We could benefit if the guidance of COM:Video were to include recommendations for what the practical best sizes are for video, both in terms of file size and resolution. At least a case book of examples might help people have an idea of what the issues are if they expect to include video in articles.
  2. It might help if the various codecs and formats were formally tested by the WMF so that we can make a firm recommendation as to which are "technically" the most likely to have good results.
  3. If video is going to remain problematic with various browsers having mixed results, again COM:Video could benefit by explaining the issues and any recommended work-arounds (even if it boils down to "use a different browser").
-- (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have some recommendation over at Help:Converting_video#General_conversion_tips which is linked from com:video.
Also, it's 2015 and we should stop figuring out work-arounds for displaying video. If there is a bug in firefox or mediawiki, they should be fixed instead. --McZusatz (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a side effort related to m:File metadata cleanup drive we are tracking now files that do not have any of the standard infobox templates or templates derived from them, in Category:Media missing infobox template. A subset of those are files that seem to have parts of the {{Information}} template: those were placed in Category:Pages using Information template with parsing errors. Many files in that category started with a valid {{Information}} template but some edit to the wikitext broke it, for example this edit 7 year ago, and they just need a minor syntax correction. However since this is the first time we compiled such list there are a lot of files to fix and we could use some help with them. --Jarekt (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upload Wizard getting worse and worse

Hi! According to Commons stats I am the #3 uploader of Wikimedia Commons of all the times, appearantly the #1 for self-produced images. This is just to introduce my self and let you know that I know what I'm talking about. After WikiLovesMonuments last year I had a problem to my PC and I did not upload anything for some months, until December. Since that time Upload Wizard is getting every month worse and worse, taking so much more time to upload images for errors and disfuncioning. The process of uploading is getting more difficult and frustrating:

  1. Preview images do not show anymore, unless I add 3-by-3 images per time (or less). If I can't see the preview I cant' correctly describe the file and put proper categories.
  2. When I select images they do not come listed in alphabetical order anymore. For instance, if I upload 10 images named "File 01.jpg, File 02.jpg, ... File 10.jpg", during the passages of the wizard they come out all mixed up ("File 10.jpg, File 07.jpg, File 02.jpg, File 09.jpg...). This makes much harder to write the correct descriptions and categories. If I have to copy and paste the same category to a serie of files that I named from 1 to 5, they come splitted among all the 50 files I am uploading, making it all extremely complicated and boring.
  3. In the very last week I am getting more trouble, since wizard gets error messages for 20% to 40% of the files I'm trying to upload. So I have to try and try again. Sometimes it also gets blocked for 1 or 2 files at the very last passage (pubblication), I wait and wait, but all I can finally do is just remove the file from the list and upload it manually with the basic form.

