Commons:Village pump/Archive/2018/10

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.

Contents

Request

Hi. I requested an administrator to overwrite a protected file, and I was told to show a consensus. Two things: Is there really necesary a consensus when there is a clear misrepresentation of the Honduras flag?, as shown by the large number of pictures I presented in the talk page. And 2) Where am I supossed to look for consensus? Can I ask for support here? -Kes 47 (?) 01:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kes47 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The relevant consensus would probably be either (1) users from Honduras or (2) people who have participated on this page in the past. The best would be if whoever originally uploaded with the current color agreed that what you want to do is an improvement. - Jmabel ! talk 04:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
See this official photo from Honduran Government, showing Hernandez with ceremonial flag and sash.
Secretary Tillerson Hosts Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez at the State Department (33420471702)
The colours (cerulean blue) in the official photo are the same as on this visit to the State Department.
faded version of same colour
. See this version.
Flag on Wikipedia page
Our version on the Wikipedia home page is not much different. It's a different blue from the other ex-FRCA countries. We should stick with what we have, and delete the others. - Broichmore (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@Broichmore: Both of those images look darker than what we currently have. - Jmabel ! talk 15:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Only reference I can get is Cerulean blue (RGB - 0,64,255), possibly best option is to get the national soccer teams colour number and use that. This is the best picture I can find anywhere, and its looks a little rich, saturated Kodak style. There are thousands of shades of white too. - Broichmore (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I made a new proposal on the talk page. -Kes 47 (?) 20:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kes47 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
here is the UN color specfication http://www.embassyflag.com/unflagcolors/unflagcolors.pdf, since colors display differently between screen, projector and printout, need to follow the color number. [1] Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
That's not the right color. That's just a color used by a company to print flags for commercial purposes. -Kes47 (?) 02:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Kate Melton

I want to create a page for Kate Melton with this image. KATEMELTONASDAPHNE.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.106.30.36 (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC) Please help me. Creating File:KATEMELTONASDAPHNE.jpg 81.106.30.36 11:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

You could use syntax like "[[File:KATEMELTONASDAPHNE.jpg|thumb]]" on English Wikipedia, as that is where that photo resides. You can't use it here or on any project other than English Wikipedia. You also can't transfer it here because we don't allow Fair Use here.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
yeah, surprised the fair use image has not been deleted for the living person. need to go take a CC image of the living person, but since Shankbone has retired, not much hope of that, unless she appears at Comicon. the attempts to recruit photo stringers or pay stipends have failed, so the photos of living people suck.[2] Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Or go out & start taking pictures of important people. It's not like Shankbone is the only Wikimedian ever to do this. - Jmabel ! talk 02:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
just about the only - i can count on one hand the people systematically taking photos of living people. (with over 1000 images in use) would you care to contribute? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Over 1000 is a lot. Not all that many people do over 1000 photos altogether. But I've certainly done over 100, and people aren't the main thing I photograph. User:Jmabel/People shows some of my work in this respect; it's by no means exhaustive. - Jmabel ! talk 00:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
well, he set a high bar. it was only 3 years until someone surpassed his 2912. quantified imperfectly with [3] since don't have subject stats. and yeah, easier to get "unmoved" monuments. given the over 10000 photo requests of people, it will take such an effort. (and real number is much larger) [4]. but not much sustained effort, other than the one off EU parliament photos.[5], [6] Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

September 30

Misattributed works

All of these are described, implausibly, as works by Auguste Rodin. I presume they are works by his contemporaries that were in an exhibit with his work. The uploader/photographer didn't respond to a query on his talk page. Does anyone know whose these each are? - Jmabel ! talk 07:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The last one listed above, File:Editatón de 72 horas en Museo Soumaya 68.jpg, is Claude Monet's Landscape in Port-Villez. —RP88 (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The first painting, File:Editatón de 72 horas en Museo Soumaya 57.jpg, which also appears in the background of the second photo and behind the individuals in the third photo, appears to be a portrait of Otto von Bismarck by Franz von Lenbach. Franz von Lenbach painted quite a few portraits of Otto von Bismarck, but the photo looks like File:Count Otto von Bismarck portrait by Franz von Lenbach.jpg. —RP88 (talk) 08:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not as certain about the fifth photo. That photo, File:Editatón de 72 horas en Museo Soumaya 62.jpg, appears to be be a 19th century copy of Alphonse de Neuville's Le Bourget, 30 October 1870. The author does not appear to be known, i.e. the author would be "after Alphonse de Neuville". It appears to have been sold (lot 144) in the same auction as another version of Le Bourget (lot 141) which was signed by Alphonse de Neuville. —RP88 (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
also needs artwork template. why don't you put on a maintenance category, so editors can work the backlog, which is large, Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I've corrected the (Spanish-language) descriptions & the categories on the 5 of these that are now identified. A maintenance category would be welcome, but I leave that to someone else to set up. - Jmabel ! talk 00:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-40

17:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Preview picture when sharing photos

Hi everyone, in opposite to sharing a link on Facebook like https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kurth_(Politiker) i do not get any preview picture from Commons as for example for https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Peter_Kurth_-_ColognePride_2009_%282607%29.jpg. As i understand this information is shipped by meta tags (http://ogp.me/). Actually, i would expect to see a preview picture and some additional infos like author and license. Best regards, --Arnd (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Results from global Wikimedia survey 2018 are published

Hello! A few months ago the Wikimedia Foundation invited contributors to take a survey about your experiences on Wikipedia. The report is now published on Meta-Wiki! We asked contributors 170 questions across many different topics like diversity, harassment, paid editing, Wikimedia events and many others.

Read the report or watch the presentation, which is available only in English. Add your thoughts and comments to the report talk page. Feel free to share the report on Wikipedia/Wikimedia or on your favorite social media. Thanks! --EGalvez (WMF) 20:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Cc-by-all

{{Cc-by-all}} - In all languages, there is copyleft in the template-text, that don't exist (the only conditions are to attribute the author and the license), how could I change this in all languages, if I couldn't speak all languages? Habitator terrae (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Habitator terrae: An Admin has to remove the ShareAlike wording due to protection. I suggest adding cc-by-4.0 in the same edit.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@Habitator terrae, Jeff G.: the template page Template:Cc-by-all is protected from editing, but the localized text is stored in subpages like Template:Cc-by-all/i18n, which are not currently protected. You can edit the description in English or other languages you're proficient in and then ask for help fixing the rest at Commons:Requests for translation or Commons:Help desk. See also Commons:Localization. clpo13(talk) 17:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Portrait deleted

Hello. File:Miranda Esmonde-White.jpg was just deleted. The owners have sent OTRS permissions. Jcb can you kindly restore the file until OTRS can handle it? Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

As soon as an OTRS agent concludes that the permission is valid, they will take care of undeletion. The ticket is open, so it will be handled one day or another. Jcb (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Jcb, the article is in the DYK queue. It would be helpful not to have to wait a few months (currently 142 days) for readers to be able to see this portrait. The owners gave it a CC-BY-4.0 license on September 7. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you would not expect that your ticket is somehow more important than all the other waiting tickets. Also next time if you want to talk to me, go to my user talk page instead. Jcb (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
it would be helpful, if you did not blame the uploader for your broken OTRS process. the fact that a new article with a DYK, which means main page exposure, will not have an image that it very well could, tends to reflect poorly on commons, i.e. does not play well with others. that is a good topic for this page. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

October 02

Temporary rail tracks

Do we have a category for rail tracks temporarily put in place for a construction project, such as those in File:4th Ave showing regrade work, Seattle, 1908 (CURTIS 1594).jpeg? I don't see anything obvious. - Jmabel ! talk 01:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Muddy photo

Hello. Can somebody here tell me why this picture File:Gateway District-Minneapolis-a.jpg looks so much cleaner at the source LoC? I tried to upload a copy from LoC but it still looks muddy. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks the same to me if you ignore the film border. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
HyperGaruda, thank you! After emptying my cache they do look the same. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge August Results

Castles and fortifications: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
Image Jagdschloss Moritzburg 01.jpg Bodiam Castle, East Sussex, England.jpg Wilhelmsturm-Dillenburg OD.jpg
Title Jagdschloß Moritzburg bei Dresden, Saxony, Germany Bodiam Castle from 1385, East Sussex, England Wilhelmsturm in Dillenburg, Germany
Author Staubi59 Elno78 Otto Domes
Score 11 10 9
Street Performers: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
Image 2012Sep @ Berlin (DE).jpg Danza col fuoco, Festa Medioevale di Itri.jpg Street Performer - NAT's - Ahmedabad.jpg
Title Street performer in Berlin, Germany Fire Dancing performer,
Medieval Festival of Itri
(Italy)
NAT's (street performer), performing rope act to
earn hard money to feed her family,
on the occasion of rathyatra festival in Ahmedabad,
Gujarat, India.
Author Travelamāns Fiorenzo Fiorenza Jadavkiran
Score 14 14 12

Congratulations to Staubi59, Elno78, Otto Domes, Travelamāns, Fiorenzo Fiorenza and Jadavkiran. -- Colin (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

October 03

Procedure to discuss a file rename request?

Is there any one? I've just rejected a renaming request (see history in File:متحف التاريخ الطبيعي 8.jpg) as, IMHO, it was not ambiguous, just imprecise and the request involved the change from Arabic to English, but the requester (@Russian Rocky:) keeps on pushing for the rename. Is there any procedure to discuss a specific file rename request? Thanks --Discasto talk 08:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Discasto: pages include (in order): wherever discussion has already started; File talk:متحف التاريخ الطبيعي 8.jpg; User talk:Russian Rocky; Commons talk:File renaming; and COM:ANU.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks --Discasto talk 18:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@Discasto: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 06:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Nonexistent places in the Commons app

I've been contemplating for a while that I might do a big photo run around my part of town using the Commons app, but one thing that always puts me off is that there's many nonexistent places tagged as needing photos. In my city in particular, someone has done a big Wikidata dump of former theatres - many of which were demolished a century ago (and many of those lacking any information at all in Google) - so long ago that without supplementary information it's not even possible to definitively pinpoint the exact site (because street numbering can change in 100 years). Is there a way of removing these from the Commons app, or is it doomed to just have hundreds of these sitting around for eternity? The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I believe there has been some discussion of marking places for which a new photo is not possible, but I'm not sure anyone is working on that. Can someone comment more knowledgeably? - Jmabel ! talk 16:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Google Image Search and Wikimedia

Hi there,

Can someone experienced confirm my query: I have a number of unique images I will be uploading, my question is regarding google image search. I can see a lot of the wikimedia communities images appear on google images.1. Does this happen to all wikimedia images and is the process 2. what is the timeframe for them being added to google images search? Can you specify which images appear in google image search? thanks Vfusco1 (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  • That is entirely up to Google's bots. - Jmabel ! talk 16:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Structured data - IRC office hours tomorrow, 4 October

A reminder that the Structured Data team will be hold in an IRC office hour Thursday (tomorrow), 4 October, from 17:00-18:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. Links to date and time conversion, as well as a way to participate on IRC without a client, are available on Meta. I'll post a followup reminder here tomorrow about an hour before we begin. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  • This will take place in one hour from now. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: No editing for up to an hour on 10 October

12:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Free image ?

