Commons:Village pump/Archive/2017/09

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


File:Punch volume 1 cover illustration (1841).png

I was wondering if someone knows whom the initials W.N. stand for. Thank you for your time. Face-smile.svg Lotje (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't see anyone with those initials in the list of contributors for Punch. :-( But maybe you may try to follow the link of each one in case someone had another name/pseudonym that would not be mentioned in the article about the magazine... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
William Newman? Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Anyone care about this? Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

August 30

Commons categories linking to Wikipedia categories in Wikidata

In case it interests someone, there was a debate about this in Wikidata. You can see the topics here, and here. I don't want to buy that war, I don't even know if this is the general feeling here, despite seeing many people changing those connections from wikipedia categories to wikipedia articles, the way we used before Wikidata appeared. In any case, here it is, FYI.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Should this CIA map be labeled a "derivative" map?

French-Kashmir map.jpg

First, this map's text description shows the source is from the Library of Congress' and the map is a product of the Central Intelligence Agency (US Government). however, the licensing tag states, "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: (...)." Should this file be labeled as a work of the US Government?

Second, this original CIA map had its boundary altered at the 2nd edit involving Chinese territorial claims. See this map alteration, located in the northeast of the map and north of Aksai Chin withinin the Chinese territorial claim, by comparing version 1 here with version 2 here.--A ri gi bod (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Clearly someone should not alter a CIA map and present the result as still a CIA map: it is a derivative. - Jmabel ! talk 22:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

To rename or not

@Sixflashphoto: User:Sixflashphoto has requested moving File:Eclipse shadows 01.jpg‎ and File:Eclipse shadows 02.jpg‎ to File:8-21-17 Eclipse Shadows from Seattle, Wa 1.jpg and File:8-21-17 Eclipse Shadows from Seattle, Wa 2.jpg, respectively, citing Criterion 2 ("meaningless or ambiguous name"). I uploaded these files. Normally as an admin I'd turn down this request (in my view, the names I chose are fine) but since they are my files, I thought I'd bring this here as something of a test case.

The names Sixflashphoto proposes are more specific than mine (although "Wa" rather than "WA" for Washington State is about 50 years out of date), but the ones I gave are way more specific than the examples given for Criterion 2 at Commons:File renaming as examples of what merits changing and, as it says on that page "In general, Commons aims to provide stable file names as there might be external file clients and file moving involves significant human and computing resources. Thus renaming should be used with caution." - Jmabel ! talk 22:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I see that User:‎CAPTAIN RAJU has done the move. I still think it is worth having the discussion of where the threshold should be on Criterion 2. - Jmabel ! talk 00:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jmabel: I fully support a discussion on this case. I reason the names I chose were so specific is because people were/are uploading a lot of photos from the recent eclipse. Unfortunately a lot of them had names consisting of seemingly random numbers or were extremely general. My error with "Wa" instead of "WA" was simply an error of having done so many renaming requests and should have been corrected. As I was attempting to rename many of these uploads I categorized them in the name to keep them from being so general. In many cases some still had to be numerically differentiated. I don't think it serves the community to have all of these great photos uploaded with generally similar/identical names or nonsensical names, but I fully support more opinions on Criterion 2 at Commons:File renaming. Sixflashphoto (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

September 02

July Commons:Photo challenge results

Musical instruments: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
Image Small music box.jpg Pipe organ, Igrejas dos Carmelitas e do Carmo.jpg A Mandolin-banjo.jpg
Title A small music box playing ... music! ‎ Pipe organ, Igrejas dos Carmelitas e do Carmo, Porto Mandolin-banjo
Author Annatsach Jsamwrites Sally V
Score 13 11 9
Sailboats: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
Image Sailing vessel Rembrandt van Rijn.jpg Premiere sortie de l'Hermione dsc3310E.jpg Heeling sailboat.jpg
Title S/V Rembrandt van Rijn in Disco Bay, Greenland Le 7 septembre 2014, la réplique de l'Hermione, construite
à Rochefort, débouche de la Charente pour prendre la mer.
Sailboat heeling when sailing close hauled
Author Vaido Otsar Jp.sembely TheJerboa
Score 15 13 13

Congratulations to Vaido Otsar, Jp.sembely, TheJerboa, Annatsach, Jsamwrites and Sally V. -- Jarekt (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to access view statistics of an uploaded file?

Hello! It seems that the statistics tools I normally use for tracking pageviews are not valid for image views tracking. Is there any way to know this? -Theklan (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

On the history page of any file you will find a link to "Pageviews Analysis" tool. Ruslik (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Note that this link is not present in all languages. I found it for French and English but not for German or Esperanto. And as far as I understand “Pageviews Analysis” gives you the access data to the “File:…” page but not to pages that make use of this image, which seems to be what Theklan is looking for. -- Renardo la vulpo (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ruslik0:, my idea was seing the TOTAL views of the file, not the file page itself. -Theklan (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@Theklan: not the most convinent form, but . Bawolff (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

September 01

Wow! MSNBC has cc-licensed news footage

Look on YouTube here at the verified MSNBC account:

A bunch of their videos are cc-licensed.

Victorgrigas (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Doing an import of these files. Guanaco (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
video2commons failed. Looking into alternatives. Guanaco (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I uploaded two screenshots: File:Richard Painter MSNBC YouTube 2017.png and File:Carter Page MSNBC June 2017 YouTube.png. --George Ho (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi George Ho, You should ask for a license review, just in case. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't get too excited. An over exuberance of using those files will taint the articles in question as many are talking heads/opinion pieces and not straight news information. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I definitely agree, most are not suitable to include directly in Wikipedia articles. But within this collection are many valuable images and footage of current events and notable people. Guanaco (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
As long as the footage/content is wholly owned/produced by MSNBC and not video using content from other media outlets, such as in such breaking events where it is clear MSNBC is just reporting on the situation using other copyrighted footage and there is no way their own reporters are actually there. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
question- what is standard practice for a major news outlet? Do they have JOINT COPYRIGHT AGREEMENTS with their affiliates? I would imagine they would do that they can more easily share content? Victorgrigas (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Joint copyright agreements? No. My station's attorneys develop policy for us in conjunction with the industry regarding copyrights and use of material. Bonafide news agencies have a wide swath when it comes to use of material in reporting, Wiki does not. From your profile, you have a background in film and media thus the issue of copyrights should have been ingrained into you via school/classes. Please contact your local copyright attorney. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


Does the sysop script for CommonsDelinker commands automatically move BSicon rename requests to the byHand page? This should no longer be necessary since JJMC89 bot now replaces BSicon redirects on most wikis where this is needed.

In addition, could the BSicon replacement requests on byHand be moved to the main commands page? There are some pages where the redirects need to be replaced by CommonsDelinker because they are used with normal file syntax and not templates. Jc86035 (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Photographs of Arcade / Pinball Game Artwork

Is it permissible to upload photographs of Arcade and Pinball machines artwork? I have been documenting pinball machines and Arcade machines for years. I have seen low resolution images uploaded for video game console box art with the claim that is fair use. I have so many marquee photos from arcades I have visited, I really want to share them here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Datagod (talk • contribs) 22:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It depends what country and what era, but typically not allowed for most recent machines: it's copyrighted artwork, and would require the copyright-holder to free-license it (which they are unlikely to do). - Jmabel ! talk 22:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

September 03

File History: Comments missing for non-current versions

In the "File History" tables for Commons images, only the current version is showing comments in the "Comments" column. I think that this just started happening today. Is this a bug or am I confused? -- WikiPedant (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@WikiPedant: I see the same symptom, it looks like a bug. I created phab:T175444 for it.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Meanwhile fixed. — Speravir – 22:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Speravir 22:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you to @Jeff G. and all others who helped to resolve this. -- WikiPedant (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@WikiPedant: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I want to participate in the context

My country Nigeria is not among the countries posted, and I want to participate on the context.

Prince Uc Okorie

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince Uc Okorie (talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Already posted on Commons:Help desk‎. @Prince Uc Okorie: No need to post on several places at once. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

September 04

CC0 images at Pixabay

Can anyone who's good with bot uploads, please upload these CC0 images to Category:Thailand please? They can be found here -> . Although not needed per the license, please also attribute the photographer. A few of their images have already been passed off by someone else as their own (read this for more info. Thanks! - Takeaway (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Awesome pics! :) Anyway, Large scale copying of Content is prohibited except as expressly authorized by Pixabay. To be clear, this applies to all Content, including Content made available as part of the public domain. The Service is protected by copyright as a collective work and/or compilation, pursuant to copyright laws, international conventions, and other intellectual property laws. I do not know if uploading Sasin Tipchai’s photographs passes as "small scale copying" or not. Strakhov (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
It looks like Pixabay experimented with a "Pixabay License" that was an altered version of CC0 with restrictions on copying their database much like Unsplash have attempted (see Commons:Village pump/Archive/2017/08#Unsplash no longer CC0). Fortunately they appear to have thought better of it and gone back to pure CC0 for the images. The prohibition on mass-scale copying was added to their terms of service on 10 August. While a breach of their terms-of-use may concern individual users who transfer on any scale, they also claim copyright over their database of images (collective work and/or compilation). However, surely copyright requires they have personally curated that compilation, which would I think apply only to their "Editors Choice" collections and similar. A collection of images by one photographer, such as linked above, would presumably be curated by the photographer, and not Pixabay. One could argue that the terms-of-use require the photographer to release their "collection of my works" database rights as CC0 also. Other collections on Pixabay, such as those based on the equipment used or the subject, appear to be automatically generated from keywords and EXIF data supplied by the photorapher, so again I don't see how a copyright claim can be made for those. IANAL. -- Colin (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
More information on this blog and on Pixabay news forum where they both announced the new licence and then abandoned it. -- Colin (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I had a chat last night with Simon from Pixabay. They agree that sticking to a plain CC0 licence is best (they talked to Creative Commons about it). So that's good news that the images will remain free. However Pixabay and similar sites have a real problem with fraudsters setting up clone sites. Simon sent me a link to one, but I won't copy it here. They are extremely similar in website appearance but it is clear they have no real users uploading photos - the photos just magically appear. The clone sites also have a "Coffee" donation button but the donations don't go to the photographers or Pixabay but to the fraudsters. From what I have seen on their discussion forums, the "Coffee" donation button doesn't make much money for anyone individually, but if you clone the whole website then you can see the attraction. So their terms of use now forbid large scale copying of photos, and Simon made it clear he would consider bot automated scraping of Pixaby images to be forbidden. However, he was very happy for the images to be selected for use on Commons, Wikipedia, etc and didn't mind if a user uploaded "lots of them" individually. You can't download the full size images from Pixabay without creating an account and logging in, thus accepting the terms. I think we should respect their terms -- they need to keep their website and its community of photographers viable -- and just choose images that have the highest educational value. IMO a lot of photos on the site seem more aimed towards "stock photo" usage rather than strictly educational, but there are also plenty great educational / illustrative images too. -- Colin (talk) 07:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Colin:. Thank you so much for all the work you have done! I'll look through the photographer's Pixabay portfolio and see which ones are suitable for inclusion into Commons. - Takeaway (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

ImprovedUploadForm Not Appearing

Simple upload
Simple upload
Improved Upload

The ImprovedUploadForm is not appearing for me. I have it checked in my preferences, but when I try to upload using Special:Upload, it only shows me the simple form. I've tried purging. That does not help. Any advice? -- Veggies (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I brought it here, because it's a technical issue, not a simple help-desk issue. In any case, it's being handled above, so... ✓ Done -- Veggies (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Correct a category name

I had thought it would be simple enough to correct a category: Category:San Antonio Silver Stars players

(For those few of you who are not WNBA experts, the team changes its name from "San Antonio Silver Stars" to San Antonio Stars"). When I started the move process, a message popped up saying that the members of the category would not be moved to the new category so I'm guessing moving isn't the right approach. What is the right approach?--Sphilbrick (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Moving is correct, but you also have to recat everything in that category (easily done with cat-a-lot). --Magnus (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-36

22:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Concerning the bulleted point under «Problems»: «Some users have problems loading very large watchlists», which they didn’t experienced before, without any significant change in their watchlists; this is therefore caused by something else that’s being tinkered about, and these users should not be blamed for keeping their eyes on “too many” files and cats«. It is working better» worse «than earlier». Fixed that for you.
As for the suggestion about turning «on "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent" in your preferences and see if it helps», I did it, and I also tried a yoddling headstand while at it: nothing helps.
-- Tuválkin 16:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • No problem with my watchlist, but I have experienced JS loading problems today. Never seen that on Commons before. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

September 05

Do we have a technical problem in the upload form?