I tried to upload from different computers, different Windows systems, and different connections with the same result, I have Adblock disabled, my camera is the same. Also, months ago I requested some easy impovements (like an alert, an extra button, an "undo" option for the dangerous "Copy the title with automathic numeration" button, which to my opinion should never be automatically checked). Nobody cared. Where are those programmers when you need them? Thanks for your attention. --Sailko (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Worrying. Thanks for highlighting the problem. My personal impression was that there was a healthy amount of interest from the WMF for improving the new user upload experience 2 and 3 years ago, but Commons has since then dropped down the "food-chain" or become less of a "brand priority" for the WMF. I don't really know how to change that perception, perhaps we should have a formally recognized place (on Commons rather than Phabricator) to collect problems that users experience and discuss how urgent they are for attention?
Due to the clumsiness of the upload wizard for larger uploads, I never use it. When I'm not uploading using scripts accessing the API, I tend to use the chunked uploader and by-pass the need to fill in boxes on forms. I find it strange that the incredibly useful service of chunked uploading has not yet been integrated into the standard wizard (though my next largest gripe would be the lack of in-built video transcoding, discussed several times before on the Village pump). BTW I speak as the #1 uploader of all time, though mainly of batch uploads from interesting public domain archives... sadly the #2 uploader of all time has been banned by a WMF employee for unexplained "reasons". -- (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've experienced some of these problems too. I've filed a bug at the Phabricator (T92734). Feel free to add further comments there. — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please report undesired changes like these in Phabricator. They are here, because people are actively trying to rework the extension to something that is measurable, performs better and more reliable. This is VERY complex work, but is required before any improvements to it can be added. As you can see, there has been quite a bit of activity lately. If you experience any regressions due to this, please report them, NOW is the best time to bring them forward. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 21:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I never use upload wizard, because I have a bad internet connection, so I can only upload a maximum of 4 images at a time, taking up to 10 minutes. But since yesterday evening it is impossible to upload anything with the basic upload formular. I uploaded 2 images, since then I click "upload", connexion starts and 2 minutes later I am back to the upload formular. Traumrune (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, after the basic upload somehow disappeared I may have used the wizard a couple of times - urgh. Switched over to Commonist, left it after some months to use Vicuña- very happy with. --Jwh (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jwh, you mean this — Special:Upload? -- Tuválkin 14:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I think so, if I remember well there was a time it was more hidden and it was difficult to avoid the wizard. I tried the wizard several times as it allowed to upload multiple files in one transaction, but got often error messages and had to start all over. But that's tempi passati - as I mentioned I'm very happy now with Vicuña. --Jwh (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry to hear about these problems. Might be helpful to run UploadWizard with the debug option enabled by adding "?debug=true" at the end of the web address (after "Special:UploadWizard") and performing those steps again and checking if anything appears in your browser's JavaScript console when loading the page (more information: Firefox ≥24, Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, Apple Safari, Opera). If the problem is reproducible, it would be great if somebody who faces this issue could report the bug in 'Phabricator' by following the instructions How to report a bug (only one problem per ticket please), in this case under the project 'MediaWiki-Extensions-UploadWizard' (direct link; see the Phabricator help for account information). --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 07:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, the Upload Wizard was created because all other tools were too geeky — it dumbed down uploading so that even the village idiot could use it (and they did!), and now it has problems that need the user to manually add quearies to the url and to file in phab tickets. That makes sense. -- Tuválkin 07:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes yes, we all know it was very badly written, and that we are still paying the price for it so many years on, reiterating that isn't going to help in getting anything fixed. Getting those few people who know how to open a web inspector to use the debug flag MIGHT help however. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I had another idea: Nuke it all from orbit, reinstate the previously offered tools, find out who decided it was needed and worked on it and who kept pushing it to be funded and developed instead of useful tools — and fire, block, office-ban them all, bury the key and and superprotect its grave. And then we can go back to work. Face-devil-grin.svg -- Tuválkin 13:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can confirm issues #1 and #2 from Sailkos post. These problems have been there for months now, especially the missing preview images are a big nuisance. I've had problem #3 a while ago, but the lastest uploads didn't produce such errors. --Magnus (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 15

What happened here, the picture is bluish on the Commons page and on the French and Spanish WP pages about the painting, but when downloaded the file has perfectly normal colours? Oliv0 (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file has an embedded colour profile, probably from the Imacon Flextight Precision scanner used to create the image. Most browsers will just ignore this. I'll apply the profile, if anyone really needs the original, it's still available in the file history. — Julian H. 10:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Julian Herzog: Thank you ! Could the bad rendering of the original file be due to m:Tech/News/2015/12 / Recent changes "The servers that resize images are using new software. phab:T84842"? Oliv0 (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly, I don't know if anything was different before. But the thumbnail generation definitely doesn't do anything wrong, it keeps the colour profile from the original file. So technically, everything is correct, it's just not helpful because browsers don't use the profile. — Julian H. 16:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
most (not all. Especially not mobile phone) browsers use colour profiles. I dont think it has anything to do with image render upgrades. Probably either original had wrong colour profile, or there was something weird/obscure with the profile and it got damaged during the shrinking of the image (ive heard of that happening on files with multiple conflicting colour info). This is speculation though, i havent looked at original file. Bawolff (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Collapsing in-line text

I know that we have templates to collapse cells inside of tables, but is there any way to collapse text that's in-line with non-hidden text? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you give an example? Ruslik (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Click me! Have a look at mw:ResourceLoader/Default_modules#jquery.makeCollapsible and build a template from it. Note that ID attributes must be, surprisingly, unique per page! Mind transclusion and other Wiki-magic. -- Rillke(q?) 12:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attention: new file moving errors

i had 2 cases in the last hours where file moving produced two bad "pages" instead of one "good page" and a redirect. for further inspection i leave the following pages without a deletion request:

in the move log there are more examples moved by other users, eg. see File:The Soviet Union 1971 CPA 4061 stamp (Order of the October Revolution and Building Construction) cancelled.jpg