Hi, I would like to ask somebody more experienced. Is the figure 2 in this PDF free? I would say so as the author, Frederik Johnstrup died in 1894 and the work was published in 1877. Or did I miss something which do not allow me to upload these old images of Askja to Commons? Thanks in advance for help and best regards --Chmee2 (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

  • @Chmee2: The site is paywalled (or, at least, university-walled) so I can't see the particular image, but if the author of the image died in 1894 and the work was published in 1877, and this publication is presenting you with a faithful reproduction of their 2-dimensional work, then it's public domain and can be uploaded here. (If, on the other hand, the image in question is a sculpture or some other 3-dimensional work of art, and someone in modern times took a photograph of that 3-dimensional work of art and published it, then the photograph is subject to copyright.) --B (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @B:: thanks for the answer, I did not realize that you will not see the image, sorry for that. The accessible copy is here. Based on this I assume that I can upload it. Thanks a lot for your help! --Chmee2 (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

October 05

English bias wrt project links

Hi! In the sidebar (Main page, community portal, Tools, In Wikipedia,...), several interproject links are displayed.

The "In Wikipedia" section is OK (linking every language edition of Wikipedia corresponding to a Commons category), but the section "In other projects" is linking only "Wikisource in English", "Wikivoyage in English", ... (...) ...regardless the language selected by user in the interface.

Example: Category:Japan. Is this fixable? Strakhov (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@B: Thanks but... no, they don't. They are now displayed in Japanese characters but... redirect to en.wikisource, en.wikivoyage,... and so on. :( Strakhov (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@Strakhov: Interesting. I tried it and it links to ja for me. Is this the link you are trying or am I looking in the wrong place? --B (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
@B: Ah, no, those ones are OK. I meant the left sidebar. Maybe some of them could be included in the infobox too. Strakhov (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. From looking at the CSS, I think the data is coming from the wikibase extension, which is pulling its data from Wikidata. But how to fix any of that is over my head. --B (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

October 04

Problem with PDF

I uploaded File:The Migration of Birds - Thomas A Coward - 1912.pdf a few hours ago, but it's not displaying page images property. Is it me, or is there a problem somewhere? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: it's not you; it's a problem with the PDF itself (or MediaWiki, perhaps). I've seen this issue over at Wikisource before, but I can't for the life of me remember how it's fixed. You might try using https://tools.wmflabs.org/ia-upload/ to upload a DjVu file instead. clpo13(talk) 18:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. ia-upload reports "File failed to upload". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: hmm, upload wasn't working for me the other day, either, but it did work today: File:The Migration of Birds - Thomas A Coward (1912).djvu. Additionally, the PDF now seems to be working thanks to Hrishikes. clpo13(talk) 15:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Structured data on Common - search prototype

A search prototype for Commons is available on Labs. I've set up a page in the structured data hub with information and instructions on how to use the new search, please give it a try and leave the team feedback. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

October 07

File:Zoe Quinn Car 2014.jpg

File:Zoe Quinn Car 2014.jpg is currently a mirror image, as evidenced by the text.

69.181.23.220 12:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "mirror image"? Are you suggesting some action? It is from an external source, which is fine because that source has assigned it a free license. BMacZero (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Flipped along the vertical axis, probably (per en:Mirror image and [11]). If anyone wants to upload the "correct" orientation as a derivative of this one, they're perfectly free to do so, but it's not a pressing issue. clpo13(talk) 17:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
@Clpo13: ✓ Done, please see File:Zoe Quinn selfie in her car in 2014.jpg.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Original art

Can Commons host original art projects/contests for other categories not before thought of? Like in the categories of cartography? -Inowen (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

In principle yes, but nobody has proposed them. Ruslik (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Signpost Gallery article

Can someone clue me in to where I can find the images that are considered the best of Commons. I want to highlight these in the next issue of the Signpost on the English Wikipedia. Thanks ahead of time. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): the main page is at COM:FP, nominally representing the top 0.02% or so; there’s a navigation template for its categories at the bottom. See also COM:QI and COM:VI.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Excellent! Thank you so much. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

October 08

Google front page

Please can someone remove the Google cover page from File:Ornithological Dictionary; Or, Alphabetical Synopsis of British Birds (first edition).djvu - I thought I'd checked the option to do this automatically, but apparently not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Rooming houses

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything offhand under Category:Residential buildings for rooming houses or anything similar. Is it somewhere and I'm missing it or is it missing? - Jmabel ! talk 20:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Ah, I just found Category:Boarding houses a level down. Techincally, the two terms are not identical: a "boarding house" provides meals, a "rooming house" doesn't. I don't mind conflating them, but I am adding a redirect. - Jmabel ! talk 20:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-41

23:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

October 09

Category:Mariana

I've taken some pictures of Mariana (Cuenca). I've seen that category:Mariana redirects to Mariana (Minas Gerais). So far, there was only one Mariana in Commons, but there will soon be a second one. I don't know how to fix category:Mariana as to reflect such event. B25es (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I have done it for you, take a look. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! (I think I've learned for the next time) B25es (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

New TGV stations in France

I uploaded images to Category:Gare de Montpellier-Sud-de-France. I have two images of the new building itself I havent uploaded them as I suppose is protected architecture (No freedom o panorama in France). Am I correct? For Category:Gare de Lyon-Saint Exupéry there is a warning, but for other TGV stations such as Gare de Valence TGV or Gare d'Avignon TGV.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

By the way: some images have slipped trough in Gare de Lyon-Saint Exupéry. File:Montpellier-Sud-de-France 2018 02.jpg is a minimis case.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Sounds right, there's no FOP for buildings (or much of anything) in France. - Jmabel ! talk 23:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

October 11

The picture of the day

My understanding of how wikis treat nudity is generally that it is only included under circumstances where understanding content would be more difficult without the nudity. If this was just on someone's user page, sure, I say whatever.

But I went to the Main Page today and saw a topless female model on the very top of the page, clear in sight, huge image, I was pretty shocked. It would be different if someone specifically searched for this picture, or maybe an article about female breasts on Wikipedia, and found it that way. But when you have nudity shining bright on the front page of your site, don't you think that's a bit too much?! What about grade-school kids at school who search this site for educational usage, maybe to find free images for a project, and are greeted with this image? Some would immediately think "I didn't know this was a porn site!" If anything, something like this may scare lurkers away from the site more than it draws lurkers in.

Not to mention the fact that this is seemingly featured because of the quality of the picture being equivalent to the superficial attractiveness of the model.

I can't do anything. But I seriously recommend you take it off the front page. (I have an account, but chose to stay anonymous.) Anonymous945932894598 (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

100% agreed. This is tasteful nudity but there are millions of pieces of media here. No need for this on the front page. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
yeah, thanks for the soft porn everyone. and edit warring to maimtain this in the queue. if you want to know why commons has a low reputation, and why english will not allow links, this would be why. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 20:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Out of curiosity: Are there any established guidelines/policy about this? Or, how does Commons/WP define what not to show, regarding nudity? 2.247.241.111 21:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
COM:NOTCENSORED GMGtalk 21:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
That merely says "we don't delete images just because they have naked people in them", not "artistic nudes with zero encyclopediac value belong on our front page." Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
We don't have a guideline against it, either. Anyone seriously upset about this should get involved in COM:POTD or propose a change in policy instead of objecting after everything is said and done. clpo13(talk) 22:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
absolutely not interested in that soul-crushing ego gratification process- the bias of the existing gatekeepers is quite clear, with no indication of willingness to change. not interested in another round of policy "let's make more rules to stop us from hurting ourselves" just stop. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
No, it says Commons will not censor or remove media that users find objectionable or offensive (emphasis added). The "or" makes a big difference. GMGtalk 22:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
It prompted this tweet from a British Library curator that I follow. Apart from that, did we get much of social media bump? Jheald (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Nudes don't often show up on the front page, but every time it happens, I have to wonder how many upset about it would be equally offended by Titian's Venus of Urbino or a similar piece of notable art? "Soft porn" indeed. clpo13(talk) 22:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
It's almost as if that's a famous painting with known encyclopediac value or something. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
It seems a lot like one side is saying "we shouldn't have these" and the other is saying "we have no policy that disallows them". The obvious answer would be to start a centralized discussion about whether these are appropriate, and change policy. GMGtalk 23:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm more interested in the opinion of the puritans who object to the nudity rather than the perceived lack of educational value. Yes, Venus of Urbino is an encyclopedic painting, but would those who are clutching their pearls over the referenced photo be just as disturbed by Titian's painting on the front page? Scratch that, I know they would. clpo13(talk) 23:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I hate to be a bit confrontational, but comments to this effect always crop up every time this issue is raised. It would be more useful if you could comment on the OP's specific criticisms than their lack or excess of morality. I agree with the OP that many internet users who navigate to Commons would probably be startled to see this image on the front page. The PotD is there to draw visitors in with the impressive quality of the photo displayed, but I think in this case the content probably causes this image to do the opposite for many visitors. BMacZero (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, I didn't see any comments in the FP discussion you linked that rejected the image because it contains nudity. Most of them are concerned with the quality of the digitization. BMacZero (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
OP's main concern seems to amount to "omg tits", but as I said earlier, if they don't want this to happen again (and really, it doesn't happen that often), they should get involved in discussions to change things. I understand the objections, and while I don't agree with them (and wonder what else people might want to keep off the main page because it might offend somebody somewhere), I'm open to participating in proposals to amend the existing guidelines in some way that minimizes the surprise to those unfamiliar with Commons.
Also, the comments on the FP discussion weren't all that bad, I admit, but LogX supported it [t]hough the picture is showing the sensational art and Amandajm complained about too many nudes making the Main Page look like Page 3. clpo13(talk) 00:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I dunno. I'm not really even arguing that it's appropriate. I'm just arguing that there's no policy based reason to forbid it. Make a consensus based reason to forbid it and I'll argue the other side. GMGtalk 00:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
yeah, maybe we need a policy to stop making commons a laughing stock, and compared to the kavanaugh drama-fest among museum professionals. but i guess some think that is a feature not a bug. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, COM:NOTCENSORED is a guideline on hosting media, not on what we as a community choose to display on the main page, or on other forums here. People who visit Commons have no control over what they see on the main page, and reasonable people would assume it is appropriately curated rather than chosen to shock or offend. There are situations where viewing such material in a public, work or school environment would result in personal attack, job loss, or even criminal prosecution. Dismissing these concerns as "puritans" or "omg tits" reflects a very narrow self centred world-view where the only valid position is that of a frat boy in his bedroom. Displaying such images on the main page demonstrates about as much maturity as getting a tattoo just to show your mum how independent-minded you are. Btw, the purpose of FPC is not to select images for the main page. That the main page team select their images from the FP pool is their choice, and they aren't obliged to select all images that get promoted. "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should". Quite a few people on Commons have yet to learn that lesson in life. -- Colin (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Umm...Colin, no offense, but the "omg tits" bit wasn't my comment. It was from clpo13. Mine is simply that the closest thing to a relevant policy is NOTCENSORED, and while a number of editors have expressed views similar to your own about the appropriateness of such content, there is as yet no consensus based reason to forbid it. If enough people feel strongly about it, then they should see such a broad consensus, and I'm happy to defer to it once achieved. GMGtalk 14:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
User:GreenMeansGo ah I didn't notice the other signature, so thought the whole paragraph was yours. Anyway, you replied that NOTCENSORED was relevant and it really really isn't. But should anyone create a VP discussion about what kinds of image we should show on the main page, you can bet there will be 100 "NOTCENSORED" votes from folk who haven't the first clue what censorship actually is. I don't suppose we can expect kids who get their news from Facebook to understand that the editors of a publication (such as the main page, or a newspaper) are only free when they can both chose what to include and what not to include. -- Colin (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I mean.. CENSOR is a policy that specifically applies to SCOPE. But NOTCENSORED is part of the guideline NOT, and not part of SCOPE. If NOTCENSORED applies to blurring genitalia within the context of a single image (also not an issue of keep/delete), I don't see an obvious reason why it would not equally apply to content hosted on galleries or on the main page, barring consensus against that interpretation. GMGtalk 15:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
If we want to have a policy of not displaying NSFW media (assuming bosses and coworkers can include a mix of fundamentalists opposed to nudity and images of Mohammed) on the main page, a proposal for it should be on COM:VPP, not right here.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Why do these discussions always fall down to labelling people puritans and "fundamentalists opposed to nudity and images of Mohammed". Look, there is a difference between the perfectly legal right have a wank with your laptop in your bedroom and looking at the stuff with your trousers down and fist pumping away on the train. Most grown ups appreciate there is a time and a place and that freedom means giving people control over what they watch and when. By sticking sensitive images on the main page, you are actually removing people's freedoms, and saying "you will accept my values and my choices right now". That's quite oppressive. -- Colin (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, The laughing stock here are the people complaining when they see a woman's tit on Commons Main Page. Would a man's tit be OK? And who obviously never show up on POTD. Well, blame yourself... Regards, Yann (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Something like File:'David' by Michelangelo JBU06.JPG?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, this isn't a "laughing" matter. We are only having this conversation because there are about three women on Commons, and this sort of thing does nothing to change that. If we had a good proportion of grown-up professional-minded female users, you'd all be slapped round the head with an "objectification" wet fish. Yann, your argument about participating at POTD is completely irrelevant and a rather lame way of reacting to criticism. -- Colin (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
yes, commons is a cesspool, with no technical barriers to entry, just cultural ones. better to laugh than cry. but if you want to know why commons is a laughing stock: "Well, blame yourself... Regards," i take it, you agree there should be a code of conduct, and standard of practice? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Always the optimist. GMGtalk 17:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
no, just the realist of low expectations. you should expect periodic scandal, as this culture waves its "freedom" in the public's face. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