Starting a few days ago I noticed my upload form (e.g., this one) does no longer provide a preview button (to the right of the “Upload file” button). Checking the JavaScript console I found the message “Error: Widget not found: undefined – load.php:25, 166.” Could the two be related? Is it a technical problem in the upload form? I used to use the preview button a lot, it was very useful.

I am using Firefox 55.0.2. Any hint is appreciated. -- Renardo la vulpo (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

See mw:Help:Locating broken scripts how to track down where that broken code is located. --Malyacko (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Malyacko: Thanks a lot for the link. Emptying caches and purging did not help; but when I append &debug=true to the URL the preview button is back – although the error message is still there, so probably no connection between the two. Unfortunately the debug mode slows down loading the page considerably.
Could you tell me if the upload form link I gave shows you a preview button, or if you have a different upload URL where everything works? Maybe my URL is outdated. I just do not want to use the upload wizard, I prefer to fill the {{Information}} template myself.
I tried the link with Chromium as well, and have the same problem, so the issue is not browser-related. -- Renardo la vulpo (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
This is related to oojs-ui. I'll write a bug report about it. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Done already: phab:T174935 :) --Malyacko (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. The issue seems to have been resolved, the preview button is back. -- Renardo la vulpo (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 21:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

error in field: medium

Script error: The function "translatelua" does not exist. with

{{oil on canvas}}



?? see File:Zanchi, Antonio - Doge Silvestro Valier - Walters Art Museum.jpg--Oursana (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed --Jarekt (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 21:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Odd promotion at MediaWiki:Uploadnologintext/lang

I think this is recent, but I can't locate the possible vandal or edits which led to this situation. 止 marketing Inc after every language option. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 04:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 06:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Flat category structure

Have we now adopted a flat category structure?

Category:0-6-0ST locomotives (ST meaning "saddle tank") is a member of both Category:0-6-0 locomotives and Category:0-6-0T locomotives ("T" meaning "tank").

Category:0-6-0T locomotives is also, of course, a member of Category:0-6-0 locomotives.

For that reason, I removed Category:0-6-0ST locomotives from Category:0-6-0 locomotives.

I was reverted, with an edit summary of "This is such an important navigational path that it's worth the duplication", by the ST category's creator, User:Andy Dingley.

I'm not clear what constitutes "an important navigational path", in this context, nor when that policy was adopted. Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Dramah queen much Andy?
ST is at least as common as T, at least for these small 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 types. Our readers, who are not taxonomists, they're just trying to find stuff, do not need to navigate down gratuitous layers of indirection. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Andy, if not for the unwarranted and unnecessary (and sadly not your first) personal attack. But I was really seeking other opinions. Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm with Andy Dingley here. Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett, your point is technically valid, but it's more important to keep the end user in mind. Similarly, when classifying named neighborhoods of a city, some of which may be within larger named neighborhoods, I prefer to include that smaller neighborhood both within the larger neighborhood and in a general category for neighborhoods of the city. - Jmabel ! talk
I would have expected to see saddle tank as a subcat of tank engines, it's more confusing when standards are not applied consistently. I really am not sure why it is such a problem for users to navigate the category structure, but judging by the amount of people that moan about it I must be in a minority. In this case we are talking about one extra click on a mouse which does not seem too arduous Oxyman (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I strongly encourage the inclusion in the category where the rules say it should be; what we need to do, though, is to relax the overcat rule a bit when descending the category tree involves going down paths that only an subject matter expert is likely to intuit. - Jmabel ! talk 20:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

September 09

Template {{VN}}

I have just noticed that on page Oncorhynchus nerka Polish name of this fish is shown as Nerka (ryba) instead of just Nerka. The word ryba in the parentheses means "fish" and is disambiguation because most common meaning of "nerka" in Polish is "kidney". Is it possible to force this template to display just name of a species without disambiguation word, if there is any? Also, AFAIK, non-latin (vernacular) names of species (also genuses, families, etc.) are not proper nouns/names and should start with a small letter in languages like Polish or, I believe, English. --jdx Re: 07:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I think, Module:Wikidata4Bio needs to be changed (ping @Liné1) – or something in Wikidata itself: In the moment apparently only the Wikipedia article links are read, and the Polish one is pl:Nerka (ryba) (for English d:Property:P1843 “taxon common name” seems to be read instead). But the names in the Wikidata entry d:Q44064 should IMHO be used, as well, if existing for a language. — Speravir – 22:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello @Jdx, Speravir:, I will suppress the disambiguation when the vernacular name is taken out of the wikidata's interwiki or wikidata's label. But if you don't mind, I won't suppress disamb for P1843 (taxon common name). Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done the disambiguation suppression. About the lowercase problem, I have to think a bit how to do that because until now I have no language specific treatment. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it’s not a thing to be solved by you, but by native English speakers with knowledge about biological names, whether one of the Sockeye S/salmon could be removed. I’m not that active in English Wikipedia (not to speak from Wikispecies) – is there some special portal? — Speravir – 17:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
As a native speaker, I'd say Sockeye salmon should not normally have the s in salmon capitalized. - Jmabel ! talk 19:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Clearly this is a problem on wikidata which has P1843 (taxon common name) with strange case. Regards Liné1 (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Liné1 after your edits in Wikidata this section is resolved, right? — Speravir – 01:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
yes, sorry Speravir I forgot to tell you. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 14:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Overwritten file needs restoring

This bu user:Fma12 overwrote an existing file with a less-cropped original, but at lower resolution. Thus, some of the detail in the higher-res cropped version was lost.

Please can an admin restore the original and "fork" the new file? Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: ...and the file in question is...? - Jmabel ! talk 22:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
If @Pigsonthewing: refers to File:AVilla1899.jpg, I notify him that I have restored the original file, which has indeed a better resolution. End of the discussion for me. - Fma12 (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
You have uploaded a third version, not restored the original. And now we have lost the extra information from the newer version - or have you uploaded that somewhere else? Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Apologies; I meant to include , but as you can see part of my comment was omitted. I also meant to say "this good faith upload by user:Fma12 overwrote...". Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I believe that with my recent change this should be fixed to your satisfaction, but offhand I don't see anything I did in this process that required admin privileges. Just a matter of slogging through. - Jmabel ! talk 21:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I uploaded an enhanced version of the image, slightly modifying tones and contrasts. And as you said, my edition was "in good faith". You can be sure about that. Fma12 (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Fma12: Regardless, in the future when you are uploading a different version of something where there is any doubt that it would be considered an improvement, please use a different file name, so as not to create a bunch of work for other people. - Jmabel ! talk 00:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jmabel: It was you who uploaded the enhanced version of the Aston Villa photo as a separate file (which was unnecesary, in my opinion). The "bunch of work" you are referring to, was your own decission. - Fma12 (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@Fma12: I uploaded it (and the quite different File:Aston Villa 1899 - 02.jpg) as separate files because Pigsonthewing made the entirely reasonable request not to have the original file overwritten. Yes it would have been less work to just remove your versions and not re-upload under different names. Would you have preferred that? - Jmabel ! talk 15:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Problems in UploadWizard


  1. This message seems to me even though the internet works normally and I need to upload many photos.What is more strange is that the download time increases with no upload of those files
  2. Why it does not contain a period in seconds also (with minutes)

Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

What are the standard fields that should be added for biographical categories?

I create a large number of biographical categories for images based on the LOC collection. See for example: Category:Arthur Bailly-Blanchard. What are the standard category fields I should be adding? Now I just add: {{wikidata|}} {{DEFAULTSORT: Lastname, Firstname }} [[Category:People by name]] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a template for easier creation of biographical categories. It's name is Template:People by name. It automatically adds basic categories, defaultsort parameter and Wikidata links. It shouldn't be inserted directly but instead be substituted as it is stated on the description page. It's not perfect but indeed helps a lot. --Zaccarias (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, just what I need! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Unused personal files

Hello. This category says the files will automatically be nominated for deletion using a script when the number of files reaches 1000, but there are now more than 1600 files in the category. The creator seems to be retired or inactive. Kyrle Daly (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kyrle Daly: There's another DR for some of them at the bottom of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Unused personal files.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Oops, didn't notice that. Thanks. Kyrle Daly (talk) 05:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Mass deletion by category like this is inappropriate. No admin should be deleting 1000 images a time which bypasses discussion, unless they are demonstrably non controversial (in which case they should be speedy deletions and meet those criteria). The DR created is controversial as there are images included which should obviously be kept per policy, such as images in use, and many others which should be speedy deletions rather than a DR, like tiny thumbnails from Facebook. The consequences of this type of automatic deletion by category have not been thought through, and listing 1,000 images based on haphazardly getting added to a generic category, without ensuring proper review, is the type of automatic deletion that should need a community consensus to allow as the resulting deletions are not following the currently agreed procedure. Unless there is some immediate emergency, I see no need to do this. -- (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree that such mass deletions are not helpful. I removed the text in the category. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Is Wikimedia a suitable place to upload pictures of points of interest?

My colleagues and I run a community-based site that shares hiking and biking maps of Israel (based on OpenStreetMap). We would like our users to upload images of sites featured in OSM that are of touristic interest. These would come with a description (mostly in Hebrew), and a voting mechanism for eliminating worthless points. The images will all be original photos with CC licenses. We would like to gradually upload the images here, as they have educational value,and can potentially be used in wikipedia. Would it be suitable? Which minimum fields need to be filled so that the images are not deleted? Will it be a problem if the description is not in English? Can the images be protected from deletion by uninformed users?

Thanks Valleyofdawn (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  • "CC licenses" as such is not sufficient. The licenses must allow derivatives and must allow commercial use. For example, CC-BY-SA is acceptable; CC-0 is, of course, acceptable; CC-ND or CC-NC is not.
    • Are you planning to have a single mandatory license for all of the photos involved in this project? That would be simplest. It would be possible to have a variety of CC licenses on your site, but then you could only upload the ones that allow commercial use & derivatives.
    • Either way, of course the upload to Commons needs to use the appropriate Commons license template.
    • Also, either way, it would be by far simplest if in addition the licenses for these photos are easily determined by looking at the relevant page on your site. Then by linking to that page as source, the license is easily confirmed.
  • Given that that is addressed, most likely these would be welcome, so long as they are not done in an overly promotional way and are not utterly redundant to pictures we already have.
  • I'd hope you have a somewhat higher standard of usefulness than "won't get deleted." Please use the {{Information}} template and please provide at least:
    • Description
      • Hebrew is fine, mark it by putting it in the {{He}} template. If there is also English, use {{En}}, etc.
    • Author
    • Source (assuming these are posted on your site, link the relevant page on your site)
    • Date (at least year, more precise is better).
  • Also, please make at least some effort at useful categorization. See Commons:Categories if you are not already familiar with that.
  • As for "Can the images be protected from deletion by uninformed users?", no more or less so than other images. Certainly we can't grant you any special privileges. Of course, it's hard to say who is "uninformed". For example, if we decide that something looks promotional or violates someone's copyright (e.g. a photo of a copyrighted poster) all of the usual rules will apply.
  • Also, please remember that as far as Commons is concerned, grants of licenses are irrevocable. If you were to decide at a later date to license such images more restrictively, Commons would not be willing to apply that retroactively to images where we already have a record of the more generous license.
  • I hope that covers what you need. If you need more, ask away. - Jmabel ! talk 05:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Image of John F. Kennedy portrait sculpture by Leo Cherne

I tried to post a photo taken by the Smithsonian Institution and publicly displayed on the website of the National Portrait Gallery of a portrait sculpture depicting John F. Kennedy by Leo Cherne. The image was taken down. Since the photo was taken by the Smithsonian, the photo should be in the public domain. The sculpture depicted is copyrighted. I would with the estate of Leo Cherne and the family would like his work to be visible on Wikimedia/Wikipedia. Please confirm whether this photo is permitted to be display on Wikimedia as it was taken by the Smithsonian, and if not, how I can officially convey to Wikimedia that the family does want this image visible. Thank you, MMIart

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MMIart (talk • contribs) 19:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean by "I would with the estate of Leo Cherne..." Was this a typo?
  • It's not enough that his family would want the image to be available on Wikipedia; they'd have to release their rights to the image under a specific open license. Take a look at COM:OTRS for how to send that permission; if it's still unclear, you can come back here with specific questions on what is unclear, or more likely you can get more specific answers at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. - Jmabel ! talk 00:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
i am sure what they meant, and while not a typo, (call out the comma police if you must).
it is profoundly anti-AGF to leave a deletion template, and then off-handedly leave a link to OTRS. why would any institution, or artist want to try to upload here? the cultural barrier to entry is doing harm to the project and creative commons. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
If you are sure what the sentence means, care to elucidate for me? My best guess was "I work with the estate of Leo Cherne and the family would like...", but if you think the issue was a missing comma then apparently you completely confidently read it differently. Also, does your different read affect the advice I gave? If so, care to give what you consider the correct advice? - Jmabel ! talk 22:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I read it as "I would, with the estate of Leo Cherne and the family, would like his work to be visible on Wikimedia/Wikipedia."--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

September 06

Landscape + Building = Category?

