Commons:Village pump/Archive/2017/05

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

Server switch - wikis in read-only mode today

Reminder: the wikis will be in read-only mode today for 30 minutes, starting at 14:00 UTC. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 01:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

19:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

May 02

Quick Delete links gone in Monobook

"Report copyright violation", "No source", "No permission" and "No license" no longer appear in the Tools section using Monobook. They appear with Vector. Is it a general problem, or my fault for not keeping my monobook.js up to date with the whims of the Mediawiki developers? I see lots of angry messages about using "mw.config instead" etc. in the console, but that may have been there for a while. LX (talk, contribs) 22:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. Do you see any error messages as opposed to warning messages about deprecation? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed the same problem. Also my "license review" tool is gone, and for some reason my cleanup script by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs) no longer works either. Using Chrome, by the way. Kelly (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that happens when one or more script errors. Unfortunately that could happen in any gadget or user script, so it is difficult to tell what went wrong without more information. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I have problem with this gadget as well as Global Usage Badges and Visual Files Change in Vector on Firefox on Windows 7. Web console message is This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.tipsy". --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I had the same problem and making this change seemingly fixed it. --Wcam (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I have the same problem using Quick Delete. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I use the Vector interface with Chrome. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Thanks Wcam. The issue is triggered by phab:T122755, which removed legacy methods addPortletLink (which has already broken for years) in favour of prefixed mw.util.addPortletLink, and the removal triggers a JS error that prevent any other script from running (unlike previously they were no-op). As the ultimate cause is using legacy code in your own userspace, fixes must be done there, not reversed with site-wide javascript. Therefore @LX, Kelly, and EugeneZelenko: please see mw:ResourceLoader/Legacy_JavaScript#wikibits.js on how to upgrade your scripts; if you run into issues or if that guide does not work anyhow, feel free to ping me. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, @Kelly: loading your script in my browser points the error to User:Patstuart/Extrascripts.js, which seems redundant to many other gadgets. It looks badly broken to me and I'd suggest switching to those currently maintained gadgets instead of having someone repair this script --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Made the change suggested by Wcam, and the links are back. Cheers, LX (talk, contribs) 16:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I fix problem in my common.js, but I got TypeError: mw.util is undefined. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Weird, I can reproduce this intermittently, but seems unrelated to common.js. Probably something went wrong in mediawiki loading sequence :/ --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Wcam: I still have the same problem, I tried to copy/paste your code[6] but it still doesn't work. How can I fix it? I'm mostly interested in Quick Delete gadget. Thank you in advance! --Arthur Crbz (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
It works using the gadget and clearing the js page. Thank you. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Me too

Until last week all this stuff worked fine for me, then late Wednesday it all stopped working. I do not have "batch task", "no permission", "no source", "copyright violoation" in the tools menu to left and I'm missing "view administrator backlog" in the watchlist. I have tried copying what all you talk about above into my *.js page. I have kept all the iterations all // commented out so you can see what I have tried to do. I would appreciate any and all help to fix this problem as it is not fixing itself and I am not a programmer and I do no not know how to fix it. Thanks. Please make full explanations and descriptions; using jargon or shortcuts trying to help will be as incomprehensible as the problem itself. Thanks again. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

April 27


It is a road vehicle travelling on a bikelane. You dont have to travel far to see unusual things.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The closest is (Pedal cars), but these are classified under toys and not road vehicles. Some (Pedal cars for tourism) are allowed to travel on local roads in tourist areas. There is no classification for human powered road vehicles. Are bicycles not vehicles? Or do vehicles need to have four wheels? And some carts are used on the road.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist: Category:Pedal cars is correct. Category:Pedal cars for children is for the toys, so I've removed Category:Toy automobiles from Category:Pedal cars and added it to Category:Pedal cars for children. --El Grafo (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

19:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

May 04

Categories: In the Soviet Union

I reversed the change as the picture is taken on a Russian base but not in Russian territory (Svalbard is Norwegian territory with a special status). The Soviet Union no longer exist. However I see a lot of pictures after 1991 in this category. Such pictures can only be put in the category Vehicles in the Soviet Union if the picture taken before 1992. After 1991 the pictures should be put in the relevant country categories. Maybe there can be a summary category: Vehicles in the ex Soviet Union, but I dont advise it.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

From my discussion page:

There is a major difference between ´in a country´ and ´of a country´. The first one is a pure geografic classification. All vehicles present in the country whatever their origin. The second one means original from that country, but it does not mean it has to be present in the country. The Sovjet Union is no longer, so al pictures taken after 1991 must be ´of the Sovjet Union´ meaning Sovjet origin. Only pictures taken before 1992 taken ´´´in´´´ the Sovjet Union can be classified as such. (Maybe with the exception of out of use vehicles in a museum) You should treat the Sovjet Union the same way as Austria-Hungary or any other ex country. It is preferable to use the Russian categories for most cases of geografic identifation, as their is no posible confusion wathever the date. If the vehicle is of Sovjet Union (built/origin) you can use the category of the Sovjet Union. These can then be photografed anywhere in the world. Aother example: File:Herzele t'Uilekot en buurtspoorwegstation-3.jpg I cant classify this under (Trams in Brussels) as this is in Herzele, but I did put it under (Old and heritage trams from Brussels). The use of the word ´from´ clearer in this case.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
You really cant have recent images of vehicles in an non-existing country!Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: I agree with you, Category:Vehicles of the Soviet Union is for things built in the Soviet Union while it existed, while Category:Vehicles in the Soviet Union would only be for pre-1992 photos. Compare to Category:Vehicles of the United States and Category:Vehicles in the United States. I will revert these changes by Verdy p.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

So you want to distinguish two categories, but even before I did this one was redirected to the other, and this was not valid with subcategories using "in" and that fall in the "in the Soviet Union". If you want a distinction, then the redirect must be dropped and the two categories cannot be merged as they were already before I made any change !! verdy_p (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The category description on Category:Vehicles of the Soviet Union oddly states "This category is for pictures of vehicles built in the Sovjet Union, but being used after 1991." A vehicle built in the Soviet Union is "of the Soviet Union" regardless of when it was being used or photographed. Thus a photo of a VAZ-2101 in Moscow in 1972 should be categorized both in Category:Vehicles in the Soviet Union (there is no automobiles sub-category?) and in Category:VAZ-2101 (a sub-category of Category:Vehicles of the Soviet Union). An image of the exact same car in Berlin, regardless of the year it was photographed, should still be in Category:VAZ-2101 but obviously not in Category:Vehicles in the Soviet Union. I'd suggest the category description should be changed. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Watchlist issues

Is anyone else experiencing difficulties with their watchlist? I've been having problems since yesterday. Mine works fine when the expanded watchlist option is unchecked, but it doesn't work at all when it's enabled. Most of the time, that manifests as a blank screen, but occasionally I get an error message like this (IP address obscured):

Request from xxx.xx.xx.xx via cp2007 cp2007, Varnish XID 545037669

Error: 503, Service Unavailable at Tue, 02 May 2017 13:50:19 GMT

Any idea what might be happening? - Eureka Lott 14:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Might be ? --Malyacko (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Yep, that matches what I'm seeing. Thanks for the link! - Eureka Lott 13:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting documentation: Upload wizard refers.

As a keen Wikibunny with greyhair, I responded to your request for Upload Wizard feedback using the prominent tab on Upload Wizard . I went through the procedure of registering to become a phabricator contributor- the security is excellent, but a little heavy for a newbie. No matter, I came across a very unfamiliar form, and a very unfamiliar editor- and a warning message. At no point did the form autofill back to Commons or my most recent upload. The warning message- said to stick to one issue- but Commons had sent me there to give feedback... anyway my 'Task' was tri-aged as invalid and closed. The whole point of Upload Wizard is to make uploads easier for out new contributors and normally it suceeds- but the lack of a simple feedback system rather misses the point. Comments please. I have written some feedback which is waiting for a reader at T164263. Greetings to the efficient phabricator team.--ClemRutter (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: Thanks for your feedback. You have experienced a bunch of problems/opportunities. Each that you cannot solve yourself deserves its own task in phabricator (referencing T164263 for background), including sending feedback to phabricator in the first place. You can request rename of any file with {{Rename}}, and you can edit the file description pages to be more correct using copy/paste and finer editing, but our system will not let you upload duplicates.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks for the quick response. I train up a lot of newbies, so I am fairly familiar with the level of fear we generate, and here I am just looking at the issue of tying in the level of language used in UW and that used in the pages where we are directing our newbies. Sticking to that point, the UI is good but it would be easier to 'teach' if we had an 'Are you sure message Y/N? before you publish. Why? You say to your students' Don't worry, nothing is permanently saved until you press 'Publish' and even then you will get a last chance to change your mind. If you are still uncertain, call me over when you get to that point.
Looking at the wiki skill level of our target UW new users, it will be low. But their formal academic qualifications will be far higher than mine. If I am running a course or they will have discussed notability and copyright and will have written a one liner on their en:User page maybe using VE and sent me a message to my talkpage using wikicode. At this point we will try to upload first one image, and then five images. So my point is we need to adopt a appropriate register for the UI and our ways of soliciting feedback. I did put some further UW suggestions in phabricator that you have already found- and the ideas are still coming.. speak soon --ClemRutter (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

if you liked commonist, you should like Commons:VicuñaUploader. but yeah it's amazing that upload wizard works at all. you have a wizard team at WMF to send feedback to. and the java script tools are better. and tend to have one maintainer, until they stop (like commonist). Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
It isn't about personal preference- when we train up newbies we need to understand the tool that they use- and UW is one click on the left. Vicuna is sitting on my desktop too but that is yet another and different adventure and there is some UI work to do there too.--ClemRutter (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
i train newbies not to use UW. feedback is painfully slow. better to use old uploader without all the mechanistic logic. and if they want to avoid the toxic culture here, flickr. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@ClemRutter: This might help understand things: As far as I remember, that feedback link originally brought you to Commons:Upload Wizard feedback for general feedback. That page soon got swamped by semi-helpful comments and at some point was turned into a link to phabricator – which is used to track actual bugs rather than gather general feedback. If the link suggests to go to phabricator for general feedback, that is of course confusing and needs to be changed in some kind of way. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
yes, this is a report that the feedback channels are broken. you have to be an expert to know how to give constructive feedback in the proper channel, and the lag before a response is long. the toxic culture here is to delete all trial and error attempts, rather than collaborate with uploaders, and listen to feedback. we would need to train and establish a "uploader help crew", but no one is interested; we would rather link to a tl;dr page, or refer to others. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

May 03

Photo challenge: March Results

Numbers: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
image [[File:|x240px]]
Title Nautical chart (Egean sea) and ruler 228 Memorial stone blocks, 228 Memorial Park, Taiwan. Lane number on a running track
Author Gozitano Mk2010 Mk2010
Score 22 18 16
Street photography: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
Title Inhabitants of the blue city, Chefchaouen, Morocco A lady is checking the timetable in Prague Herd of cows on the street near Mellau, Austria
Author Black Sickle Ermell CatalpaSpirit
Score 26 11 11

Congratulations to Gozitano, Mk2010, Black Sickle, Ermell and CatalpaSpirit. -- Jarekt (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Aren't there copyright issues with that nautical chart? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)



I had hoped consensus would go towards one or the other by today however that wasn't to be and I had no idea how long it would take so I've moved all images to Category:2017 Westminster attack. (All images have "27 March 2017" on the end so if anyone does want to create a subcat I'd have no objections), Thanks to all who have commented, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, Apologies if this is in the wrong place,
Basically I have 40 images related to the 2017 London Westminster Terror Attack so the question I have is Should I create a seperate category for them all or should I simply move them all to Category:2017 Westminster attack?,
If the former then the category would be within the "2017 Westminster attack" category and again if the former then I wouldn't really know what to call the category either as it's a mixture of images (poems, flowers, policemen etc etc),
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Why would a category for London be within a category for Westminster? Isn't Westminster part of London, and therefore within London? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Auntof6 - Fixed, Apologies it should've said Westminster not London –Davey2010Talk 01:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

They should certainly be in Category:2017 Westminster attack or an appropriate subcat, but if the latter it should be based on some commonality other than the fact that you were the photographer. If you like, you can keep Category:Davey2010/London2 as well but it should be marked with {{User category}}. - Jmabel ! talk 02:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Impromptu memorials like this have been categorized as Category:Street memorials to the November 2015 Paris attacks and as Category:Monuments and memorials to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. Either a new category or all the individual images could go in Category:Temporary monuments and memorials in London. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Jmabel - "They should certainly be in Category:2017 Westminster attack or an appropriate subcat," - This is what I was asking, Also I wasn't the photographer I just uploaded them from Flickr but images over 10 have been put in subcategories before and so I didn't want to move them all to one category if a subcat is prefferred, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The strategy discussion. The Cycle 2 was postponed

An update to that message: the Cycle 2 was postponed, that's why I haven't sent you any announcement today. It will start on May, 11. And another news: Josve05a (WMF) will be in charge of coordination on Commons during the Cycle 2, so if you have any questions, ping him on the first place. You can also ping me. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

How Taking Photos Can Improve Your Mental Health

Many of you might enjoy this Huffington Post piece Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Pinterest copyright status

Is anybody familiar with Pinterest? Specifically, what licensing do they use, and is it compatible with our aims?

This image, uploaded by Armanjarrettp (talk · contribs), is sourced to this page on Pinterest, but it's difficult finding out the specifics of that image because the link goes to some sort of gallery page, and when I locate the relevant image and click on it, I'm asked to log in in order to see more. Other aspects of the image are doubtful - it shows a date of 6 May 2017, which is today, yet the locomotive is known to have been cut up for scrap in 1966 - over fifty years ago (see English Wikipedia article). --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 22:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, This is a clear copyright violation, so deleted. Everything on Pinterest is under a copyright unless it is a copy of a free image from elsewhere. This is not a good source for us anyway. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

May 06

Preparing for 3D models on Commons

Hello Commons,

In 2015 one of the most popular ideas for the Community Wishlist Survey was about enabling the sharing of 3D models on Commons. There's technical work underway to make this happen with the STL file format.