50 million

Just now. Congratulations! -- Tuválkin 11:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

\o/ Yann (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: 50 million uploaded files, while certainly significant, appears to include deleted or old versions of files. I will be more excited when {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} lists 50 million files and galleries (it currently stands at 54,869,142).   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jeff G.: I was refering to {{NUMBEROFFILES}}, which seems to have hit 50 M for the first time around one hour ago. Does it include deleted files? I’d say it does not, or should not. Maybe file redirects are included? Not sure. As for {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}, I didn’t even consider it because it includes Commnos’ galleries, which are mostly garbage. -- Tuválkin 12:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
And which one is the 50 millionth one? That could be used for some PR stuff. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
This one, I (would like to) believe :) Poco2 17:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don’t think so: I noticed something like 50 000 162 when I started this thread, at 11:53 UTC, and this image was uploaded at 13:06 UTC. Of course deletions means that any given number is crossed several times upon uploading, but I think just before 11:53 UTC was when the 50M mark was crossed for the first time. -- Tuválkin 10:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
That's great! :D 50 million and counting!! -- Darwin Ahoy! 17:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Awesome! Congratulations everyone!! :D —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 17:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Oddly enough (as of writing this) Wikimedia Commons is still at 49,489,593 content pages, as I suppose that the vast majority of these are media files I'd like to know which ones are excluded? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I was thinking about that, too, since Jeff G. reported above 49 M and change. There should be one file page for each file counted with {{NUMBEROFFILES}} and yet we’re a few hundered thousand short: not only 55,578,090 minus 54,869,142 (516 348 as of this datestamp) but also minus the number of Galleries. I suspect it could be file page redirects counting as files, but a better opinion is sought. -- Tuválkin 18:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Let me plug in here this bit of wiki text I add to my uploads’ descriptions:

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

-- Tuválkin 10:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Any clue for a likely candidate as nr 50M? (PR reasons) Vysotsky (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I really think it is important to celebrate an important milestone. 50 Million free images is a VERY important milestone. Is there anyone who can suggest a likely nr 50M? Otherwise I will take the leopard eating an antilope, suggested above, as an image "near to 50M". Vysotsky (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Tool coord update

Hello,
I updated my tool to display on a map the geolocated articles that are lacking image:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/coord/
It allows to display the coordinates coming from different Wikipedia, but also from Wikidata.
It will directly retrieve information from the database, so it should always be up to date.
Old markers disappear after a few days.
To your cameras!
Myst (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand, you say Wikipedia and Wikidata, so you do not take it from Commons? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 05:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

October 12

jpegcrop producing errors in imgs

Madagascan sunset moth (Chrysiridia rhipheus), Vohimana reserve, Madagascar (cropped).jpg

I've been using jpegcrop for years, but recently I've found that when I crop an img, the cropped version does not display properly. I recently replaced the img on my user page, tried cropping it, and again there's a problem. (E.g. in the windows folder on my laptop, instead of a thumbnail of the img, as w the original, there's just a generic 'jpg' icon for the cropped version, and MaxView 2.8 displays a black screen if I open it.)

Just to see what would happen, I uploaded it to Commons anyway. (Linked here.) It displays fine in preview. I put it on my user page, and that displays fine as well, with it reduced in size. But if I click on it to see it in full res, I see an icon for a broken file. If instead I choose full-res under the preview options, I get the error message 'This image "[URL]" cannot be displayed because it contains errors.' (I'm using FF.) But any of the smaller versions display correctly.

I updated jpegcrop (2015 to current 2017 version), and it's still happening, so presumably not a bug on their end. The moth is quite a large img, but it happens w small ones too. Any idea what I'm doing wrong? Thanks Kwamikagami (talk) 03:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  • No, but just confirming that it also thumbnails correcty for me, but the full-res says it's broken. - Jmabel ! talk 04:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Huh. Just playing around, I tried viewing it at reduced size in MaxView, to see if I'd get the behaviour here, but still a black screen. (I needed to use finger commands on the touch pad, because the scaling menu was greyed out.) Then at 200% and it displayed correctly. Then the scaling menu started working, and I can now view it at any scale. Closed it, tried opening again, black screen, now can't get it to display again.
    • jpegcrop is such a simple program that I can't imagine what I could be doing differently than what I used to do when I used to get it to work. Kwamikagami (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
      • @Kwamikagami: File a bug. It is probably due to some metadata issue, because otherwise the data itself would be lost and could not be recoverable by resizing. But after a quick look with a hex editor, I am unable to find the exact problem. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 05:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Do you mean at jpegclub.org? I don't see anyplace to file a bug. But I did find an email address. I'll try that. [Nope, address no longer good.]
        • Or did you mean here at Commons? Kwamikagami (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
          • The problem appears to be with jpegcrop and not with Commons, so you'd need to contact them. Btw, running the file through exiftran -i -a -g also fixes it. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 07:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
          • Also, when I open your file with GPicView I get the error "Suspension is not allowed here", but I have no idea what it means… what is being suspended? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 07:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
            • Thanks. Submitted my info and your comments on their contact page, but that doesn't seem to be working either, just stalling out. Kwamikagami (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
              • Maybe it's abandonware? I use jpegtran for such things it can losslessly rotate and nearlosslessly crop (it doesn't lose quality on the parts you are not cropping out). Maybe you can give that a try. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 09:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe. I messaged IJG at infai.org, so maybe they'll have something to say. The fact that jpegcrop was updated for 2 years after the problem occurred suggests that it isn't just an abandonware problem. I'll take a look at jpegtran, thanks. Kwamikagami (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

JFTR it behaves similarly on my iMac. Clicking the “Original file” link gets me a solid black image in Safari. The downloaded file shows a correct icon on my desktop, but Preview displays the image as mostly black, with what looks like a couple of weirdly fractured text-windows (not Mac-like, with dark grey title bars) near the right-hand side. Neither Photoshop nor GIMP will open it, saying respectively “Could not complete your request because reading arithmetic coded JPEG files is not implemented” and “Sorry, there are legal restrictions on arithmetic coding.” I’ve seen the former message from Photoshop before (IIRC from a JPEG 2000 image created by a panorama-stitcher), but in that case GIMP had no problem opening it.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Major change on how fieldescription pages will work

Hi, FYI: The Foundation is planning a major change in how the filedesciption pages will work (as far i know wikitext will be replaced with some wikibase stuff). See Commons talk:Structured_data#Necessary_changes_to_how_viewing_and_using_old_file_page_revisions_functions. --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Where do you read that the wikitext will disappear? As far as I understand, this is really just about how old revisions are being displayed. You can still edit the current version of the wikitext as usual, you just won't be able to go back to an old version and click on "edit" there any more. --El Grafo (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
What El Grafo said. The WMF isn't changing anything about file descriptions. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Template generating broken Category name?

I just now detected this problem: in Category:Ruth Ozeki a redlink category appears: Category:Ruth (given name)(given name). This as-yet uncreated category has been populated with 192 (!) pages. There also exists a properly named category, Category:Ruth (given name), populated with 203 pages. I suspect the misnamed category is generated and populated by the Template:Wikidata infobox or something similar, because I've just started seeing it (I've returned to editing in the Commons after a long break). I sincerely hope this is a glitch that can be fixed at its source and won't require manual intervention! Kindly advise how to proceed. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Deborahjay: This was because you changed the label on Wikidata from "Ruth" to "Ruth (given name)". I've undone that and the category Category:Ruth (given name) should be added correctly now. In general, the disambiguation (the part in brackets in categories here) should be in the description field, not the label of the Wikidata item. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mike Peel:, thank you - I'll see about following through in Wikidata by adding the statement P1889 ("different from"). It seems from your explanation that my difficulty is a lack of familiarity with identical labels being differentiated in their description fields (e.g. multiple items for the label Ruth). -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

October 13

Retouched files

This was uploaded without the original. Yeah, thanks.

I'm thinking about a proposal to require users to upload images (that they didn't create) before retouching along with their retouch work. This wouldn't apply to own work, so a photographer wouldn't be forced to upload raw images.

Maria Alvarez Tubau is not the only victim. Compare File:Sudheer at South-Indian-International-Movie-Awards-6.jpg (in case of red link) with the original. This is not how you remove a watermark. I've also seen historical paintings being color-adjusted without a retouch template or the original being uploaded. You'd never find out unless you visit the source. Assuming the source is still available. If the source disappears, we'll think for the rest of our lives that some historical figure was painted like a Smurf. Some exceptions would be needed, own work and editing an image to remove derivative works before uploading here for example should always be allowed. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not know how I feel about requiring it. In general contributions should be encouraged, making them intentionally harder makes first contributions less and less likely. I see quite a few individuals here who contribute in good faith and then get speedy-deleted/warned/shouted-at because they have violated some policy agreement that they were not even aware of. But when it comes to suggestions, I would actually go further and suggest that even in cases of DW a person uploads entire work, then crops with overwrite and then files a Deletion Request for the first version. The laws on what is and what is not DW change, and copyrights expire, so in the end we will be able to undelete that version, but not if it has disappeared. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Good points. In this case, users shouldn't be shouted at, just informed. Only if they downright refuse to upload the unprocessed image would they be shouted at. For DW, technically I agree, but I fear it will put additional strain on admins for cases that often may not even be relevant. File:Kuno Becker y Verónica Jaspeado hablan sobre "Cars 3".jpg for example, the full background is DW but we're not even interested in that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Mass cache purging

As part of a CfD where I changed a license template used in ~30,000 pages, I'm looking to purge the cache of all images in a category (to see what remains in the former category). Is there any automated way to purge the cache of all images in a category? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: One could null-edit them with AWB using a bot account, or touch them with touch.py.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

October 14

Language names

When I use {{Language}} as follows:

{{language|fr}} & {{language|en}}

inside the {{Book}} template for File:Orphée aux Enfers (Chicago 1868).djvu, I get

French & english

but I should get

French & English

because the word "English" is always capitalized in English. Using {{language|en|en}} does not correct the problem. But when I use the same template structure here, I get

French & English

as would be expected. What is the {{Book}} template doing to interfere with the capitalization? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

nota bene: I already have requested help in getting the Google notice stripped from the file. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • You should not actually have to use {{Language}}, as it is already called by the language parameter in {{Book}}; a simple |language=fr is enough. However, the way the parameter is encoded, prevents defining multiple languages. Someone already brought up the issue with multilanguage books on the template TP in 2016, but has not received any reply since. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Logo with wrong licence

Hellow

About File:TM2_Canyon_-_Logo.png :

This logo had a wrong licence. This is not a Free Art License, but a "classic" video game logo. This logo has been released by Ubisoft at E3 2011 and it has been shown on a french video gamle website june 7, 2011 [14]. The file have been uploaded the same day here at Commons website.