can someone please take care? maybe also a sitenotice so that no further files are moved until the problem is solved? Holger1959 (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is phabricator:T93009. --Didym (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you, so manual purging the new page seems to help. good, i know now. Holger1959 (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not only the file moves are affected, deletion without manual purging also does not hide files and pages. --Didym (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even worse: When restoring deleted file, apparently only the description text versions get restored, not the actual file. At least that's what happened with File:H Steiner zug. - Entwurf zum Denkmal Heinrichs vom Mömpelgard FedZeich.aquar. ca1578 (ZaWH08).jpg. Prior to restoring, the file was still accessible; I still had it in an open browser tab und could re-upload from that. Can anybody else confirm such problems with restoring files? --Rosenzweig τ 18:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my watchlist it says, among other things the file is not shown after undeletion. -- Rillke(q?) 18:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, the original file version is now back. Apparently some kind of delay. --Rosenzweig τ 18:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 19

New file renaming criteria in place

Community, I am here to notify you that the works around implementing Commons:Requests_for_comment/File_renaming_criterion_2 are finished; a lot of translations are missing. Although I am not opposing development of policies and guidelines, the volume of work required due to multilingualism and integration into software was enormous and even the new criteria are image-centric. For the future, before starting up RfCs, please make sure there are sufficient resources for putting their results into place. Thank you. -- Rillke(q?) 01:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why does Commons host so few Public Library of Science PDFs?

The Public Library of Science is an open access collection of scientific journals. So far as I know, all of its contents are under Creative Commons attribution licenses that are compatible with being hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Naturally we host hundreds if not thousands of images and videos that were first published in a PLoS journal. I know Wikimedia Commons also hosts PDFs of freely license publications because Wikisource has transcribed some of them. However, we don't seem to have many, if any PDFs of actual PLoS articles and I was curious as to why. It doesn't seem to be lack of interest or awareness because as I mentioned earlier we host hundreds and hundreds of pictures and videos. Why not copies of the PDFs? Abyssal (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Yes, the license allows these files to be hosted here, but what would be the objective to host them in quantity? Regards, Yann (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abyssal: @Yann: This is an excellent idea with lots of applications. There is a pilot of it at en:Wikisource:Wikisource:WikiProject Open Access/Programmatic import from PubMed Central and related ideas at en:Wikisource:Wikisource:WikiProject Open Access. Wikimedia Commons may or may not be the right place to put PDFs; if the content where put into Wikisource then parts of it could be deconstructed and tagged with metadata, whereas an entire PDF file could not be easily taken apart and remixed. Some people have called for source content on Wikisource to be matched with a PDF upload on Commons but that may not make sense for digitally-born documents. I would be happy to talk this through with anyone. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can see the use of these files if they are transcribed on Wikisource, or used on Wikipedia (or Wikibooks, etc.), but I am not sure uploading thousands of them without any prior use in any Wikimedia projects is useful. I am ready to be proved otherwise. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2015 media
Yann When Wikipedia cites an open access paper there could be a bot which automatically migrates the paper to Wikisource and uploads all files from the paper to Commons. Getting the papers here means that the works can be more easily remixed, either with reuse of the files, translation, applying wikilinks to technical terms in the papers, packaging the papers in a way that the remix easier with wiki-content, placing papers in the web of citations to and from that paper, and otherwise further integrating them with other works.
There still is no leading contender for hosting commentary on all papers published. Some commentary can be objective, like "this paper was retracted", and a Wikimedia project could apply that metadata to all paper citations. Along with that open access papers could be heavily marked up on Wikipedia, such that a citation in Wikipedia could lead directly to a particular sentence in the cited paper rather than the entire work. Also someone could say how a paper is cited - like "this paper confirms the result of that paper" or "this paper was only citing the methodology in that one, and not commenting on its results". It is not inconceivable that Wikipedia, with better integration of open access papers, could pilot a project to set the standard for how metadata is used to remix other publishers CC-licensed works. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While surely most if not all image and video files from PLOS publications are within COM:SCOPE, I question the utility and benefit of hosting complete PDFs on Commons and/or transcribing them to Wikisource. For all practical purposes, the complete text of PLOS and other online open access journals are already fully digitized and completely machine searchable, unlike say old PD books and journals on, which while they may have minimal OCR scans, these often contain significant amounts of typos, poor formatting, electronic gibberish, and other impediments to easy online utilization. So rather than asking why Commons doesnt have PLOS PDFs, I'd ask why should Commons host PLOS PDFs?-Animalparty (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Animalparty I do not think Commons should unless the text is in WikiSource. If the text is in Wikisource, a copy of the native form of publication (assuming that is an exported PDF) is warranted on Commons to back up the derivative form on Wikisource. The content on PLOS is not wiki-remixable, which it would be if it were exported here. I made some notes about why wiki-integration matters above.
We are soon coming to the day (almost certainly within 10 years) when it would be trivial to copy all open access papers to Wikimedia projects, if there would be any use in doing so. If it is useful in 1 of 1000 papers, then it might be easier to migrate all the papers, or it might be useful to migrate any paper as soon as any Wikimedia project cites or references it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 17