The Multimedia team would like to get your input on two specific questions.

How might the Commons community respond to concerns over the uploading of 3D files?

Specifically around how this new file format might involve new issues (such as patent, copyright, and uploading of weapon designs) that weren't as relevant before for 2D files. For instance, if someone uploaded the 3D model of a potentially patented work how would the community respond? What can the community do in advance to discuss and prepare for the possibility of these things happening?

As examples, here are a few areas that might require community discussion and guidance: What happens when users upload 3D files for objects that are patented? Although Commons policies are now generally only concerned with copyright restrictions, patents on 3D objects could introduce risks and restrictions for other users who want to print these files and even for the online hosting of the files. Conversely, if a user is uploading a 3D file that they may later want to patent, should they be warned that such disclosures might make it more difficult for them acquire such a patent in the future? Should there be guidance on how users who print 3D objects should properly provide creative commons attribution for the copyrighted elements of the design? Should there be specific restrictions or notices with respect to the uploading of files that can be used as weapons, especially those that may be restricted (e.g. gun or knife designs)?

Where would it be best to make contributors aware of the policy around items of this nature?

We've been doing some research, and have a few ideas. For example, the community may wish to ensure there's a reminder of policy during the upload process and again on the file page itself. Where else might the community want to look to be prepared before the feature is enabled? Should guidance linked from the Editors' index, such as the Commons:Licensing, the Commons:How_to_detect_copyright_violations, and the Commons: non-copyright restrictions be updated as well?

If you have a some time to think about this and provide feedback it would be greatly appreciated. If you aware of other Commons contributors that might have some thoughts, please include them in this conversation as well. Thank you and the team appreciates your time. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I want to thank everyone responsible for making this happen: 3D models is one of the big lacunas here on Commons. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
On the issue of copyright, 3D designs, and 3D printing, one of the more useful guides may be "3 Steps for Licensing Your 3D Printed Stuff" from Michael Weinberg of Public Knowledge. The guide's focus is on US copyright law and the circumstances under which a 3D object (such as a decorative sculpture) or a 3D design can be licensed on copyright grounds (such as by applying a Creative Commons license to a digital 3D model file.) Among other things, the guide talks about the aspect of US copyright wherein not all 3D objects are copyrightable, i.e. if a 3D object is of a functional nature and is not meant to be artistic. (The Commons guideline on derivative works has a section about this subject.) At the same time, a digital 3D design for a functional object may be copyrightable even when the object itself is not. The guide also touches on patenting 3D objects, but recommends consulting with a lawyer due to the complexity involved. --Gazebo (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I think guidance from foundation legal team might be useful in regards to patented objects. --Jarekt (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Not formal legal advice, but my impression is that patents are primarly concerned with usability, not appearance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Per the recent opinion regarding Mavrix vs livejournal, I'm actually of the opinion that wmf legal should not answer a request regarding patented objects. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 19:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I think you have to actually make a product, or carry out a patented process, to violate a patent. Providing a blueprint for it doesn't seem like enough. w:Patent infringement. --ghouston (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we should touch patents at all. Patents are a hairy mess, and while many copyright violations can be easily found and removed by volunteers, patent violations are not nearly as obvious or easy to figure out.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Update: Thank you all for the feedback so far. If you're curious as to how this might look and work on Commons, the Beta cluster now has this featured enabled for testing. (Example 1 | 3D view) (Example 2 | 3D view) CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, This is great news. Thanks for the good work. Lionel Allorge (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@CKoerner (WMF): One design piece of feedback: in the 3d View, its not clear that I have the opportunity to manipulate the image. A small hint to "Click and drag, to see the image", or a little logo that does that (as happens with Facebook 360 photo), would help a lot with engaging it. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Good idea @Astinson (WMF): I created a task for the suggestion. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
It looks really great, a quick question about the model viewer, it doesn't seem possible to rotate the model in a way that keeps the model upright, is this possible or am I missing something? My expectation when holding down the mouse on the model and moving left to right is that the model would rotate like a globe does. This makes it a bit frustrating trying to see the back of the model.
--John Cummings (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
At [7], mouse-down and dragging side to side rotated like a globe for me, and I could go all the way around to see the back. It seems like dragging from window left-edge to window right-edge is 360° and the rotation can continue by multiple drags. However, I do see a bug with up/down rotation: no matter how many or how far a drag, I could never go beyond 90° from the original orientation. And once I rotated vertically, the horizontal dragging was not intuitive: the "drag left/right" rotation axis seems pinned to the object's original orientation even if those axes have been rotated vertically, not the current view. DMacks (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
@CKoerner (WMF): Having problems uploading two files as a test from Smithsonian 3D - a largish 49.2 Mbyte STL file, and a 12.9 Mbyte STL file. Both resulted in "Internal error: Server failed to store temporary file." Any help or hints? -- Fuzheado (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
@Fuzheado: I had similar issues. This is tracked at phab:T164368. Jean-Fred (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

April 21


Wait...So a bunch of people just...upload pictures of their penises to Wikimedia Commons? xD They never say "This is my penis." though, they just say "own work". Are they not embarrassed at ALL? "Welp. Today I'm just gonna upload a picture of my penis on Wikimedia Commons for millions of people to see and possibly use on Wikipedia articles."? PseudoSkull (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

"Wow! MY PENIS got used on a WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE??? What an honor!" PseudoSkull (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: Yes, they do, unfortunately. See COM:PENIS. - Reventtalk 06:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Creative commons copyright okay for photo taken from book?

Found this recently. Not sure if it's fine to flag it. Uploader has similar uploads done. Ominae (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ominae: Absent further information, this looks like a copyright violation.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ominae: 'own work' is patently false. The image appears to be from this book (published in 1995). If so, it might be {{PD-IDGov}}, but we would need a reliable indication that the book was published without a copyright notice. A DR would be reasonable.... HathiTrust thinks the book is under copyright, and they are pretty careful. - Reventtalk 06:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Template Regions of France


The template Regions of France (Template:Regions of France is locked for editing, but the listing of French regions it provides is obsolete. In January 2015, a reform brought together several regions, as listed on Template:Regions of France/sandbox. Therefore numerous categories use the sandbox version instead of the main one. Would it be possible to replace the Regions of France template with the sandbox version? Subsequently, will it possible somehow automatize the substitution, within the various categories that make use of it, of the reference to the sandbox version, to the updated main version ?

Thanks. --LeZibou (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  • The Sandbox one doesn't seem correctly alphabetized (e.g. look at the placement of Alsace-Champagne-Ardenne-Lorraine). Are you sure it's ready for prime time? - Jmabel ! talk 23:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
    The Sandbos version is properly ordered with the new name, but it will detect categoies that have not been renamed like Alsace-Champagne-Ardenne-Lorraine changed to Grand Est. It performs all the necessary tests to link to the correct one and make migrations of contents by creating the necessary redirects of page/gallery names, or {{Category redirect}} if needed (when both are present it will link first to the new name. Really look at the doc page displayed on the Sandbox, this proves that the order is correct. When the regions got their definitive names, I made all the necessary edits in it, so there's no error. I have fully tested it and it is already used in many pages where the migration to new regions has already occured (such as Category:Regions of France and most important subcategories, including all the subcategoies for individual regions that properly display the list) !!! verdy_p (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @Jmabel: I don't see that one there at all. It's now called Grand Est: is that the spot where you saw it? The template doesn't appear to have been edited recently, so I wonder how you saw that. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Open it up in the editor. But maybe what I'm seeing doesn't show when it's actually used. Anyway, someone else is welcome to take it public, but not me if I don't fully understand what is going on. - Jmabel ! talk 16:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Ah. It's listed next to its new name. When the regions were redefined, the ones that changed were given preliminary names. Regions formed by combining some of the previous regions had names which consisted of the combined names of the regions they replaced. (The one you mentioned was formed by combining Alsace, Champagne-Ardenne, and Lorraine.) They had until a certain date to decide whether to keep those names or pick new ones. In this case, Alsace-Champagne-Ardenne-Lorraine chose the name "Grand Est". Alsace-Champagne-Ardenne-Lorraine is there because there are still categories that use the name. (Those should all be renamed.) It's where it is in the template so that it's next to its new name. The old name shows up only when there's no category for the new name, as on Category:World War I memorials in Alsace-Champagne-Ardenne-Lorraine. I think it should stay as it is until all the categories are renamed. Hope that helps. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @LeZibou: Please discuss this at Template talk:Regions of France.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @Jeff G. and Auntof6: Actually, I did not discuss it on the template talk page, and went directly to the Village Pump, because the code transfer was asked for on the dedicated page in October 2016, and no one replied/nothing happened. @Verdy p: then wrote "I really ask updating the Template:Regions of France code with the code now in Template:Regions of France/sandbox (fully tested and already effective, it is testing names and will display the official names, and will link preferably to pages with the official names but will still find pages that were still not renamed with the official names)". What should we do then? Thanks for your time! --LeZibou (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @LeZibou and Auntof6:  Support and good luck. We have automated tools that can help replace transclusion of the sandbox version with that of the live version when you are ready for cleanup.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @Jeff G.: Hello, I guess we all agree here that the template is ready for cleanup. I guess this will involve a two-step process: within the template page, merge the /sandbox onto the main version ; then, for pages that refer to the /sandbox version, switch them to the main one. Thanks. --LeZibou (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

April 29

Help with editing templates

The templates in question are {{PD-China}} and {{PD-Taiwan}}. There is this information from en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Chinese_copyrights that is very relevant: "Both the Peoples' Republic of China and Taiwan are eligible for the restoration of copyrights [in the U.S.]: the dates of restoration are January 1, 1996 (PRC) and January 2002 (ROC) respectively." Could someone add this info to these templates? --Wcam (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I have edited {{PD-Taiwan/en}} and {{PD-Taiwan/layout}} to include information about the possible restoration of US copyright and also the need to include a license tag indicating why a work is out of copyright in the US. Perhaps the wording and/or layout can be improved, but the {{PD-Taiwan}} template now at least covers these issues. --Gazebo (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Wcam: I have also edited {{PD-China/en}} to include information about the possible restoration of US copyright. --Gazebo (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

European Space Agency release all high res Copernicus Sentinel Satellite Imagery under CC-BY-SA

Hi all

The European Space Agency have just released the Copernicus Sentinel Satellite imagery under CC-BY-SA. There are going to be many new images added over time.

I'm doing a little bit of work with them at the moment to help measure their reach on Wikimedia projects and currently they don't have an easy way of uploading the images, they have to do them by hand. Is there some automated way of importing them into Commons? Perhaps categorised under a subcategory of Category:Content_created_by_the_European_Space_Agency called Category:Copernicus Sentinel Satellite Imagery?

You can also let people know about the images by sharing their tweet about it.


--John Cummings (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

you could do a upload request at Commons:Batch uploading or use com:pattypan, with the tracking category of your choice. in order to increase reach or use, you may need an editathon, or online contest. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
See Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/03#Content from ESA under Cc-by-sa-3.0-igo. -- Geagea (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
As I've been pinged on Twitter, I'll take a second look and give some feedback though I'm still on a break from Commons. John, you are highly experienced at running projects and upload projects here. The ESA may be open to funding projects, not only to release images to Commons, but to maintain the metadata, even leveraging Wikidata's potential to host metadata about the locations and objects being imaged, and to gain benefit from usage and categorization across projects. As an unrecognized volunteer, what I have time and interest to do for free will be much more limited and what I learn will remain unpublished as there is no incentive for me to turn the experience into a research paper. -- (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Started looking, though there are only 228 results in the search given, which seems small, though it's easy to extend an upload script to any image with the right CC licenses. You can choose to page through the results, so even without any API-like arrangements, scraping is easy, though there is a small bug in the search that changes "+" to " " when you move to paged results, giving 875 images due to the weaker matches. Anyway, I have something started and will set up a page for it when the metadata mapping is sorted out, so any detailed discussion or suggestions can be captured for future work.

Some presumptions at the moment are that

  1. there's one image per post
  2. where there is no explicit copyright statement we can't upload it, e.g. Surfing the seas, Sentinel-2B
  3. we want to upload the highest resolution image, and lossless TIFF rather than jpeg
  4. the Id numbers on each image catalogue page are unique, e.g. Id 373976 for Botswana

-- (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi , thanks very much for looking at this, to answer things in order
Mass uploads: agreed I have experience in uploading content but we are still in the situation where there are very few people able to mass upload content from a website to Commons. I'm sorry to keep asking you for things like this, I do it for two reasons:
  1. You are very good at it
  2. The tools require a lot of specialist knowledge to use, I have tried several times to learn to use pywikibot as many others have and most of us have failed miserably
I want to be more independent with uploading and I don't want to have to ask you to do it, but I currently can't find another option.....Hopefully GLAMpipe will fix this in the future but for now I'm not sure what else to do. Do you think that there is a muggle friendly tool for the website scraping you are doing that could be combined with Pattypan to allow us to mass upload content? My goal with ESA is to make it so they can keep Commons updated with new images they release.
This upload: Yes I think your assumptions are correct, however it is possible that some of the CC licensed images have been uploaded previously by hand. I will ask about the non explicitly licensed images and get back to you.
Thanks again
John Cummings (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

→ Further info about the upload will be at User:Fæ/Project_list/ESA. -- (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

if it is only a few hundred, you might consider using commons:pattypan especially if you have a set of images on a hard drive. we should work to make this standard GLAM practice, and save the GWtool for thousand + . Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
See the upload page above, now running. It's slow, it would be a lot faster after Phab:T164643 goes through. -- (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
i was thinking as a part of GLAM practice to try pattypan first, before pinging Fae about a mass upload of ten images. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I uploaded a few. @: Do you intend to upload a JPEG for each TIFF file? If not, I could help. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Please don't. Having alternative variations using the same identity means that the batch uploads will just skip these images, to avoid any possible duplicates. It also slows down this small upload as I have to manually handle any duplicate error warnings and the scripts waits until I notice it asking for help; the type of thing that is worked through in the pre-upload tests for large uploads. I am not convinced we need jpegs when the ESA has lossless gif, png or tiff versions available. Thumbnail rendering for tiffs has supposedly improved, though I have not seen this tested. If jpegs are desirable for every tiff where the ESA has both available, it's easy enough for me to tack this onto the upload script.
All 200+ images should finish uploading today in a day or two; some TIFFs are pretty large and the client-side transfers rely on my humble home broadband. Thanks -- (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@: Aren't you glad you're not on dialup? :)   — Jeff G. ツ 13:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much , this is great, I set up a tracking category on BaGLAMa 2 a few months ago to help see where the images are used. So if they upload more images under and open license in future is it simple to rerun the upload to catch them?