Is there a category for images of buildings that are part of a landscape composition? Otherwise, what would be the best name for such a category? I'm thinking of images like these:

And I'd like to create something like Category:Landscapes with Hohenzollern Castle, Category:Hohenzollern Castle in landscape photographs, or whatever name sounds best, and integrate it below Category:Landscapes and Category:Buildings. Any ideas from native speakers? Buildings in landscape photography? (But what about paintings?) Landscapes with buildings, or ... --Sitacuisses (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi, I don't think we should create such categories. The best is to use Catscan for this. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I doubt that catscan is able to recognize if a certain building is a relevant part of a landscape composition. I also doubt that catscan is usable for the general public at all. It's a web form with way too many variables to fill in, and you need to be an expert to find out what these will actually do. I also think that this is some kind of subgenre that deserves its own category tree, and it isn't new either. You'll find these motifs in Romantic landscape paintings as well. --Sitacuisses (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd create a "Remote views of" category for the castle anyway, but not every remote view is a landscape, and not every landscape with a building is a remote view (e.g. File:Leuchtturm in Westerheversand.jpg), so these would exist in parallel. --Sitacuisses (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Sitacuisses: I’d say that some such heterogenous cantegories already exist, created for especially often photographic motifs: Lots of people taking similar photos from a specific point-of-view onto a popular subject that happens to include some significant background (here’s one example). What we seem to need here is a (set of) category/categories that would bag all those disparate categories. Maybe something including "surroundings of". -- Tuválkin 15:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing out that this also about differentiation of large categories and common categorization of similar motifs. (So Catscan wouldn't be the answer.) "Landscapes with" could be a subcategory of "Surroundings of" as there isn't always landscape in the surroundings. --Sitacuisses (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Sitacuisses: Catscan is never the answer and Catscan is always the answer. The problem is that Catscan (or simple search, local or remote, or FastCCI, or Wikidata, or Structured Data in Wikimedia Commons, or whichever Rube Goldberg contraption one may come up with) is often presented as an alternative to catgorization — more exactly as the solution to the terrible, horrible, hideous creature that are MediaWiki categories (sob, moan, gasp) which godwilling will soon with be replaced by something much better. (Snark.) But of course Catscan can only work within the existing category framework (ditto for FastCCI; as for Wikidata / Structured Data, we still have to wait and see), so the more detailed our categorization is, the best are the results that can be be harvested from quearies made on that framework.
For categorization is curation: it is human created content added as a form of metadata to our file pages. On the other hand, things like Catscan or FastCCI are tools that allow casual users to extract unique and volatile results from that curated content. If you’re old enough online, you can say categorization is DMOZ while quearing is Altavista: The former without the latter is barely more usable than an old school index card system (it’s hypertext, huzzah!, but not searcheable, only browseable), while the latter without the former is a the proverbial GIGO machine.
And here I’ll stepdown, pick my soapbox, and go back to categorize tram photos or something. -- Tuválkin 21:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Guess who added the landscape category to File:View on Hohenzollern Castle from Zeller Horn.jpg ... Currently most people seem to think that "landscape" and "building" exclude each other. --Sitacuisses (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Me not File:(((روستای قطان مراغه ))) - panoramio (1).jpg Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-37

19:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Disappearing comment in "File history" section for the current version of a file

AFAIR a few days ago there was a thread on one of our boards regarding the topic and the conclusion was that the issue is solved. It seems that it isn't. I have just split File:Formation of passive margins.png and noticed that it lacks comment for the current version and I am sure that that there was one (with word "optimized"). The same situation was with File:Formation of passive margins (horizontal).png which I extracted from the original file. Strangely, missing comment (Change font and added context.) appeared when I uploaded a new, optimized version of the file. Could someone give me a link to the original thread/discussion? I think there is Phabricator's ticket number. --jdx Re: 08:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a miracle! I've just purged File:Formation of passive margins.png and the missing comment has appeared! --jdx Re: 08:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Jdx same is happening with me, like you said if I purge it becomes visible, but if I upload a new revision or just wait a little same issue happens again. The previous issue was the complete opposite, current version history appeared but old version comments didn't appear. That ticket which is now closed was T175444 so could be related but I see other file history changes going on in phab, so could be related to a number of changes. - Offnfopt(talk) 10:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jdx, Offnfopt, WikiPedant: I wrote about it again in phab:T175444#3607775. Previous discussions about this were archived to Commons:Help desk/Archive/2017/09#Possible bug in file descriptions and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2017/09#File History: Comments missing for non-current versions.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Jeff, you should either reopen this task or, because it’s not exactly the same, open another one. — Speravir – 14:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Speravir Thanks, I reopened it because all the same people are probably involved.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
A small "how to" replicate the problem:
  1. Choose a random file – there is no comment for the current version (of course I assume that some comment exists).
  2. Purge the file – the comment appears.
  3. Press "reload" button in your browser – the comment disappears (I've noticed that sometimes the button has to be pressed twice). --jdx Re: 18:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jdx, Jeff G., Offnfopt, WikiPedant: Apparently the issue has been solved by Reedy (thank you!). — Speravir – 20:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all!   — Jeff G. ツ 00:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Speravir 20:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Fantom images

Linkeroever jachten in de 1930s.jpg

Do we have a category for misprints? On the left side there is a fantom boat. I suppose the photografer tried to remove the boat or something went wrong during the printing proces. Maybe some leftover from an image before?Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Flying_Dutchman_(ship) :). Ruslik (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
LOL ROFL YMMD.— Speravir
Look what suits best somewhere in or below Manipulated photographs. — Speravir – 23:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

QI Image Promoted but metatag not added

Ohio State Office Building 2.jpg

What is the procedure when a QI image is promoted, QICbot messages your talk page, but there is no QI metascript added to the image or QICbot editing the image at all? This is the first time I have seen this. 2 other images that were promoted at the same time and did not have this problem. I looked at the image history and QICbot did not edit the image history as it usually does. The one Undo was when I added this to my user category of QI's and then noticed this issue. What is the proper procedure to bringing this to the proper persons attention? Thank you, Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I have no idea, but I think there is a specific talk page to discuss matters pertaining to QI and other such classified photos. -- Tuválkin 21:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming Wiki Science Competition

Did you heard about the Wiki Science competition, starting in November?

Since there will be an intense workflow of technical uploaded by newbies, that will require some better categorization and translation of descriptions here and there, I think it's time to discuss it also here. I give you some details.

In 2015, limiting to Europe, we got thousands of entries, we can expect two or three times more this year. In the case of Italy for example we will send emails to many professional mailing lists, and other national wikimedia chapter will use their social media too to inform the public.

We have finished with Ivo Kruusamägi of WM Estonia to prepare some of the juries. I did my best to gather, besides people with a strong scientific background, also some expert wikipedians here and there to take a look to the files on commons and not just the quality of the images. I have also informed users on English wikipedia, and will do the same on some other wikimedia platforms in the following weeks.

The final international jury is made of expert researchers, usually with interest in photography, but no real knowledge of the details of wikimedia platforms. Some national juries should have enough expert wikimedians and wikipedians probably, because of the presence of active national chapter I guess, so someone might take care of some the uploads at least improving some categorization and using them in some articles.

Now that I am sure that we have enough "scientists" here and there and from different fields, maybe we can see if we can also gathers specifically expert wikimedia users. For the countries without juries, there is the possibility of creating a second-level jury to select images from the rest of the world to the experts of the final jury. For such second-level jury I have found some name, but the numbers of entries could be high, so maybe that's where we can look for more wikimedia commons users.

if you are a citizen of a country with a national jury you could also join them directly. I don't know the details in many cases, if they need more jurors or they are fine.

Anyone interested?--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Question about EXIF Metadata


I'm quite confused about the Exif metadata on my more recent pictures, such as this one. It claims that I have used a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200… when it's actually a Canon PowerShot S120. The Lumix is actually my former camera.

What the hell's happening? How come my Exif MD still show my previous camera's specs?

Thouny (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't explain it, but if I download the picture then the tools at my disposal give the model as "DMC-FZ200", so it's not just Commons' metadata extraction going weird. I notice that the picture was processed through iPhoto. Might that somehow be responsible? --bjh21 (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Do you have a Windows system? You could use "Properties" to see the EXIF data fresh from the camera. Not sure if there is a precise equivalent on a Mac, but I'd guess so. In a *nix system you can use ImageMagick or GraphicsMagick. - Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
ImageMagick is also available for OS X and Windows, see on website. But for Windows I would actually prefer IrfanView. Another program worth viewing is XnView; as XnViewMP it is availabel for all three platforms, cf. website. — Speravir – 01:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
What's really weird is that iPhoto gives the right information about the picture… and this one actually has the right camera listed.
And, yeah, I'm sure it was this camera I used, as the previous one stopped working 2 years ago ^^
I have no idea what happened, but apparently everything's working fine now…
Thanks for your answers!
Cheers, Thouny (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: KDS4444 (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Searching for pixelsize

Is there a way to search images within a given height and/or width max/min number of pixels? -- Tuválkin 21:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

ZoomViewer down

Example 19th century map, 10,000 pixels wide, where the viewer's experience is seriously damaged without ZoomViewer

This could be a repeat of Phab: T169864; should it be reopened? I see only gateway timeouts. @Dschwen, Zhuyifei1999:. -- (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing I can do about it, without the permission to debug. Dschwen has been semi-active (last action was on July 28) so idk how long before he will notice this ping, though if someone want they can follow the process to adopt the tool described in wikitech:Help:Toolforge/Abandoned_tool_policy --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
What the hell, ZoomViewer is not WMF supported? Without it, high resolution image viewing on Commons is shockingly poor. This is depressing, I don't see how Commons will ever be a competitive media host by 2030 if the WMF has no meaningful or realistic plan for how to get there and instead relies on unpaid and uncoordinated amateurs doing their job for them. -- (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

September 14

An incomplete image!

