Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:Y Dafarn)
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:VP

  Welcome   Community portal   Help desk
Upload help
  Village pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
 
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Village pumps for other languages:

বাংলা | Alemannisch | العربية | asturianu | авар | Boarisch | bosanski | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 |  | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | मराठी | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | suomi | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | Zazaki | +/−

Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Please note


  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing please do not comment here. It is a waste of your time. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is just a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read the FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page


Search archives


 


Village pump in India. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss • Edit • Watch

Contents



Oldies[edit]

Conversion of still GIF images using color or transparency to PNG[edit]

So I have been running User:GifTagger for some time until it was blocked due to "Problem with the editing and the enforcement of an opinion without conversation with the relevant community" in January. I had to clean up the code and was too busy with other things that time anyway. Though, now I feel like getting a discussion up on this topic. I had some users on my talk page asking if I could fire the bot up again but I'd rather have any sort of feedback before getting blocked out of the blue again. --McZusatz (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to start the discussion, I will present what I think are the advantages of using PNG over GIF:

The thumbnail of this gif is useless as it only shows some random black pixels. Sadly it was used in two articles.
Much smoother thumb
  1. Better thumbnails
    C.f. thumb on the right; GIF thumbnails are often pixelated due to transparency (Only a single transparency index is supported). Also PNG thumbnails support 24-bit RGB in contrast to a maximum of 256 colors in GIF (thumbnail) files.
  2. Smaller size
    GIF files tend to be larger than PNG
  3. Easier editing/"Lossless" editing
    Someone may want to edit those files. Surely the editor prefers a 24-bit palette over the 8-bit GIF-palette without uploading a new PNG derivative file before or after his edit by fiddling with (partly) broken tools such as UpWiz or DerivativeFX. Also you can not apply most filters to indexed palettes which results in a lossy process: Palette -> 24 bit -> Apply filter -> another? Palette
    However, the conversion from GIF to PNG is lossless and also the transparency, if present, does not get lost. (PNG supports 8-bit transparency in contrast to GIF's 1-bit transparency.)