SUL finalization: Commons and usernames that are redirects

Hi all,

I started contacting users that are slated to be renamed for single-user login finalization. Unfortunately the way the script was set out it followed redirects from old usernames to new usernames in some cases and warned users that they were to be renamed even if they were not scheduled to be but the old username is. The script was stopped the moment this was first reported and has been fixed. However, there are still a lot of messages in the queue following the old script that need cleared out before the new one starts. There will still be some more users that will be contacted that are not actually going to be renamed. My sincere apologies in advance for the confusion this is causing some affected users, please spread the word. Thanks, and again sorry for the trouble. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I am one of the people who got this kind of message, which led me to make a suboptimal choice at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, and now I can't change it anymore. It would be nice if someone could stop this renaming process (Mate2code to WatchDuck) for me, or tell me how to do it. mate2code 13:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dammit. Now I have a new name because this fucked up notification made me choose one, and because this new kind of renaming request is not an edit that can be undone. mate2code 22:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I also got several such messages. Could you send a message to all these cases please? That would make sure that the issue is fixed. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Replied at phab:T90820#1130742. --Ricordisamoa 23:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 18

What are Commons' weirdest photographs?

Category:Commons' weirdest photographs

If anyone remembers the weirdest photographs they have noticed on Commons, please add it to the above subjective category. Let's not fill it with genitals on the first day though. :-) If there is an existing category that does the same job, feel free to move the contents.

As a project we tend to be literal in categorization, however I believe that some subjective categorization is usefully within our educational scope. Certainly Ripley's Believe It or Not! has never stopped being both popular and educational. -- (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a project we tend to be literal in categorization – says who? This sets a very bad precedent for a mess of other Commons' […]est […] categories and does not make any use of sub-/parentcategorisation, so why don't you just use projectspace for your project?    FDMS  4    13:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I often use hidden categories for projects, never a problem and a lot easier for the newer contributor to use than editing a gallery. My views on literalism is based on Commons category debates that have run for several years, excellent examples of taxonomy wars. I have been looking around for a parent category, that's tricky, suggestions appreciated. BTW, I tend to use the term Commons for the project space, the latter gets confused with being some sort of other namespace for wikiprojects. -- (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read liberal, although the sentence makes far more sense with literal in it.    FDMS  4    14:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC
Sounds like a bit of lighthearted fun, thanks. [though can I request we also avoid making it a people freak show]. Added one :-) No, it's not a huge spurting penis. -- Colin (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categorize it as a {{user category|Fæ}} and everything is fine - there are quite a lot of user categories where someone has made his own collection. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would actually prefer this to be a gallery - so I could watch(list) it for new entries ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like the idea and added some of the photographs I find strange, although "Commons' weirdest photographs" seems to be quite subjective. --Jarekt (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would also prefer a gallery. - Jmabel ! talk 15:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A gallery would have two further benefits. The icon size for categories is ridiculously small, making it hard to enjoy the collection. The rather random nature of what people find funny is also likely to lead to a huge list where the nuggets of gold are hard to spot among the stones. What it needs is the ability to !like an image. Or perhaps up/down vote. Then a bot (could there be someone who writes bots anywhere around, by any chance???) could regularly move the most popular weird images to the top. Or have the ability to sort by date or popularity (separate pages?). More interaction would make it more fun. It may also help shift the really not very weird images off the bottom of the page, without anyone complaining they are censoring what they personally find weird. -- Colin (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have created the gallery Commons' weirdest photographs, where images from the category are sorted by total views on Commons (since upload). This is probably the simplest measurement related to popularity. Obviously the gallery needs the category to generate itself. The top ten are currently:

To have an image move up the ranking, just start reusing it so that the public view it more often. I have set Faebot to update the gallery once a week. Tip: barnstars, userboxes and odd templates where readers are likely to click on an image to see it better, have a big impact on the number of image views. :-) -- (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trains categories upper tree discussion

Running across an 'upside down scheme' circumstance, some of us have begun discussing how to reorganize the upper categories involving Trains under parent Rail transport. This is a mild long standing issue, first discussed in 2009... Apparently some terms (e.g. 'traincar') which would alleviate organizational grouping translate badly. In the interest of fixing things sensibly for the benefit of non-railfans, and to satisfy as many rail cultural backgrounds as possible—your two-cents are welcome so come put them in!