An incomplete image.PNG

Hello.This appears in the image page and here.What is the reason for this?Thanks ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Mariánský_kostel_-_panoramio.jpg appears to be damaged in some way. Ruslik (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I’ve reverted to the functional version. See File:Mariánský kostel - cropped version.jpg instead. — Speravir – 00:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Speravir: Thanks, what did you crop it with?   — Jeff G. ツ 01:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
With GIMP on my local system. Download, edit, upload, add information. — Speravir – 02:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 00:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Flickr error

I just tried to upload an image from Flickr using the standard Commons upload tool. I copied and pasted the Flickr URL of the for the image, which is licensed CC-BY 2.0, and received the following message: "There was an error in your submission - Unfortunately, no images from this Flickr account can be uploaded on this site." Which leaves me utterly confused— was there actually some "error" in my upload request? Did I not paste the URL correctly? Is the account of the Flickr user blocked for some reason? If so, can I find out why? Or is it my Flickr account that is being blocked? The "error" message makes none of this clear, and leaves the person trying to perform the upload with a very inadequate explanation. Am hoping someone here can explain it better. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@KDS4444: The popculturegeek Flickr account is listed at Commons:Questionable Flickr images because it's believed they engage in license laundering. This means they take other people's work and post it on Flickr under a free license when it's actually non-free. Guanaco (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, then that makes some more sense. I have done an image search on the Internet for this particular image, and so far have only been able to find it on other Flickr-related sites and only in association with the same person (a Doug Weller). Is there no way to work around this automated system to allow the uploading of a file which, despite its author's apparent history of license laundering, looks to have been licensed correctly and legitimately? KDS4444 (talk) 05:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@KDS4444: It's not against any rules to upload a file from these sources if you are sure it's ok. Download the image and upload it from your computer, and tag it with {{Flickrreview}}. Guanaco (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
The photograph is of a screen with (probably) a live broadcast of the event/con. Regardless of whether this was broadcast anywhere else, the cameraman of the broadcast is the copyright holder, not the photographer. -- (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Found a direct photo by the same Flickr user of the same event and of the same person— was also licensed correctly, so have now cropped and uploaded. A worse image overall, but at least the copyright issue doesn't exist for this one. Thanks for your (pl.) help! KDS4444 (talk) 07:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Resolved
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 20:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Requiring reuploads (and revdel) of previously violated freely licensed works?

I thought this "proposal" is too short for Commons:Village pump/Proposals, overlaps a little bit with Commons:Village pump/Copyright and I'm not good at making full-length RFCs, so I'll make a mention here. It's more of a discussion anyway, but feel free to move this to a more appropriate section.

I'm not aware of any existing Commons guideline or policy saying an image previously in violation (e.g. not providing or linking to a copy of a CC BY license) was added would need to be reuploaded. What I interpret is many of the licenses – including many Creative Commons licenses, GFDL 1.2 and GPLv2, but excluding GPLv3 and GFDL 1.3 with reinstation provisions – have termination clauses which automatically and immediately terminate the uploader's rights to distribution under said license. This is not typically a problem where the uploader is also the sole author of the original work (they are the only copyright holder and can choose whatever licensing), but it is a problem for derivative works.

In cases of previously mentioned violations, I believe the author of derivative work would have to seek permission from the copyright holder to reinstate rights granted by the license. This permission would be handled via Commons:OTRS as a proof for Commons.

In cases where this is not possible but recreating the work in one way or the other is, I believe another user would have to take responsibility and reupload the file (under the same name) after fixing the license violation on Commons.

I take perspective Commons is more of a hosting provider under limited liability and the uploader is the redistributor/actor. Hiding file revisions from an infringing actor (previously in violation) with revdel could avoid Commons' from being subject to contributory infringement, if I'm not wrong. I've also seen conflicting statements and stances from the Commons administrators on the case.

Please discuss. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 23:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  • This is also not limited to derivative works, but freely uploaded images where someone else but the uploader is the copyright holder. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 23:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I can't make much sense of this. Can you say what you are proposing or trying to accomplish, instead of a bunch of "I am not aware", "I believe", "I take perspective", etc. - Jmabel ! talk 05:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
    • In general, the only times we require re-uploads are if files are uploaded by someone Commons has banned. In those cases, there is nothing prejudicial against someone else uploading the same file in the future: it's simply a matter of our deliberately negating the upload action by the banned user, just like we would delete any edit they made to text. Is that what you are talking about, or are you talking about something else? - Jmabel ! talk 05:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Jmabel, damnatio memoriae is a policy at Wikipedia but not on Commons. There is no Commons policy that supports any admin mass deleting valid images without more justification than a blocked account did the original uploads. -- (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Something else.

        It's a small legal and technical detail: Say there's a work X, which we know to be copyrighted and published under a free license. If person A uploads the freely licensed work X by author B, but A violated B's license on X and A's rights to distribute work X was automatically terminated (as is the case with licenses listed earlier), should C or another party – after fixing the file description to become in license compliance – be required to re-upload X and administrators delete or revdel A's upload (to shift the uploader) if X was wished to be kept?

        I'm proposing "yes", I see it should be this way. Because: A is not allowed to continue distributing the work X anymore until and if B reinstates A's right (via OTRS). C's rights to distribution have not been terminated, and may legitimately distribute on Commons. Would Commons host an infringement of X from A? 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 07:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

        • The re-upload from third-party C acts as a proof that they acquired a copy with a free license from author B legitimately. B can always decide on the license and change it. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 07:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Reiterating the previous: If A's upload is not deleted but the violation is fixed by C, then it would seem on the file page to the viewer A is still continuing to redistribute X despite the ban set by B. I don't want that to happen, to not cause further harm or confusion to A for their violation. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 08:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
          • @: I'm thinking of the de facto handling of Russavia. Whether you or I support the decision is beside the point: this is, in fact, how it has been handled.
          • But, more than that, my point is that in any other situation, if things get sorted out we simply undelete, we don't require a re-upload. - Jmabel ! talk 19:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
          • 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1, I now see what you are saying. Is this something that has ever arisen in the real world? If so, can you give an example? - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Russavia's uploads were not retrospectively deleted, please avoid re-writing those events from years ago. Huge numbers of valid uploads continue to be hosted on this project, even when later sockpuppets were discovered. If you think this is not how administrators should handle uploads from blocked users, then please write a proposal to bring Commons closer to the extremely harsh way that the English Wikipedia punishes some blocked users, through to removing everything they contribute with extreme prejudice, regardless of the value it may have to open knowledge, or even that changes are basic corrections of mistakes. From my understanding of this project's mission, such actions would be directly against our current shared values. -- (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I didn't mean retrospectively, I meant his work from the sockpuppets under which he continued to "contribute" after the ban. - Jmabel ! talk
  • Yes, there is no community agreed policy to delete valid uploads to Commons, because of who did the upload. Any administrator taking action of this type has to be judged as acting outside of any Commons policy or guidelines. -- (talk) 07:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Jmabel, why the scare quotes? Regardless of how many Prikassos one has commissioned, a valid edit is a valid edit, even if done by a sockpuppet. And speaking of sockpuppets, why are we even engaging an IP who has obviously deep knowledge of Commons dealings? Is this person another Daphne Lantier whose true identity “everybody” knows about?… -- Tuválkin 19:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
This is why I am not engaging directly with the anon IP. The WMF has threatened to globally ban anyone they think is assisting a WMF blocked account, and it's impossible to know if any anon IP is actually globally banned. So why be stupid and risk getting banned by accident, when there is no possibility of appeal or even asking the WMF for reasons? -- (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Tuvalkin: (1) I'm engaging because I am assuming good faith until I see a concrete reason not to. If the WMF global-bans me (or otherwise sanctions me) for doing that, then they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. (2) I have no idea whether Russavia's ban had anything to do with the Prikassos (is that how it's spelled?), but it is quite possible that you are privy to information I've never seen. To the best of my knowledge, WMF never stated the reason for the ban, but made quite clear their intent to enforce it. (3) The scare quotes are because I don't think Russavia's creation of sockpuppets etc. to evade the ban was a positive contribution (however good I think some of his prior work may have been). - Jmabel ! talk 20:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I don't know what the proper term to use here is, or if what I'm going to explain ahead is correct. Courts consider what's "willful" infringement wrt. statutory damages.[1]

Limited liabilities for service providers aside: If Commons would have actual knowledge of a copyright infringement happening then it's possibly reckless disregard for, or willful blindness to, the copyright holder's rights.[2] Quoted from the same page:

Peer Int’l Corp., 909 F.2d at 1336 (holding that defendant who ignored revocation of its license to copyrighted work, and continued to use work after revocation, willfully infringed that work)

At latest, the actual knowledge of infringement would come after receiving a copyright infringement notice from the copyright holder. I'm sure reading the license Y from B and in obvious cases see Y's condition is not fulfilled in the file description of X, after notifying Commons we may have actual knowledge of an infringement at that point.

If C cures the violation by A but A's upload is not deleted, then it could be "non-willful infringement". Whether this holds true or not, I'm not certain. Non-willful infringement is still punishable, although much less. The act of infringement still happened (and continues to technically exist from A in this scenario).

My assumption is Commons would not be imposed primary liability, but maybe secondary liability (contributory infringement) for infringement of a copyright if not resolved via reuploading. The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act is supposed to limit Commons from potential secondary liability for infringements of others when it does not have actual knowledge of infringement and takes down the infringement on notice (aka DMCA safe harbors).

If not by a case-law, I'd propose a formal policy change on Commons on moral grounds. Hopefully this makes sense now. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 00:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  • In retrospect, you also can't receive downstream licenses from A on work X if A's rights to that work have been terminated. This is at least the case explicitly with the GPLv3 license.[3] 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 00:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC); edited 00:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Sorry, this was an ambiguous statement: As long as a downstream licensee D is in compliance, they can and will not have their license to X terminated (at least with CC BY-SA licenses). But if D violated B's license on X because of information missing from A which led to the initial violation, D may also be in violation. License grants and restrictions don't survive in CC BY-SA licenses on termination. Eh, I need to stop writing. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 00:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    • What I really meant to say: If C doesn't have a license on work X they can't receive a new downstream license from A, because A has no rights to grant licenses due to termination (set by B). If D had previously received a downstream license from A, that doesn't invalidate D's license unless D is not in compliance. C would have to reupload for license acquisition, because X on Commons is from A and not B or D. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 01:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    • [4][5] 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 01:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • [6] 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 01:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

This still makes little sense to me. I now follow it as a theoretical legal argument, but I'm still unaware of how this applies to Commons. Are you just saying that if an upload has been "poisoned" by a situation where the uploader was specifically excluded from rights in the photo (either because of their own conduct of the conduct of someone from whom they sublicensed), but where the rights can still be legitimately obtained, the file should be deleted and someone else should do a new upload? It still seems to me that all we have to do is undelete (if needed) and change the license as needed to correctly indicate the correct source, author, attribution, etc. What am I missing? - Jmabel ! talk 03:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Your emphasized beliefs of what you believe I have said sound correct to me. It's the technical bit where undeletion process (without revdel) you describe results to Commons theoretically endorsing the infringement by A in the upload history. Regardless of whether it holds any liability for Commons, I think it's theoretically a moral wrongdoing against A. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 04:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Specifically, I'm not saying A should be forgotten (damnatio memoriae) from the file upload history. I propose revdeleting A's copy of the file would be enough to satisfy the theoretical legal (and moral) argument. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 04:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Small clarification: If A's rights have been terminated (e.g. because of their own conduct), A doesn't qualify to receive a new license from B unless B authorizes it via grant of rights again (OTRS, with exceptions). The GPLv3 license is also explicit about this, in example.[7] This is why I see the undeletion process you describe to be directly inadequate, while an indirect approach may be possible. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 05:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Has this ever happened? Or are you just trying to anticipate a possible issue? - Jmabel ! talk 14:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • (With my experience) on en.Wikipedia, if CC-licene text was added to an article, but failed to be attributed, that revision without atribution (and complete text) must be removed and revdel'ed, and the text must be added by another user with attribution. (All because CC licenses become invalid if violated, and not later qualify by that same person, per license text (not true for 4.0 - up to 30 days leeway)). If the same logic applies on Commons and images, we would need to delete images with bad author info/bad license, and then re-upload them by a different user...--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I personally can't readily imagine someone being petty enough to object based on such a technicality to our hosting a given image for which we now give the correct license, but if someone really thinks this is a problem, they can propose a policy, I suppose. Such a policy seems to me to be only a tad more useful than having a policy on what to do if one of our users turns out actually to be a macaque and we need to determine the status of their intellectual property. (I figure if the macaque can work its way through the Upload Wizard on its own, it's entitled to copyrights.) - Jmabel ! talk 23:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Hi @Josve05a, thanks for the input. The leeway is typically 60 days for GFDL 1.3 and GPLv3. Does English Wikipedia also have a policy or guideline about this? Would it be a good idea to add this discussion to Commons:Centralized discussion? I'm not good with writing proposals as you may have seen, so I'd appreciate help with this. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 00:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Your question was a bit ambiguous about precedents. Software Freedom Conservancy v. Best Buy, et al. has recognized infringements in court, SFC/SFLC arguing for automatic termination of the license. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 03:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm not asking whether this has ever happened in the world. I'm asking whether this has ever happened on Commons. Every time we add policies, we make it harder to find the really important policies. We don't need a policy in place for every imaginable future scenario. If something is very rare (vanishingly rare?) we can handle it on the fly by using common sense. - Jmabel ! talk 03:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Erm, I'm not sure what the logic here is or if I've understood you correctly. I see it's a chicken-and-egg problem: The community here wants an RFC, otherwise voting to keep seems easy. I think it's already well established Commons follows local laws (voluntarily) on media. So why the question?