I think the texture logo is above threshold of originality. And copyright olders are Nadeo/Ubisoft (game developper/game publisher).

Cab someone start a deletion request ? I'm sorry i have got no time at all to do this.

Regards --Archimëa (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Pressing 'Nominate for deletion' link on the right when viewing the image actually takes less time than leaving a comment here explaining that you do not have time to do that. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 20:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Don't you think if you did it would have took even less time to write this. funny. I don't see any deletion button.
So now, do what you want with this thing. I did the job. I don't contribute anymore to Commons project, other than upload files i need. And if it's all you can do or answer, it's all good, keep this file, i don't care with this. --Archimëa (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I have no opinion on this file. If you do not see a link "Nominate for deletion" then you can take the time to learn how to use your browser. Go to any page on Commons, press Ctrl+F (on most browsers) and type "Nominate for deletion", the browser will actually find it for you. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Please-do-not-overwrite-permanent-version

I am requesting this to be moved to Template:Please-do-not-overwrite-permanent-version (internal) as this is for internal wikis. What if it's used on an external site without overwriting allowed? Then Template:Please-do-not-overwrite-permanent-version (external) may be better, even if it's used as the background-image property in w:Cascading Style Sheets. Keep in mind, though, that the creators of sites that embed these images from the upload.wikimedia.org subdomain might have to be contacted so the creators of the sites know that every time they add a new image to the site, they might have to add the template to the associated page. 209.52.88.31 20:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, Why not just create {{Please-do-not-overwrite-permanent-version (external)}} right now? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 20:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't want the page deleted and this IP address warned. 209.52.88.31 21:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I Symbol support vote.svg Support creation of such a template. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 07:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:History of the European Union by year

Hi folks, this is Europe writing. We have this strange category Category:History of the European Union by year that includes images from far before the EC was founded. IMHO we should restrict the use of this category and its subcategories to a defined starting point (foundation of the EC, eventually one of its predecessors) and also restrict the images per country only after a country joined the EC (and needless to say: only till a country left the EC). other opinions? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Herzi Pinki, it should also be changed to other categories like this: Category:1942 in Yugoslavia, Category:1532 in the United States, Category:1908 in Austria (=> Category:1908 in Austria-Hungary), ... --GT1976 (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support, but leave {{Category redirect}} behind, because many people accidentally place files there, so without the redirect it will be a constant battle against well intending contributors. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
sorry, Gone_Postal, I'm missing an idea where to redirect. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree basically with what User:Martin H. already said in 2010: The whole category and all its subcategories don't make sense as they are now, since the overwhelming majority of the media in there are not about the history of the European Union. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I read that discussion that was closed due to missing engagement (with the decision to delete those categories and keep them because of harmlessness), I agree that something has to be done also for the time a state is in the EC and the EC is in modus operandi. Two different points, while my primary pledge was to delete by-year categories for years there wasn't such a thing as EC, maybe we should reopen the CfD for the later years. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it's two different points. However, a decision about the overall category might make a discussion about the pre-EU years obsolete, if for example it's decided to delete these categories alltogether. Anyway, I'm fine with either way of continuing. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 07:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree to do what Herzi Pinki proposed, regardless of there will be later - or not - decisions to other points, because of its not clear, if or when that will be. Many greetings --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Flickr images where the Wikimedia user is the Flickr user?

Occasionally, a Commons or Wikipedia user uploads an image here and they give a flickr URL for it. They clearly state here that they are one in the same with the flickr user, their username matches the flickr user name, etc, and they have completely convinced us that they are the same person. But whereas they picked a free license here, they uploaded it to flickr as "all rights reserved". Is there an SOP for how to handle such images? Do we simply not put a {{Flickrreview}} template on it at all? --B (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Depending on the admin such files are either ignored or deleted as COM:NETCOPYVIO while waiting for OTRS. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
if they uploaded with a free license here, why review at all? just to drive up deletion totals? need to document why you might think the uploader is not the photographer - for that is your only deletion rationale, not some vindictive off wiki reason. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, we certainly shouldn't be deleting images where we are completely convinced in some fashion that the flickr user = the Wikipedian (OTRS, long-time established user, self-identifies on their flickr page as the Wikipedian, etc). It would be nice if there was something that we could use to indicate "yes, this flickr page doesn't match what is here, but we know because xyz that this uploader is the flickr user and so we don't care". --B (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
well, it is not that we don't care, it is we have a nuanced view of the messy reality of licenses on the web. you could put on a maintenance category "different license elsewhere on web," but i'm sure some would view that as a "license review" prod, just like contradictory exif. expecting one consistent license on each image is unrealistic. forcing uploaders to change licenses elsewhere, by deletion here is a vindictive way to "promote free culture", bound to be counter-productive. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@B: In case of "self-identifies on their flickr page as the Wikipedian" or OTRS, {{Licensereview}} should work. But this supposed Flickr issue isn't a Flickr issue. For example, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blue winged leafbird.jpg. Trusted user with thousands of photos, upload tagged with PD-self in 2006 (when that was common and acceptable), yet we are looking at a DR. Because.. I don't have a fucking clue. We're looking at a DR. That's a fact. As I said, it depends on the admin. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
i have a clue: some here want to destroy what they cannot create; they do not play well with others, and are enabled; because no one wants to invest the emotional labor, to get a professional standard of practice; hence the perpetual clown car. we do not have a license quality improvement process, because some are incapable of collaboration. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: If someone just tags it as {{PD}} or {{GFDL}}, then there is no claim of authorship at all. We don't know if they are saying "I made this and proclaim it to be {PD, GFDL}", "I found this on some website which proclaims it to be {PD, GFDL}", or "everything on the internet is public domain, right?" But PD-self is an affirmative claim of authorship. Obviously that claim can be challenged if it seems unlikely (no EXIF data, lots of copyvios, professional-quality image and no other uploads, found elsewhere on the internet prior to it being uploaded here), but it is a claim of authorship that should be sufficient barring evidence to the contrary. So I don't understand this DR at all. --B (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Based on how I handle similar issues for Geograph images, I'd make the source {{Own}}, remove any licence review template, and add a link to indicate that the same image is also available on Flickr. For Geograph we have {{Also geograph}} for that last part: I don't know if an equivalent exists for Flickr. --bjh21 (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete template cannot be seen while logged in

MAKEKA has been nominated for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/MAKEKA. While I am logged in, I cannot see the nomination page, but when I log out, I can see it. I tested it in both Firefox and Chrome as well as with a brand new account. Any ideas? 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: Wikimedia parser broke. Reparsing solved it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-42

22:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

October 16

Bleach works/Bleacheries

Is there any intentional difference between Category:Bleach works and Category:Bleacheries? If so, what is it? - Jmabel ! talk 02:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ies, Marcbela, Verne Equinox:. - Jmabel ! talk 02:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the description of File:Ogden Mill, Newhey - geograph.org.uk - 372272.jpg and the wiktionary entry for bleachworks, I'd say that bleachworks produce bleach, while bleacheries do the bleaching (of textile). On a second thought, scrap that. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jmabel. When I made Category:Bleacheries I probably didn't detected the already existing Category:Bleach works. Or maybe I got fooled by its somewhat misleading categories. As far as I see the content of both categories is same (with the exception of a quarry). I think they can be merged. -- Ies (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone have a strong sense of which would be the preferred term? I never heard "bleacheries" before. - Jmabel ! talk 05:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Acc. to Wiktionary a bleachery (plural bleacheries) is a place or an establishment where bleaching is done. And here is a reference: en:Fall River Bleachery.

Apologies for the accidental revert. To complicate things a bit further, there is also Category:Bleachfields for the pre-chemical bleaching industry. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

And is that definition of a bleachery in any way different from a bleach works? Because that is exactly how I would have defined that. - Jmabel ! talk 03:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
There seems no difference between them. However, online and in my books I can't find any definition of "bleach work" and hardly any reference for it. "Bleachery" seems the commonly used term and "bleach work" just a locally preferred synonym for it. Anyhow, both categories contain images of establishments where bleaching is done and therefore should be merged. In my opinion the content of Category:Bleach works should be moved to Category:Bleacheries. Any reasoned objections? -- Ies (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
In expressions of the form a (commodity) works, “works” is invariably plural; here it’s a mainly-UK term for a factory. So I’m not surprised it couldn’t be found in the singular, and it might not appear at all in American sources.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that; the only downside is the loss of parallel wording to Category:Dye works. - Jmabel ! talk 16:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

October 15

Community policy for 3D object uploads (request from WMF Legal)

Commons,

We at Foundation Legal would like to request that the community make a policy regarding 3D files, in particular addressing how weapons and other people’s inventions might be handled, and perhaps more generally addressing what types of files you all would accept of these file formats.

Uploads of STL files were turned on early in 2018. Right now, 3D files make up a small number of uploads, so we think this is a good time to address some of the issues that these files can present proactively, rather than waiting for a problem to occur. The thing that made us think about this topic is the recent news about the Defense Distributed case in which the owner of plans for a 3D gun has been making heavy efforts to try and get them online. The STL format probably isn’t great for this, but we don’t know what sorts of things someone might try to upload. Even lower resolution files could have information for making some types of weapons or perhaps certain parts of weapons that do not require high resolution imagery that are prohibited by law, or for making objects covered by someone else’s patent.

The Defense Distributed case might also lead lawmakers in the United States to introduce new bills about 3D printed weapons. There’s a chance this will lead to further restrictions on the types of content platforms like Wikimedia can host. The recent passage of FOSTA (amending CDA 230) and general interest in additional internet regulations in the United States also make this possibility more likely. A proactive policy on Commons would be a good way to show how user-driven content policies can address problems online much faster and better than legislation.

We think it would save the Foundation and the community some significant headache to address this now before a problem occurs. This is because the issues with 3D files fall into a narrow category of intellectual property and criminal laws that are not covered by either the DMCA or Section 230, which could mean that if a problem occurs, the Foundation would have to intervene (or even turn off the feature in a particularly bad situation) before a community policy could be made.

We’ve offered some information and background on our wikilegal page about 3D files that might be helpful, and are appreciative of any review you’re all able to do in this area.

-Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Could someone provide a link to the previous discussion about this issue? Thanks -- (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
To some extent Commons already has a policy, namely Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. That policy already acknowledges while, in general, Commons considers non-copyright restrictions to not be grounds for deletion of works from Commons, certain works will nonetheless be illegal for Commons to host. A very brief mention of patents is already at that page, but no specific mention of 3D printing of the objects depicted in 3D files possibly infringing on patents and definitely no mention of 3D printable weapons. It seems reasonable that we should, at the very least:
  1. Add a mention of 3D printable weapons to Commons:Non-copyright restrictions#Non-copyright_restrictions_that_directly_affect_Commons.
  2. Add new non-copyright restriction tags for 3D files depicting objects that if they were 3D printed might be considered patent infringement or weapons manufacturing. The tags might perhaps be {{3D Patented}} (along the lines of {{Trademarked}}) and {{3D Weapon}} (along the lines of {{Personality rights}}).
This would allow us to begin to track such files and respond to evolving Commons policy for 3D files (or, if necessary, respond to changes in US law in this area). We should be careful to word any policy in this area to be confined to 3D file types, as freely licensed photos and illustrations depicting patented objects or weapons are very unlikely to be subject to the same restrictions. It sounds like the WMF is encouraging Commons to do more than this (i.e. craft an explicit policy along the lines of Commons:Photographs of identifiable people), but I think we should at least start with the two items I mention above (assuming there aren't any objections to recognizing that 3D files might be subject to new forms of non-copyright restriction not currently mentioned in Commons policy). —RP88 (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Appropriate method of requesting edits to the live MOTD

Today's MOTD had an ungrammatical caption. I proposed an edit request at Template_talk:Motd/2018-10-16_(en), since Talk:Main Page suggests going to the equivalent page for a POTD problem, but it took about 10 hours for the request to be noticed by an administrator. Given that this sort of error should ideally be fixed significantly faster, what is the correct course of action for reporting an error with MOTD, and could something suitable be stated in the header of Talk:Main Page? GKFXtalk 22:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Just post such requests on COM:AN. Or here. IMO this is the fastest way. --jdx Re: 22:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

October 17

Photos of Anne Gamble Kennedy and Matthew Washington Kennedy

Is there any supervisor of volunteers with whom I can discuss these photos? As I have stated repeatedly, I am the sole heir of the Kennedy Estate, and as such, the owner of the copyrights of these photos. Anne Gamble Kennedy and Matthew Kennedy are deceased, and their photos date back to the 1940s. I have submitted their Last Will and Testament as proof.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nina07011960 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nina07011960: You can write to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org; however, I remind you that the subject of a photo does not normally hold a copyright, the photographer does. - Jmabel ! talk 23:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
    • i see youhave uploaded a fair use image on english wikipedia here [19], you may have to do the same for your other image [20]. a transfer such as fairusebot could work, but that would require a helpful admin. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Manji swastika symbol with idols in Kyoto Japan.jpg

This file contains the mirrored Nazi symbol, and the number of tiles in it is also an abbreviation for the year, in which the bad part of German history begins, but there is no warning for users in Germany. --92.216.162.15 05:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You are misreading the cultural context. Rama (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
And should Category:Swastikas be added to Category:Kennzeichen verfassungswidriger Organisationen? I know, that the use of such files can sometimes cause criminal persecution. --92.216.162.15 06:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
There may be some sort of issue with German (or other European) laws here, but certainly in the Japanese context there is approximately zero chance that this has any relation to Nazism. - Jmabel ! talk 15:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Moving image dropdown problem?

I tried to move an image today but when clicking 'select a reason' the dropdown did not appear... it just repeated 'select a reason' highlighted in blue. I experimented with a couple of other files but the same thing happened. Is there an anomaly or is it just me!? (I tried purging and re-loading). Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

There are two "move" options. The first one is just to move the image. There is no any dropdown menu for selecting the reason. The second "move" option is actually to request a move but not to move anything and it has a dropdown menu for selecting the reason. (It works fine for me.) I suppose that you are asking about the latter as you are not a filemover? Ruslik (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes the second method. I tried it a few times during the day, with the same result but not after about 18:00 (UTC). However, I just tried it again and whatever was wrong... it's fine now. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Commonshelper doesn't work

https://tools.wmflabs.org/commonshelper/

Doesn't seem to work. Is it just me? Does Magnus Manske maintain this? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It ded. GMGtalk 16:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
We screwed. Magnus rarely responds to anything. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Is it possible for another volunteer or someone from the Foundation to usurp the tool? Helper is essential when transferring files from projects where you don't speak the language. GMGtalk 15:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I concur that it appears to be dead and that Magnus is responsible for it. I filed a ticket at https://bitbucket.org/magnusmanske/commonshelper/issues/21/commonshelper-doesnt-work.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Eventually all tools will die this way. Sadly so will we, but let's not think about that too much. -- (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Commons images on kisspng.com without attribution

There are lots of Commons images without attribution on http://kisspng.com:

In the past this kind of thing has led to deletion requests, because someone thought that the Commons image is stolen from the image collector (e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manny Pacquiao weigh-in.jpg). There is some danger that this might lead to premature deletions. So if there is a way to list this site as untrustworty, I hope someone will do this. Probably no one has time to deal with the copyright violations, but who knows. Here is a rant I found about the page: https://www.deviantart.com/sterlingkato/journal/Another-one-of-THOSE-websites-STEALING-STUFF-759562041 See also: Commons talk:How Alamy is stealing your images Greetings, Watchduck (quack) 00:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  • The only person who can pursue a copyright claim is the copyright holder.
  • If you like, though, you can use {{Published}} on the relevant file talk page and indicate illegal reuse. - Jmabel ! talk 04:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Watchduck, thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for reporting. I added it to COM:CLONE for now. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I sent them 25 DMCA notices for images in this set, and should hear from them within a week. There would be nothing unusual about bundling copyright complaints, and affected users could be notified and opt in if they want. The question is whether or not it is worth the effort. I suppose this boils down to three questions: Is this commercial use, how much money do they owe for it, and do they have it? But I guess the answer to the last question is no. Watchduck (quack) 20:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • From a couple of searches on random heraldic terms it appears they’ve also misappropriated some of Sodacan’s work. While I’m of the opinion that generic, traditional heraldic devices (and standard compositions thereof) should not be subject to copyright, I believe that artists with a distinctive style deserve attribution.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Suspected embedded data for my image

[[:]] has been tagged with {{embedded data}}, but I don't know what to do, since I'm pretty sure I took it with my phone. --stranger195 🇵🇭 (talk(please ping)contribsguestbook) 11:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Stranger195: what is "GPEncoder"? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I don't know. I just took it on my phone. A search engine result turns up almost nothing, although this might be it, "an encoder AVI to MPG4". Don't know how a JPEG uses that though. --stranger195 🇵🇭 (talk(please ping)contribsguestbook) 12:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Pinging @Stranger195, Zhuyifei1999.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Stranger195: There's 95KB of junk tacked on to the file, probably compressed media. Can't say much else about it, but I doubt your phone produces files like this out of the box. What model phone do you have and what app do you use to take pictures? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Also: how is this blurry image of a nondescript yard in scope? - Jmabel ! talk 15:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
It's too blurry to be credibly usable.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

October 19

How to convince others to licence without non-commercial?

When trying to obtain photos on a platform, answering a query as to why Wiki has to reject licences including non-commericial, I wrote: "Wikipedia has been forced to create strict policies on licences by court cases it has lost, that made Wikipedia responsible for misuse by third parties. I do not know the details. It tries to convince users with objections against its ban on non-commercial use conditions with this cartoon: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/BD-propagande-2_en.jpg"

The unexpected response was: "Ah: so it is OK for wiki to make a small profit from our pictures, by selling them cheap. Now all we need to know is what "inexpensive" means in terms of books and CDs, and how many billion copies they will sell ..."

I'm unsure how to do this properly. Perhaps someone has got some advice. Thank you in advance. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Non-commercial licenses prevent reuse in most cases. A blog with advertising, a book sold in a bookshop, a documentary on TV, etc., all these require a commercial license, even if the primary objective of the publication is educational. So practically, a license which allows reuse for commercial purpose is needed in almost every case. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
That cartoon is really dire and should be deleted. There is some info on what "non commercial" means at CC FAQ and CC FAQ Mix and Defining Noncommercial and NonCommercial interpretation. I don't think court cases are a factor at all. The point of Wikipedia and Commons are to be "free content" projects where the work (text, image, video, etc) can be freely reused by anyone for any purpose. As Yann notes, a surprising number of situations are commercial-use. I think that as a photographer you have to ask what you are trying to achieve with your photography. If you are trying to make a living from it, by selling images, then the images you feel have commercial value should of course not be given away with a free licence. Perhaps still there are images you've made that you don't see yourself making money from but have sufficient educational value that Wikipedia or others might find them useful. But an awful lot of photographers do it as a hobby and are not dependent on selling images to pay their mortgage. I say then that if you are not planning to make money from your photo, what harm does it do if someone else does? Far better to let others use and enjoy your photos for the biggest audience. And normal "(c) All rights reserved" means your photos cannot be used by anyone else for 70 years after you die. So unless you become a famous wealthy photographer with lawyers to manage your estate when dead, all you've done is ensure virtually nobody will use and enjoy your photos till the next century! Which is such a waste. Lastly, having a CC licence doesn't eliminate the chance of being paid for your work. There are companies who may want to use your image in a way that they don't want to have to provide even minimal attribution and licence details, and are willing to pay. -- Colin (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
"Ah: so it is OK for wiki to make a small profit from our pictures, by selling them cheap. Technically yes. But as a non-profit, Wikimedia Foundation is they're legally obligated to spend any profit fully to support their stated purpose by, for instance, purchasing access deals from pay-to-read journals for some elite class of editors, updating and maintaining their servers, hiring lawyers to sort out the sort of legal jumbles that arise in such a huge co-operation of volunteers (and vandals) from the world over, hiring developers to maintain and improve the software the sites operate on, etc etc.
More importantly, trying to sell any content or media published in Wikimedia Foundation projects--like Commons photos or Wikipedia articles--is like selling salt water by the sea. A lesson in supply and demand. The supply is endless and available for free for anyone that can access the Net. To create demand you'd really have to add value--like hard cover books for people who really, really dislike reading on screens. Not much of a market potential there if you ask me. Releasing any rights on intellectual property is irrevocable, so Wikimedia Foundation cannot restrict the licensing on their published content--they don't own it, it's free now and forever--they're just providing some sites and systems people can use to find them. Even if the Foundation was put down tomorrow and the sites went permanently down--anyone would be free to publish the stuff on mirror sites. As a matter of fact, there already are multiple sites that mirror Wikipedia letter-to-letter.
Furthermore, I'd like to point out that non-commercial licensed media cannot be used in things like educational pamphlets, print-outs for workshops or courses, USB drive books or any other knowledge distribution if the publisher needs to accept any sort of payment from distributors or end users to help cover costs or prevent the Free Stuff Syndrome. Not just here where Internet is pm everywhere and charities to help out disadvantaged people have plenty of wealth around them to ask donations from. But in developing countries where conflict, remoteness, extreme wealth disparity, political issues, and sparser infrastructure can make spreading of knowledge a real challenge and demand stuff like print materials, fuel, fees... By releasing without non-commercial, the media can be used by the locals to educate their neighbors and countrymen without restricting their options for supporting the operation financially. --Pitke (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
i would not waste time trying to convince; rather, work with the willing. i am sympathetic to the use of NC, when you have re-users not attributing SA images, and sending collection letters to photographers who donate images to the public domain, but you are not going to convince people whose pecuniary interest is to collect fees. we lost that battle. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
People ask a reasonable question "Why do I have to avoid -NC if Wikipedia is not commercial?" They deserve a better answer than that Wikipedia might sell the content on DVD or a book. Wikipedia killed off Encarta, the last encyclopaedia on a DVD, and Encyclopædia Britannica's last print edition was 2010. Wikipedia doesn't even publish content any more than MS Windows publishes an operating system. If you follow the photography forums, especially US ones, there is a mindset where absolute amateurs are desperate to watermark their Flickr or 500px photos just in case someone in Hong Kong sticks it on a calendar and makes a dollar from their work. Both Wikipedia and Commons are Free Content projects, and that concept deserves an better explanation. The software world went through the same confusion, distrust and eventually reached understanding and acceptance. -- Colin (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
we do not have better explanations because it is ideology, not reason. barriers to sharing, assume you believe in a sharing economy and scholarship. for those who believe in commerce and pay to play models, the sharing ideology is a non-starter. we do not have good reasons to favor SA and not NC, it is an ideological choice. reasonable people very well could have chosen to have NC on commons.
in addition, "They deserve a better answer" and they will not get it. "Free Content projects, and that concept deserves an better explanation." reasonable people could be Open, but not here. no need for explanations, when you can block people. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 21:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I accidentally removed an edit here and can't undo it now because the section has been altered. Feel free to re-add what I removed, and sorry again for the inconvenience. --Rosenzweig τ 21:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
here your go Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 21:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