March 21

Russavia related stuff

Illustration of drama at Western College for Women, 1933. Uploaded to Commons today, Russavia claimed to be uninvolved.

I know the whole Russavia topic is an open wound around here and I don't want to seem like I am grave-dancing here because I always liked the guy (I thought his prank on Jimbo was Epic personally) but I noticed a couple things related to him that I think might need some attention. First, there are a number of subpages under his username and since he is permabanned by the WMF and not likely to be returning anytime soon, I think it might be a good idea to browse those, clean them out and remove the subpages if they are no longer needed. Secondly, there are a couple categories directly associated to him. Of the ones I can find, Category:Files needing category checks (Russavia), Category:Files uploaded by Russavia (Eva Rinaldi), Category:Files uploaded by Russavia (cleanup). I was planning on fixing these cats myself but I do not nor will I be likely to get AWB rights here due to my standing on ENWP. I just wanted to mention these things so someone could address these issues. Reguyla (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about adding the subcategories to Category:Media needing categories and removing the notes from Russavia that he is still working on them? --ghouston (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The subpages are these ones? [14]. I have no idea why they were created, I'd say just leave them there. --ghouston (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see no reason to stir things up, or a need to wipe Russavia from Commons. Seek your LOLs on something more productive. -- (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@: , I appreciate your loyalty to your friend but I am not attempting to seek LOL's on anyone so can you assume some good faith please. I have been the target of severe harrassment on Wiki myself so I know how it feels and I am also not trying to wipe him from commons and if he were merely blocked or banned by an arbcom or some block happy admin I wouldn't even touch them. But Russavia is in fact blocked permanently by the WMF, an extremely rare fate that I have never seen anyone return from. As such, I really do not see any point in keeping to do categories with his name in them. The same is true of his subpages. I'm not trying to be a jerk, it just isn't necessary and is potentially confusing. Reguyla (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Files that were uploaded by Russavia will always have been uploaded by Russavia. Nobody needs to be confused by that, and the actions recorded in the public logs should never be changed. -- (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree and that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that I don't think we need a category that says Category:Files needing category checks (Russavia) or Category:Files uploaded by Russavia (cleanup). Reguyla (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both are populated. When project check/clean-up categories are empty, then they can be considered for deletion. I suggest you work on meaningfully checking the files rather than fomenting a debate about the name. -- (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fae, please stop trying to turn this into a hurt feelings report about Russavia. It isn't and if you bothered to read the discussion I started at all rather than just scanning it fir keywords, which you clearly did not, you would see where I specifically said I think it might be a good idea to browse those, clean them out and remove the subpages if they are no longer needed. This applies to the Subpages and to the aforementioned categories. This isn't personal so please stop being so dramatic. Reguyla (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meh, if there was never any drama here, it would be a very dull project. Doing the gardening would suddenly seem much more appealing. :-) -- (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Agree with (talk · contribs), the categories seem useful and helpful for tracking purposes. They are a valuable organization metric, and should be retained for the future. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW I sort of agree with Reguyla (although it's not a huge issue now the user is banned) but I think that the best way to deal with this is to categorise all the images that were uploaded but not properly categorised, then deprecate the categories. Out of interest, what is the difference between "Category:Images uploaded by X" and the list provided by Special:Uploads? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: I have always viewed the category to be more of an easy way to view uploads by a user because it not only provides a more condensed version of Special:Upload, but it lists them alphabetically (useful if you are looking for something that begins with a name). While I find it odd that there are essentially two categories that both state that Russavia uploaded those images (but only because one could be renamed, "Photographs by X"), that's probably a discussion for another venue, since some of his categories have thousands of images within them and would require some work to rename them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Yann (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can anyone use free licence for a lower resolution of his work but copyright the higher one?