Thanks again

--John Cummings (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

As per twitter I can do a rerun when the phab ticket goes through. The categorization side will be explained on the project page when that happens. -- (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, May I suggest to link the TIFF and JPEG versions of the same image when they exist? Regards, Yann (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

May 05

FB effectivity group

Hi, for those, who are on Facebook, I have founded Effectivity (Wikimedia) group, to share ideas, how to ease contributing to Wikimedia projects via technical tools and methodological ways.--Juandev (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Beta Feature Two Column Edit Conflict View

Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

May 09

02:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Quick revert

I mistakenly moved around 25 photoes from Category:Apadana stairs of Persepolis to Category:Reliefs of Achaemenid warriors in Persepolis, while I wanted to simply add the latter to these photoes. Is there any quick way to revert these 25 edits? Special:Contributions/ZxxZxxZ --Z 16:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Where the mistakes are all consecutive edits, likely the easiest place to find them is on one‘s own contributions page.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes the problem is I can not recognize those photos from the second category I mentioned, so I want to simply revert my last 30 edits, and I remember there was a JS tool for such action. @Yamaha5 and Mardetanha: شما ابزاری دارید که با آن سی تا ویرایش آخر من که اشتباه هستند را با یک حرکت واگردانی کنید؟ چون من دیده ام این کار انجام می شود. --Z 10:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: XXN, 11:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Moving a subcategory on a page

In the category World War I by medium, "Videos of World War I" is listed at the "top" of the category. I accidentally created a new category (Video footage of WWI) because this category was not under "V" for video. When I tried to start a discussion to request moving it under "V," I got an error message. Could "Videos of World War I" please be moved from the top of the page to under "V" for Video? --Catfishmo (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like this was done by User:Jeff G. You might like to look at what he did so you know how to do it yourself if you find another case like this. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@Catfishmo and Auntof6: I'm glad it worked out, and I'm sorry I had to run before explaining fully. What I did was test a theory that the space between the vertical bar and the capital V in the "Videos of" sort key looked strange and might be causing this behavior. The fact of the matter is that, per en:WP:SORTKEY consideration 2 and m:Help:Category#Sort_order, space and asterisk are special, in that sort keys which start with those two characters get sorted first, in that order, before both numbers and letters. This happens because those two characters (along with 14 others) precede numbers and letters in ASCII character code order. The "| Videos of" syntax was added without sufficient explanation to Category:Videos of World War I in this edit by Queeg, whose entire editing career here was in mid-2011, so I doubt we'll get an explanation from that editor now.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you!! That makes sense. I'm really new at this editing thing and all these special coding characters can be really confusing!--Catfishmo (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@Catfishmo: You're welcome!!   — Jeff G. ツ 09:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

"Jewish community" vs. "Judaism"

While I'm busy opening tricky issues: my attention was called to this one by this change by Ruthven (talk · contribs), moving Category:J Street from Category:Jewish community of the United States to Category:Judaism in the United States. This was apparently because of the upshot of Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/03/Category:Jewish community of Thessaloniki, originally a discussion specific to Thessaloniki that was broadened to Greece, but not further, hence I never noticed it until they reached a resolution.

It may well be that Greek Jews are so uniformly religious that the distinction between Judaism (a religion) and the Jewish community (an ethnic group) is moot there. In the United States, that is not at all the case, and J Street is a perfect case in point. J Street is in no sense a religious organization. It describes itself as "the political home for pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans who want Israel to be secure, democratic and the national home of the Jewish people..." Note that last phrase: it is about a people, not about a religion. Speaking as a secular Jew (and a J Street member), I find the inclusion of J Street under "Judaism" rather than "Jewish community" wrong almost to the point of being (accidentally) offensive. It's sort of as if we defined the Sons of Italy or the Polish Falcons as a Catholic organizations. (The analogy isn't perfect, because those are fraternal rather than political; I can't think offhand of prominent non-religious political organizations from historically predominantly Catholic communities.) - Jmabel ! talk 16:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I agree with you, although I'm not a J Street member. Only two of the 12 photos are of a Rabbi. First, they came for the Thessalonians.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I applied the consensus reached there. The discussions to rename/delete categories are open to everyone, and this specific one has been open for several months (or years): it's a time long enough to participate and bring your opinions. You are free to open a new CfD, suggesting what seems to you a correct renaming; no problems at all. --Ruthven (msg) 17:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ruthven: What gives you the right to extrapolate from a discussion of one city to the entire world? Who notified the editors of Category:Jewish community of the United States to get their consensus? What do you have against Jewish communities or the Jewish People?   — Jeff G. ツ 18:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I just closed a CfD. If you're seeing in the name of a category, discussed and agreed on by @Kimdime, Themightyquill, and Geagea: , an attack to a whole people, then I suppose that your vision of reality is quite funny. If yours is a tentative to insult me, please apologies because here personal attacks are not tolerated. --Ruthven (msg) 18:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ruthven: You didn't just close a CfD, you extrapolated, emptying Category:Jewish community of the United States and many other categories without consensus. Now, there are no categories of Jewish communities on Commons, where they existed yesterday. What reaction did you expect? What policies or procedures permit you to do that? I will apologize after you apologize for what I perceive to be an attack on an entire people.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Have you read the discussion page of the CfD? Have you noticed that Category:Jewish communities by country was in discussion since 2016? --Ruthven (msg) 18:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Yes, but that was just about Greece, not the entire world. Do you typically extrapolate from CfDs without consensus on the extrapolation? There's a big difference between "This could affect one of your subcats" and "This could affect you and all your subcats". Technically, Category:Jewish communities by country wasn't in the discussion (it wasn't discussed), it was only notified of the discussion.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Judaism is about jewish people. J Street is categorizw in as a jewish organization of USA, a sub category of Judaism in USA. Jew is also for the etnic perpective and also for religion. Not real difference.-- Geagea (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is an enormous difference between a people and a religion, and while the words "Jew" and "Jewish" can refer to either, "Judaism" cannot. It is a refers specifically to a religion. - Jmabel ! talk 04:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Jmabel, Maybe if you read the article Who is a Jew? it will be more clear to you. When you say that someone is Jew you actually mean that he is ethnically and religiously jew. You can't say it about Christian person. You can not compare Christianity and Judaism.-- Geagea (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Geagea: you are referring me to an article a large portion of which I wrote. Again, as I've explained several times here: the word "Jews" is inclusive of both ethnicity and religion. The word "Judaism" is not. - Jmabel ! talk 00:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
You are refering to the difference between a people and a religion which I'm saying there is no difference. Judaism as well refering to the religion and the people. At least that is the way in The category of Judaism should contain religion staff and the thing which identified as Jewish: people, organisation etc. -- Geagea (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Geagea: Why would you cite the Hebrew wikipedia for the meaning of an English word? (And, for that matter, where precisely in the Hebrew Wikipedia is this? Pretty vague citation.) en:Judaism is pretty much in line with my view here: note the hat text, "This article is about the Jewish religion. For consideration of ethnic, historic and cultural aspects of the Jewish identity, see Jews." The lede is a bit broader "...encompasses the religion, philosophy, culture and way of life of the Jewish people...", but it seems quite a stretch to include a largely secular organization such as J Street. - Jmabel ! talk 15:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jmabel: , Commons is multilingual project. Though we use English or latin for categorize it serves wikis in all languages. Also, the origin of the word Judaism/Jew is Hebrew not English. Yes, not all the wisdom is in but regarding to Jews and Judaism they have some understanding, anyway we should at least respect also the way of categorize, which, in my opinion, also simple and correct. Evryting connected to Jews should by in a father category Judaism. If there is disagreement to harmonize the catrgorys, we should respect that also and double categorys as needed. -- Geagea (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Geagea, you still have not cited any specific article in the Hebrew Wikipedia, so it's impossible to engage you on what the unnamed article may say about the matter. - Jmabel ! talk 00:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Instead of arguing about what should have been done, perhaps we could look for a solution. Jeff G., I can certainly appreciate your points, in that there are many people who consider themselves wholly secular/athiest Jews and who wouldn't appreciate any contemporary association with Judaism as a religion (even if there are religious Jews who don't accept the idea of a non-religious Jew at all). Anyway, moving forward - do you see Category:Judaism as a sub-category of Category:Jewish community? If not, what should the relationship be between them? Unfortunately, commons categorization allows little room for nuance. Moroever, should Category:Synagogues be a sub-category of Category:Judaism or Category:Jewish community or both? If both, we run the risk of a whole nearly-identical parallel category tree. How would you see things arranged? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

might want to start with a consensus about ethnic / religious categories. category moves without a consensus should be undone, and editor warned. all the drama about categories is wasted, wikidata is the answer. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I think a good model here would be to look at how we handle "Greeks" and "Greek Orthodoxy". The relation is pretty similar to "Jews" and "Judaism", but the vocabulary tends to be clearer there. Clearly, synagogues belong under Judaism -- they are analogous to Greek Orthodox churches -- but secular organizations do not. - Jmabel ! talk 15:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Then the question is do we make the difference between an ethnic group and an ethnoreligious group? Greeks=Ethnic group / Jews=Ethnoreligious group. And there is a big difference because Greeks alone say nothing about a potential religion (they can be Muslim, Orthodox, Judaic...), however Jews clearly refear to a religion, here the Judaism, in background. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
That said, as the word Ethnoreligious include also an ethnic point of view, I've nothing on the fact that the categories on " Jewish Communities" are included both in the religious category tree and in an ethnic/community (out of religion) category tree. But that a category on a Jewish community (in New York, or in Moscow) is somewhere under the Judaism category is fully appropriate. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
i like the argument by analogy, and appeal to standard taxonomy. but you realize that the Greek Orthordox are not under 1RR on english. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
i mean that "Jewish" issues are so contentious on related projects, that there are discretionary sanctions, which indicates there may not be much reason in this area, but more ideology. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Everything outside Greece should be restored to the status quo ante. Given the exposure here and at my RfA, the Greek CfD should be revisited (I would certainly oppose). Beyond that, I haven't examined the former categorization in depth, but to my mind, synagogues, temples, religious schools, and theological seminaries should be under Judaism because they deal with the practice (or the teaching or studying of the practice) of the religion with materials such as Torah, Talmud, or prayerbooks. If they also serve the Jewish community at large, they should also be under Jewish communities. YMHAs, YWHAs, and Jewish hospitals, community centers, nursing homes, funeral homes, and cemeteries should be under Jewish communities, but if they also provide for the practice (or the teaching or studying of the practice) of the religion with materials such as Torah, Talmud, or prayerbooks, they should also be under Judaism. Judaism itself should be under Abrahamic religions, which should be under monotheistic religions, which should be under religions, whereas Jewish communities should be under ethnic communities or peoples (don't let my English teachers see that).   — Jeff G. ツ 09:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Jeff G.. Firstly, to be clear, status quo ante was that Category:Jewish community of the United States was a sub-category of Category:Judaism in the United States. From my understanding of your argument above (all religious Jews are part of the Jewish community, but not all members of the Jewish community are religious - correct me if I'm wrong), shouldn't Category:Judaism in the United States be the sub-category? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: I have separated your reply by paragraph to reply inline. Putting the Jewish community on top makes some sense, as one could argue that practicing Jews are a subset of the Jewish community, or that there could be no formal practice with nine or fewer Jewish men who had been Bar Mitzvah in the same room, due to the need for a minyan. This would placate non-practicing Jews like me. The work to make it happen would be slightly more than the work to return to the status quo ante. This would be my first choice.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Second, you're saying that, for example, Category:Synagogues in New York should only be under Category:Judaism in New York but that categories for specific (but not all?) synagogues in New York that alo serve the Jewish community at large, they should be under Category:Jewish community of New York. Category:Jewish community centers in the United States should be under Category:Jewish community of the United States but categories for individual community centers (those attached to a synagogue, for instance) might appear directly under Category:Judaism in the United States. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
This made some sense, in that Judaism has historically preceded Jewish communities (when the first Jewish person arrived in a locality), and the sense that Jewish communities can be considered the secular part of Jewish duality, but it would not placate non-practicing Jews like me. This would be my second choice.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
That seems reasonable, but it does create a situation where a) several categories might be both children and grandchildren of the same category (COM:OVERCAT) and where we end up with two largely parallel category trees (Category:Star of David in the United States is both, no? And Category:Jewish cemeteries in the United States?). That might be a problem we'll just have to overlook because the categorization system doesn't deal well with nuance. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
This would be my third choice. I was trying to avoid COM:OVERCAT with parallel trees, Perhaps we will have to live with a bit of OVERCAT for the sake of saving one tree. My fourth and far distant choice would be to do nothing.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2016 Results

The 2016 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Wikimedians,

The 2016 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results:

In both rounds, people voted for their favorite media files.

  • In the first round, there were 1475 candidate images.
  • In the second round, people voted for the 58 finalists (the R1 top 30 overall and top 2 in each category).

In the second round – the “three votes” was used – eligible users could vote for up to 3 finalists – each of these 3 votes counted equal.

There were 4765 people who voted in total (R1 and R2).