--McZusatz (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is to leave the GIFs as is and only update them on a needed basis. A large number of GIFs should be replaced by SVG (vector data) to begin with, so a extra PNG is unneeded in a large number of cases. Thumbnail point you made could be dealt with by generating PNG thumbnails with a anti-alias option instead of generating GIF thumbnails (i.e. similar to how we convert SVG to PNG for thumbnails/re-sizing). This is an issue that could be fixed through the wikimedia software end without having to re-upload a new version of every file. Offnfopt(talk) 22:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
@McZusatz: One rationale I find hard to understand is (for example at File:Enrico cialdini.png): "This GIF was problematic due to non-greyscale color table." Isn't it correct for a colour image to have a non-greyscale colour table⁇ I'm not sure which of your other rationales may also apply, but the filesize was bigger than that of File:Enrico cialdini.gif. I'm also a little concerned that (non-admins) lose the edit history of the deleted files, so it's harder to check the licensing etc. --99of9 (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
99of9 After reading your comment, I went ahead and ran a small test case of some of the files in the contrib list for the bot. I don't have access to see the pages for the deleted files, so I converted the PNG files to GIFs using the exact same indexed palette found in the PNG, so there is no loss or change in the image from the conversion I did. The original GIF file sizes may be different from mine depending on what options they used to save the files, I didn't do any special optimizations or tweaks to the files. The below table is the results of this small test case. You can see from the table that the claim of PNG having a smaller file size did not hold up to this test case. Also as I stated before, the bulk of these images are better served being converted to vector graphics due to the nature the pictures. Offnfopt(talk) 08:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
File GIF size (in bytes) PNG size (in bytes) Smaller file size PNGopt
File:Enis logo2.png 1,997 2,150 GIF
File:Enlarged lateral ventricles in schizophrenia.png 45,747 58,353 GIF 39.227
File:Enlarged spleen.png 10,106 10,960 GIF
File:Enlluita-logo.png 5,500 6,009 GIF
File:Enmascaramiento temporal.png 4,032 5,391 GIF
File:Enneagram - 2.png 30,934 31,843 GIF
File:Ennea triangle.png 1,139 2,161 GIF
File:Enrico cialdini.png 19,980 23,409 GIF 17.314
File:Enrin u0.png 13,577 20,241 GIF 11.227
File:Ensea-fonctions.png 7,854 7,815 PNG
I can agree Offnfopt and 99of9. The file size is only one point, as I mentioned to McZusatz before, the bot need a simple PNG optimizing function (I used the very fast PNGGauntlet). So I only vote for the bot if he has such functionaltiy. User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  09:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I replaced the poor PNG optimization with some better one in the meantime, so this should not be an issue any more. --McZusatz (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@99of9, Offnfopt: Your proposal to use PNG for thumbnails instead of GIF, indeed solves the issues that can be observed in GIF thubnails today. Nonetheless, I'd still prefer to have the source image in PNG as well to make it easier for users to upload an enhanced version without going through quantization of the color values. This quantization degrades an image slightly if the color values don't match the quantization levels. --McZusatz (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I want to add that I'm not against the bot per se, when I first posted I was in the mind set thinking the bot was going to leave the original GIF, so I was thinking it was going to cause a large number of duplicate files. But being that is not the case and letting the pros and cons rattle around in my head for a while, I'm warming up to the idea. Though I do worry about the bot encountering a file configuration it may not be able to handle and end up outputting a garbage PNG file and removing the original GIF. I wonder if the bot should generate a paged gallery log of files converted so others could keep an eye on the changes being made without having to scroll through the contrib log of the bot. I also support the good suggestion by Perhelion. Offnfopt(talk) 10:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
There is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles?limit=500&user=GifTagger&ilshowall=1 but I can also create a custom log page if you want me to. --McZusatz (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: If you have any issues with the Bot, please raise them. --McZusatz (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@McZusatz: My issue was that the bot was deleting images, not that it was running an image generator. The bot and this community should not be overriding how the communities have placed and are managing their inclusions. Commons is a central repository, not a determinator. If a community has and chooses to use a gif, then leave their image alone, and just do your conversion. If you wish to discuss with the communities about your bot and its actions then start an RFC and invite these communities to join the conversation. The means exists.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The "non-greyscale color table" bot comment is due to giving non-transparent greyscale GIFs lower priority for conversion (i.e. not to be replaced without a further round of discussion at a future date), because of the fact that PNG thumbnailing for many years was significantly worse at resizing opaque grayscale PNGs than GIF thumbnailing is at resizing opaque grayscale GIFs -- and also various developer comments which have led to suspicions that improving PNG resizing in this area is not a WMF priority, and in fact that the very belated partial progress which was finally made in such PNG resizing could actually be reversed if WMF developers choose to adopt image software with some nifty features in other areas. See the discussion at Commons:Bots/Requests/GifTagger... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I will again emphasise to administrators and bureaucrats that it is not the job of Commons to set the standard that the sister wikis use, nor to think that we impose componentry on these wikis, they are their own bosses. This is the central repository that is used by all the wikis to make the images available to all wikis. We determine that files are within copyright, and that the files are within scope. More than that should be taken up with the wikis where we asked for them to come and contribute not enforce our opinion from limited conversations, in limited corners of Wikimedia.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, its really easy to make MediaWiki render non-animated gifs as PNG files, if there was wide agreement that that was the right thing to do. Bawolff (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Imo there is no reason not to create PNG thumbnails of all still GIFs instead of obviously broken GIF thumbnails. --McZusatz (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: Would you oppose serving non-animaged greyscale GIF images as PNG thumbnails as well? --McZusatz (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Hey gang, this is Scott (Russavia). I have a request. If you look at, for example, File:Park Hyatt, Shanghai (3198569878).jpg you will see in the "Source": * Uploaded by [[User:russavia|russavia]]. I believe this is causing files that I have uploaded to be mis-attributed to "Russavia" instead of the actual author. An example is this. This is, unfortunately, a widespread occurrence, and harms the ability of re-users to easily credit works on Commons to their correct authors. Especially since "Russavia" appears in the "Use this file" links.

To make files easier for re-use, I would like to request that someone go through this, or ALL files uploaded by myself, and remove the above wiki-code from all those uploads. I am making this request using one of my normal IPs, and this request can be confirmed by checking with me on IRC if required. Thanks, 58.7.136.251 09:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I could look at this and maybe fire up user:YaCBot to do it. --McZusatz (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@McZusatz: Not that I'm going to edit a third of a million files myself, but I did verify this with him on IRC (he has a Freenode cloak), and it is a legitimate request. Probably a bit pointless to block the IP, though. Revent (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Lol, its not like WMF ever cared for Commons Wiki..they wouldn't even let Scott fix his own mistakes...--Stemoc 11:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks McZusatz if you could do that it would be great. Once it is completed for my uploads, I would seriously look at doing it for all uploads on Commons. It is a common problem and sincerely isn't limited to myself. 106.69.128.124 12:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 Running for your uploads and all others. --McZusatz (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you McZusatz. How long do you think this bot job will take? If you are doing them all, not limited to my uploads, I can only guess that there would be well over a million files to do this on? Cheers, 217.170.205.22 03:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
A couple of months at least, because I did not prioritize those flickr edits, yet. In total less than 1.5 years, though. --McZusatz (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