The question is about a real scenario that came up during the firsts conversations with an institution that has thousands of photographs. They ask me that because they usually sell the higher resolution ones and restrict the usage for only one publication, etc. They are afraid that once they release the lower resolution photos, that would mean that anyone that come across the higher resolution ones, can act as if they are released as well. Any ideas, thoughts or links to similar questions would be highly apreciated.--Zeroth (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was a discussion about this last year. Eventually somebody asked the Creative Commons people, and their opinion was that the high and low resolution versions may represent the same work under copyright law, so that anybody could potentially apply the low resolution license to the high resolution version.[15] --ghouston (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was also more recently raised by me on the OTRS noticeboard, under "OTRS tickets for thumbnail versions of images" on 13 Feb 2015. The response was that anyone releasing images on a free licence should understand that if you release a lower resolution image, you have legally released all resolutions. Secondly that OTRS volunteers take no responsibility to advise an uploader/source donor of this fact, nor is there any expectation on them to do so. -- (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also this FAQ answer. The key thing is whether the different resolutions are considered the same "work of copyright" and this may vary from country to country. There is risk to both the licensor and licensee. If the low-resolution copy was created merely by clicking "Save As" and choosing a smaller resolution in the Lightroom/Photoshop dialog box, then it is extremely unlikely that any creative act would be considered. So the smaller copy would likely be considered the same Work of Copyright as their larger copy and the institution would not be able to prevent the larger image being used [Though they may place contractual restrictions on the individuals they give the larger copies to, but that is little help once the image escapes]. After all, MediaWiki resizes images all the time no credit is required to be given to anyone for that mechanical act. But there is also significant risk to potential licensees (re-users, uploaders to Commons) who think they can use/upload the larger file. Because given any two random files you find on the internet, you really don't know for sure what process led to their creation. The larger file may have undergone additional post-processing sufficient to be considered a creative act -- that's up to a judge to decide. Also, the larger file could have some meta data added in the EXIF such as a couple of paragraphs describing the image, which would be copyrightable itself. And the larger file might not even be from the same source image - but another taken at a slightly different time and perhaps different camera settings. There's even the risk they aren't by the same person!
Fae is right that we can't give legal advice. Pointing the institution at the CC FAQ pages would seem a helpful thing to do if they ask about it. If they are considering a large donation of images to Commons, then perhaps WMF Legal could give them specific advice.
One ongoing problem is that both CC and WMF heavily promoted for years, in official glossy literature, the idea that institutions and professional photographers/videographers could release small low-quality copies as CC but retain larger high-quality versions for their paying clients. That was stupid, but don't hold your breath waiting for an apology. If I recall the discussions correctly, many people on Commons were uncomfortable to take advantage of naivety shown by people who followed this advice, or who thought (like many did) that CC applied to the File and not the Work of Copyright. Therefore, there was a strong reluctance to accept/keep high-resolution files if they appeared to be "all rights reserved" and only a low-resolution file had an explicit CC licence. This was on both a ethical and possible-risk basis. -- Colin (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot for your answers.--Zeroth (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Yann (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Portuguese Wikipedians

If there is someone who can add a 20 Escudo bank note from 1971 showing Garcia d'Orta, it would be very helpful for me as I am working on. We do not seem to have this one on Commons.

Google Translation: (I hope this works) - Se há alguém que pode adicionar uma nota de 20 Escudo banco desde 1971 mostrando Garcia d'Orta, seria muito útil para mim como eu estou trabalhando em. Nós não parecem ter este em Commons.

Shyamal (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There you go. However, the licensing of all images at Category:Banknotes of Portugal is a mess (including of these two I just added), probably as a result of Portugal not being listed in Commons:Currency. Maybe the whole needs to be deleted as copyright violation — I await experts’ input. -- Tuválkin 11:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Banknotes of Portugal. Gunnex (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What a pity! I thought the rest of the images were standing on firm ground after it was replaced by the Euro. Shyamal (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Yann (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've had a whole load of files marked for possible deletion by someone calle mattbuck and before I've had time to comment, the deletion debate has been closed. No reason for the possible deletion has been given. No indication of whether the possibility has been translated into a definite has been given either. I have an application that depends on the urls of these images. Not very friendly to a novice user who doesn't login every day and doesn't know how to follow any policy debates that are going on - just wants to share images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboru100 (talk • contribs)