  • In the first round, 2553 people voted for all 1475 candidates.
  • In the second round, 3625 people voted for all 58 finalists.

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful media files and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 615 people voted for the winner, File:Jubilee and Munin, Ravens, Tower of London 2016-04-30.jpg.
  2. In second place, 443 people voted for File:Khaoyai 06.jpg.
  3. In third place, 352 people voted for File:Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) in the drift ice region north of Svalbard.jpg.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all voters for participating. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

the Picture of the Year committee

15:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

New filters for Recent Changes - Feedback and research

Hello Commonists!

The new filters for Edit review are available as a Beta feature on your wiki since a couple of weeks. 230 users are trying this feature so far, thank you! If you have tried the filters, we are looking for your feedback, even if it is just to say you are satisfied. :)

We are working on adding new filters, like Namespace filters, which may help you to work. We are also working on having those filters used on other pages where you monitor changes (whatchlist for instance). To give you a powerful tool, we need your help: we are looking for people who would accept to have an interview with a Wikipedia Foundation's research designer. This interview is one hour long, conducted in English through Google Hangouts. It will require you to share your screen to show how you use the interface. The interview will not be shared unless if you agree to. We want to have diversity of points of views during those interviews.

If you are interested, please send me an email.

Cheers, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

GLAMTOOLS email list

The email list we created a couple of years ago, after launching the GLAM wiki toolset has recently had very few users asking questions about tools. On behalf of the list admins, I invite feedback on whether the list should be promoted as a useful but more general discussion about Wikimedia Commons batch upload tools, techniques and issues. For example it could be the recommended email list for all tools listed at Commons:Upload tools and for GLAM related tools such as those listed at outreach:GLAM/Resources/Tools. Alternatively, if the feeling is we have enough lists that do this job, this may be the right time to close the list down. Though it costs nothing to run the email list, there is a small volunteer cost in admin time to keep an eye on the moderation queue, mostly to deny spammers. Thanks -- (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

  • As a Commons-l user, I would be fine with such discussions happening in Commons-l, potentially by enabling "topics" so that people can follow only what they want (but there isn't much traffic anyway). Nemo 13:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Gold star vs. Golden stars

Can someone untangle this: In my eyes category Gold star (note the unusual singular) should be a cat redirect to Golden stars, but I am too unsure to do this myself in a right way. BTW there is already a redirect Gold stars. One of the mysteries: Gold star is a sub cat. of Star symbols, Golden stars not, and it seems, its supercats neither. — Speravir – 18:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I would redirect Golden stars to Gold star. Ruslik (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I actually thought exactly the other way. — Speravir – 18:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Most of these should be in a cat called "Gold stars". "Golden" means "made of gold", not "colored gold". If any of the images are for physical objects that are made of gold, then "golden stars" would fit for those, if we wanted such a category. Of course, it would be hard to tell from an image what the material is. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
If that's true (I'm not a native speaker), lots of the subcats of Category:Gold (color) need to be changed … --El Grafo (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

May 08

Screenshots from programs filmed with remote controlled camera / robots?

DR2 Deadline is AFAIK filmed with a remote controlled camera / robot. I do not think there is a photographer as such. I have seen a few uploads of screenshots and made a question on one discussion page, see File talk:Mette Bock i Deadline, DR2.png. I have asked a Danish rights organization and DR (the company broadcasting the tv-program) about the issue, but so far received no feedback. The user @Liberalisten1995: uploading File:Mette Bock i Deadline, DR2.png has also uploaded File:Vanopslagh.png. Both of these could be questionable. I am wondering whether there is any experience with such kind of screenshots among commoners? I know of one case with discussion of security cameras [15]. — Fnielsen (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I suppose you mean closed-circuit television. Images and videos taken by these are usually accepted. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the program in question, but a remote controlled camera is no different from a locally controlled camera; both have people behind them. I could imagine a computer program filming a talk show or something, but I can't imagine why a professional show would do so to save on one employee. Even then, I would be surprised if a court ruled that an organization that put together a show would lose copyright by giving up one creative choice out of many to a computer program.
Images from security cameras are different; their positioning is fundamentally uncreative and the events recorded real life, not staged by the camera owners. If you filmed a movie using a security camera with permission of the owner, I think it would be ruled copyrighted by the creators.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
You can watch DR2 Deadline here. If you stop the stream within the first few seconds of the intro, you can see that there are actually remote-controlled TV cameras in the news studio, which looks quite fancy ;-) But yeah, they're still controlled by a human, so there's no difference to a regular TV news show copyright-wise. --El Grafo (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Liberalisten1995: I have now nominated two screenshots for deletions, wrt. this discussion File:Vanopslagh.png and File:Mette Bock i Deadline, DR2.png. I have been in email contact with the rights owner, DR, and they maintained a copyright. Both screenshots are from the same user. — Fnielsen (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

File moved, no redirect and old filename still in use

I noticed an issue with File:Dani Alves- Scotland vs Brazil Mar10.jpg which has been renamed to File:Dani Alves - 2011 - Scotland v Brazil.jpg. Several wikis are still pointing to the old filename, but there is no redirect to the new filename. So on those wikis it looks like the file no longer exists, while it actually still exists. I already posted a universal rename request on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, but there is a backlog warning. Can I just create a normal redirect (as for normal pages) or do file redirects work differently? Mbch331 (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mbch331: They work exactly the same. - Reventtalk 14:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I undeleted the redirect, which should not have been deleted (as the file had been at the previous name for years). - Reventtalk 14:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Mbch331 (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

WT-shared image attribution

I noticed a photo that attributed "uploader", with the "original upload log" pointing to user "(WT-shared)_Jake73" at It is no surprise that that server name does not work any more, but where does one find the user page to attribute? I substituted, as it seemed to be the same user, but even then the user page on wt-shared may have been more informative (in this case the version on WT was not).

So, what page should we link for images from WT? In this case, where no link was provided at WT, an attribution without link could suffice, but giving attribution in plain text is even harder, unless "Jake73" is enough. In any case "uploader" is not proper attribution when the upload at commons was by a bot.

I suppose most images from WT-shared have the same problem. The WT-shared user pages should be resurrected (or are they still around somewhere?) unless we want to link directly to WT, and "uploader" and similar attribution should be made to point to the original uploader.

--LPfi (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

  • @LPfi: as far as I remember, was a temporary place for storing stuff from Wikitravel Shared on the old Wikivoyage servers when Wikitravel was forked, re-united with Wikivoyage and subsequently settled in on WMF servers. The link should probably go to Or maybe User:Jake73~commonswiki? --El Grafo (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    • A redlink to a Commons or Wikivoyage user page that never existed may help find related contributions, but does little to attribute an author who never registered an account over here – I'd be quite upset if some external site attributed my photos to an account at their servers. So yes, the WT/shared location is probably the right one to link, for users who did stay at WT. But with the history of WT/WV I'd hesitate to link images to WT en masse without consensus. One could argue that what remains on WT is no more of a successor of the old WT than WV is – but that argument can hardly be made for Commons. Was attribution of images discussed at the time of the move? --LPfi (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The last posting in that thread (where also linking WT was suggested):

To jump in, all registered users with edits to Wikitravel will have a corresponding "This is the imported user page of user...," page on Wikivoyage and that may be the best page to link to, in order to preserve attribution (since Wikivoyage's future is a more certain thing). All such pages link back to the original user contributions history at Wikitravel. --Peter Talk 21:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree that linking the Wikivoyage user pages may be a defensible solution, for users who did not choose to stay at WT after the fork. But it seems nothing has happened since the linked discussion. If somebody is going to do it, note that a user may not have been active on wt/en, but have had a user page on wt/shared.

--LPfi (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

May 11

Wikimedia Strategy Discussions - Cycle 2

Hi all! The cycle 2 of the was due to start today (11 May) after some delays, but due to a funeral I need to attend on the 12th, I've had to travel cross-country, and not been able to start it on time today. I'll try and get us started first thing tomorrow after the reception, and I do apologize for the additional delay. -- Josve05a (WMF) (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


Commons:Wikimedia Strategy 2017/Cycle 2

Hello, all! Cycle 2 of the strategy discussion is here, at last. All those statements made in the previous cycle has boiled down to five core themes:

  1. Healthy, Inclusive Communities
  2. The Augmented Age
  3. A Truly Global Movement
  4. The Most Respected Source of Knowledge
  5. Engaging in the Knowledge Ecosystem

Now I ask of you all is to read through the provided information about these themes and answer as many of the following questions surrounding these themes question as possible.

  • What impact would we have on the world if we follow this theme?
  • How important is this theme relative to the other 4 themes? Why?
  • Focus requires tradeoffs. If we increase our effort in this area in the next 15 years, is there anything we’re doing today that we would need to stop doing?
  • What else is important to add to this theme to make it stronger?
  • Who else will be working in this area and how might we partner with them?

I will add more information to the theme pages during the weekend but feel free to give you input about these themes so that we at Commons can be heard as well in the movement.
--Josve05a (WMF) (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

May 12

History merging

I merged File:WKossak031.jpg into File:WKossakMontmirail.jpg as requested on Commons:History merging and splitting/Requests. I did it according to COM:HISTMERGE. I expected that after the operation the newer version (from 2014, with more saturated colours) will be the current version of the file, but it isn't. Isn't it a bug in MediaWiki? Pinging a few gurus: @Matma Rex and Zhuyifei1999. --jdx Re: 10:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Based on the fact that the move source file is uploaded first, and moved into the destination filename while the destination is deleted, my guess is that the "current" file revision stays current after file undeletion. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
But file description page revisions are ordered as expected… --jdx Re: 16:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hmm.. The latest text revision seems checked during undeletion, but I don't see anything similar for a file revision undeletion. Maybe that could be considered as a MediaWiki bug. Could you report it to phab and cc me? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete then undelete solved it (I guess the deleted file revision history order is based on timestamp). Otherwise a partial undelete then a full undelete will solve it anyways --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Categorizers wanted for Unsplash experiment

I have started uploading the most popular photographs at, adding to our original stock of around 600 photographs from this source, which could provide many thousands. The home category for all photographs is Category:Images from Unsplash. All photographs on the site are on a CC0 release, but often lack a title and tagging is basic. Unsplash is well known to attract high quality photographs. As for this experiment, the uploads will stop when the review needed category reaches 1,000 photographs. :-)

Any help with categorizing and removing from the backlog category would be much appreciated! -- (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Matterhorn sunset, 2016. A good example of the highest quality photographs available from Unsplash.
@: Sadly Unsplash seems to relish on withholding any information about their photos (as commented here back in February 2014). I uploaded a few hundered of those 600 you mention and only a few could be properly categorized concerning location, usually by means of finding the same photo elsewhere (mostly the photographer’s own portfolio) and using the info thereon. I don’t think that our lack of proper categorization of images from Unsplash is due to lack of Commoners’ dilligence — and I fear that therefore most of the new uploads (and even, to be fair, most of the previously uploaded ones) are to be indefinitely stcuk at Category:Images from Unsplash (review needed). -- Tuválkin 18:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Location depends on the photo, if available in the original EXIF data, then my uploads include {{Camera location}} which Unsplash does make available without having to extract it from the file. In the current backlog, that's 214/633 = 34% of the recent uploads. Many of the photographs are named by their given place, which is then used in the Commons Filename. The place may be given without needing GPS data. As for the remainder, a large proportion are not photographs of places, but of objects and action/people, such as the person jumping into a puddle or walking past a large yellow wall, for which location is not important.
I agree Unsplash has drawbacks, including the fact that most people previously uploading have used "full" versions of images rather than "raw", in fact I have noticed smaller than "full" versions too, and unfortunately everything other than "raw" excludes the photographer's original EXIF data. However this is an experiment, and many photographs are of very high quality and educational value, for example I have put two photos up for Featured Picture votes, one being the Matterhorn photograph on the right which seems popular, as it happens this photo did not have any GPS or location data at source, but it was easy to work out which mountain it was. :-) -- (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@: Can your bot figure out which uploads are less than "raw" (have no EXIF) and overwrite with the "raw" version of each?   — Jeff G. ツ 21:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
If by bot, you mean me, I can fairly easily adapt what I now know to do that for any image with a current valid Unsplash source link, yes. I'm bending what the Unsplash terms allow me to do with their API, and this means that any housekeeping would be slow, but speed is not much of a issue for the way we do stuff. I'll think about looking at that when I have some more time; probably in a fortnight. Nudge me on my talk page if you think I've forgotten about it. For older images it may well be that GPS data was always absent in the original, so it could be that far fewer than 1/3 of any upgraded to raw would get location 'fixed', but it would be nice to have less compressed jpeg versions ('raw' does not mean true raw format in Unsplash lingo).
By the way, a housekeeping task could look at some other issues, for example as a side-effect of what I'm doing, my script tells me that our hosted file File:Apple-desk-office-technology (24218133962).jpg which credits a promotional Flickr account, apparently a dubious mirror site, is digitally identical to which credits Craig Garner as the real photographer. That sort of intelligence would be a nice improvement, considering how we like to see good attribution and provenance, even for CC-0 released material. For the record there's also a handful of odd files on Unsplash that our Commons file verification rejects, such as this one. Rejections like this might be because of something written in the EXIF somewhere, such as the photographer's website links, however I'm not going to spend time investigating as the small-ish numbers are not worth it.
† That one doubtful Flickr account is linked on Commons for 1,952 photographs! -- (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Fantastic work so far . I tried last night to start going through the review category, animated by the presence of only 70 files, but then found this morning it had soon grown into the hundreds! Alas they'll be worth it in the end. seb26 (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Seems as a similar page as Pixabay etc.. @: You may want to tag your (old and new) uploads with {{License review}} (it was even aded to the {{Pixabay}} template), as to ensure they are not deleted in the future for not being able to verify their license/source (happens from time to time). Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
To future proof {{Unsplash}} which is on all the files, I have added this link to the template documentation. Though people quite like the idea of License review, it would be creating work and complexity where none is needed as the CC-0 release is explicit and clearly applies to all files as a condition of Unsplash user upload. Thanks -- (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Update, the "curated" list of images appears to have been exhausted once around 1,000 were uploaded to Commons. "Exhausted" is fuzzy, as every time I run the query, slightly different results appear, though 95%+ the same list. I'm taking this as the experiment being a success, as we've hit the original upload target and the backlog has already been reduced by nearly 200 - currently a backlog of 863.