      On an unrelated matter, it seems not from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Battle for Wesnoth title screen that "common sense" works to users even with a legal precedent presented, because an RFC is demanded first. Much like in this situation.

      Isn't that the point of this "proposal", changing something on Commons? I'll have a better response to you later. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 19:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


  1. 17 U.S.C. § 504
  3. Section 10: Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.
  4. Section 7 of CC BY-SA 2.0, CC BY-SA 3.0 at least.
  5. Section 6 of CC BY-SA 4.0, at least.
  7. Section 8: Termination.

September 11

Draft strategy direction. Version #2

In 2017, we initiated a broad discussion to form a strategic direction that will unite and inspire Wikimedians. This direction will be the foundation on which we will build clear plans and set priorities. More than 80 communities and groups discussed and gave feedback[strategy 1][strategy 2][strategy 3]. We researched readers and consulted more than 150 experts[strategy 4]. We looked at future trends that will affect our mission, and gathered feedback from partners and donors.

A group of community volunteers and representatives from the strategy team synthesized this feedback into an early version of the strategic direction that the broader movement can review and discuss.

The second version of the direction is ready. Again, please read, share, and discuss on the talk page on Meta. Based on your feedback, the drafting group will refine and finalize the direction.

  1. Cycle 1 synthesis report
  2. Cycle 2 synthesis report
  3. Cycle 3 synthesis report
  4. New Voices synthesis report

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@SGrabarczuk (WMF): How many notices regarding the "Wikimedia movement strategy" we got yet? Honestly, i still don't get what it is about. Tons of really hard to read text. Maybe the Foundation wants to assist the community with real problems instead of creating such survey like stuff. Thanks. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: There's the FAQ. There are answers even to the simplest questions. Basically, the "Wikimedia movement strategy" is about long-term planning that's applicable to the Foundation, and to existing and future affiliates. Important high-level decisions relevant to real problems depend on the strategy. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The project pages are a maze, i can't image how a non-meta user can find a way to participate there. I don't get why this is needed at all (yes, ... maybe it is answered somewhere in the maze of pages), just leva the onwiki stuff to the community (let build them wikipedia, commons, etc.) and assist them with building useful tools, providing help, etc. :) I am sill concerned about the possible outcome of this "strategy" stuff. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: I understand, there's a lot of pages indeed. What I can do is to pass along the suggestion of making the FAQ more visible. It won't resolve a major problem, but it might be useful. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @SGrabarczuk (WMF): I cannot talk in Steinsplitter’s name (nor Fæ’s nor any of other persistent critics’), but I have a feeling that what causes the hostility I deeply feel myself, too, is not how well located is the FAQ in this specific set of pages: It all boils down to the fact that, in my opinion, the WMF has no business whatsoever defining long term strategies, nor outlining outreach campaigns, nor championing software and UI paradigm shifts, nor hiring a legion of suits to smile in tech conventions. The WMF should make sure that servers work well enough for the projects to run smoothly, and the community in general should crowdsource its own strategy. That’s how we created a handful of very good encyclopedias and dictionaries and an above average media repository (among other so far less successful (sub)projects): It should be quite enough to answer the question «Where do you see yourself in 2030?». -- Tuválkin 19:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
OMG, the vague management/marketing language is getting worser by the stage. Though the New Voices synthesis report is usefull as an example of how not to use sources. Natuur12 (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the worrying marketing flim flam, along with patronising observations (young people are the newest demographic, duh!), though I doubt the WMF are able to understand why that's a problem as the perspective of the unpaid volunteer gets lost somewhere in the two million dollar process. I started to list examples as I quickly read through Cycle 3 and New Voices, but it's just overwhelming. I did note that "Creative Commons" is mentioned more than Wikimedia Commons, even though it's not a Wikimedia organization, and in the Cycle 3 summary, Commons is mentioned after YouTube as the place to host video - not a surprise if the WMF is never going to properly invest in improving Commons' ability to host video. As a vision for 2030, I don't see Wikimedia Commons being relevant or existing by then, according to this pile of strategy input documents (I presume none of this is yet actual "strategy", it does not even look like the foundation to a strategy yet). So I guess that the vision is that between now and 2030, volunteers interested in this project's mission will move on to spend their time in other ways. -- (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

you are not the target audience. this is the sort of marketing material customary to get large donor grants. amateurs love brainstorming. professionals love action plans, with resource loading. you are giving them something more precious than money, but you do not need to be marketed to. if something is not mentioned, that is an implicit status quo strategy. i agree about the video, but at wikimania they said it was too hard. at least they listened a little. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 18:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

{{Interwiki from Wikidata}} included in {{VN}}

Recently BotMultichill ran to add {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} to many categories.
You should know that {{VN}} does the same thing as {{Interwiki from Wikidata}}.
But {{VN}} does much more: retrieving and displaying vernacular names from the 2 attached wikidata items + checking the presence/validity of multiple properties on the 2 attached wikidata items.
The problem is that {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} (and its equivalent in {{VN}} ;-)) are quite expensive.
Could you help me remove {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} from pages having a {{VN}} ?
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Search links: category: hastemplate:vn hastemplate:"interwiki from wikidata" and : hastemplate:vn hastemplate:"interwiki from wikidata" (gallery pages). Note that this also finds galleries and categories with template {{On Wikidata}} which itself uses {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} and perhaps more of this kind transclusions. — Speravir – 16:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Combined search: hastemplate:vn hastemplate:"interwiki from wikidata". Liné1, judging from this huge amount I would say it’s something for a bot. mm Multichill, what do you think? — Speravir – 14:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I can remove {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} from category pages that have {{VN}}. There are about 12k such categories. --Jarekt (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
That would be wonderfull Jarekt. Thanks in advance. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Liné1, I think I am ✓ Done. --Jarekt (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Aircraft model in this photo


The file name of this upload claim it is a DC-8-54F, the description say DC-8-53F, and then searching the reg on google shows results that claim it is a DC-8-53 and -54 and -55F. Exactly which model is this aircraft?C933103 (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Chesipiero:: the apparent contradiction was in your original naming & description, what did you intend? - Jmabel ! talk 22:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Colour profile problem

TIFF - Manning the Navy, oil painting, c.1860
JPEG version, much smaller but correct colour

I presumed this photograph was a deliberate negative, but checking the source, it displays there as a normal photograph. This could be a weird TIFF profile issue, or a one-off glitch as I've not noticed this as a pattern with related uploads. Anyone have suggestions or would care to fix it? Thanks -- (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see anything that stood out to me that was causing a problem, but I don't work with tiff files all that often, so someone more versed in the file format may be better help. But I went ahead and did some vile things to that image to get it looking somewhat decent until a alternative solution comes along. Offnfopt(talk) 10:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I have updated the previously existing jpeg version. It's a significantly smaller image but the correct colours to compare with, as it should be a resized version of the same digital photograph. I have had a poke around with GIMP, and whatever is going on is beyond me. It's obviously not a simple negative transform in the colours, yet whatever happened should be reproducable using normal image tools.
A re-download of the TIFF from source gave me the same result, so it's not a glitch in that process. -- (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@: What is the TIFF source? Can your process produce a jpeg version the same size?   — Jeff G. ツ 12:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
It's as linked on the image page. I'll consider re-jigging to save to jpeg later this weekend, I'd be surprised if it made any difference as I suspect the JPEG2000 file that the archive have created behind the scenes has bad colours (it's not what you look at on their web page). If Commons had JPEG2000 capabilities, which has been requested for years now, things would be easier. Maybe we should set it as a WMF target for the 2030 strategy. -- (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Damn, there's another example of 'inverted' colours just uploaded at File:Greenwich Pensioner RMG PU2210.tiff. The true colour, but smaller version is here. I'm thinking that if we remain unsure about how to fix these, it may be better to delete them rather than mislead on the correct colour representation of the artwork and just get on with the smaller versions. -- (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything complicated in the TIFF files: they are simple RGB images without any colour profile. --ghouston (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
you may want to post the images @ the Photography workshop, someone more experienced than me should be able to do a better job at color matching to your smaller images. - Offnfopt(talk) 14:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. The good news is that there are still only 3 images affected, they can be tracked with I have now tried saving in JPEG and PNG formats at point when a format is first chosen, with no difference. Based on something else I read about, I also tried converting to 'RGB', though as expected these appear to be RGB at source anyway, the outcome being no difference again. The conclusion has to be that the way the high resolution source files are created has gone wrong, rather than being something that could be corrected in the way the upload to Commons works. For the moment, I'll park the problem, as something to play around with once the uploads are complete. -- (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

September 15

The Difference

Hello.What is the difference between the files here and the new files here?Thanks ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The former appears to be a deleted page. I have no idea what these are about. - Jmabel ! talk 22:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
The Text is under the log.Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Batch uploading

Hi, This needs some work. At least we should archive requests which are not relevant any more (done, outdated, etc.). Regards, Yann (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

An odd problem with my old vertical/portrait photos taken with Canon A650 IS

For example File:Cerkiew św. Michała Archanioła w Wólce Wygonowskiej 1.JPG or File:Cerkiew św. Michała Archanioła w Wólce Wygonowskiej 4.JPG. These files were displayed correctly for years, until I purged them an hour ago. Before uploading they was processed by Geosetter in order to add coordinates, the second one was also cropped using GIMP. The strange thing is that IrfanView, GIMP, MS Paint, Windows Picture and Fax Viewer and Canon ZoomBrowser display them as expected. Have you ever seen something like this? I suspect that Exif data is slightly malformed what confuses MediaWiki. --jdx Re: 19:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  • With this tool [11] the two images linked above has MakerNotes "Auto Rotate : Rotate 90 CW", but I can not say if it is relative or not. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
And also both has metadatas XMP "Orientation : Rotate 90 CW" Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Same issue with File:Cerkiew św. Michała Archanioła w Wólce Wygonowskiej 5.JPG full resolution is well displayed while the preview is rotated (also same MakerNotes and XMP as above) Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. It seems that thumbnail generation is broken again – a few weeks ago there was a problem with generation of thumbnails from some SVG files. And like I said, these file were displayed correctly for years. Unfortunately, after purge they aren't, including Wikipedias, e.g. en:Krasna Wieś. Anyway, there is more such files – just look at my several last uploads. Does someone remember Phabricator's ticket number for the SVG issue mentioned above? --jdx Re: 21:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
On all the external tools I tried from the full resolution URL, all the images are well displayed, another exemple [12], therefore it comes on how the preview is displayed here. I also discovered that only the full resolution is not affected, the other proposed resolutions are rotated, exemple 706 × 768 pixels 221 × 240 pixels Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Rotated Well displayed Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
See phab:T172556 or phab:T173804. Matma Rex told (in the former task) he couldn’t observe this on his local system, but I noticed the same issue on file renaming. — Speravir – 22:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2017/08#Odd stretched thumbnails, Commons:Help desk/Archive/2017/08#JPEG thumbnail broken, Commons:Help desk/Archive/2017/08#How to fix this photo, (in German) Commons:Forum/Archiv/2017/August#Mal was kniffeliges
In addition: Other users mentioned that they could fix the files with Croptool’s rotation feature (simply select the whole image). — Speravir – 22:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
It seems that {{rotate|270}} also works: Special:Diff/258898350. Although for some files, e.g. File:Kościół św. Józefa i Antoniego w Boćkach5.JPG, I used {{rotate|0}} just after uploading because, AFAIR, at that time there was an issue with displaying of portrait photos and everything was fine until today's purge, as you can see in the file history. Strangely, as opposed to e.g. File:Cerkiew św. Michała Archanioła w Wólce Wygonowskiej 1.JPG, thumbnail for the original version is OK. Either way, thumbnail generation in MediaWiki is fu…, ekhm, broken up. --jdx Re: 00:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@U: I rotated File:Cerkiew św. Michała Archanioła w Wólce Wygonowskiej 1.JPG and File:Cerkiew św. Michała Archanioła w Wólce Wygonowskiej 5.JPG for you, but that is only masking the problem.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw them, thanks. BTW. Please look at File:Kaplica św. Wincentego à Paulo w Bielsku Podlaskim 2.JPG. Both thumbnails look fine. And now purge the file… --jdx Re: 01:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jdx: I agree both thumbnails look fine, did you want me to purge it? If not, please explain further.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Yes, try it. I've got a few other examples. Face-smile.svg --jdx Re: 01:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jdx: Done, now the current thumbnail looks rotated and squished horizontally. Do you want to try using CropTool on it?   — Jeff G. ツ 01:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

September 18

Site for creating anatomical models

I thought I'd mention this site here as it may be useful.