OTRS and other relevant issues but not directly related to this request[edit]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
While not wanting to get involved in one of these battles, I've processed quite a few OTRS tickets in the last few weeks, and see a discouraging tendency of uploaders who think that the author field is the place to put the uploaders name. I get that we can't change the term to "photographer" because many images are not photographs, but I wish we could find a better approach.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Author is the correct name for that field and definitely not suitable for any other info like "uploader". But unfortunately some people think uploding files from some other place is the most prestigious work and consider themselves as #1 contributors here. Some tools also designed to add that nonsense (eg: Commons:derivativeFX). I had manually fixed that field in many uploads earlier. Designers need to be well educated about copyright matters. Jee 15:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Probably, adding an "uploader" field would make the system more understandable for those uploaders. If there are different "author" and "uploader" fieds it would be clear that author doesn't mean uploader.--Pere prlpz (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
But our system allows anyone to overwrite files. So we need Uploader 1, Uploader 2...Uploader N. Jee 15:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Uploaders should be advised that they are credited for their upload work in the file history, any OTRS volunteer must take care to have truly validated the correct attribution for the Author field and advised the uploader if there is doubt. I could create a bot to pull the upload account information out of the image history log and slap it into an {{information}} template, but that would be exceedingly pointless at it duplicates what can already be seen on a standard Commons image page. -- (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I just took a look at the upload wizard. After selecting the image, default is that the file is not your own work and there are two fields labeled source and authors. The second field has a small light gray question mark in paranteheses. If you hover over it, the text says The name of the person who took the photo, or painted the picture, drew the drawing, etc.
However, despite using this hundreds of times I had never noticed that text before. I suggest that many uploaders have never seen it. My guess is that the designers of this form were looking for a clean look and I'd like to respect that, but the fact is, many many submissions have that field filled in with the uploaders name.
What harm would occur if we spelled that out a bit more explicitly, for example:


Author(s) (The name of the person who took the photo, or painted the picture, drew the drawing, etc.)
If we did that we might want to do the same with source which is also misused. I understand this shouldn't be considered casually and perhaps I should make this a formal proposal, but it might be worth an experiment to see if it cuts down on the number of mis-filled out files.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

_____________________________________

That makes complete sense to me. Anything we can do to make it clearer to the submitter and making it less onerous to cleanup would be an improvement I would think. Reguyla (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Without regard to any anger some people may feel for the individual making this suggestion, he or she is making an important point. When I use google's image search on my wiki-ID, "Geo Swan", while I find that some of the images credited to me on other sites are actually images I actually took myself, most of the wikimedia commons images that have been re-used by third parties that are credited to me are actually images I uploaded that were taken by someone else, and were in the public domain, or otherwise free.
So, third-party re-users tried their best to correctly honor the right to attribution and credit the individual who created the image, and found our distinction between authors and uploaders so confusing they incorrectly credited the uploader (me), not the "author". I suggest that any of you who try this will find the same thing, that like Russavia and myself, you will find you are incorrectly credited with more images for which you were simply the uploader than the credits to the images you took personally.
@Jkadavoor: wrote "Author is the correct name for that field and definitely not suitable for any other info like 'uploader'." Sorry, I disagee. The field that Jee thinks should be labeled "author" is best filled with the individual or organization which owned the intellectual property rights, if the IP rights were owned by someone other than the photographer. "Credit to" is another alternative. Whatever name we use for this field, we should render it in bold, and double or triple size, to make it harder for good faith third party users to be confused and credit the uploader, instead.
I just did a google image search on my wiki-ID. Of the images it tosses up, that I recognize, the first seven are false positives, image I merely uploaded, which, however good faith third parties incorrectly attributed to me.
FWIW I don't google myself because I am vain. I occasionally google myself so I can see if those hatemongers at wikipediareview are slandering me again.
Even though some people seem to continue to bear a grudge against Russavia, he or she has raised an important point here, and deserves a thank you. So Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I didn't fully understand your disagreement. If "copyright holder" is different from "author", it also need to be mentioned there with a prefix "copyright:". But "uploader" or somebody do minor edits which are not qualified for "derivative work" need not be mentioned there. Note that our generic template {{Information}} use "author"; but special templates like {{Specimen}} and {{Photograph}} use more specific words. "Author" can be changed to "Author/Copyright" if it is more easy to understand.
  • Media Viewer and many external sites like EOL is populating the attribution from "author" and "source" fields. So they should not be used for other purposes.
  • I remember that I made a proposal at VPC based on my experience. It attracted some response and LuisV (WMF) agreed with the need for improving our file pages. But after that, the proposal died without any action.
  • I suggest to improve the license tag and file page so that reusers can easily gather all attribution information like title, author/copyright, source, license (TASL) from a single point as boldly mentioned on top of the permission field. Jee 03:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Why an admin allow a banned user to edit here?[edit]


Help needed to classify old-timer automobiles[edit]

In Category:Hoek van Holland there is a series of pictures taken on 2010-05-16 of vintage cars. There must have been some event at that time. (or they where using the ferry)Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I changed some by looking up the plate, but I did a reverse search on one of the images and found this page de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Spurzem/Archiv/2010#einige_Autos... a lot of the same images, but they're lower quality than the ones you're going through. But you can get some of the car descriptions from that page. Offnfopt(talk) 22:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I made a new Category:Hoek van Holland (car park) to reduce the number of pictures in the :Category:Hoek van Holland.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
You could also, look up Peugeot, Lotus, Ferrari, Maserati, and other european car companiey car companies to find the actual name of the car. If it looks like a bug, its a Volkswagen 75%. Froom the friendly and very helpfull, Doorknob 747 (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC) :D

June 19[edit]

Question about category usage[edit]