I'll examine other upload lists from Unsplash, though with caution, as the curated list already represents the (subjective) best of Unsplash and various technical questions have popped up because of the experiment about how to improve our past Unsplash related images, including those with no correct attribution to the photographers, or link to Unsplash as a source. Thanks to everyone helping with categorization, there's plenty more to do! :-) -- (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Maintenance spin-offs

After the above discussion, for images skipping upload after being discovered as being digitally identical duplicates already on Commons but without the Unsplash ID number, Category:Unsplash images uploaded from other sites is now being populated, along with adding a link to the Unsplash source and given photographer name on each image page. This also avoids the later processing cost of doing checksum verification, as instead a simpler text search of the image page wikitext for unique ID will show a match. This is not a systematic search, it can only discover files which happen to match during an upload attempt.

Many of these images were uploaded a few years ago, when Unsplash ran as a Tumblr photo stream rather than a gallery site. The new Unsplash ID numbers appear to have been added retrospectively, with Tumblr posts having redirection notes added at the top. -- (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

As an early “Unspasher” myself, , many thanks for all this! -- Tuválkin 14:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

About Deletion :Narita Airport and community histrical museum.jpg

File:Narita Airport and community histrical museum.jpg has been deleted by reason of "insulting".

Although the propounder,2400:4030:9AA3:AC00:5065:2524:397E:FEE8 ,alleged that the right-hand image shows a diorama of trees planted by local villagers, those trees had grown naturally and had been owned by representatives of Social Democratic Party of Japan. Additionally,upper of left hand image accurately shows helmets of Japanese far-left guerillas like Revolutionary Communist League, National Committee who involved the radical protest movement.

Its caption is no longer verifiable, but I think its deletion has been done under misunderstanding by validation of google cash.--4th protocol (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Please go over here if you want to request undeletion of a file. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
And, word to the wise, assuming the photos are yours there should be no problem uploading the photos as such, but generally we don't want annotation text written into the photo -- captions/descriptions should be external to the photo. Misspelled captions written into the photo (e.g. "histrical" for "historical") make them it almost certainly out of scope. - Jmabel ! talk 22:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Why was the DR closed in favour of a deletion instead of a simple crop? -- Tuválkin 14:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @Daphne Lantier: That last question would seem to be for you. - Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
      • @Tuvalkin: I don't see how this image can be cropped. It has large white text on the top and bottom on both sides and also directly in the middle on the left. These captions refer to "extremists", which concerned me as being possibly offensive. Daphne Lantier 21:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
        • I agree (mainly because I don't think the annotation text should be written into the photo, and this covered a large portion; "extremists" seems a poor choice of word (very much an expression of opinion) but not, in this case, at all a misleading one. Google "Narita airport protests" if you want some of the history. looks like a decent quick overview. There is a good detailed article in "The Sixties, Without Apology" (Sohnya Sayres, et. al.) - Jmabel ! talk 23:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
        • (Edit conflict) That’s why, then. Thanks for replying, Daphne. I didn’t saw the photo and all I know about it is from reading the DR and this section in VP. Usually this kind of “defaced” images can be salvaged by blurring, cloning, or cropping. That’s not the case, well, no biggie. I’m sure that photos of something shown at one of the busiest airports on the planet will be easy to find in a suitable licence. -- Tuválkin 23:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
          • Maybe. It was a collage of photos including one photo of some of the helmets used by the Sanrizuka-Shibayama Union protestors. I think such a photo would be a good thing to have if we could have it without a bunch of text on top of it. - Jmabel ! talk 05:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Help with Facebook sharing link on Commons:Picture of the Year/2016/Results

The Commons:Picture of the Year/2016/Results had a Facebook sharing link but it is picking up the text from #8 rather than #1. User:Steinsplitter has removed the link for now. Does anyone here know how to customise the link or supply the "og:description" metadata so that the correct text is used. Here are the debug results that shows Facebook's scraper is choosing the wrong text for the image. Can anyone help? -- Colin (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I've been told that the problem with Facebook links is that we don't support the OpenGraph tags. See phabricator T56829. The best we can do is either supply the info in the link URL like this, as suggested by Steinsplitter, or else fiddle with the page, trial and error, until Facebook scrapes the correct text per the debug results. It seems it looks for text blocks above a certain length, and so found the wrong paragraph. User:The wub added some more text which means at least a relevant paragraph is picked up now, but it still doesn't pick up the title and attribution lines. I don't know if there is a way to combine them into one paragraph and I'm scared to touch it with all the translation stuff. -- Colin (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Cat-a-Lot disappears

I have been trying to use hot-cat to move the images on Category:Oakland vehicles to Oakland automobiles because I understand this is current policy. However the hot-cat option does not appear in the bottom right hand corner as usual. Pages that have been open for a while still display the option and it seems to work. If I open a new page for the same category or simply refresh the page its not there. Am I doing something wrong? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not working for me on any category. --ghouston (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The gadget in the corner is Cat-a-Lot, not HotCat. HotCat is still working. --ghouston (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Oops. Thanks. Eddaido (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, Cat-a-lot -button disappeared last night, maybe because of Windows 10 update. Java is updated. Cat-a lot is essential in categorizing uncategorized files (a lot of them because of Panoramio Upload bot). No cat-a-lot in chrome, ie or even edge. Help.-Htm (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I use a Mac. There's been no updates to OSX for a few weeks. How about the Java update? Eddaido (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm useing Windows and my PC says my Java is updated. Cat-a lot worked fine 9 hours ago. - Well, it's time to go to work.--Htm (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Cat-a-lot is en:JavaScript running in your browser. That doesn't have to do anything with any updates to your en:Java virtual machine. That being said: Doesn't work for me either (FF 53 on Linux Mint 17.3) --El Grafo (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm using Firefox 47.0.1 running on good ole WinXP SP3. --jdx Re: 13:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jdx: Whoa, that Firefox version is too old, never thought of updating it to 52.1.1 ESR? It works well with my WinXP SP3. 53.0 and later doesn't support WinXP anymore though.. Poyekhali!!! 04:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jdx: We are using the same OS but different browser versions. It works with my Firefox 52.1.1 ESR. I guess your version is no longer supported by the scripts here. Poyekhali!!! 07:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm using OSX 10.10 and Chrome, cat-a-lot has failed to appear, as far as I'm aware I've had no system updates of any kind for at least a week. Please vote and comment on Phab:T165031. -- (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Cat-a-lot has appeared. Thanks Fæ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Htm (talk • contribs) 17:33 11 may 2017 (UTC)

  • Cat-a-lot works with my Firefox 55.0a1 (latest build) running on Android 4.3. I am gonna test if it works in my WinXP SP3 PC though, especially that I updated it yesterday with a patch fixing a vulnerability connected to the recent ransomware "WannaCry". Poyekhali!!! 04:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Both Cat-a-lot and HotCat works well with me using Firefox 52.1.1 ESR on Windows XP SP3. It seems to be a browser problem. Poyekhali!!! 07:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh didn't knew it was resolved already at Phabricator. That's why it works now for me.. Poyekhali!!! 07:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hot-Cat this time

Since yesterday, Hot-Cat doesn't always load properly. This happens in Chrome, but apparently not in Firefox, so it could be just a Chrome problem. Blue Elf (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

الصاق عکس به مطلب

سلام تصویری را که می خواهم در متن قراردهم بارگزاری نمی شود — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 09:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps better in Commons:قهوه‌خانه? Or Mardetanha could you help? — Speravir – 16:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Arrghh, ping @Mardetanha. — Speravir – 16:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)— Speravir – 16:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
سلام وقت بخیر،‌ در کدام مقاله و کدام تصویر Mardetanha talk 09:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit war by User:Tm


Looking community concern about the file descriptions in File:Courtney (model) 3.jpg, File:Courtney (model) 5.jpg, File:Courtney (model) 9.jpg and File:Courtney (model) 11.jpg. I think that there is almost too long description which actually has no retional or educational value. I minimized the description several times but its going to like as an edit war with another user. ~ Moheen (keep talking) 21:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking community concern, as i have being threatened with a block, outside of rules by Jcb. The descrption, as i explained to [[User:Moheen Reeyad|Moheen Reeyad}}, before we came here compaining, is relevant. See the original description in each image and and how it dewcribes the photoshooting, the model and the photographer. It is not promotional material. It describes what the photo depicts, the photographer and the conditions of the shooting.

− There is not a rule that dictates how long should the description be, but even if its long but necessary. As i said above, this descriptions relates how the shooting was made, how is the model, how the shooting occurred and other relevant info. There is not a rule that dictates how long should the description be. Please do not revert description good further, incluiding deleting descriptions in other languages other than english. Tm (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This is indeed an out of scope text. Reverted and warned the user at their user talk page. Jcb (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
User has been blocked for 1 week after he continued the edit war after being warned. Jcb (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
As Tm has explained on their user page, the description that has been blanked contains a fair amount of information about the decisions of the photographer. It may have been long, but it was not pornography, nor totally gratuitous or promotional, so cutting it out completely, to leave a description so trivial that it is almost meaningless, is not good practice.
If this was edit warring, it was pretty mild and a week is excessive, especially as the defended edits are far too sweeping, so not fully defendable. -- (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
A week would be excessive if it would have been the first time, but Tm has been blocked so many times already for edit warring, that a week seems more appropriate than e.g. a day. Jcb (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyone that checks the block log will see you are referring to events 2 years ago. That is not "blocked so many times", which is over-egging your case for a block, making it appear that Tm is vandal or a troll, they certainly are no such thing, their edit history shows how highly productive they have been in the last 2 years, making them one of our leading contributors to content. It is for these reasons that I am speaking up for a committed and valued colleague.
Your block is excessive and further discussion or a second warning would have been more appropriate, rather than unnecessarily escalating a minor issue into a major one. -- (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry but the description was just waffle, It was lovely don't get me wrong but the whole point of an image description is just that .... to describe the image (preferably in 10 words or less) ...., In this case the photographer went on about things unrelated to the image and although the woman was discussed it was still kinda unrelated,
As for the block - He's been warned plenty of times and after the first revert he should've gone to a noticeboard (ie here) and sought opinions instead of smacking rollback/undo, Personally I have nothing against TM but Jcb we should be in 3-5 months territory by now as they've already been blocked 5 times (technically 7 times however 2 blocks were overturned) for edit warring as it is so blocking for a week will have no effect and their current block log proves that, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 22:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)(Updated 15:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC))
That's not normally how blocks are assessed. If someone has been behaving in a mellow way for 2 years, we avoid holding actions earlier than that as an indelible stain against their character, in fact we rarely dig further than the last 12 months. To do so goes against the good faith spirit of allowing for reform, in line with the common ethical practice for administrators reviewing blocks of considering the "standard offer". -- (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- The edit warring is a common problem and I know with EN regardless of time the blocks get longer and longer the more it happens - Ofcourse all Wikiprojects are different but blocking an edit warrior for a week has absolutely no effect and TM will only edit war again at some point this year, I know it sounds like I have an axe to grind I honestly don't but the blocks should stick not be something to be laughed at and ignored. –Davey2010Talk 22:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to sound like a moron but how do edit warriors reform ?, Take me as an example - I was blocked for telling someone to F off in a rage this year - Have I changed ? ... No not at all.... Would I say it again in a rage ? ... Ofcourse .... Point is this whole reform thing although is great it doesn't serve any purpose other than to allow editors to get away scot free and be blocked over and over and over again without any of it sticking. –Davey2010Talk 22:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
It's a question of relevant patterns, which also includes an element of time to judge if it's a pattern. If you fly into a rage and tell someone off, but it was 18 months ago since anyone can point to similar behaviour, I don't see this as you having an especially serious problem with rage. If you get blocked for what you said, then whatever happened 18 months ago is going to be pretty irrelevant, unless you hardly ever edit, or you were having a go at the same person 18 months ago, or it was something much more serious than petty drama, such as using the site for libellous or obviously harassing statements. This case with Tm is one of petty drama rather than a 'war', meaning the focus should be on resolution rather than handing out long blocks. -- (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
rules enforcement is not about inner enlightenment, or personal growth, but maintaining a civil environment. the pattern of behavior of certain admins to edit war and then block users who do not agree, rather use the ample escalating warning templates is uncivil. along with the warning should be an attempt to engage with the editor. especially since there seems to be no community consensus. and rest assured such behavior results in commons having a septic reputation. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
In this case, you have a point. It is disturbing to see that Jcb was part of the claimed edit-war with Tm before blocking Tm, examine the file edit history. It is normal good practice for an admin to refrain from taking any action that can be read as edit-warring themselves, and instead protect the file temporarily from non-sysop edits while the discussion continues. I'm afraid there is no high ground in this case for Jcb to be dictating from, or defending a block during a case of edit-warring where they chose to become a party to the case by choosing "which side is right". Tm's unblock request needs proper independent examination, for obvious reasons.
I have given a  Support for the unblock request at User talk:Tm. -- (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
"There are too much long unnessery description. Commons is not anyone's personal blog, where s/he tells the story behind her/his click." this is personal judgement, and blocking to enforce your judgement when you do not have a consensus is a problem. we have deleted personal files with long descriptions as out of scope, but that was after a deletion discussion. rule by dictation reflects poorly on this project. not engaging in a consensus process tends to undermine the authority and credibility of this admin. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

May 15

Deletion just because the thumbnail cannot be shown owing to the system configuration.