Is a site that allows the generation of 3D models of (human) anatomical models in some level of detail.

The model export would seem to be CC-BY-SA, which is compatible with the licensing approach used on Commons.

There would I think still be a need to render these models using something like Blender, but felt it might be a useful tool for those with the relevant skills. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Except that the site is half in Japanese (hence the "jp" designation in the url), making it super hard for non-Japanese speakers to work with it. We could definitely use better access to sites that allow 3D rendering of human anatomy releasable under a suitable free license, however. KDS4444 (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-38

15:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


Since when are mosaics 2D artworks? Commons:Deletion requests/Murals in Wales refers. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Haven't they always been 2D if the physical mosaic is flat and the photograph is intended to be a faithful reproduction of the mosaic rather than a macro shot? It feels a bit like arguing that oil painting are not flat. -- (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, : Is there case law on the FOP for faithful reproductions of flat mosaics in public places in the UK? The distinction may also be between graphic works and works of artistic craftsmanship.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking more of ancient works, however the logic applies that a mosaic is literally not a graphic work as defined by the UK copyright act (the list is specific ... painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, ... engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work), and so for mosaics the provisions for craftsmanship apply, arrangements of single-colour tiles being craftsmanship, and they are covered by freedom of panorama. -- (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
DR then? Or can a passing admin simply restore them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Create an UNDEL for the record. The case needs to be spelled out that mosaics are not murals. In the DR linked, for example, the deletion of this file was correct as it is a mural rather than a mosaic. -- (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
The mosaic images have been undeleted, Unfortunately, this does not restore them to the various Wikipedia/ Wikidata (an possibly other sister project) pages that were using them - and of which there is apparently no record. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Sure there is, in the strange and wonderful world of Commons Delinquent.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Please provide a specific URL or query relating to these deletions, then. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: seems to fit the bill.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I was asking in the context of Commons Delinquent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I haven't seen one, sorry. On a positive note, only twelve photos in that DR were restored, so relinking them shouldn't be too difficult for you.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Magnus Manske: It would be great if Commons Delinquent could undo its own removals.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
At the top of Commons Delinquent, it says, "It finds files that were deleted on Commons, and removed their entries on other wikis to avoid ugly media redlinks." This doesn't parse. I'm guessing it means to say "removes" rather than "removed", but maybe the error is something else (e.g. a missing noun before "removed") and the sentence means something different than I am guessing. - Jmabel ! talk 17:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Magnus Manske, Jmabel: I think "removes" is correct.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Magnus Manske: Maybe a new tool, call it CommonsRelinker, could do it?   — Jeff G. ツ 02:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Pigsonthewing and I have between us undone all of Commons Delinquent's removals. I've also added {{FoP-UK}} templates to the files in the hope of preserving them. --bjh21 (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, Bjh21: Thank you!   — Jeff G. ツ 00:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Bjh21: that template says "This does not apply to two-dimensional graphic works such as posters or murals", and these are images of "mosaic murals", so the issue may still arise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I agree. It's clear that "mural" in general usage covers both paintings (no FoP) and mosaics (probably FoP), so it's not a good word to use. Similarly, I'd prefer not to have the phrase "two-dimensional" there, since that's not a criterion in the Act. --bjh21 (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
This VP discussion is a general one and it's good to keep it that way. I suggest if we want refine the Commons understanding of UK FoP and graphic works that we talk about specific cases, probably by laying out the logic in a DR and then using that to add to the case book. It would be nice to take care not to do more than the law requires and has been established by existing legal judgements. -- (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

September 16

File renaming tool

After I rename a file, the template {{Rename}} is not removed automatically, instead it remains and shows that I requested rename (I think it substitutes the name of the last editor). See File:Resurrection Cathedral in Sumy, Ukraine.jpg as an example. So I have to remove this template manually, which is unconvenient. Somebody, please, fix it. --TohaomgTohaomg (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

On one hand you’re not alone: It happened with this file, too, cf. Special:Diff/258707212/258708540, so CAPTAIN RAJU has the same issue. I did notice this only accidentally after I declined renaming (well, it had already been renamed).
On the other hand for me all worked fine yesterday – in all renamings I did the template was removed by the script. So it seems that for you both the script in background is not loaded.
— Speravir – 00:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
It also works right today. — Speravir – 03:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
For me it still don't work. --TohaomgTohaomg (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Then the renaming script does not load for you, at least not in a proper state. Do you see in the renaming box a line with green background and “Move file and replace all usage” on the left and “Decline request” on the right (or equivalents in the language you use)? If not reload the description page. BTW I found another user with the same issue, so you are at least three people: Richardkiwi, Special:Diff/259024740/259026847. — Speravir – 23:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I had to move this one manually, because the filename ended with jpg“ i.s.o jpg. Didn't see that {{rename}} was not removed. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah, now that you say I remember seeing this. — Speravir – 01:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

What to include in the categories under Category:Ships with the same name

On the main category's talk page I have started a discussion on what to include in these categories, because there are at least two different practices going on right now. Blue Elf (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


I'm new to wiki commons. I want to paint a photo that needs attribution. Is this notated with the painting, or do I need to do something else? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It would help to know which photo, or at least which license. If attribution is required by the license, you could provide it with the provenance documents and on the plaque.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

September 20

Test sites for Commons?

Hi, I come across some technical issue and would like to test image uploading on a Wikimedia-Commons-alike-site (something like Wikipedia Test Site). Do you know where I can perform such experiments? Thanks.

It's about badtoken error while trying to upload using the locally cached edit token. This works well on any WP sites, but now I suspect it won't work on Wikimedia Commons. I'm just attempting to reproduce the error.

--CXuesong (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

CXuesong I think may be what you're looking for. - Offnfopt(talk) 10:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Offnfopt! That's exactly what I'm looking for.

--CXuesong (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 18:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Better as an svg

What is the template we add that is for graphic files that would look better as an *.svg? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): {{Convert to SVG}} or one of its seven redirects.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 18:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Internal documents from an institution

Are internal documents from institutions not allowed on Wikimedia Commons (jpg or pdf)? Internal documents are what archives are made of. Normally we have on Wikimedia Commons old documents because they are in public domain; if documents from institutions are released under the cc by-sa license can we upload them in the same way we would upload old documents? Can we consider these documents relevant if they document an institutions (key documents) or if we are using them to support our projects (i.e. reports from the Wikimedia Foundation)? thanks, --iopensa (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Assuming the documents are not public domain, I think the museum would need to file an OTRS note saying they allow release of the documents on Commons. - Kosboot (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • They are allowed if they are credibly of use to other projects, COM:Scope explains it quite nicely. If they were, say, 500 one-page records about museum artefacts, it may be better to bundle them as a single PDF which could be used as a reference.
If the internal documents are more than "raw text", like hand-written letters, certificates or documents with diagrams, then they are more likely to remain non-controversial. -- (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually we're talking about recent documents produced by the employees of the museum, with practically no educational value (see Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09/Category:Monitoring Ecomuseo delle Grigne 2011 for context). OTRS is not the main issue here, as the source is under CC by-sa, and the museum is willing of giving the authorisation to publish in any case. As said, it's a matter of deciding if some regular contemporary working file is in scope or not. --Ruthven (msg) 16:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Some museum documents, like the curators' records on individual objects that most museums keep, are potentially very useful, and some museums like the JP Morgan Library have theirs on their website. Otherwise, museums like other organizations produce mountains of paper on internal matters that are not of much interest, except in some cases to those with doctorates to write (who generally prefer to wait some decades). Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Iopensa:, I think you have an answer, of sorts. Wikimedia Commons is never a good way of creating a document archive, if you are looking to do that, then think about creating a reasonably well indexed/curated website, then copy the website to to However, if collections of documents are going to be of active value for images or articles, then our project scope allows for them to be copied here as a long term resource. Should an institution want to release 10,000+ or millions of records, like an entire museum catalogue with photographs or diagrams, then it's worth creating a proposal on Commons, perhaps using COM:BATCH, and encouraging engagement with a notice on this Village Pump.

At the end of the day, none of the Wikimedia projects nor the Wikimedia Foundation has worked out how to accommodate structured working databases and have failed to establish a plan for guaranteeing availability for the coming decade, let alone the next 100 years (despite plenty of chatter about it). Anyone worried about this, should take a close look at's strategy and mission. Thanks -- (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

HotCat case sensitivity

Hi, for me HotCat has changed, it now seems to be case sensitive and does not ignore case when doing autocompleted proposals. There also seems to be a performance issue, sometimes HotCat is slow in proposing (especially when the cat tree is wide and deep). I faintly remember that this was the case about 1 or 2 years ago, when case sensitivity already broke user expectations. Can someone fix this, please? regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that you should use MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-HotCat.js for bug reports or feature requests. Ruslik (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
This was an issue with both Hotcat and Catalot, so it seems like it was a more general problem, but it seems to have been fixed now. kennethaw88talk 20:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
works again, thanks. edit notice on MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-HotCat.js advised me to better try it here as the more crowded place. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

An error when entering a category on Commons

Did you see this message today? A better description of the problem is on Phabricator. --jdx Re: 16:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I’m glad and relieved to report I never saw this one! -- Tuválkin 20:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Rouge Park and Category:Rouge National Urban Park

Hello everyone. I'd like to share something I found the other day, which were these categories. Rouge Park and Rouge National Urban Park are the same park. Rouge Park was the former name of the park, before becoming the Rouge National Urban Park. Obviously we can't have two separate categories on these, so I was wondering what should happen to them: Should they be merged? Should one be turned into a redirect? Which one should be kept as the main category? Thank you, Zhangj1079 (Bonjour!) 21:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

September 23

Diasporas & culture

How would you categorize an image of traditional Mexican folk dancing in the United States, performed by people all of whom are U.S. residents and most (but probably not all) of whom are Mexican Americans? I have no idea of the distinctions among Category:Traditional dances of Mexico, Category:Folk dances of Mexico, and Category:Indigenous dances of Mexico, and in any case they are all under Category:Dance of Mexico which seems to have geographic implication as much as cultural, since it includes Category:Ballet in Mexico. - Jmabel ! talk 22:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Three days, no comments. If no one else has any thoughts on this I'll try to start making some "culture in diaspora" categories, but I suspect that this has already been at least partially addressed somewhere. - 01:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

September 21

Picture of the Year

I've no idea who organises the Picture of the Year competition, but I wanted to suggest a 'Photographer of the Year' Competition to run alongside POTY. How would I submit that for debate please? Many thanks. Charles (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Just in case this isn't already enough of a popularity contest? - Jmabel ! talk 14:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately I don't get your snide comment. I was told to post here for serious views. Charles (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, let me be less snide and clearer. I would be opposed to such a contest. I strongly oppose setting up a situation where we have do decide that one contributor is "better" or "more valuable" than another, especially because (as I said snidely, but will say here more directly) it is likely to turn into a contest for who is best liked or has the most friends, rather than who does the best work. - Jmabel ! talk 01:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    +1, already enough vanity fairs here, please not yet another one. --A.Savin 17:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Geographical auto-categorization?

Is there any auto-categorization by geography currently active -- eg by bots or input systems? I'm thinking of images coming in eg from Geograph, or from Wiki Loves Monuments, and perhaps being put into a category for an English civil parish (if eg there was specific category for the monument).