General upload frustration

I know no one will care, but I still just need to express my frustration after carefully picking the best available photos from a large bunch (horrible lighting and lousy camera, but I can't do much about that, it's either that or nothing), then trying to carefully document a series of photos during the upload so all the main information would be in the description, in the filename, and categories (which of the seven musicians standing in a row is which?) - only to get an error message that the file names are too long and no, they can't be automatically shortened, I can't get a chance to rename them, nah, all my work is just scrapped and will have to start over because someone who wrote the uploader didn't give a jimmy about the other people's work. Well, I'll try to recall which ones I chose, throw in some general description and shut the browser because, honestly, if no one else cares, neither will I. I know Commons is hopelessly broken, so why do I keep coming back? I have no idea. --Ehitaja (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not claiming to care, but what upload method did you use? Both the Upload Wizard and the old Upload form seem to fail gracefully when presented with a stupidly long filename, preserving all the other data I've entered. --bjh21 (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
With further testing, I've found that the Upload Wizard fails slightly messily if I actually try to submit an image with a 250-character filename. I can click "Back" and then "Next" and all my metadata are still there, but there's no indication that some of my files were uploaded successfully. I'll see if I can work out where to report this. --bjh21 (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I've reported this as a bug (phab:T207336). --bjh21 (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
TBH, it would be sensible if the standard upload wizard gave a warning to users when they are trying to enter more than, say, 5 or 6 images that they may want to save their work in small batches. Browser failures are common and can be very frustrating, let alone unpredictable server failures etc. Alternatively, the wizard might provide a helpful link to COM:Upload tools so that newbies are aware that other methods exist. -- (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ehitaja: I feel your pain, but I hope you can make a lesson out of this: When uploading to Commons, use Special:Upload, Commons:VicuñaUploader, or Commons:Pattypan — not Special:UploadWizard: that is hopelessly broken. As for no one caring about your predicament, that’s an unfair and untrue aspersion, although, even with all my admiration and support for people caring about categorization and documentation and other forms of curation, even of photos with horrible lighting from lousy cameras, you did lost me at long filenames.
As a general advice for anyone in this same situation, though, I’ll say it doesn’t have to be all done in one go while uploading: First, name your files offline, in your own computer, with the names they will have in Commons, then upload everything caring only for an acceptable license and adding each file to a single bundle cat which can be even a red cat, and then, once it’s uploaded, do all your curation as regular wiki editing, on the files in that cat.
-- Tuválkin 08:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
No to draw out the discussion, I'd still quickly explain my personal reasoning behind long filenames. Pictures uploaded to Commons tend to have a lot of adventures on the Internet where, quite often, nobody bothers with metadata. I can resign to letting go of my authorship, any kind of attribution and licensing (yeah, it's important but there ain't much hope to change the humanity), but I still consider metadata relevant (e.g., who is on the photo, when and where). The best chance at attaching metadata to the photo as fast as possible is writing it in the filename. Most people who reuse the photos in traditional or social media won't bother renaming them (filenames come along by default, licenses etc won't, and humans are lazy), so there's a better chance that they use the descriptions given in the filename, not inventing some general crap. The chances aren't big but it's something, at least. Also, it is much more comfy to use a photo in the wikitext when its name already says everything and you won't have to check whether you wanted Someguy12345678.jpg or Someguy12345679.jpg --Ehitaja (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
As with many "simple" questions, "how to name a file" is far more complex to do well on this project than it first appears. You may find it helpful to browse through some of the project pages at User:Fæ/Project_list as many of the projects have specific naming and template mapping schemesjust for that project. In general it's good to have a maximum of 200 characters (which approaches the limit which varies by character set) and for readability aim for fewer than 100. The scheme should go left to right from the specific to general; the most used cases being <title> + <unique identity>. However filename is not a good way to present metadata - if you are worried about metadata always persisting with the image, you should investigate how to use EXIF data on the file and how to manipulate that with offline tools before uploading to Commons. Embedding data this way will make it possible for you to track reuse elsewhere, even if the filename or file page text is lost by the reuser.
An old but interesting example is User:Fæ/Projects/Xeno-canto, from when MP3 files were not hosted on Commons, so I re-encoded the audio to ogg format and fed as much metadata as possible into the recoding in a similar way to EXIF data which sits as an invisible "header" to the file. Consequently if a user downloads and reuses a file like Haemorhous mexicanus - House Finch XC99546.ogg, their audio player should be able to display the original source URL, author, date, location and more. Unless they deliberately recode the file, this metadata will stay with the file wherever it goes. -- (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

October 18

File:Deepak Chopras Go To 3 Minute Meditation To Stay Focused.ogg

Could someone more experienced than me verify the licence of this video, please? On the source page there is no licence specified under "show more" link/button. --jdx Re: 06:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • @U3143109: I see nothing on the YouTube page to indicate this is anything other than the default "all rights reserved". What am I missing? - Jmabel ! talk 16:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I tagged it as a copyvio.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with Zoomviewer ?

Is Zoomviewer down for some reason, or disabled and I'm out of the loop ? It's been a few weeks i've tried to use this tool (flash and non-flash) to check different high res images on commons, and I just cannot access to it, on any browser. Most of the time the loading fails with the message "No response from server iipsrv.fcgi" ([this map] for ex). Does anyone know what is happening with this pretty convenient tool, and how to fix it ? --Louis H. G. (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

October 22

What's the problem ?

This file which look ok here does't in the infobox there. Why ? --YanikB (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any differences. De728631 (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Forget it, It's ok now. --YanikB (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: -- User: Perhelion 21:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Collective account for technical edits

It may be a trivial question, but I can't find the answer in the policy pages. Is it allowed to have a user account that is not linked to a single person but belongs to a group of people? Specifically, there is a group of people organizing Wiki Loves Monuments in a given country, and they would like to have a joint account for making technical edits related to this competition (sort and categorize photos, greet new participants, etc.) Such an account won't be used for uploads, policy discussions, and similar activities. This will be stated clearly on the user page. Would it be fine, or not? --Alexander (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe the answer is "technically no", it's forbidden by the TOU, but Commons has allowed them occasionally anyway. GMGtalk 16:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything in policy to forbid it, either in the wmf:Terms of Use or in Commons:Username policy. Policy on other Wikimedia sites varies, so for instance such an account couldn't be used on English Wikipedia because en:Wikipedia:Username policy forbids sharing of accounts. --bjh21 (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The TOU states You are responsible for safeguarding your own password and should never disclose it to any third party. Presumably, any shared account would also have a shared password. Therefore TOU violation. GMGtalk 17:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I admit that I hadn't spotted that rule, but it doesn't prevent shared accounts. Even if "you" in the TOU can't be plural, one could use OAuth to grant API access, or have a proxy that handled authentication, or simply have one person log in multiple browser profiles with "Keep me logged in" ticked. On the other hand, I agree with Fæ below that this is probably not a good idea even if it's permitted. --bjh21 (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Computer magic. GMGtalk 15:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Avoid it please. It's easy enough to set up a series of grouped accounts like "Alan (WLF 2018)", "Alice (WLF 2018)" and "retire" the special purpose accounts when you are done with them. If something goes wrong, such as one user appearing to disrupt the project, then there is no individual accountability for the actions taken by a multi-user account. Putting aside the non-accountability in a sockpuppetry case, it becomes impossible to, say, mass revert damage without mass reverting similar changes (or uploads) in the same period from other users. -- (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
+1 -- User: Perhelion 19:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Agree with . --Jarekt (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

October 18

Georeferenced Audio Content: "Camera location"

I started uploading audio recordings of bat calls with geo location added. Now this reads on the file description page: "Camera location: ..." (or "Kameraposition: ..." in German), see e.g. File:Chirps151018-22NR.mp3. Looks and sounds strange, would there be a way to adapt this text to the specific content type? --Burkhard (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

We use term "Camera Location" to differentiate from many other locations one might have, like "Object location", "Depicted place", "Place of discovery", "Place of creation". It would be hard to be more general without needing much longer name, as we might need something like "Digitization coordinates" or 'Digitization location". Even "Point of view location" would be wrong. Now we could add something sound specific and add a flag to the template to alert us that this is "Sound file", or notice that the template is added to a file containing sound. --Jarekt (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
While thinking about it, what about uploaded oszillogram or spectrogram representations of audio content (coming soon)? From the file type (png, svg, etc.) it still could be a photograph. As an alternative to automatic file type detection an optional parameter "type=<type>" could be understood by the location template, e.g.
location|type=audio|...
which modifies the displayed text accordingly, e.g. "microfon position". Regards, --Burkhard (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

SVG quality of one image

I noticed that Hertha BSC Logo 2012.svg looks horribly pixeled when downscaled. Why's that? Too high resolution? --Redeemer (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably because it is a PNG image embedded in an SVG file. The original version seems to be OK, i.e. pure vector graphics. --jdx Re: 15:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@DCB: conduct like this led at least one user to long-term blocks, and in my opinion is not better than overt vandalism. If you worry about a vector image (for some legal reason, or else), then nominate it for deletion. If you have a PNG version of such image which can serve as a replacement or you deem useful for another reason, then upload it as PNG. Don’t overwrite vector images with raster images. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Wikimedia Commons Academy

Hi, We had a copyright workshop this week-end in Bangalore, India, sponsored by the Centre for Internet and Society - Access to Knowledge, with 15 participants, 6 staff from CIS-A2K, and 3 guests. It was a very lively and successful event. Participants are committed to be involved in Wikimedia Commons in various ways (translations, contributing content, help reviewing files, facilitating OTRS permissions, etc.).

Seeing the demands, it was decided to create a online training course. The objective is to enable people to contribute to Commons with a better knowledge of copyright and Commons policies. Curriculum and details are to be decided over the next weeks. Any comment and suggestion are welcome. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

There are no better pictures

"other, superior images available from this time period" (Category:Vanessa Hudgens in 2007)

@Jon Kolbert: no.

Just no.