Regarding the deletion of File:201704_ECM.svg, I'm not sure why a file whose thumbnail is broken is useless, and this it not the problem of the file, but that of the system. The svg file itself is high quality and educationally valuable, and should deserve to be in the Wikimedia Commons. Is there any deletion policy of Wikimedia Commons to be applied to this matter? In addition, if there's a way of working around this issue without losing the quality, I'd like to know it. Thanks. --Yayamamo (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Yayamamo: I agree with you, but please head over here. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that's the first time I've seen a file deleted because the WMF thumbnail generator was apparently not working properly, and I'm speaking as someone who has experienced many thousands of files failing to render thumbnails in one of my projects. This would have been better becoming a Phabricator ticket for analysis and potential fix, not a file deletion. @Jameslwoodward: as deleting admin. -- (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Have you tried to reupload it? Ruslik (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it is a problem that needs to be fixed, but until it is fixed, it cannot be used on WP because it will not thumbnail correctly. It seems to me that such a file ought to be deleted because otherwise it can be inserted into articles and show up blank. If all of our colleagues examined there edits after making them, that would be seen immediately, but, unfortunately, I see a great many plcase on WP where bad edits sit. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Deletions "because Wikipedia" are never valid. The file can be reuploaded, but should not have been deleted just because it may not display correctly on Wikipedia or is not in use on other projects. The original SVG existed for a reason, was educationally valuable and so was in scope for Commons. Please undelete the file, rather than relying on the uploader to fix this. If you believe COM:Scope is insufficiently clear as written, then you may wish to make a proposal to change it and encourage community views on it.
Note the case of the thousands of NYPL maps that failed to display thumbnails, it would never have been acceptable to mass delete them, just because WMF operations had a problem with getting the thumbnail renderer to do its job. This SVG is no different. Thanks -- (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
According to Commons:Deletion requests/File:201704 ECM.svg, the thumbnail generation fails due to a timeout error, apparently due to a highly complex SVG. I agree that that's no reason to delete the file, even if it's unusable in Wikipedia for the foreseeable future. Perhaps somebody could derive a lower resolution SVG from it. --ghouston (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

21:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Should categories combine buildings and structures?

In most cases I've worked with, there have been separate categories for buildings and structures for a given place, with the category for buildings being a subcat of the category for structures. An example is Category:Buildings in France, which is a subcat of Category:Structures in France.

However, I've recently noticed the creation of many "buildings and structures" categories. Examples are categories created today by User: Many of those have "buildings" categories redirecting to them. There are also some that have existed for a while. You can see the list, including many redlinked ones, starting at

So the question is, should we be consistent with naming these categories, and, if so, should they be separate categories or combined ones? I'm not necessarily opposed to combining buildings with structures, especially since the difference is hard to determine in some cases. However, I do think we should be consistent so that people can find what they are looking for.

A couple of notes:

  • I notice that Category:Buildings and structures has been deleted several times, most recently in 2012 by User:Foroa with a note that buildings and structures are separated here. The note on an earlier delete referred to a discussion at Commons talk:CommonsProject Architecture#Category:Buildings and structures.
  • Some of the combined categories are not just for buildings and structures of a country, city, etc. They are for B&S of those places at night, of a university, in snow, and possibly other things. If we do not combine B&S in general, should there be exceptions for these kinds of things?

Your thoughts? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

A category that combines buildings and structures can be named "Structures", since buildings are structures, at least as Commons uses the terms. A name like "Buildings and structures" makes as much sense as "Bridges and structures" or "Carrots and vegetables". --ghouston (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Good point, Ghouston. Maybe my question should have been "Should buildings structures be diffused into separate "buildings" categories? " --Auntof6 (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm used to seeing a wide variety of buildings sub-categories. Churches, arenas, museums, houses, apartments, government buildings, schools, factories, restaurants, pubs, etc. If this IP editor mucks thing up, he can always be soft-blocked or even soft rangeblocked. Daphne Lantier 03:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to ask, should structures be diffused into building categories. I believe it has been more than one editor. I think that because I've been seeing these changes since before the earliest edits from the editor I mentioned above. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
If you have a Structures category that contains only buildings, you may as well rename it to Buildings. If it contains a mixture of structure types, there's nothing to stop someone from creating a Buildings subcategory. So I don't think Structures categories are harmful. --ghouston (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Not harmful maybe, but generic and unnecessary in relation to buildings most of the time. The word structure seems to me more apt to describe things you can't call a building, like walls/levees, dams, bridges, etc. Daphne Lantier 04:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing a consensus that we shouldn't have "buildings and structures" categories, especially in view of previous discussions and cat deletions. I'll work on splitting/renaming these a bit at a time, and leave a message for any users I see combining them. Feel free to help! Thanks, all. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

May 14

Videos in mpeg with video codec vp9

It's been a long time since this last came up, and I find previous open tickets on Phabricator discussing vp9 looking years old. Could someone refresh me on whether it's now best to upload videos to Commons in vp9 or should I be sticking to vp8? Thanks -- (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, VP9 is supported, though to encode into VP9 may be much longer than if you encode into VP8 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try VP9 and see how it pans out. -- (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I heard VP9 is better than VP8, since VP9 can reduce the filesize more without reducing quality. So it is worth trying. However, it seems its support still experimental here, I guess. Poyekhali!!! 00:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Local uploads for large files consistently fail

My understanding is that local uploads (i.e. from a local disk) up to 1GB should be feasible. Unfortunately I have consistently seen "stashedfilenotfound" errors for any file over around 230mb in size. This was happening for the European Space Agency uploads (hopefully soon to be url-upload whitelisted) and now I'm seeing this for transcoded videos I'm examining from the CDC. I'm using the normal upload process and have tried changing the chunksize from 1mb to 4mb with no effect.

Is there a known problem for local uploads, or is this worth a Phab ticket? -- (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Which uploading tool are you using? Did you enable async? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Pywikibot core's site.upload module. Does that have an async parameter, I presume this stuff is built in? -- (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
See phab:T128358 phab:T129216. WMF servers simply cannot support a chunk-uploaded file that large without async, and pywikibot simply does not support it (though you can try to play around with the patch I uploaded to gerrit; v2c uses the patch). --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the background. I'll look into it, but it's beyond me really. Shame this has been laying around for so long and not sorted out for Pywikibot. -- (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999: Your patch is excellent, thanks for the suggestion and your smarts in creating it. These two CDC videos transcoded overnight, 225 mb and 678 mb would have persistently failed to upload using current Pywikibot code. Please do push to have phab:T129216 deployed. It seems crazy to have a fix available to make Pywikibot scripts a reliable upload method for local files and not deploy it. -- (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't have permissions to push to pywikibot, and even if I have, self reviews are still a no-go in many repos including Pywikibot. You'd better ask another Pywikibot dev. (Oh, and the that patch will break with very recent python versions, see my comment on -1; I'll try to find time to work on it, though you're welcome to help) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Way too tech for me. However, the CDC videos project is a good case study as to why this should be sorted out to encourage amateur projects with great outcomes. If the question is one of priorities or a grant for a bit of project work over the summer, then keep in mind that the requestor Doc James is a popular past WMF board member, and that Wiki Project Med might want to support this work... it may even be worth flagging the Phab task for their attention. :-) -- (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
User:Ladsgroup do you have the ability to do this review? Or who can we ask? As we push for more video we need to have this fixed. Rich content is one of the main things our readers have requested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
(I can review and +2) The patch looks good but it requires lots of work to be merged, It needs manual rebase, then need the issue you mentioned fixed. One suggestion is that split this into several small patches that can be reviewed separately and also please split that chunk of code into smaller methods. In one case you have 8 levels of indentation. That could be fixed by moving those parts to a dedicated method. (Overall I suggest you to read this) Amir (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ladsgroup: Yeah I know, but my attempts to refactor that method has so far not been successful, so I don't think refactoring such methods with so much parameters and logic, and the same time retaining backwards-compatibility, is within my ability. :/ I'd appreciate if you could give some guidance on this. Regarding splitting the patch, I'm not sure how this could be done without a refactor. It's currently a single feature and I not exactly sure how to split such feature into smaller patches --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking of uploading a substantial number of insect drawings from this book. Is there some preferred way of using templates to standardize the image descriptions? I know that there is Template:Book but I'm not sure it's intended to work where I am cropping portions of pages, retouching as needed, etc.--and the best description is probably just going to be the species name rather than some long account of where it came from (more appropriate for a source field or something like that). Anyways, let me know. Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

are you going to upload the whole work using IAuploader, and then cropping individual pages using crop tool? the crop tool links the metadata for you, i.e. File:MARGARET_WYNNE_LAWLESS_A_woman_of_the_century_(page_462_crop).jpg. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm just uploading beetle images I find that don't yet have photos. It's probably about one tenth of a page every other page. And I'm not crazy about that result because the subject of the photo is hardly highlighted on the description page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Another way of looking at it: Is there something like a creator template but for works rather than creators? Here is an example of the images I'm uploading: File:Megacephala quadrisignata.jpg. I don't want the description page to be dominated by the book source but it would be nice to be able to edit all of the images together if we ever learn more about the work. (For example, I'm not sure if we could ever determine who the illustrator of the various images in the book is -- I'm skeptical that the credited "author" did all the images but surely another person who qualifies for PD-old-70 did.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
You can always make an ad hoc template and include it in all of these uploads. - Jmabel ! talk 23:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
for these book illustrations, we really need to get a high res flatbed scan. the IA book scans or newspaper scans are thumbnails. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

May 16


Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Unable to crop file

I tried to crop File:Jorge Blanco 2017.jpg (to File:Jorge Blanco 2017 (cropped).jpg) using CropTool, but it failed with the error Upload failed! [api]Received error: abusefilter-warning : ⧼abusefilter-warning-otrs⧽. That's not very descriptive, as the description page says it's licensed under CC BY-SA and proper permission has been received by OTRS, so I don't know what could be wrong. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I found this in Special:AbuseLog:
20:57, 16 May 2017: Nyuszika7H (talk | contribs) triggered filter 69, performing the action "upload" on File:Jorge Blanco 2017 (cropped).jpg. Actions taken: Warn; Filter description: Adding OTRS permission by non-OTRS member (details | examine)
I saved it again and it worked now. But CropTool should probably ignore this warning, or at least display a more descriptive error message. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

21:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Photo I purchased from the photographer

I purchased an interesting photo in 1998 from a firm in Hong Kong that specialized in taking photographs of airliners on approach to the old Kai Tak airport. They carefully documented which flight it was and on what day and time, so that the pilots or cabin crew could purchase those photos for their own library, being confident it was a photo of the flight they operated.

I purchased the one they took of my last approach to that airport. In my view, I rightfully own that photo that I paid them for. I was not made aware of any claim to copyright of those photos, by that photography firm. I Didn't have to sign or agree to anything which would indicate I was not purchasing the full rights to that photo, when I paid them the agreed amount of money. They did not have any legal notices posted in their shop, nor did they tell us they were retaining any legal rights. They were just happy to sell those photos to us after they documented the dates and times they were taken. Over the years since then, I have published that photo in various Internet forums.

My question: Can I donate/upload a copy of the photo that I own, to Commons? EditorASC (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, based on what you are telling, you are not the copyright holder. Copyright can only be transfered by written agreement (e.g. an invoice in which it's explicitly stated that you pay for the copyright as well). If no written document exists to the contrary, copyright sticks to the author. Jcb (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify: nowadays, in almost every country in the world, a photograph is copyrighted by default and that copyright can only be passed by written transfer. - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes: buying a copy does not transfer copyright (which is especially clear here as copies are sold to several people, otherwise no more copies could be made after the first transaction). But I have not noticed anything about only written agreements being valid. Is that the case in some specific jurisdiction or is it included (as it sounds from your statement) in the Berne convention? --LPfi (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I can't find anything in the Berne convention, but the US law, Title 17, Chapter 2, Section 204 says "(a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent."--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Hong Kong does probably not share copyright law with USA, as it has developed after 1783. In e.g. Finnish law I cannot find such a requirement. --LPfi (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

May 13

VisualFileChange fails with a strange error

I just tried to nominate all files in the Category:Stained glass windows of St. Andreas (Köln) for deletion because they show copyrighted windows and FoP does not apply to the interiors of buildings. However, attempting to use VisualFileChange.js just gives me this strange error:

API request failed (tags-apply-no-permission): You do not have permission to apply change tags along with your changes. at Tue, 16 May 2017 13:47:42 GMT served by mw1231

I have no idea what this means and where the problem lies. I was able to use VisualFileChange.js before for another deletion request, so that's not the reason. -- 13:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: It seems that IPs can't do tags --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
We do allow IP's to use VFC? --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: Yes. They can load it simply using withJS, as linked on COM:VFC --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
gosh - i wonder which ip editor would want to use VFC? is that a duck test? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Help needed at DR particularly with FoP issues

Commons:Deletion requests/undefinedmoyan brenn

Photographer Moyan Brenn has taken many photos from his travels round the world, and released them with a CC BY-SA 2.0 licence. About 900 of them have been uploaded to Commons, and he's keen to take and release more images. They are generally of very good quality and in-scope for Commons. He is concerned though that some of his images are of properties, statues, people, etc, where the law means they break copyright or other laws. After a mis-step yesterday at DR, he's narrowed down a list of just over 100 images that he's particularly concerned about. He's going to need help from people who are familiar with FoP rules worldwide in particular. Please can we, as a community, show our thanks for his large amount of images taken and donated, by helping him with these concerns. I hope you can join on the DR with some suggestions about which images remain a problem. Please err on the side of caution wrt being confident an image is legally ok, as the photographer is keen to delete any material that might be harmful for him/others legally, which is different to our usual situation where folk get upset that their images are deleted out of excess caution. Thanks -- Colin (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I've checked the 3 images from a city in Germany, which are perfectly covered by FOP of Germany (and would also be no problem per US law, IMO).
Regrettably, User:Moyanbrenn opposed my evaluation by claiming "not true for commercial purpose", which is without base in the law[26]. May be, he has a different understanding of "commercial". --Túrelio (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I have chopped the list up by country: Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Turkey, UK and USA. Each country only has a small number of images, so hopefully someone can take a bite out of a country group. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Script error

I'm seeing this error message come up when I load any page. I'm using Monobook skin.