I have been working with categories and I would like some guidance/clarification on the usage of a category. Some articles contain categories for Category:People by name, Category:Men by name, Category:Women by name or some combination of the three. Some articles have flat list version of these categories, often in addition too those previously mentioned. Such as Category:Men by name (flat list) or Category:Women by name (flat list). My question is, is there some standard in place as to when to place one over the other or both? My opinion is that we only need one, either X by name or X by name flat last (I would prefer the former over the latter personally) but not knowing the history of these cats I was curious what the rules are for their usage. Reguyla (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

All people categories should be in flat Category:People by name that is our main people category. I have never noticed Category:Men by name, Category:Women by name, Category:Men by name (flat list) or Category:Women by name (flat list) before, but they seem redundant. --Jarekt (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The category guidelines we have can be misleading. Trimming a file's categories to just a couple of super-specific categories will damage our project in the long term. Today, doing category intersections is overly complicated and beyond what can be expected of a new contributor. However, if we keep a balance between handy super-specific categories and generic categories with thousands of files (Category:Yellow flowers, Category:People by name, Category:Ethiopia) then in a couple of years time as well as searching out a useful category of images, even a new user could find, say, photographs of red-headed, 30 year old men, wearing sunglasses and with a bicycle because the WMF development team had done such a good job improving the mobile interface... :-)
Many volunteers disagree with my viewpoint on "bucket categories" and are busy 'diffusing' all images out of these top level categories, so perhaps the answer will be eventually implementing a system for "tags" where nobody cares that many thousands of files have the same tag, in addition to categories. It's been discussed here several times, so it may need someone with time to push forward a funded volunteer driven project to make this a reality. -- (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The flat list categories for men and women were created (and, I believe, populated) by the same person just this past February. You could ask that editor what he/she had in mind. You could also propose deletion of the flat list categories. If they didn't exist until this past February, they probably have little function. I also see that these categories are under discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/02/Category:Men by name (flat list). --Auntof6 (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I do agree that in some cases it might be useful for an all encompassing "People by name" category but I think generally combining those into smaller more digestible subcategories such as Male/Female, Men/Women by name categories is better. For what its worth, as I learn the site and edit more, I don't really like the assumption of Category:Living people equals Category:People by name either. As for images, I also think that there is a lot fo confusion about what categories should go on Images and Which ones should go on Categories and thats probably worth some discussion at some point too.Reguyla (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
"Living people" obviously doesn't equal "People by name", because the latter would include dead people. As for which categories go on files/images and which go on categories, any of these "by name" categories that we're discussing, whether flat or not, would only be on other categories. This is the kind of discussion we get into when people who aren't familiar with the category structure create categories just because they can. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
You say Category:Living people doesn't equal Category:People by name but that's exactly where it and several other unrelated categories redirect too. I'm also not sure if the unfamiliar with category structure was directed me, but I have admitted that I am still learning and asking questions of how it works is part of that learning process. :-)Reguyla (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Category:Living people redirects to Category:People, not Category:People by name. Apparently Commons doesn't need the distinction between living and dead. It actually makes sense that we wouldn't need it here: on Wikipedia they would need it because of policies concerning what can be said about living people. We don't have content that says things, so we wouldn't need it.
My comment wasn't specifically directed at you or any individual. It's just a fact that we get new editors who don't understand there's established structure, so they do things that have to be undone. I've done it myself, and I may inadvertently do it again in areas where I don't realize there's an established process. Since Wikimedia doesn't require training before people edit here, and since established structure isn't well documented anywhere, it's just a fact of life. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Auntof6:@Reguyla:The reason why is that Wikimedia just like Wikipedia is incomplete. For example, if you talk about a picture uploaded of gay marriage in Kentucky (or Kansas, don't even care about the state that was forced to accept rule) before the Supreme Court ruling, a tag illegal activity would be wise to put when uploaded, now after the ruling, you could put a tag named legal activity (not needed), but, it would be wise to replace the category 'illegal activity' with, 'previously considered illegal activity in Kentucky', since the image was taken in the time when it was considered illegal. As time, goes on, new categories may become necessary. That is why there is no justification, on what categories should exist or strict rules to enforce it. The only rule in categorization or creating category pages is that, it must be humanly possible, an example a category like 'real life flying truck/car' is not allowed and would be deleted (probably also user would be blocked).

Forgot this part, in the same sense, time is the major reason behind this! If a person changed there name via legal papers, thier birth name really is not official anymore, and for this reason the man/women by name thing does not count anymore, so its now catagory people. Same for people who went thru gender change surgery, they wont count for people who are man/women by name, so its would be people by names. There is a reason for everything. The reason for these is because things change.