I asked at c:Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09/Category:Minster, Thanet, because I've been doing some work on Wikidata on civil parishes, but I am wary about making mergers or re-namings here, in case there are any processes relying on existing names and structures.

So I was wondering, how are incoming WLM or Geograph images placed into appropriate (eg civil-parish level) categories at the moment? Is there a matching based on name? Or to a Wikidata item, then going up the administrative levels until there's one with a Commons category (if the momument itself doesn't have a category)? Or is the WLM's parish held in an offsite database, with a note of the Commons category?

At the CfD, User:Multichill told me not to worry, just to go ahead and merge (in that case, a category for a civil parish and a category for a similarly-named settlement within it). But I thought I should just ask here first to make absolutely sure. Jheald (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak for WLM, but I think Geograph auto-categorization was a one-off thing during and immediately after the batch upload. Earlier images were categorized by User:GeographBot a the time of upload. Later ones were retrospectively categorised by User:Faebot (details in User:Faebot/Geograph) and probably others. I don't think any work has been done in this area since 2012, so more recent uploads from Geograph have been manually categorized by their uploaders. --bjh21 (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
The remaining Geograph ones were done in May 2017‎ by NilfaBot, apart from those that are near parish boundaries which were left for manual categorisation. Keith D (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jheald: AFAIK there is no fully automated solution in hand. The experiences around the Geograph batch upload says to create such a thing would be a bad idea, especially if the information added is based on an algorithm using nearest-to-point instead of boundary lines.
The recent run by my bot was based off a database dump, which was then referenced against the boundaries held by Ordnance Survey. I did not touch those close to a boundary to avoid categorisation mistakes stemming from poor geocoding or the camera being on opposite side of boundary to subject. Unfortunately, IMO only a true manual check can resolve those issues.
My bot run was only for those marked as uncategorised-Geograph, but I could apply the same technique to all geocoded files.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. What I really wanted was to make sure I would not be breaking anyone was doing, if I merged or renamed any of these categories.
@Nilfanion: I presume you had to keep a mapping between ONS or OS names for civil parishes and the categories here? (Because they're not always exactly the same). That is what I was concerned about breaking, if I changed a name here. Or would it be something you would need to check/update/regenerate anyway?
For myself, I hope I'm now getting close to the data on Wikidata being nearly good enough to generate such a mapping just from a query there. Currently I think there are about 50 ONS/GSS codes for civil parishes still to map to Wikidata items, about 275 Wikidata items with GSS codes still to map to Commons categories, and about 80 ONS/GSS codes claimed by more than one item. It's not done yet, but the end is almost in sight!
One question that comes up with the latter (ie more than one item currently with the same code) is when to have separate split Wikidata items for a civil parish and a village or town or the same name, versus when to merge them into the same item -- and so how to proceed in clearing up the current duplication. (Corresponding on Commons to the issue of whether to have two categories or one, as per the CfD linked, or eg Category:Dorchester,_Oxfordshire vs Category:Dorchester-on-Thames). For the most part my instinct is there are two items on Wikidata there need to be two categories here, to making incoming links possible from the Wikipedias. But if there aren't two categories here, I'm not going to create them; and I'm also going to be wary if there are two categories here, but it seems hard to maintain the distinction between them. In such cases IMO it probably makes sense to merge the two items on Wikidata and only have one. (In such cases it is often only sv-wiki that has two (bot-created) articles, one of which could be classed on Wikidata as a "duplicate item").
I hope that seems reasonable, and a reasonable way to maintain sitelinking and external linking. So hence my interest in category splits here that strike me as perhaps not sustainable; but on the other hand, my caution to want consult with other people here, and to be very sure that any merging or renaming doesn't break anything that is either currently running or that anyone may be running again in the near future. Jheald (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I had to do a look-up between the two: The biggest complications in the Commons categories are the addition of disambiguation (ie adding county, district, whatever), and the occasional changes to Commons titles. In the case of any splits, the GSS code for the parish should be matched to the category for the parish.
IMO there are benefits to splitting on Commons, but in general there is little real value to that activity. For example, a case could be made to split Category:Georgeham (the parish contains the villages of Georgeham and Croyde, plus some rural areas) but I'm not inclined to spend the time doing so. When a split happens, the ONS built-up areas might be an option. Georgeham CP is E04003091, while Georgeham BUA is E34003018 and Croyde BUA is E34002380.
In some cases (eg Category:Whitchurch, Devon, where the village is not in the civil parish at all) there is a definite need for a split. When a split is done, the important thing is to maintain a proper distinction between the two titles. Mere variations on the name (Minster or Minster in Thanet) don't do that.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

"Revert" function in Navigation popups does not fully work

When reverting a page to a revision, a message box with default summary and "OK"/"Cancel" buttons should appear. But for me it doesn't appear since about two days? Do you have similar effect? --jdx Re: 13:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

September 25

Rename request

File:Lambert Jacobsz - Rust on the flight into Egypt - 1624.jpg should of course be Rest not Rust.

Rich Farmbrough, 21:54 23 September 2017 (GMT).
Looks like ’s dealt with it. --bjh21 (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
& in the future, {{Rename}} is usually the most efficient way to ask for uncontroversial renaming. - Jmabel ! talk 01:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks I will make a note. Rich Farmbrough, 16:45 25 September 2017 (GMT).

September 24

Process for closing a deletion request

I'm bringing this here because User:Ruthven and I are having a disagreement that we are obviously not going to resolve ourselves. You can see our discussion at User talk:Ruthven#License provenance, closing discussions; in case that gets archived, its current state is [16].

This stemmed from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ricardo Latcham.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grete Mostny Glaser.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Enrique Ernesto Gigoux 3.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Humberto Fuenzalida.jpg. My reasoning is the same on all of these (inadequate demonstration of claimed rights); hers appears to be as well (she considers the licenses from Museo Nacional de Historia Natural de Chile to cover the matter). I say there is little (if any) evidence that the museum had the rights it claims to be licensing: these photographs appeared in articles in a magazine published by the museum; in all cases they appear to be archival photos by someone other than the author of the articles; I see no reason to believe that the musuem owns the copyrights in question.

But my issue is not mainly about these photos; although I think the Precautionary principle means we shouldn't host them on the basis of what we currently know, I suspect some of them are PD, and I seriously doubt that otherwise the owners of the rights would have a problem with our hosting them, even if we are violating our own rule by doing so. My issue is with the process by which these DRs were closed. In every case, Ruthven chose "keep" on the basis of an entirely new argument (the licenses from Museo Nacional de Historia Natural de Chile) that had not been raised in the DR discussion. In general, by custom DRs shouldn't be closed by a participant in a contentious discussion. In this case, I feel Ruthven went a step beyond that: as I see it, she introduced an entirely new argument and then closed the discussion on the basis of accepting her own argument without giving any chance for response.

What I think she should have done is to state her disagreement, leave a chance to respond, and leave it to a third party to make the decision and close the DR.

I'm not going to try to summarize how this process looks from Ruthven's point of view, because I don't understand how she thinks what she did is correct, and @Ruthven: I leave it to her to explain how this looks from her point of view - Jmabel ! talk 16:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

From his point of view, Ruthven considers it a regular closing with "no valid reason for deletion", as the source clearly indicates CC BY SA license for its contents. After more than two weeks, a DR is ripe for closing, and it is what happened. Several DR are made on wrong basis or light evaluation, and I feel that we are facing one of those cases. Of course, considering only the opening remarks is never done as @Jmabel: suggest, otherwise we should delete all the DR that are not discussed (which is not the case, clearly). --Ruthven (msg) 16:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In the margin but somewhat related, it often happens that the licenses provided by the museums seem to us to lack proof of the rights they have for the reproduction of works not yet in the public domain, this nomination still open, and reopened by me, is another example. It is always a potential matter of disagreement, about believing or not believing that museums has rights or not. This pushed me to create this category in which I added the DRs listed above. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • That's said, if the source provided is indeed free for use, I'm not able to see the images at the source. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
A more heinous example
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think this is a recurring issue, where museums claim to hold copyright of items they only physically possess. Sometimes the items are public domain, and sometimes they aren't. Some of the purported licenses are free, and some are not. There are other considerations too, such as PD-scan/PD-art. It may be that Ruthven's close was the wrong decision. But I don't see a basis in Commons policy for a complaint against Ruthven. There is a culture of authoritarian bureaucracy at English Wikipedia, and it's not something I want to see imported to Commons. Let's stay on topic and worry about the files, not admins who are trying to help. Guanaco (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I think in these cases the closure was both procedurally and factually correct. Given the number of DRs to be processed, I think it's important not to overburden them with bureaucracy. Much better to keep them light-weight and rely on being able to correct the inevitable mistakes. If you really think a DR has been wrongly closed "keep", you can always renominate it for deletion. On the other hand, I think that would be a mistake in these cases: they're apparently photos of directors of the museum published in the museum's journal, so it's perfectly plausible that the museum owns the copyrights (insofar as there are any) and it entitled to license them as it purports to have done. --bjh21 (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • it's all good. just renominate them every year, until you get the outcome you want. if you want to question proceedure, then you need to quote the procedure that you think was not followed. questioning the legitimacy of a close that goes against you, tends to undermine the credibility of your closes. a wrongful close is not a corrupt practice, unlike blocking an editor while deleting their files, or admin locking a talk page so admins can agree which files to delete. the ideology "i doubt it, therefore delete it" is pernicious: it elevates your judgement over the consensus judgement. it is rule by ego and not rule by principle. we need a standard of practice, other than randomly reviewing all other work and doubting it. what next - take Ruthven to ANI because you disagree with the closes, and "leave it to her to explain how this looks from her point of view". Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    • WTF? I left it to the party with whom I was in dispute to state their own side because I didn't understand it well enough to paraphrase it. Should I have just ignorantly stated what I thought was someone else's rationale? And, again, my issue here is ammost entirely procedural. I still don't understand how, on the one hand, an administrator who has expressed a view on a DR is discouraged from being the one to close it, but it's OK for an administrator to come in with a previously unstated view and then instantly close on that basis without giving any time for a response. Was that not clear above? I have no stake in these particular photos. I ran across them in the course of some other work and doubted that they were correctly licensed. And frankly, Slowking4, your attacking tone here is out of line. - Jmabel ! talk 19:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Whether or not it's inconsistent, it seems to be common practice. I just looked through Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2017/08/16 (chosen arbitrarily) and the majority of the "Keep" closures were on requests with no views expressed after the initial nomination. There are plenty of other places where Commons' policies and procedures are weirdly inconsistent, so being inconsistent is itself a kind of consistency here. --bjh21 (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Symbol wtf vote.svg WTF? it should come as no surprise to you that your FUD behavior would be objected to. doubtless if you had a policy objection to a close, you could quote the policy; you have not; therefore you do not. you are by no means the worst offender of this ilk here. i am sick and tired of the "right to comfort" and the "right to certainty." it is not a standard of practice, or policy; management by drama is not a standard of practice. the deletionists who behave this way here are doing real harm to this project. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 18:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
        • If you don't think I was acting in good faith, please file a formal complaint about my behavior at COM:AN/U or some such. If you admit I was acting in good faith, please stop attacking me for this. - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
          • no, you can in good faith destroy commons: the men who said "we are destroying the village in order to save it" were acting in "good faith". i am criticizing your behavior; i am not "attacking" you. it starts with placing your own judgement above the consensus of the group. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 19:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Solely commenting about the procedure, an admin can certainly bring in arguments that have not occurred on the thread to close a DR in one way or another. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Then is there any good reason Admins are discouraged from closing a DR on which they have commented? - Jmabel ! talk 15:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
      • When there are objective criteria (copyright, etc.), it doesn't matter who commented in DR. When the issue is more a value judgement (educational value, etc.), usually the majority opinion has to be taken into consideration. If there is a clear majority, it doesn't matter if the closing admin expressed an opinion in the DR itself, or not. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
        • @Yann: Thanks, that makes sense; is it spelled out anywhere? - Jmabel ! talk 21:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Glam project - Derivative works of Picasso works

Please someone very expert, better with an otrs flag, could express his own opinion on this Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico (Italia, 1958) - BEIC 6341427.jpg. --Pierpao.lo (listening) 09:10, 24 Septem