@Brianboru100: Hi,
It seems that the deletion request is here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mattbuck's temporary category. The last part is not closed yet, so you can answer there. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Brianboru100: The reason for the deletion is that these are photographs of 2D graphic works (such as murals) in the UK. Various countries have rules which we refer to as "freedom of panorama", which generally means that if an artwork is permanently in a public space then it cannot be copyrighted. Unfortunately the UK version does not apply to 2-dimensional "graphic works" such as murals. This means that whoever created the mural holds copyright, and so we cannot accept images which show it. It seems a bit silly, but legally it's no different than taking a photo of a photo in a magazine. You have made a mistake that many many other people have made over the years, myself included. Copyright law is a web of confusion, mostly counterintuitive, and freedom of panorama laws vary wildly from country to country. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So why couldn't this explanation be included in the first place? Still not a friendly process. When are the deletions due? I need time to get the images mmoved and my app to point to the new urls.

March 23


In Category:Ancient Roman bronzes in the Museo archeologico nazionale (Florence) I created the sub-cat of bronze statuettes. Using Cat-a-lot I could move only 15 files; all others are rejected, unrecognized ("they were skipped because the old category could not be found"). Momentary disservice as it happens every now and then? Apparently not. After four days still it do not work. I should move them one by one. I wonder and ask: what have these files differently than other that prevents the action? These files are uploaded by the same user, and opening them in edit I do not see anything strange or different between the two groups. It's possible that they have some hidden element or sign that blocks the passage? Thanks for your answer, or the solution of the problem. Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know why Cat-a-lot doesn't work, but alternatively you may try it with VisualFileChange: go to Category:Ancient Roman bronzes in the Museo archeologico nazionale (Florence), then left-hand side toolbar "Perform batch task", choose "custom replace", select files you want to move, and replace [[Category:Ancient Roman bronzes in the Museo archeologico nazionale (Florence)]] by [[Category:Ancient Roman bronze statuettes in the Museo archeologico nazionale (Florence)]] in the source text. --A.Savin 10:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now it has unblocket ! Now it works, it has succeeded. Wonderful ! Thank you so much at all for your advices and for the solution of the problem ! Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just in case you are wondering whether there is or not ... paste the text in question into that tool. -- Rillke(q?) 21:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renaming files

Can I ask to rename file:1971. V летняя спартакиада народов СССР. Борьба.jpg to the name "The Soviet Union 1971 CPA 4016 stamp (Greco-Roman wrestling) cancelled.jpg" for the following reasonː "To harmonize the file names of a set of images (so that only one part of all names differs)"? --Matsievsky (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Parts that form a whole is explained as "scans from the same book or large images that are divided into smaller portions due to Commons' upload size restriction" (emphasis mine); this is not the case with these stamps, they are not pages from a book, or parts of an image that fit together to show a single image. They are single, complete, discrete, entities and therefore not eligible for harmonisation (each can be understood by themselves and do not need others to be understood). You may disagree with my reasons to decline, but without a valid reason to rename the default position is to decline. ColonialGrid (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Edit conflict)

Matsievsky, §4 of COM:FR aims for generic filename schemas called up by templates. The mere contrastative use of these two filenames
, while helpful for human reading, doesn’t qualify. Lacking support for §4 what’s left is a request to rename a file to a new name that is, as ColonialGrid correctly analysed,
  • just «a bit better» (§1), as it includes the CPA number (this should be in the description, anyway, and maybe in categories, not necessarily in the filename — and not sufficiently, too!). It is also a bit worse, as it lacks mention of the 5th Summer Spartakiad, and spells out the country name too verbosely («The Soviet Union »« stamp», seriously, as opposed to trimmer and clearer «Soviet »« stamp»?)…
  • a replacement of Russian with English — clearly against that clause §2. Please note that even if this Soviet stamp image was filenamed in, say, Bengali, for any reason or no reason at all, changing it to Russian would still be against policy. In thsi case, moving it from the official language of the country the scanned object is an official document of — that’s twice a bad idea, regardless of the prestige Shakespeare’s Tongue may have in Mother Russia (I always observe with mirth how said prestige tends to be locally inversely proportional to actual command of English).
In terms of formal logic, one of the criteria being fulfilled would be enough for renaming, as they are disjunctive, but no criteria being fulfilled means no renaming per policy. -- Tuválkin 14:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tuválkin, my purpose - not transition from Russian into English, it isn't necessary to impose me your desires. The bad knowledge of language logically doesn't attract a mistake in reasonings, and the good knowledge of language logically doesn't attract permissiveness. I transfer Soviet stamp image names to the certain standard reached as the result of the compromise: "The Soviet Union (Year) CPA (Number) stamp (Short description)". --Matsievsky (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Use your standard for your own uploads, that’s cool, but do not try to impose it on other files — COM:FR forbids it very clearly. That’s all there is to the matter, really. -- Tuválkin 17:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank's, it is news to me. Please, specify the concrete quote, I didn't find your information. --Matsievsky (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. By the way the both files are versions of the same stamp, therefore, it is two parts of a single whole - a stamp in its versions. §4 perfectly works. --Matsievsky (talk) 09:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, you are wrong, they are not two parts of the one object, they are two versions of the same style of object, there is a difference. Think about is like pages in a street directory, each page is part of a single, whole map; individually they are without greater context, and should therefore be named in harmony. Please read the clause again in its entirety: "Second, files that form parts of a whole (such as scans from the same book or large images that are divided into smaller portions due to Commons' upload size restriction) should follow the same naming convention so that they appear together, in order, in categories and lists." This explicitly states that to be parts of a whole they must be smaller portions that fit together to make a larger image (as a jigsaw puzzle does). The case you have provided has no valid rational for renaming under the current rename guidelines at Commons:File renaming, in fact, they fall under the first sentence of clause four: "Just because images share a category or a subject does not mean that they are part of a set." They share a subject, but do not form a set under our definitions of being either pages in a book, or parts that combine to show a larger image. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stamps can also be considered as part of the catalog of stamps, as its increased images. --Matsievsky (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, they could, but in this context they aren't; you simply have to accept that your propsed rename isn't supported by policy. ColonialGrid (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it and so (what I doubt), change policy. --Matsievsky (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 24