I only used the gay marriage and Kentucky stuff for an quick example, I AM NOT GAY NOR DO I LIVE IN KENTUCKY or what ever state that was, I LIVE IN NEW YORK CITY!!!!!! SO IF ANY ONE CALLS ME GAY I AM REPORTING THEM to admin bulltin board or what ever board! From the friendly, Doorknob 747 (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC) :D

Uploaded djvu file cannot be used at Wikisource[edit]

Hi there! This file looks okay at Commons but cannot be used at Wikisource -- reported to be 0x0 pixels, pages are not displayed, pagelist tags at index page also fail. At the time of upload and index creation (an year ago) everything was okay. Is this a known problem? Is there a corresponding bug at Phabricator? Hinote (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I have never seen it before (others might have). I would search the Phabricator and if you do not see the issue reported than I would report it. You should also ask at some other big wikisource sites, since that might be a more likely place for people working with djvu files to find your message. --Jarekt (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jarekt:, could you please create a report at Phabricator, I'm a bit confused with it... We will keep the index page in our Wikisource in order to illustrate the issue. Hinote (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Just as a note, the issue happens at other wikis with this file, see English Wikipedia and English Wikisource, for example. Wierd. Revent (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I've also already tried to look at the file at the English Wikisource and noticed same misbehaviour. So this issue is really related to Commons, not to the Russian Wikisource. Hinote (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Well that's odd. I'm going to guess it has something to do with loading large OCR layer + caching... Bawolff (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the ticket in the Phabricator! Hinote (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

June 25[edit]

Fonts changed?[edit]

Is there some reason that the fonts have changed all of a sudden? I'm using the Monobook skin and my watchlist and my editing screen are totally differ from what they were yesterday. Did someone change something? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Anybody? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I use the default skin (i.e. Vector) so I couldn't tell you. But looking at Special:Version it shows "(d766c17) 13:46, 14 June 2015" for the MonoBook skin, so based on your post date and the date listed there, it doesn't appear that anything has changed. But I could be wrong and perhaps someone did some manual changes outside of the repository changes. Just to be on the safe side, are you sure you haven't accidentally changed your browser zoom level? It will change the font sizes.
If you haven't tried the Vector skin recently, you may want to give it a try and see if you like it, pretty nice IMO. Alternatively you can use one of the Custom CSS pages or the Stylish browser extension(available for Firefox and Chrome) to change the look of the site to you liking. Offnfopt(talk) 06:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, the browser zoom level seems to have been at least part of the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • User:Offnfopt, Vector is, as you say yourself, the default skin. That means that everybody gets to see it — be it in other people’s computers and in one’s own when we’re not logged on. You can be sure that people who use Monobook instead of Vector prefer if not because we don’t know about Vector, but because we do get to see it often and we still abhorr it. Besides, Vector was (more oe less) the first of a neverending cascade of UI debacles forced on us by the WMF — then Visual Editor, Media Viewer, typography “update”… Using Monobook is not only an option for a clean, compact design, but is it also raising a flag of defiance. -- Tuválkin 21:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Monobook skin, no changes for me, same as before. Firefox 38.0.5, Win 7/x64. MKFI (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Same here. -- Tuválkin 16:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

June 26[edit]

Template:Cite news broken[edit]

I am getting errors using Template:Cite news which appears to have been changed recently. The error message is Script error: No such module "citation/CS1". For an example, please see File:Vincent Price, railway architect, 1934.JPG. Does anyone know why this was changed? Kerry Raymond (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted a recent change by another editor. It seems he or she tried to copy the template from the English Wikipedia but didn't do so completely. — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Pinging @Evrik: --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I thought I could adapt this template for the commons. I can't seem to figure it out. Help would be appreciated. Evrik (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

June 27[edit]

Flickr stream with signatures[edit]

Hi, sorry for my english. I found an interesting gallery on Flickr, mainly of cars but also other issues, and Some models are not yet present on Commons. The photos are very nice, probably made by a professional photographer, are released under CC-BY-SA license and all have a signature hard to remove. I suppose it may be a business strategy for their publication on Commons or elsewhere and get greater visibility. My question is: could be a problem to upload them if I can't remove the signature (or if the deletion would cause to a unacceptable worsening of the picture)? Keep in mind that some photos from this gallery are already uploaded on Commons, with signature unaltered.--StefBiondo 08:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Stefanobiondo: If an image is compatibly licensed, it's fine if it has a watermark... we prefer un-watermarked versions, of course, but it's not prohibited to upload them with the watermark intact. If you are uploading from Flickr, it's really best (IMO, at least) to upload the original version directly using something like flickr2commons (so it will be license-reviewed) and then overwrite it soon afterward with your modified version. If you need a watermark removed, but can't manage it yourself, you can ask at COM:Graphic lab.
You might also want to look at COM:WATERMARK. Revent (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Tanks for the reply. In COM:WATERMARK i read that promotional watermaks are prohibited. You probably see the picture of the Bentley (all the watermarks in the pictures are similar): have i to consider these promotional watermarks or author watermarks?--StefBiondo 09:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
My interpretation of that has been that a watermark added by the owner of the image, even if plausibly intended to not only show ownership but to promote their work, is allowable, but that a watermark added by a third party (as is common with many image hosting sites that watermark even PD images they host) is not. This would be a (random) example of a promotional watermark. Revent (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
A couple of more examples, of watermarked PD images... I grabbed these from the 'request' queue of the Graphics Lab, where they are awaiting cleanup.
These are explicitly disallowed 'promotional' watermarks, though the existence such a watermark doesn't mean the image should be deleted, but that it should be flagged for repair or replaced with a clean version (since the images themselves are obviously fine). Revent (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Added a thread headline.    FDMS  4    13:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I uploaded a few: Category:Files from Falcon Photography Flickr stream. BTW, there are many files to be added in this cat. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Upload wizard & Flickr PD[edit]