This is not the first time I see this as a deletion rationale. We should stop eliminating usable images because "there are better pictures available". Because those "better pictures" may well end up getting deleted later as copyvio. At that point, we will have no pictures, because nobody will remember there used to be other slightly less appealing images. For example:

While we may not run out of Vanessa Hudgens photos entirely anytime soon, what exactly is it that we achieve with deletions like these? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

If half the time spent writing this was spent on looking further into the copyright status of images from the same time period, it would become quickly apparent that swirley18's series of photos were not transferred using the original resolution or metadata. If you would be so kind to name one reason why you would prefer File:Mehugeons.jpg or its crop over one of swirley's photos, I'd greatly appreciate it. On a side note, if I wanted to get nitpicky File:Mehugeons.jpg was uploaded by the subject of the image, not the author. So that's a false claim of own work. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
swirley18's photos have metadata, but were somehow transferred without. But that's not the issue.
"If you would be so kind to name one reason why you would prefer File:Mehugeons.jpg or its crop over one of swirley's photos, I'd greatly appreciate it."
Most of swirley18's photos are not sharp or Vanessa has her eyes closed. Which particular image from swirley18 is better than File:Mehugeons.jpg? Your nitpicky argument is the only valid argument in this particular case. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
File:Vanessa Hudgens 3.jpg isn't too bad. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Really? Let's compare them side-by-side: https://imgur.com/a/9geR3d6. Would you really call the image on the left a "superior image from this time period"? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
If you're going to manipulate the image to blow up their face, then obviously not. Explain to me why, then, that the image I prefer is used in en:Vanessa_Hudgens#2006–08:_High_School_Musical,_V_and_Identified instead of the picture with a fan. Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Or better yet, replace it and see how long it lasts. Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
"If half the time spent writing this was spent on looking further into the copyright status of images" - no, if half the time spent deleting other peoples images were spent on getting better images of living people, rather than farming flickr, then this might be a real image repository, until then it is merely a battleground for trolls. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Jon Kolbert, a full body shot is no replacement for a shot of her face. Both photos are educationally useful, swirley18's photo shows her on stage but is useless if you want to see her face. One does not replace the other. That photo on stage would never be used for an infobox unless it was as a last resort. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Art Institute of Chicago

The Art Institute of Chicago (cat) has just relaunched its website in a new design.

Apparently it now includes 44,313 images, now made available CC0, and in higher resolution than previously accessible. [21], powered by a IIIF service.

Not sure how still in-copyright images are being indicated, but some of this may be worth an upload.

Wikidata currently knows of 2366 items from the Institute, with images for 435. (tinyurl.com/ybacf9gz). Jheald (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-43

23:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

October 24

Sockpuppetry

Do we have a policy specifically prohibiting sockpuppetry? I can't find anything; there's no link at Commons:SPI, for example, and that page has a note saying It is forbidden to use multiple undisclosed accounts in an abusive way. Such accounts will be blocked. Seems to me that it would help to have something of a sockpuppetry policy, even if it's as simple as saying "en:WP:SOCK is now our sockpuppetry policy" or making the two-sentence note on COM:SPI the entire policy. It's a common-sense concept, at least for anyone familiar with other WMF projects, so I don't think we ought to put effort into writing a policy, but since many other projects have policies on the subject, it would be helpful to designate something as our equivalent. Nyttend (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry, by definition, is the use of multiple undisclosed accounts in an abusive way. Indeed, alternative accounts are not disallowed; sockpuppetry is the abusive use of alternative/multiple accounts. The SPI quote alone is a prohibition and COM:BLOCK has the explicit reason "Abusing multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, distort consensus or to evade blocks or other sanctions." Sockpuppetry is not allowed by policy (COM:BLOCK), and that has been, and is, the current practice. What about the current handling of socks needs to be changed? What actual problem needs to be resolved here? Эlcobbola talk 22:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
gosh, what a wonderful idea to just import tl;dr policy from english, and the english drama. if you are serious, start a Commons:Village pump/Proposals. but i do not think you have a consensus. not broken = don't fix. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

October 17

Historic images containing Nazi swastikas

Why has {{Swastika}} been removed from File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F051620-0043, Hitler, Göring und v. Schirach auf Obersalzberg.jpg, but not from File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-12078, Adolf Hitler und Anton Franzen.jpg? --84.60.94.164 07:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the removal. --Túrelio (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
And should all historic images containing Nazi swastikas be tagged with {{Swastika}}? --84.60.94.164 14:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I believe they should. Does anyone disagree? - Jmabel ! talk 15:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I would say that Western uses definitely should, the thing is that the swastika as the symbol is used by many other cultures as well, should they all be marked? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 18:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The operative term here is "Nazi swastikas". Obviously, a Japanese or Navajo swastika is an entirely different matter. - Jmabel ! talk 18:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The template {{Swastika}} only applies to files from Germany and has no legal value in any other country. Reason: The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany has no jurisdiction in any other country. Even photo's made by German troops during WW2, that are now in (for example) the Netherlands National Archives, are not subject to German law. Besides the absence of German jurisdiction, the Netherlands government after WW2 adapted a law on enemy property, which includes photo's by German troops, confiscating and nationalizing enemy property. And I am sure many other formerly occupied countries did the same. Also there is a thing called freedom of expression and freedom of press. These also apply to Wikimedia Commons, which is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Nonetheless anyone should be careful on how and when to apply Nazi symbols, taking into account the feelings of many people towards these symbols. --oSeveno (talk) 11:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The template {{Swastika}} exists to warn users that use of the image has some limitations in Germany and other countries. That's unrelated with where the original image is stored.--Pere prlpz (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Jmabel, I agree that all historic images containing Nazi swastikas should be tagged with {{Swastika}} to alert people that in some countries like Germany, Poland and several others there are legal restrictions on how you might use that image. --Jarekt (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

October 19

Template:M

Today I recognized this strange shortcut (redirect)[22] and I'm a long time user here on Commons. My first thought was a link template to Meta (like m:Template) as there are corresponding cross-wiki templates. And indeed the first intention of this was exactly this, but later this shortcut was usurped by (a) french user(s), because there is a corresponding template on FrWiki for fr:Template:Modèle (of course not exists here). Long story short, my intention is a deletion of this shortcut template as it breaks some Commons rules (which would lead to chaos if every language would occupy his own shortcut names). But before I would get some meanings to this on a wider crowd, because (it is a bit special) it is not young and it is included around 5000 times. -- User: Perhelion 20:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

PS: for comparison only, e.g. on DeWiki there exists not even such corresponding shortcut for this de:Vorlage:V. -- User: Perhelion 20:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand what you want to delete: {{M}} redirect or {{T}} template? Ruslik (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@Perhelion: If it keeps the French Wikipedians happy by not breaking their copied wikitext, why mess with it?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I never liked a single letter templates as I can never remember them, so replace and delete sounds like a good idea. Also {{T}} soulds like the same thing as {{Tl}}, so I wonder why do we have both? --Jarekt (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
+1 Symbol keep vote.svg Agree Seems from EnWiki, where {{T}} is only another redirect to {{Tl}}. I've opened a DR. -- User: Perhelion 13:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

October 21

Location airplane pictures

This is fligh from Schiphol to Iceland. Can the location be found? (the nummering is in reverse order)Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The first picture here shows Aberdeen. I added a category. Cookies4ever (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I looked around some more. UK view from Schiphol Iceland 1.jpg shows Aboyne and the river Dee. In UK view from Schiphol Iceland 2.jpg you can see Stonehaven in the center and Aberdeen in the upper part of the picture. UK view from Schiphol Iceland 3.jpg also depicts Aberdeen with the river Dee flowing into the sea. Hope this helps ː) Cookies4ever (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I upload a lot of airplane shots as well. What I find most helpful is flightaware.com. Find the exact flight you were on, and then export the track to Google Earth. Use the exif time on the photo, to see exactly where you took the photo. It might get a bit tricky if the camera time zone is different, but you get the idea. :) Rehman 07:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

If you can locate one of the images exactly, then you can estimate the location of the others by using the first photo as yor reference point and calculating the distance from that photos using the time difference between between the photos and the aircraft speed (typically 900 km/h for a jet aircraft or 600 km/h for a turbo-prop aircraft flying at normal altitude). Martinvl (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

October 25

font

Hi, i want to upload a svg file (i will use object-to-path, so not scalable) using a font which is free to use for "Personal" usage but not commercial. Can i upload such SVG file? According to this & this, yes. Can someone confirm please? --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Pre uploading

I have some post cards wich are not yet PD, but will be in time. Is there some way to upload those images and parc them until the release date? Often after examination and discussion it is determined that a file is not PD until X. It is then deleted and is automaticaly undeleted at X. Quite often it is only after an upload and examination and discussions by others that the dating and author is established. The post card was posted in 1939 under the trademark Loïc. Research found that the author is Laurent-Nel who died in 1960. Archives départemental de la Manche. I dont know if I will still be living in 2030.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, You could upload them and then ask for deletion, adding a "Undelete in 20xx" category in the deletion request. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done except for the undelete. Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Steel in construction

Rotterdam Lombardijen eind 1995 begin 1996 3.jpg

Is there a category for the use of steel in construction?Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

October 27

The MediaWiki Upload Wizard should utilise redirects

Since there isn't a Commons:Village pump/Technical I wrote this in the Phabrocator (see attaches ticket 🎟):

"One major difference between Wikimedia Commons and every other Wikimedia project is that not only are redirects essentially useless, they’re also annoying as [redacted]. Now this wouldn’t as annoying if the MediaWiki Upload Wizard would ignore them… but it doesn’t, nor does it actually warn users about the fact that they just selected a category that directs to another category. However ignoring redirects would create its own problems altogether as the redirect would make more sense or is the same name as its equivalent page in the English Wikipedia so without these redirects many users wouldn’t even be able to find the pages they're looking for. However we don’t want the wizard telling users “you shall not pass”.

So the solution is actually simple, let’s say a user types in “Turkish museums” in the MediaWiki Upload Wizard they should be automatically redirected to “Museums in Turkey”, currently only a bot 🤖 does it but then the files still end up in the redirect category first. Now redirects are very handy if they are utilised correctly, someone typing “Museums of Turkey” might not know that it's “Museums in Turkey”. Now visualise this, the uploader types in “Turkish museums” in the upload form, they press “enter” and suddenly the correct “Museums in Turkey” is selected. This way category redirects could be useful rather than a mere hindrance. This is similar to what Hot-cat does today, it simply adds "the correct" category when a user wrote the redirect."

Is there a more direct method that I can contact the developers of the MediaWiki Upload Wizard? As this isn't really a policy proposal and apparently technical users don't frequent the help desk either I actually have come to realise that it's quite difficult to get an immediate hold on the developers of the MediaWiki Upload Wizard. Is there a reason why Hot-cat can immediately add the correct category when you type in a redirect while the Upload Wizard can't? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 05:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Why did you redact yourself? Just say annoying as hell if you don't want to say fuck. Hell used to be a swear word.. but no more really.
HotCat is a gadget. AFAIK it doesn't run on the Wikimedia servers, it completely runs on your computer. So it can go around and figure out which categories are actually redirects and fix them. UL technically could do the same, but it's probably not desireable from a technical point of view. It would make more sense if the Mediawiki software would take this into account when requesting matching categories. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that the Wikimedia Commons Mobile app from Google Play already does that, I remember it actually being a lot more useful in picking categories than the MediaWiki Upload Wizard, I'm just curious as to why the developers of this tool haven't really updated it to make it more user-friendly. There's a large update to how mobile browsers view Wikimedia projects in the works which finally improve the editing environment for mobile users but Wikimedia Commons (at least upload-wise) always seems like an afterthought for the developers, both the volunteer ones and the paid ones. Redirects on Wikimedia Commons in their current state are pretty much useless despite them actually having a lot of potential, I can see them making the project a lot easier to navigate for non-English speakers however creating non-English redirects now would probably be more confusing to those people rather than guiding.
Why are the developers so hard to reach anyhow? Why isn't there a technical village pump like on other Wikimedia projects? Especially for one of this size. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Just for clarification, you're referring to category redirects, not ordinary redirects... AnonMoos (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

October 20

Determining the dupe

This specifically concerns the following two images:

File Uploaded Created License Comments
NIMH - 2155 005271 - Aerial photograph of Heemskerk, Fort Veldhuis, The Netherlands.jpg 2015 1920-1930 PD-Old Uploaded by a Wikimedian in a small-scale batch upload of related images, probably out of personal interest.
NIMH - 2155 005271 - Aerial photograph of Heemskerk, Fort Veldhuis, The Netherlands.jpg 2018 1920-1940 cc-by-sa 4.0 Uploaded as part of a collaboration between the photo's parent institute and Wikimedia. Contains a lot more metadata, both description-wise and as exif.