New user edit-warring about a digitized audio clip from 1917

Could someone help out at File:Tamo Daleko.ogg (File_talk:Tamo Daleko.ogg)? I was unsuccessful in trying to explain why it couldn't be attributed to him only, just because he digitized the song and put it through some filtering and general audio cleanup. - Anonimski (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anonimski: I left a long comment talking about the copyright issues. I also used one of my favorite underused templates, {{Infosplit}}, to make it clear there are (at least potentially) two different copyright statuses involved. BTW, as I mentioned, pre-1972 sound recordings should use {{PD-US-record}}, not {{PD-US}}. Revent (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flickr upload broken

Every time I try to use the "Share images from Flickr" option on the Upload Wizard, I get the message "Unknown error: 'permissiondenied'." This would be a great option in lieu of uploading manually, but it simply does not work. Conifer (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That option should only be visible to administrators and license reviewers for now. It looks like someone broke something again. LX (talk, contribs) 07:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment There are other tools (Commons:Flickr files#Tools) that can upload from Flickr, such as the reasonably straightforward Flickr-2-Commons tool. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I used to have license reviewer permissions on my old account, User:David1217. However, when I got renamed on en.wp [16], I neglected to have the same rename here on Commons (I believe this was before global rename). Then when I created an SUL, it automatically made me this new account here, so now I have split accounts. Apparently I've had the right removed due to inactivity, but if there's some way to restore it on this account, I'd be very pleased, because it would make uploading much easier. Thanks, Conifer (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is more than 2 years since you last used the right and it was removed from your old account on 24 February, after notification, for this reason. You should raise a request formally on Commons:Requests_for_rights#Filemover. -- (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons:License review/requests is probably the place Fæ wanted to send you to. -- Rillke(q?) 20:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Conifer: The license reviewer userright is irrelevant to uploading, as you are not allowed to review your own uploads (it does not make you 'exempt' from having them flagged for review). Revent (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know that they still have to be reviewed; I meant that I could use the direct Flickr URL uploading instead of the manual method. Anyway, thanks to everyone for the help, since I'm now using Flickr2Commons, which works just as well. Conifer (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Revent: We grant image reviewers the upload_by_url user right. With these rights, it is possible to transfer files from Flickr using Upload Wizard and issue uploads server side from several other sources. -- Rillke(q?) 23:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was aware, but that slipped my mind when it came to the context of requesting the (group, not 'right', indeed), since it's not really the main 'purpose'. I was thinking he meant 'easier to upload from Flickr' in that sense, tho... my mistake. Revent (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Panoramio upload bot

Hi all, is there a way to order tasks to Panoramio Upload Bot? I asked its operator and didn't receive any answer... Thanks --Discasto talk | contr. | analysis 23:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section was archived on a request by:    FDMS  4    14:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for help regarding an oversight issue & the Wikimedia Foundation