Our upload wizard doesn't seem to recognise Flickr's new PD option: [1]. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how often the developers frequent here, you may want to fill a bug on phabricator. Offnfopt(talk) 13:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

June 28[edit]

Vote on whether to display a banner for EU visitors/editors concerning the Commons:Freedom of Panorama 2015[edit]

Concerning the Commons:Freedom of Panorama 2015 issue, there is a vote at Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama_2015/Proposed_messages#Vote_for_whether_to_implement_the_banner_or_not. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Pulled the plug on CategorizationBot & ErfgoedBot[edit]

I've been running these two bots for a while. Both still run on old pywikibot compat code that will break soon. I could invest time in updating these bots and I have been considering doing that for quite some time, but I realized I just don't have the motivation for it. Commons has become a toxic place dominated by a small group of very vocal users. These users don't seem to accept that Russavia is banned and to try to turn everything into "Commons community" vs "WMF" battle. I don't identify with that and I don't feel like investing time in a project where this behavior is acceptable. Multichill (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Multichill: I don't think that commons is a toxic place, there are a lot of volunteers doing very hard work (which never participating in AN discussion). I also fail to see a "Commons community" vs "WMF" battle. I am highly disappointed by your statement here and i think under this circumstances you should also step back your sysop bit. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I am rather surprised that someone feels Commons is a toxic environment but I can empathize because I feel the exact same way about the English Wikipedia. I understand not wanting to make the investment of time to recode the bots but I thank you for the effort you went through to do it this long. I have found in the past that taking a break often helps me feel differently about things and have found in the past that when I stopped doing something or "retired" I missed working on the project and came back. I also don't really see the "Commons community" vs "WMF" battle but I do see that the WMF periodically oversteps their authority and does things counter to what the community wants simply because they can and because its more convenient for them. Some members of both communities feel like they don't need the other when these projects cannot succeed without mutual cooperation between the communities and the WMF. IMO the Russavia case illustrates that disassociation. Most of the time the WMF won't help the projects when asked to do so but then when it wants to do something it does it, violating any previous statements it made to the contrary. Reguyla (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry to read this, Multichill; I was brought to this link by your post on the mailing list. What a shame that others had to make comments that entirely prove you right. Risker (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    Risker, you have contributed to Commons on 4 occasions this year, and uploaded a total of 4 images in the 8 years of your account history. A part of having open discussion on Commons is that we regularly see people parachute in who seem to enjoy stirring up drama, are highly vocal off-wiki or off-project (as I know you to be), and dictate to long term contributors that we are terrible people for devoting our unpaid volunteer time here for the benefit of open knowledge. Many of us hide out on IRC and discuss issues on closed channels rather than risking becoming target of these sorts of unpleasant types of griefing. If you want to do something positive for Commons, take part in one of our projects for a while, and use that experience to form a solid evidence-based opinion on how our community works and how it can improve. -- (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know, Fae. I do not normally participate here because of my earliest interactions in which I was treated rudely and (in at least one early case) in a manner worse than I've ever been treated on English Wikipedia, which ironically I consider to be a pretty unpleasant place for a lot of users - it's the one thing Reguyla and I will agree about. I'm not a photographer, and I'm not looking elsewhere on the internet for images or other media; this wouldn't ever be my home. I do, however, care a lot about developers, oddly enough. I do care when people who have built useful tools that help the entire Wikimedia community feel that they're no longer valued. I'm shocked that the first reaction to his post was "please hand in your sysop bit". I'd hope you be shocked too. Risker (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@Risker: I am disappointed by your comment :-(. Why you put oil in the fire? There might be some toxic users here, but there are also toxic users on enwp, dewp and other wikis. Calling a project "toxic" (putting all users under the same umbrella) is very immature. It is hurting to see Multichil, a commons admin, talking so bad about commons. I applicate his botwork and it is sad to see that he does not port his bots to core. If he really thinks that commons is so bad, he should probably step back his sysop bit or doing something to make commons better. But such "commons is toxic" posts are imho not helpful at all. It is not fair to call commons toxic. Commons is a wonderful place with a lot of hardworking users, and it is always a pleasure to work together with other users here on commons. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your work Multichill. @Risker: shame yourself for your attempt to start a flame war. --Denniss (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that; it was not my intention to start a flame war, which frankly I think started with the first post. I am actually quite shocked that the first two comments are defending the atmosphere that Multichill finds distressing instead of "sorry to see you're not happy here, would you be willing to share your code with another developer can look at making the necessary changes?" That's what I'd really hope to see. If the work these two bots have been doing is valued by the Commons community (and given they have made a combined 1.92 million edits, I suspect their work has been useful), I'd hope that the Commons community would focus (a) on trying to find a way to continue the work of the bots, for its sake and (b) simply express sorrow that a longstanding member of the community has chosen to leave, instead of asking for them to completely disassociate with the project. (Seriously, asking for his sysop bit?) Risker (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Emotionally colouring/escalating this thread by introducing words like "distress" and "shocked" does not help show your intention is to avoid creating drama. Could you confirm which email discussion you referenced that directed you here? It does not appear to be one of the open lists I am subscribed to. -- (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The mailing list is wikitech-L, which is a public list. Thread is "API BREAKING CHANGE: Default continuation mode for action=query will change at the end of this month". Risker (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify, my post was not intended to flame anything but to thank them for their participation, encourage them to take a break and continue and to empathize for their feelings because I know how it feels from my time on ENWP. I would like to see at least some of the work done by these bots done by someone if not Multichill but I hope they change their mind. I also find it somewhat ironic that they blame this community for not being nicer to the WMF and then mentions 2 issues with his bots that are the direct result of actions by the WMF (although I admit they are for the long term good of the projects). I am also glad that me and Risker have some common ground. Reguyla (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, for the record I see the link in this post this morning. I keep an eye on Labs-l but the tech list (and the IRC channel) is a bit too busy with so many different things I rarely try to follow them. -- (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@Multichill: thank you for your hard work. I completely agree with you and feeling much the same way, sadly it isn't a nice feeling to have when you've lost interest and motivation. Bidgee (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I know how you feel Maarten... It's really, really, demotivating. And yes, en.wp isn't too much better. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 19:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Depending on who you ask, myself included, ENWP is far worse than Commons. I will say though that things are getting better now that some of the historically problematic admins are getting to the Judge, Jury and Executioner (AKA , the Arbcom). So things are looking up there. Reguyla (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank God for this decision! Erfgoed bot will not be missed (by me, anyway).--Strainu (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Multichill: Do you have a source code repo for your bot's code and what is the main entry point. Is /data/project/catbot/readme.txt still up-to-date? Also, could you share what was set in cron? Thanks in advance. If it is on Tool labs, which free license did you choose for the source code? -- Rillke(q?) 20:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The cat script seems to be on labs and freely licensed (short test: seems broken). See grep -R "Please add categories to this image" /data/project/catbot/. On the other scripts i haven't seen a license :-(. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a general problem of bots and scripts which are widely used but not maintained properly (because the author is overstrained, tired, leaved the project or have some conflicts etc.). As regards ErfgoedBot, it is a very helpful tool but its development and maintenance appears to get freezed before years still. An example: ErfgoedBot updated daily a set of pages Commons:Monuments database/Unknown fields. However, its operator absolutely doesn't respond to reports about changes of field names in the affected templates. We cannot improve the templates nor correct their inaccuracies because WLM mill is not able to reflect the changes. I think, such important processes should be not so dependent on individuals and their fickleness. With all respect and gratitude for them. But I can't see inside where the problem springs from. --ŠJů (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