Error: at line 48: SyntaxError: missing ; before statement

Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be resolved now. howcheng {chat} 18:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

en-dashes vs hypens in category names

We've have a several category discussions about the use of en-dashes (–) vs minus signs (-) in category names. I count 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 CfDs that reference the debate. The arguments generally come down to grammar (using en-dashes when they are gramatically correct) versus convenience/usability (using minus signs even when they aren't gramatically correct because they are more likely to be typed in by users searching for or adding a category). Because both arguments are reasonable, I don't think there has been a clear solution to the debate. Anyone have additional helpful thoughts on the matter? It would be great if we could make this a more standard rule in the future. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: I prefer typing the minus sign because it's on my keyboards and the en dash is not, even on the soft ones; I blame IBM, Apple, and Google for this. It appears enwiki prefers en dashes because they're more grammatically correct, and there is a button for them below the new "Publish changes" button. I use an em dash in my sig because I like how it looks.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I have a strong preference for minus-signs. Yes, the other is theoretically more correct, but that seems to me to be pure pedantry, and a complete liability to actual users. - Jmabel ! talk 15:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The minus sign / hyphen is easier to work with. It also seems to be preferred by most Wikipedias, judging by [27] and [28]. --ghouston (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I have the n-dash as AltGr-hyphen, and thus I use it extensively, but category names are technical features, as are article names. I think that for them the easiness for everybody to type a "hyphen-minus" is much more important, as are any coding issues ("-" is in ASCII, and thus coded uniformly in most modern encodings). Using n-dashes we introduce ambiguity, as often also m-dashes, minus signs and whatever could be used, for correctness or by cluelessness. I think that could be a real source of frustration, while grammatical correctness is much lower a priority here. Use dashes in the text itself, in DISPLAYTITLE:s etc. and leave the "-" where people other than the author has to type it. --LPfi (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

For several reasons of interoperability/usability/simplicity, Commons Category names are not really the place for typographic refinements in punctuation. See Commons:Requests for comment/straight vs curly apostrophes from six months ago... AnonMoos (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

So using the ASCII hyphen is already a policy. From Commons:Categories#Category_names: "Basic English characters (ISO/IEC 646) are preferred over national variants or extension character sets (for instance, 'straight' apostrophes over 'curly'), where reasonable." --ghouston (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Ghouston, that's very helpful. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

BIG blue button will break some scripts

The devs have slowly been converting from MediaWiki UI to mw:OOjs UI. You may remember when the edit summary box got a little taller earlier this year; this one is going to change how some buttons are created, which has the side effect of changing their size and color. Phab:T162849 has some before-and-after screenshots, if you're primarily interested in the aesthetic aspects.

Some older editing-related scripts are incompatible with this change. I've collected some information about this at mw:OOjs UI/Fixing scripts and gadgets, including diffs that show how some scripts were updated. I don't know how much this will affect Commons, but they deployed it to and the Persian Wikipedia last week, and it broke more scripts at the Persian Wikipedia than I hoped for.

If you maintain any user scripts or gadgets, then please check that page and test your scripts (instructions on the page). If you need help, then w:en:WP:VPT is probably the best place to ask for technical assistance. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Break scripts created to do useful work because “the devs” need to polish their resumes — it will be needed when they flee the sinking ship of WMF for greener pastures. Sounds right. -- Tuválkin 00:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Heh. -- Tuválkin 01:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

May 18

Strange UploadWizard - Flickr upload behavior

Aloha! Am I the only one with problems moving stuff from Flickr to Commons? Everytime I try to upload more than three or four files I receive an error msg and the upload form is missing the part where one can copy categories, tile, description, and such. Is the UploadWizard broken? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: Detailed error messages and reproduction steps are usually key in finding, duplicating, and fixing errors.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I know. Just a preliminary question. No need to make a ton of screenshots if the problem is known. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Without sharing the text of the displayed error message it's impossible to say if someone else gets the same error or problem... --Malyacko (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

ICYMI: MP3's patent expired

So apparently the patent for MP3 expired last month. (Sources: [29][30][31]). If I'm not mistaken, this means we could start uploading MP3 files to Commons, perhaps using this media extension. Is this something we want to do? FallingGravity (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

MP3 support is currently stalled for WMF Legal review, and there are concerns that supporting MP3 will dramatically increase copyright violations. I recommend to convert them to OGG, or FLAC, for now.. Poyekhali!!! 05:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Here is the Phabricator task for it which gives a good overview. --John Cummings (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. FallingGravity (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
i see there was previous discussion by the community. i take it, if the community wanted, it could allow the uploads.
you could allow MP3 as a precursor to conversion to OGG and then deletion. and maybe we should allow MP4 as well. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 22:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
According to English Wikipedia's article, "the last MP3 patent, U.S. Patent 5,703,999, will not expire before 30 December 2017". So I think that, if we are going to allow MP3 uploads, this shouldn't be done before December 31, 2017. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
That's not really correct. If I remember correctly (from earlier times i looked into that) that patent is a continuation of a continuation or something (refiling of an earlier version), so it's actually 20 years of that earlier version of the patent (prior art). I'll blank that section, since it's a bit original research.. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to do a search to show all images from a category and all its subcategories?

Hi all

Is there a way to do a search to show all images from a category and all its subcategories (and all their subcategories up to a specified depth)? I want to get all the images for all the Biosphere Reserves in the world to find suitable images for a competition and social media campaign I want to run. I realise this is probably a lot of images but I'm looking for something quite specific (high quality images with people in them in Biosphere Reserves).


--John Cummings (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried Petscan? It should do those thing for you easily. Cheers --MB-one (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks very much MB-one
--John Cummings (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Have you tried using the "Good Pictures" button? Martinvl (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Martinvl, I think you just saved me about 2 days of work :) --John Cummings (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

May 19

Seeking help re MediaWiki:Gadget-QuickDelete.js usage

Hi. Hoping that someone with coding knowledge can assist. When using the QuickDelete gadget, it has a box that used to enable a conversion of a speedy deletion request to become a RfD. For a while the button has changed and getting an error (below) with nothing happening.

Error: at line 106: SyntaxError: invalid regexp group

It is way beyond me to work out which bit of that error message is the problem.

I have turned off all other gadgets, cleaned out my commonswiki customisations in global.js and local common.js; I have tried in vector; and all with zero success. Anyone able to help or point me to where I should look, or whom I can ask, especially as no evidence of changes in the QuckDelete.js script itself. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Thanks for isolating the problem. Which page are you attempting to convert to DR? It could be, though unlikely, a page specific-error. (If not, having a single specific page to test on still feels better than selecting a random one from the speedy category) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Not file specific, it has been happening from about time that this button changed its "look" (which would not be code specific, though maybe a flow on from some other parts of other templates. File I was practising upon is no longer in the category. Console isn't very helpful, not that I am the best at deciphering things.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Actually, I see the issue. @Jdx and Perhelion: Special:Diff/243151122 /(?-i:SD)/i does not seem to be not a valid JS regex. @billinghurst Thanks anyways. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, this ?-i is a PHP effective flag, which I forgot. Simple remove it but this could collide with {{Sd}} vs. {{SD}}. -- User: Perhelion 11:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I just found Not sure how to workaround it :/ --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
We must remove the generic flag /i and specify all names separately/individually. -- User: Perhelion 11:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
It would be a maintenance pain if we must specify the cases of every single character explicitly with brackets. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's the limitation of this template technique and JS regex. Any other solution would be good. -- User: Perhelion 11:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
A proper adequate solution would be to omit/remove the usage of SD!? -- User: Perhelion 12:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Not sure. It's not a simple redirect, but an "advanced redirect" transcluding templates based on its parameter. Based on that I'm wondering if it's possible to override the that regex for this template so it is case-sensitive. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Yes I found a proper solution on template:SD itself. Untested! But this exclude the variant of redirect. You must remove also the |SD from the Speedy. -- User: Perhelion 13:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done. Your regex LGTM. Thanks! --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

22:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Are there any examples of mass import of vector graphics scraped from publications? Trying to set up a process for graphics from UNESCO publications

Hi all

I'm in the process of setting up a system to extract vector graphics from UNESCO publications and add them to Commons. Currently I'm extracting them by hand with is taking forever and not scalable. I'm hoping we can move to something more automated soon since there are well over 1000 open license UNESCO publications available in up to 6 languages, many of which will have graphs in, some will have 10s or even 100s in.

Question: Does anyone know of any examples of where a large volume of graphics have been extract from a set of publications before?

My main take away from this process is Commons is horrible at rendering text in SVG files, the only way to stop text spreading across the image in unpredictable ways is the convert it to shapes.

On the to do list so far is:

  • Put the figure number and page number the file was extracted from into the source field
  • Make a nice pretty source template

All the images I've extracted from the publication are available here, just over 200 so far all extracted by hand. If you can find it in your heart to add a few to articles so that they start to get reused that would be really really nice.


--John Cummings (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

May 23

An image in wrong categories?

Removed. The problem is that Flickr tags applying to a whole series of images have been turned into categories for one image. That's a really dumb thing to do and only makes work for others. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: Who or what did it, and what can we do to avoid it in the future?   — Jeff G. ツ 00:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: It seems to have happened automatically at the upload. You'd be better asking User:Fæ why this is thought to be a good idea. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: Thanks. Fæ?   — Jeff G. ツ 00:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, many times. There is a balance of confidence in the source and how to add value to the uploads, I even include a notice at the top of my talk page about category diffusion. I could just stick to a rule of never importing any categories and leaving batch uploads in a maintenance category by default, but plenty of fellow volunteers will turn up on my talk page and complain bitterly about not categorizing. I am reaching 3 million uploads, the surprising thing is how only a vanishingly small percentage of images in my batch uploads projects have a categorization problem, but that's probably due to how carefully I assess the batch and design the workflow to cater for specific issues of the source; including Flickr and creating categorization trees for more technical projects, such as the Portable Antiquities Scheme.

Those that have concerns can raise them on my user talk page, rather than the Village Pump where I may never see them. I have a long history of responding to issues and fixing most of them as they get raised. Checking my talk page history, I see no questions from Anthony Appleyard in the last three years, and the most recent question from Rodhullandemu was in October 2015, about a category that I removed the same day it was raised for my attention.

If anyone has realistic ideas about how to run automated categorization in a better way, and that avoid high manual intervention, please post them on my talk page and I'll ponder them for future projects. Thanks -- (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

May 20


Locator-tool is a tool which helps geocoding existing images, i.e., to add {{Location}} information to images on Wikimedia Commons. Since today, you can add it to your toolbox via your gadget preferences (enable the Locator-tool gadget). – Simon04 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:56 20 may 2017‎ (UTC)

@Simon04: Looks awesome, very convenient! Any chance you could add support for the heading: parameter? The Geolocator has a pretty nifty feature for that: Place the marker, then hold the shift key to set the direction the camera was pointing. The only thing I kind of dislike about how this is implemented there is that it uses general directions like "NE" or "WSW" instead of degrees. Both is possible with the {{Location}}-template, but I think degrees would be more precise … Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@El Grafo: Thank you! This feature is already on the wishlist, see I'm unsure about the user interaction since the Shift key is used set the marker for Template:Object location. – Simon04 (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@Simon04: Of course it doesn't have to be shift, could just as well be ctrl or alt. --El Grafo (talk) 08:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

May 21


Can I upload Below Images on Common? [[33]] [[34]] [[35]] [[36]]-Jayprakash12345 (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Why not? Ruslik (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jayprakash12345: File:OpAmpModel.png is already at Commons. For the rest you might want to use something like CommonsHelper to make sure everything's moved correctly. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Sir.-Jayprakash12345 (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

May 22

Simple redirections in Category redirections

Recently, there has been a new fashion for adding simple redirections next to category redirects, for example: Category:Mosque. I wonder ... isn't it better to correct the {{Category redirect}} template instead of correcting thousands of pages?
Second point: There was a time when redirects didn't appear while selecting a category by Hot-Cat or Upload Wizard. Now, unfortunately, they appear - and new users often put files in redirected categories. Is it possible to fix it? Wieralee (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Wieralee and R'n'B: I have restored this particular category. Cat-a-lot automatically resolves categories marked with {{Category redirect}}. For example, if you try to add Category:Mosque, it will change it automatically to Category:Mosques in unidentified countries. This was broken with the "test". Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

21:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Pixixica

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

Affected file(s):

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#Pixixica Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Can I bulk tag uploads as public domain?