Usually when I identify duplicates, I simply tag the most recent of the two for deletion/redirection. However, in this case it would mean deleting (or merging) the more "official" version, leaving the older as the main file. And then there is the issue of different licenses. What do I do now? --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If it is really PD-Old then it can not be cc-by-sa 4.0 - the license is invalid. So, I do not see any problem with licences. Ruslik (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
The second version gives a date range of 1920-1940. If it was taken in 1940, and it's not PD in the USA due to URAA, the license would be useful. --ghouston (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
The source website says 1930, so maybe the 1940 is generic to the entire batch, but 1930 may also give URAA problems. People who don't trust PD-Art may also appreciate the license. --ghouston (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
As long as you merge all info & add the relevant redirect, it's not actually that important which file is kept. One of the main reasons we normally keep the older is so that someone doesn't get dubious "credit" for uploading photos we already have, but if there is a strong reason to the contrary for a particular photo, then that's not so big an issue. - Jmabel ! talk 23:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd keep the 2nd one in this case for the Exif data, and to avoid bureaucracy in moving the OTRS notice. --ghouston (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
The original uploader was @Hannolans:, maybe they also have an opinion. --ghouston (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, the photo should be pd-EU-anonymous in the Netherlands as made by an governmenteal organisation (air photographic service of Department of Defense) more than 70 years ago. I would say, merge with keeping the richer exif-version and apply dual license tag pd-eu-anonymous can be used in the Europe, while the CC_BY_SA can be used in the US. --Hannolans (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
NB: the date should be acoording to the page of the image 'Datering van 1920 Precisie eind Circa Datering tot 1930', so 1920-1930 --Hannolans (talk) 07:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I changed the date on the new upload and added {{PD-anon-70-EU}}. I couldn't find a template explicitly for government works. I also marked File:Luchtfoto van Fort Veldhuis.jpg as a duplicate. --ghouston (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
do not merge duplicate. as you see in this case, you can delete metadata. if you crosslink in other versions, then we can migrate any uses to the best one. and old superseded images are useful commons history. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
Thanks. I do wonder though whether PD-anon-70-EU really applies: the image is a military photograph and while it may have been created in the 1920s, I doubt it was also published at that time due to security reasons. Then again, I could not find anything about its publication history. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes, it's quite possible it was never published until it was donated to the NIMH. The CC license is sufficient anyway. --ghouston (talk) 08:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

These Images License May need a Template

I asked Lymantria these question below and he made a reply below: As an aside, do you have any idea what the license is for these 2 images below:

  • At the source if you click on 'technical information' an unclear license is given. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I think this needs some template of its own. I do not have time now to dive into it. Perhaps you could drop how to deal with this license at the village pump. Lymantria (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone have a solution here? There are other issues with the same unclear license like these 2 files.

I have to sign off now as its late at night here. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Error when trying to make links

Error message

I have had this afternoon three times after creating a category that when trying to make links to Wikipedia pages I got the error "Fout: $1. Either provide the items "ids" or pairs of "sites and "titles" for corresponding page". That explanation does not help me to know what to do. I now added the old way of linking [[en: page title]] and on the Wikipedia page {{Commonscat|name of the category in Commons}}. What to do? Wouter (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hrm, I didn't get this error when I used the "Edit links" tool at Category:Durgi, Guntur district. De728631 (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Judging from Commons:Forum and Phabricator, this seems to have been resolved. De728631 (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Ansar Ahmad Bhatti.jpg

Can do with some help with this one. The history as far as I can make out. User:Ansar Ahmad Bhatti seems to have joined Wikimedia on the 15th September 2018 according to the User's Talk page. Also according to the Talk page, on the 18th September, the User's file File:Ansar Ahmad Bhatti.jpg received a DR for being out of scope. On the 25th September 2018, the file was deleted by Admin Jcb.

On the 24th October User Jon Kolbert added a very friendly warning to the Talk page reminding the User that Wikimedia was not a personal photo album and therefore the User's images were subject to deletion. It was not clear what images were being referred to.

If we now turn to the User's Contrib page. On the 25th October the User added a image File:Ansar Ahmad Bhatti.jpg. This agrees withe file's History page. There is little else on the Contribs page

Now from the above am I right to assume that this User is uploading a file of the sane name despite it being deleted at least once possibly twice for being out of scope? What else could explain the above.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Headlock0225 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 27 October 2018‎ (UTC)
  • @Headlock0225: Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
It was a copyvio anyway. Deleted. De728631 (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

October 28

Can I withdraw PD status from files I've uploaded?

Hi. A serious question and one which I hope I won't get shot down for in flames. I have some images on here which I've created and uploaded, and marked as PD. Now I've come to the realisation that I actually don't want them as PD - and since PD by itself is not a license, it gives the item as a "gift", do I have the implicit right to withdraw PD from anything I've uploaded and reclaim copyright over the image, possibly even relicensing them as CC-BY-SA rather than a flat out "do what the **** you like with it" tag? Thanks. DaneGeld (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi,
Usually, this is accepted for recent files, i.e. uploading during last week. But you didn't upload any file recently. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@DaneGeld: Yann is right. Also, you have only 2 PD photos here. For File:Public access AED with coded lock.jpg you used CC0 which can't be revoked. For File:Digital Behind-the-ear Hearing Aids.jpg you initially used CC BY-SA 4.0 but changed it to PD-self: making corrections to the license: I release this image into the public domain.
What you can do is take new, even better photos and upload those with the license you prefer now. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
If you release something into PD, it will legally stay there forever. You are not the copyright owner anymore and therefore can not issue any licenses. We can, of course, delete your PD images from Commons but legally this will change nothing. They will be still in PD. You can only hope that nobody noticed that you had released them in the public domain. Ruslik (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:La pelirroja de Élite (desde 2018) (given name)

Could you please take a look at this category? Where does it come from? Hanooz 13:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

From here. Strakhov (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Strakhov. For 13 hours all Wikidata-mediated instances of the name "Ali" were replaced by this nonsense, injected by an IP, affecting not only Commons but most (all) versions of Wikipedia. -- Tuválkin 13:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Not all of them, only the ones using the English label. Strakhov (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Much “better”. There’s a fortunate paradox about vandalism, that high-impact edits will be swiftly noticed (like this one) while low-impact ones (if it affected a less widely used language) will stay on longer — making all kinds of vandalism equally worrisome. Additionally in this case we have Wikidata making it easier for a vandal to slip in (weaker anti-vandalism defense) and harder for editors to fix it once spotted (opaque transclusions, cumbersome interface — cp. this). -- Tuválkin 13:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Second time you link that thread in this thread. I'm not a wikidata-blind-believer and I've advocated for a more controlled use in wikipedia infoboxes, but I tell you ...fixing this thing was not hard to me. In fact... it was pretty easy. And I'm pretty far from being a "code god" [sic]. Strakhov (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Hanooz 13:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Remember when I said that Wikidata is an overrated GIGO machine? With a dumbed-down, gamified interface that widens the chasm between professional code gods and pedestrian casual contributers, salting the middle ground (the so called power users) where the wiki tree first set its roots? That it’s furthermore a bug-ridden greenhose flower, good for presentations and bogus beta testing but unable to withstand real-life situations in real time? Well I meant cases like this and now this one. How many more? -- Tuválkin 13:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I've checked and that IP didn't edit anything alse, fortunatelly. B25es (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-44

20:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

October 30

Community Wishlist Survey

Hi. I'm planning to propose some sort of limited w:en:MuseScore integration with MediaWiki at the Community Wishlist Survey, since (a) there don't seem to be a lot of correctly licensed recordings of public domain music which are newer than 95 years; (b) MIDI can already be uploaded to Commons but can't be playedcan only be played through the Score extension 07:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC), so this isn't really unprecedented; (c) MuseScore generally has better playback and editing than the Score extension (in my opinion); (d) allowing MuseScore files to be uploaded to Commons would have general positive effects for other MuseScore users and musicians; (e) Commons and Wikipedia would get to benefit from the OpenScore project's development as well as the sheet music at musescore.com (well, depending on the license and how obviously non-copyvio it is).

The specific things that would probably be requested would be

  • (definitely) allowing Commons uploads of .mscz and .mscx files
  • (probably) allowing the sheet music and/or audio of the files to be displayed (as PDF and OGG respectively) when used with normal file syntax
  • (maybe) creation of standard template files for MuseScore files, such as a file for displaying a one-line snippet of sheet music

Would these things generally be helpful; is there something I've missed that would also be useful? Jc86035 (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Looks great, and very welcome.
What about .mid? I remember that already back in the 1990s there was software capable of displaying (and even editing!) .mid files as stave(s).
-- Tuválkin 00:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: MIDI doesn't have any features with regards to actual presentation, AFAIK, which is where MuseScore would have an advantage (since it's primarily supposed to be a scorewriter). LilyPond, of course, can already render scores in MediaWiki, but it lacks a graphical interface. Jc86035 (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Nice. Yann (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Posted at m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Multimedia and Commons/Allowing upload, rendering and playback of MuseScore files. Jc86035 (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

What about w:en:Chemical Markup Language? Integration was proposed long time ago as well as work on better was carried during GSoC (if I'm not mistaken in campaign). Category:Chemical structures will definitely benefit. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: I think that's probably a good idea (I'm not familiar with it, though); maybe you could propose it. The Meta page says proposals can be submitted from 29 October to 11 November. Jc86035 (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

October 26

The Community Wishlist Survey

11:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Johan (WMF): The landing page has no obvious place to click to actually make a proposal. I'm not being difficult, I just don't get it. -- (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
P.S. Your account name in your sig on this post is weird, nobody puts "User:" as their account name. -- (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Hang on, those custom boxes are clickable, and you can click on them to both read and make a proposal. Yeah, that's not a standard way of doing these things and a "make a proposal by clicking here" would help. -- (talk) 12:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The User: thing is a simple copy'n'paste error (if I sign using ~~~~ it'll be signed by the bot delivering the message, not the person actually writing it) I failed to catch.
OK, I've added a short note just above the categories, as a temporary solution if nothing else. Thanks for pointing it out. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Uploading a 1 MB file no longer possible with home 264/64 common home connections

Upload Wizard and older forms unusable with ADSL 256/64 (64k upload speed), and a 1MB .jpg . Invariably times out after a while, telling you to retry. Staff: please use more realistic timeout settings! Thank you! Jidanni (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think just simulating it via browser settings will trigger the problem. Jidanni (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

November 01