If someone writes a useful bot, and you find yourself running projects that rely on it, then you should feel free to ask the operator if they have shared the source code on github or similar. There have been several cases where we have tools and bots where this was never discussed and if a volunteer becomes seriously unwell, or is on a long wikibreak/seems retired for whatever reason, they are unlikely to find the time to cooperate. We should also encourage our most critical bots to have multiple operators and maintainers. This reduces the chance they will be unexpectedly lost and has the great benefit that the burden of maintenance is shared.
Lastly, as a fickle and tired bot operator I occasionally get thanked by users, but not very often. In fact far more often I get repeated complaints about things not working well, or chasing me about things that are out of my power to fix (like WMF server drop-outs!). If you use a bot, automated report or tool, and think to yourself how useful and neat it is, spend a few seconds by rewarding the operator with a barnstar to keep them sweet and engaged with the project. Bot operators are unpaid volunteers focused on the public good like everyone else. :-) -- (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes - regrettably, the best and most important work is usually accepted as matter of course. We appreciate it just when we lose it, or when it get to be insufficient. Maybe, we should express thanks explicitly more often. However, when someone's work is widely used and have amounts of its fruit, that can be also a powerful source of satisfaction – that was also my way to express my gratitude for Multichill's (and other's) work on WLM. Maybe, improvement requests can be also perceived as expression of appreciation and thanks? I hope, some programmers will be capable to help Multichill with his work, or to take his relay, or to mediate related conflicts? It would be a pity to leave a monument database and lists to perish. --ŠJů (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Replace pictures with watermark[edit]

Dear users, some years ago I uploaded some pictures with my signature on the lower right corner. Now, for a matter of privacy I do not want this to be shown. I have just uploaded a new version of each file, without watermark, so, can someone (administrators?) please delete the older versions? For each picture of the following list there are two versions with watermark (the first upload and the second one which is the not interlaced version). Thanks a lot for everyone who will help me. Andrea Here you can find the pictures: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Harlock20&ilshowall=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlock20 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 28 June 2015‎ (UTC)

✓ Done to nine files, between myself and another admin. Harlock20, you might want to check that this was all of them, and you should be aware that your name might still be visible in the information page histories in some cases (if you used it for the original 'author' statement). That is itself fixable, if needed, by further revision deletion, but would be less 'simple' since it would also affect edits made in the interim by other users. Revent (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I noticed that I forgot to do it for one file. I will do it soon and I will inform you for the removal.