September 17

Mobile platform specific notices

Do we have a template that can change the displayed text depending on whether the viewer is using a mobile or not? I'm thinking of the recent map galleries which display poorly on mobiles, unless you refresh with the desktop version (at which point they seem to work okay). -- (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I doubt that such templates exist. Ruslik (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
"recent map galleries" can I haz link ? There are various enhancements that can be made on mobile with CSS, but showing alternative versions of content is probably not advisable at least. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 09:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Gallery:Ordnance Survey 1st series 1:2500, Map of City of London and its Environs
Despite the whitespace style of nowrap, on a mobile the image "tiles" still wrap, while the non-mobile pages correctly allow you to scroll around the composite image. It's a current issue as the OS maps are still being uploaded and gallery pages seem like a good way of helping users find the right map.
-- (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Damnation. Now I view the example via mobile on my mobile, it's displaying correctly. Sorry, I can't repeat the apparent bug, maybe the page I checked was not formatted in the same way. BTW, fully understand why platform specific templates are not advisable... -- (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
HTML authoring like this will always be a bit finnicky. It's simply not something that the wikicode is designed to handle in a stable form (it's not a gallery). But, I made some more changes to mark the area as something for which the mobile CSS should not resize or otherwise influence the images of. This is also used in Wikipedia for several handcrafted composited displays, like location map etc. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 09:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


i have a lot of monument pictures of my country pakistan, that are captured by me.

could you tell me how it can be benefited for me?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rizwan 8969124 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
We don't buy pictures. Upload them here and everybody will see the beauties of Pakistan. (Been there, seen that.) What better satisfaction than making the beauties of your country known to all, bro? Best. --E4024 (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps Rizwan was asking how he could donate the pictures? If you look on your talk page, you will see a "welcome" message that you can read in several different languages. Hopefully that will provide the information you are seeking. Also see the Commons:FAQ. - 20:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Rotation display bug

Some images appear as incorrectly rotated at their file pages, while their small thumbs in the category are displayed correctly. Examples:

All the 3 images are displayed as rotated +90°, as needing +270° rotation, although their small thumbs are displayed correctly.

Also a false warning that my browser doesn't support Unicode appears.

Maybe, some faulty version of Mediawiki was activated recently on Commons? --ŠJů (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

For these three files I cannot confirm this, purge you local cache. From your description this looks by the way like it was phab:T173804, declared as resolved. For the Unicode warning: This happended to others when using Hotcat, see MediaWiki talk:Gadget-HotCat.js#Unicode and phab:T67297. — Speravir – 23:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
@Speravir: Yes, the Unicode warning appears in relation to Hot-cat. As regards the rotation bug, the purge link was not successful. Btw., I tested the page in Opera, MS IE, Firefox and Chrome and the bug shows everywhere. --ŠJů (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
It seems to be the same problem as Special:PermanentLink/259357951#An odd problem with my old vertical/portrait photos taken with Canon A650 IS. Anyway, we have to wait until the fix is deployed. --jdx Re: 00:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I did a experiment with the File:Prague 1, Czech Republic - panoramio (280).jpg file. It had the Orientation attribute set to 6 (i.e. Rotate 90 CW). I stripped all EXIF tags (which includes the Orientation attribute) and opened the image in my browsers and image editors and the orientation of the image was still correct which leads me to believe that the Orientation attribute was being ignored in the previous system used by commons and only is just now being paid attention to after the recent changes. I changed the Orientation attribute to 1 (Normal) and uploaded the file and now the image appears correctly. The other two images also have the Orientation set to 6 (i.e. Rotate 90 CW), so this seems to be what the problem is. - Offnfopt(talk) 00:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
According to phab:T173804 it was paid too much attention. --jdx Re: 00:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

September 28

Need someone who knows Charleston, South Carolina

Category:City Market (Charleston, South Carolina): parent categories make no reference to The Confederate Museum, but I gather that is the current function of the Market Hall (which is not broken out into a separate category). Came across this while trying to clean up categories for File:Confederate Museum Charleston Historic District,SC (NRHP-72252).jpg, which had been a bit of a mess (referenced a nonexistent NRHP ID, etc.). I put that image in the abovementioned category, but also in Category:Museums in Charleston, South Carolina and Category:United Daughters of the Confederacy. I suspect that this and a good many other images of the market should also carry an intermediate category for the museum, possibly a separate category for the Market Hall/museum. But I'm not sure if the Market Hall and museum are exactly the same thing, or if one is a subset of the other, or what. Can someone who knows the place take on sorting this out? Thanks in advance. - Jmabel ! talk 03:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Main page misinformation

Armenia was not the first (sovereign) country to officially adopt Christianity, it was a Roman province at the time the first sovereign state to adopt Christianity was Ethiopia. --Yungahurp (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Yungahurp: Where is the statement you are concerned with? - Jmabel ! talk 15:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, what is your source for your claim?   — Jeff G. ツ 16:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Today’s PotD links in it's description to the article on enWP about en:Armenia, where the third sentence in the second paragraph reads like this: Armenia became the first state in the world to adopt Christianity as its official religion.[1] I don't have the book to look it up, but it is sourced. Your claim up to now is not. Sänger (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  1. (Garsoïan, Nina () ed. R.G. Hovannisian , ed. Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, en:Palgrave Macmillan, p. 81, Vol. 1 )

September 22

Two Simple Questions

Hello all,

Two questions; one I have come to understand it is frowned upon to delete anything from your own talk page for fear you may be hiding something. I assume this mainly refers to contact between wikipedians. My question is it acceptable practice to delete the VIC and QIC bot notifications? If anything its showing off which I have no intention to do, and two it frankly clutters the page. Now I understand one can include this in ones archiving of the talk page but aside from that issue, is it acceptable practice to just delete those bot notifications?

Second question, my elderly father though still mentally all there was a professional photographer for a long time and always been a lifetime photographer. He studied with Ansel Adams and so forth. If I wanted to show him my commons page would there be any IP conflict? I’m not asking a sockpuppet question, he would not be creating an account, I’m asking about an account that shows up at several different IP’s

Thank you very much everyone, I thoroughly enjoy my time here. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  1. In general, bot notifications can be removed. What is "bad form" is deleting admonishments, or indications that content you uploaded may have issues.
  2. "If I wanted to show him my commons page..." I'm not sure what you are saying here. You can show pretty much anyone pretty much anything with no problems at all, but perhaps you meant to say something else? - Jmabel ! talk 03:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I can see logging on from my fathers machine for various reasons. It's a good computer for post photo processing as well. If such practice is frowned upon it isn't a big deal, but maybe the question should be framed like; is there any issue with logging on at two different locations. Same account, but different IP address. I just don't want to inadvertently do something I shouldn't have. Thank you for your quick response, Sixflashphoto (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
ad #2: You can use your account on as many machines and different IP addresses, as you want. What is frowned upon, is using one user account for multiple people.--MB-one (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
For that matter, you have a different IP address every time you use a laptop on different wifi or other local network. I'm sure I regularly show up with IP addresses from both my home, my local coffeehouse, and occasionally a library, and when I'm traveling I might have a different one each day. - Jmabel ! talk 15:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I just wanted to make sure I knew exactialy what the rules were so that I didn't break any. Thank you everyone.Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ceramics of Gare de Tours


I have uploaded some new pics in the new Category:Gare de Tours (ceramics). They are restored 1898 ceramics. From this source there seem to be two artists shops creating the works (except for two recent ones). However I cant match the signature 'Hain Mothes'? with either work shop. I want to match the pictures with the correct artist and have the correct licences. I think some photografs could be improved with level adjustments.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Try "Alain Mothes". Below his signature are the remains of a date I think, but that's beyond any legibility. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of this it seems that Alain Mothes was later works of '92'. This matches the date 1992 from the other source. Confusingly this source talks of 1892. In Google books over 19century paintings he is mentioned in the references.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Igor Stravinsky, New York City (1946)

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#Igor Stravinsky, New York City (1946) Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

September 29

Upload Wizard now allows overwriting a file with the same file name (urgent fix needed)

I've noticed this new bug today. When uploading a file using a file name that already exists, there's no longer a warning issued about it. The upload is allowed, and the new file overwrites the existing file with the same file name. This must be corrected ASAP. --My-wiki-photos (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me explain a bit. This kind of a bug had not appeared before. In example, I was uploading a file with the file name Sarajevo_Tram-268_Line-1_2013-11-15.jpg. When uploaded, the underscores were converted to spaces, and the file name of the uploaded file actually became Sarajevo Tram-268 Line-1 2013-11-15.jpg. Then, I was uploading another file, but used the same file name with underscores Sarajevo_Tram-268_Line-1_2013-11-15.jpg. This time, it was not recognized as a duplicate file name, so the upload resumed, and the second upload overwrote the first one with the file name Sarajevo Tram-268 Line-1 2013-11-15.jpg. Hope, this explanation will help you figure out what the problem is. The underscore characters should be converted to spaces before checking for duplicate file name. --My-wiki-photos (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible that someone was doing some changes? I tried to duplicate the problem, but I couldn't. The bug seems to be gone now! --My-wiki-photos (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

September 30

Special pages dont get updated

Hi, a lot of (if not even all) special pages dont get updated since a month now. Before they got updated abut once or twice a week. Some examples: Special:BrokenRedirects, Special:DoubleRedirects, Special:UncategorizedCategories or Special:ListDuplicatedFiles. I guess there is something wrong on the server site. Does anybody know how and where to trigger a bug rebort or a ticket for that? Thx --JuTa 11:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

See mw:How to report a bug --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Thx. I now opened, I hope correctly. --JuTa 19:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
They still dont get updated.--Joostik (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
The last activity in the phabicator task in now about a week ago and I cannot find any button to add a comment or similar. Is anybody else able to "force" it a little bit? Thx. --JuTa 19:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
That's weird, I cannot edit the bug either (I think the bug may be "protected" somehow(?)). In any case I had another chance to look at it (This appears to be one of those bugs falling through the cracks where there's no team at WMF taking responsibility for it). It appears what happened is, there's a spike of recentchange entries related to wikidata (Also causing the watchlist issue above). This caused the "Number of active users" field on Special:statistics to take a long time to calculate, which caused the mysql connection to time out, which was not handled gracefully because usually that calculation is relatively fast. Bawolff (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Update: This will probably be fixed on oct 5 (based on when deployments happen and normal update schedule). Bawolff (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bawolff: Thx a lot. --JuTa 08:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Taken with

Can anyone make a script that lists all the photos missing the category Category:Taken with? How can I make a list with all the images on Wikimedia Commons? Then I can download their html pages and check if they are missing this category. Fructibus (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is desired to have all photos with EXIF data in "taken with"-categories. I at least don't want to habe thousands of changes on my watchlist. --Magnus (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Then what is the desired use for those categories? And how can you watch a category in a way that you get notices whenever someone adds new photos in that category? Fructibus (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I, for one, would gladly lose these categories for everything that wasn't taken with something genuinely exotic. - Jmabel ! talk 15:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Why? --- [Tycho] talk 17:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Because I find them useless. Who really cares whether the precisely what body was the DSLR a picture was taken with? Who's going to be looking for images on that basis? - Jmabel ! talk 21:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Someone will. All files are likely to be categorized according to criteria which interest no-one but very few, and that’s why we, as volonteers, tend to add files to categories that interest us most and ignore the rest, leaving it to the next guy. That’s how crowd curation works, and it works.
There’s however a big difference between saying «I’ll ignore that category [tree] because I have no use for it.» and «I’ll delete that category [tree] because I have no use for it.» The former is is part and parcel of crowd curation, the latter is vandalism.
-- Tuválkin 22:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement Strategy phase 2, and a goodbye


As phase one of the Wikimedia movement strategy process nears its close with the strategic direction being finalized, my contractor role as a coordinator is ending too. I am returning to my normal role as a volunteer (Tar Lócesilion) and wanted to thank you all for your participation in the process.

The strategic direction should be finalized on Meta late this weekend. The planning and designing of phase 2 of the strategy process will start in November. The next phase will again offer many opportunities to participate and discuss the future of our movement, and will focus on roles, resources, and responsibilities.

Thank you, SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)