I can't get Commonist to work any more so I had to switch to Vicuna, but for some reason Vicuna doesn't have a license option for public domain and I had to manually type it in. Now I'm getting bombarded by messages saying that the dozens files I uploaded today are improperly tagged and they'll be deleted in seven days if this isn't corrected. Is there any way to fix license tags in bulk? Abyssal (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 03:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Please fix the typos

Search results
Change 聯係 into 聯絡, thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LNDDYL (talk • contribs) 14:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


Does this photo go under COM:ADVERT? Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 17:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course it is: Uploaded by Fae, so there must be something wrong with it. -- Tuválkin 18:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
LoL. I didn't realize it was uploaded by Fae until after I nominated it for deletion. You are so wrong that you will resort to patent nonsense to make a point. As I answered to Fae in the DR, high resolution images of modeling would great. This is not the case here, and yes, the title and the description are not appropriate. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, it’s hard to keep track who has an irrational grudge against Fae and who does not. But anyway — Does resolution make scope? -- Tuválkin 18:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The photograph is clearly not an advert, nor is it out of scope. Other photographs hosted on Commons by the same photographer, but not uploaded by me, show women performing fellatio on men, and have graphic nudity, so it's odd that the focus should be on my upload of this modest portrait with neither nudity nor sex. These are issues that can be discussed in the DR here, rather than using Village Pump space. -- (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for renamed the files and fixing the description. As an experienced contributor, you should know better, and have done this when uploading the files. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Rubbish. Please do not waste everyone's time with unjustifiable DRs, or grandstanding on the Village Pump attempting to defend your pointless act. "You should know better" being an admin, and be able to set an example for other community members.
If you believe files like this need to be "fixed", then fix them yourself rather than making your preferences everyone else's problem. I suggest you start by fixing the identical "problems" with all the heterosexual extreme pornography that that were uploaded by others from this photographer, which apparently you have yet to notice or put any effort into sorting out. -- (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
These uploads look a blatant examples of increasing your upload count at any cost, irrespective of the quality of the material. It is not my job to fix your uploads. And no, it is not only the picture which matters. The small image with a bad description is often useless, while the same image with a good description and title is useful. Again you fall down to usual rant: "I am a victim of homophobic people"... *sigh* Regards, Yann (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Nobody has mentioned homophobia, and I have never, ever, accused you of anything like that. The uploads from this photographer include sexually explicit material, all of which is heterosexual in content. That is a statement of fact, not an allegation of homophobia. By twisting this discussion with that word, you are being actively abusive and disruptive in a way that I consider direct and offensive harassment. STOP IT. -- (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
You shot yourself in the foot in mentioning "heterosexual" above. Again you are not able to withstand criticism without resorting to attacks. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It is absolutely fine to say that photographs are explicitly sexually heterosexual in nature, as indeed it would be fine to say that photographs of explicit homosexuality were so. Your offensive and revoltingly hostile parody of me has been raised for review at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Yann: "I am a victim of homophobic people". Feel free to defend your actions as being appropriate for a long term administrator there rather than grandstanding about it here. Thanks -- (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Montage containing a picture which has been deleted

This montage File:Takaoka_montage.JPG contains a picture File:Takaoka-jyou.JPG that does not exist anymore.

If it has been deleted as a copyright violation, should not the montage be fixed as well?

Cheers! Syced (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the montage must be fixed otherwise it will also be deleted. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Dharmadhyaksha: deleted this image triggering the delinker to remove it. It would have been better to use the regular deletion process. That would have given this good faith uploader or any other user two weeks to replace the image. Now that's nearly impossible to do. Why this rush to destroy people's work? Multichill (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I've done what probably should have been done in the first place, just blacking out the one problematic image. Anyone else should be able to edit now and substitute something appropriate. - Jmabel ! talk 21:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the trouble @Multichill and Jmabel: . But this is a rare occasion when someone in good faith has actually bothered to restore the collage and reuse it. I do not think a week long (it's not 2 weeks) grace period needs to be given for such deletions by raising a DR. In fact, had I deleted the original file in 2014, its all derivatives would have gone that day itself. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Upload wizard

Hi. Suddenly today, when uploading images, the "Copy data to to other files" and "Additional information" links do nothing when clicked. Is anyone else having this problem, or is it just me? Otherwise, does the wizard need fixing? Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not just you. I've mentioned the same problem here. --Magnus (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Not only that, when it comes to the license selection, after clicking "not my own work", it pre-selects cc-by-sa-4.0 and will allow no other license. I've uploaded three images today and after upload had to go back and change the license manually to {{PD-old-100}}. It's a real pain! Voceditenore (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Have raised a Phabricator task to look at this. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for filing the task. This should be resolved in around an hour and a half. See phab:T166298 for details. Matma Rex (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed now. Matma Rex (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

European Space Agency images

Category:ESA images (review needed)

The ESA has been swapping to applying a CC-BY-SA license for images, see ESA open access policy. There are just over 1,600 images now on this license and in the last few days they have been batch uploaded to Commons. In some instances we have both TIFF and jpeg versions to help with usability. For details see the project page, thanks go to ESA folks for their encouragement and advice.

Help is needed to categorize images and make good use of them in Wikipedia articles, and in some cases to create articles! Images needing checks are in the backlog category ESA images (review needed). :-) -- (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy delete for privacy

In File:Dolores and other editors MET 2017-05 jeh.jpg I inadvertently included someone who had already requested not to be photographed. I requested deletion days ago and wish the picture to be gone quickly, but privacy violation is not among the grounds I see for speedy deletion. Can it be speedied anyway? Jim.henderson (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, Multichill. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. You are the uploader, you made a mistake so of course it can be deleted. Multichill (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

May 26

Hello to all, I just discovered this site and I wonder if the images there are in the Public Domain, as the name of the site suggests. Fructibus (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Cross-wiki upload from

What he heck is a “Cross-wiki upload from” on Commons? Example: File:Sterbender Stier, 1983.jpg. It’s also hard to find more with the internal search, but see, e.g., this: "Cross-wiki upload from" (Startpage). — Speravir – 23:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Without double checking, I guess someone used the visual editor on a commons gallery page to upload said images. --MB-one (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
This was discussed in a hijacked task phab:T137269 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The upload feature is also available in the wikitext editor – you can click Embedded file on the toolbar, then "Upload" in bottom-left corner. The log message is a bit silly, it just uses the same format as uploads from other wikis. Matma Rex (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks at all! — Speravir – 18:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


In phab:T137269#2365521, we have two options that could solve this problem:

  • Disable this feature on commons. -- May have less usability.
  • Change the upload summary somehow to reflect that they are local uploads.

If we (as the community) can establish a consensus, either can be implemented with a simple configuration thanks to the work of Matma Rex. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I would simply change the summary to Local upload from [[article]]. Platonides (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I would prefer the second option, as well. — Speravir – 18:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

May 25

Abandoned Flickr account query

I tried searching/looking through the Flickr info pages, but was wondering if there is there a quicker way to select multiple images from a Flickr account to be transferred to Commons, or would they need to be done individually? I have found an abandoned Flickr account with a ton of great images of British parties/fashion shows showing quite a number of celebrities, fashion shows, etc. They have the correct licenses to allow uploading. There are a lot of Supergrass images mixed in. However, as you'll see, there are also a lot of pretty useless images mixed in with the good shots. Frustratingly, the uploader hasn't put info on a lot of the images, and whilst so many of them look familiar, (I am 99% positive that this is 1960s fashion designer/poster girl Mary Quant at a TopShop event in 2007), it's so frustrating that I can't pinpoint who they are. I did successfully ID the blogger en:Susanna Lau and the journalist/historian en:Colin McDowell. I do see that several of the images have been individually lifted already (I have created Category:Photographs by iqons to keep track of them). Mainly, what I would like to do is to get assistance with IDs for the pictures to determine which ones are good depictions of people for the project, and there are some really great visuals for fashion and style looks too. Any suggestions on how to make a more focused start on this, or will I need to transfer each upload individually? I do totally understand if it has to be done that way to make it more difficult for Flickrwashers to flood Commons with their stuff. Thanks so much. Mabalu (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Mabalu Some suggestion:
  • Once you identify a person in the images do not look for single "good depictions of people for the project" just upload all the images of that person (or maybe all reasonable useful images). If there is several very similar images, then maybe grab ~5 best ones. That way others can decide in the future which ones to use.
  • If person is notable enough to have wikipedia article or wikidata item I would create separate category for them and link it with wikidata.
  • I would suggest using regular upload wizard and paste URLs to bunch of individual images at the file choosing stage, but add description to a whole bunch at a time.
Sorry I can not help you with ID-ing people. --Jarekt (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Jarekt! Is there a way to streamline or speed up the upload process - can it be done in batches while preserving the Flickr sourcing, or should it all be done via the Flickr tool which only seems to work on an individual file by file basis? Mabalu (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
One thing you can do is to press "Upload images from Flickr" at this stage and pass "" and it will show you random 500 images out of 800+ images from that photostream. You can than click on the ones you like. However there is not way to see the remaining 300+ images from the photostream so the rest will have to be done by hand. Usually that is not as hard as you upload one album at a time, but iqons is not using albums. --Jarekt (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I have a key, but I am clearly not savvy enough to understand how to set it up. (Where on Wiki can I find ManualLocalSettings?) I will have to come back to look at it again and try to work it out. I saw your post below as well, which looks intriguing, but I need more time to take it in and try and make sense of it. Thanks for your assistance! Mabalu (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Photographs uploaded by Yavarai

Hello All, My several photographs have been nominated for deletion in spite of not having any copyright issue. Could any one please help me what to do in this regard --Yavarai (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Yavarai

May 28

Appear to have uploaded the wrong file

Hi guys. I recently moved a page over on WP (Kasowitz Benson Torres) to reflect the name change of the partnership. I thought I'd update their logo to the new name.[37] So I took the image from their website, cropped it, and saved it as a gif. Uploaded it to the file page here using Upload a new version of this file, and selected the file on my HD. And yet I somehow seem to have saved a version that looks the same as the current one (i.e. it included Friedman in it). As I don't have that on my PC, I've clearly stuffed up!

I tried to undo, but it says it appears to have already been undone. That's not the case, so I thought I'd ask before I really break it. Anyone know what I'm doing wrong? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Had a peek, seems ok. Same logo, Friedman removed. Try to purge the page and/or refresh your browser cache. Sometimes it takes a while to show changes. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Files shouldn't be overwritten with significantly different versions, use a new name instead. See Commons:Overwriting existing files. --ghouston (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Ghouston is right, you should have used a new name.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@Bromley86: Friedman is in fact gone from the new logo. What you saw was a caching issue - it takes some time for databases to sync and for cached copies of images and their thumbnails to be replaced. Sorry about that.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Cheers guys! And sorry for the overwrite, I'll set up a new name when I get a chance. If anyone wants to undo my upload (or to tell me to do it myself), please feel free to. Bromley86 (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@Bromley86: In the "File history" section, click "revert" next to the version you want to revert to.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Perfect, all done. Thanks again for your guidance. Bromley86 (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to merge Category:Town halls in Texas into Category:City halls in Texas as I found out that legally there is no longer any distinction between a city, town, or village in Texas law.

"The Local Government Code, codified in 1987, did away with the distinction of city, town, or village and loosely replaced those terms with Type A, B, or C cities."

Perhaps "municipal town halls"? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: I would merge Category:Town halls in Texas into Category:City halls in Texas because they're all city halls now.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Upon consideration, I agree. That's the merger I would like. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Village halls in the United States and Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:City halls. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: Thanks, but this was a specific statement and question, so I gave a specific response.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
My comment was directed at everyone, not just you. I think the links are relevant to this discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Tree identification

The tree in question

We seem to be having some trouble identifying the tree in File:Липа високостовбурна, Яблунів.jpg (right) for both naming and categorization purposes. Please discuss on the file's talk page File talk:Липа високостовбурна, Яблунів.jpg. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

May 30

Hi there.

I wanted to clean-up a bit this cat' and I saw we have many different terms to name those buildings : Bunker(s), Blockhaus, Blockhauss, Batterie, Battery, Fort(s), Fortification(s), and some code names... Can some one help to harmonize all that? I don't really know witch term should be the best...

Summer time has started and I guess we'll have new pics taken during holidays.

Thanks a lot. --lol LW² \m/ (Lie ² me...) 14:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

  • In category names we favor English where it exists so at the very least Blockhaus/Blockhauss should be Blockhouse.
  • Fortification(s) is the broadest term. Bunker and Blockhouse seem to me interchangable. Battery puts the emphasis on the presence of cannon or comparable weapons rather than the defensive structure. A fort typically means something much larger than a single bunker or blockhouse. - Jmabel ! talk 15:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
    @Jmabel: We favor plurals, too.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@Llann Wé²: It seems these buildings were heavily fortified nests built of concrete blocks or stone (to resist bombs, mortars, and hand grenades) by portions of the German war machine to defend (using automatic machine guns) their conquered territories on the coast of the Atlantic Ocean during World War II. I suggest English "Blockhouses", "Block houses", "Bunkers", or "Pill boxes". "Batteries" would be more suited to use of cannons in earlier wars, "Forts" were bigger, and "Fortifications" covers all of the above, plus "Castles" if you want to get Medieval.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, pillboxes would be another synonym. It sounds like you and I agree on the distinctions among these. - Jmabel ! talk 16:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
don't know if this helps, but many (not all) of the Atlantic Wall structures can be referred to as Regelbau bunkers. Bunker is also the least ambiguous term, i think. Holger1959 (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Except for other sorts of bunker that is! I'd favour using "Fortifications of the Atlantic Wall in <location>" as the catch-all. That also covers things like beach defences and minefields that were removed during/shortly after the fighting. Batteries (of naval artillery) were an important part of the fortifications and are so "batteries" are not solely something from the earlier period. Batteries are larger complexes and generally not bunkers, but are likely to contain bunkers as some (or all) of their buildings.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
seems plausible. Holger1959 (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Please tell me no one has built a golf course around an Atlantic Wall bunker. :)   — Jeff G. ツ 19:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Of course they have :)--Nilfanion (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all but it's not enought clear for me: too many terms for a single thing generally called "blockhaus" in French. I give up and leave that as it is and hope some one will be more able than me. Thanks again. lol LW² \m/ (Lie ² me...) 19:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

انتقال اشتباه مقاله

سلام مقاله ای که من نوشتم تحت عنوان ناهمسانگردی مواد اشتباها به مقاله ناقصی به نام ناهمسانگردی انتقال یافته و عملا با آن ادغام شده است این در حالیست که موضوعات این دو مقاله کاملا از هم جداست مقاله من پیرامون علم مواد است و مقاله دیگر در مورد فیزیک است من چطور میتوانم مقاله ام را برگردانم با تشکر فراوان — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokebakan (talk • contribs) 12:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Gokebakan: این پروژه در مورد فایل ها، نمی مقالات. من فکر می کنم شما می خواهید fa:ویکی‌پدیا:قهوه‌خانه.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@Gokebakan: This project is about files, not articles. I think you want fa:ویکی‌پدیا:قهوه‌خانه.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

12:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Classification Austrian trains

I uploaded the pictures is Category:2017 in rail transport in Austria, but I am not an expert in the Austrian train types.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

June 01