Help:名称空间[edit]

Hi, does anyone know, what type of Chinese this is? I am migrating Help:Namespaces to be used with the new translation tool and this chinese help page needs to be moved to be able to do that. I already moved Help:名字空間 to Help:Namespaces/zh, but as I'm not capable of reading Chinese I can't even see a difference in those two chinese help pages. Can anyone help? Thanks a lot, XenonX3 (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I think Help:名字空間 is Traditional Chinese (zh-hant) and Help:名称空间 is Simplified Chinese (zh-hans). Ping Jianhui67 ? Regards, Thibaut120094 (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah Thibaut120094 is correct. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 00:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Allow WebP upload[edit]

Moved to Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Allow WebP upload

June 29[edit]

Category:Charlatan University - Real university?[edit]

May someone please check if Category:Charlatan University is real? Somebody categorized a bunch of Shanghai schools as "Category:Charlatan University" but I can't find a university with that name WhisperToMe (talk) 05:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Apparently, no. See en:Fortress Besieged, specifically the last paragraph. It's idiomatic, and POV. Revent (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm agree with User:Revent, "Charlatan University" in Chinese is same with the "diploma mills" in English, the all schools under this category are diploma mills in Shanghai--Fayhoo (talk) 06:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: @Fayhoo: So Revent was correct in what it meant. However he also pointed out "It's idiomatic, and POV." I don't think the category is suitable. If some agency or a newspaper accused these institutions of being "Charlatan Universities" that should be covered in their Wikipedia articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I don't think the category should exist, as it's scope is not defined by any objective standard. Even the definition of particular universities as members of this 'set' by a secondary source is still a matter of opinion, not objective fact. Revent (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

"taken with..."-Categories in the Categories of the camera manufacturers leads to heavy miscategorization[edit]

Hi, I see a problem concerning many categories below the Category:Photographs by camera manufacturer.
An instance: A ship in Taiwan file is Taken with Leica V-Lux 4, and therefore in the Category:Wetzlar, a town in Germany.

Why?

2013 we had a discussion in the german Commons-forum and User:H-stt told me to remove the meta categories from the Camera categories, but over the years this was reverted and so did User:Ghouston on 27th of June with all the "taken with Leica"-Categories, although I inserted the {{Cat see also}}-Template in all categories.

I know, it's a problem in principle and so I wanted to hear your opinion about a solution. I won't act as an editwarrior, but I must admit that I am very unsatisfied with this situation. Kind regards, --Emha (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I still believe that the appropriate solution is to delete each and every "taken with"-cat. They mess up the category system and destroy valuable search functions. A more gentle solution would be to keep those cats but remove their top-cats from the cat branch of the camera-cats. That is because these cats categorize images, not cameras, which is why they must not be in the camera-cats. --h-stt !? 11:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a misunderstanding of the category system. The relationship between a parent category and its subcategories is not necessarily "is a type of" or "located at". Thus a picture of a Leica camera is not necessarily taken in Wetzlar. Maybe the camera was made there, or maybe not. The pictures taken by the Leica cameras are then one more step removed. This happens throughout the category system. For example, what does File:Gravity escapement.gif have to do with Category:St Albans Cathedral? It's actually in a subcategory via Category:Burials at Saint Albans Cathedral, Hertfordshire and Category:Edmund Beckett Denison. --ghouston (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
That's actually a huge problem: We currently have no means to define the kind of relation between a (sub-) category and it's mother-category. The result is a chaotic network that next to impossible to grasp for any search function. COM:Structured data, though aimed at meta data other than content description in it's initial phase, could provide us with the necessary tools to define different types of relationships. --El Grafo (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) That's a general problem of our category system. There are numerous other examples that do not include "taken with" categories – I remember pictures of tennis matches showing up in the Category:Aviation subtree because they took place in a stadium that was named after someone who was related to someone who was a pilot (or similar). Movin the "taken with" categories to a separate subtree wouldn't solve the issue. We'd have to dissect the whole category system into single branches of "by location", "by author/manufacturer/…", "by date/time/period", "by color", "by taxon/type/series…", "by ID", etc. and use a search function that is capable to do proper intersections. I'd say it's impossible to do a conversion like that on the fly, but conversion to COM:Structured data looks like the way to do it. Then we could finally get rid of stupid constructions like Category:Women by country by century by occupation as well. --El Grafo (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about the conflict. Yes, there are really multiple categorisation schemes that are independent, such as subjects, dates and locations. Combining them into ad-hoc intersection categories gives weird things like the ones I mentioned at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2013/10#Category_madness_in_Hong_Kong. --ghouston (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Ghouston, have you ever read Commons:Categories? The branch Category:Image sources is different from the Category:Topics, the how was the image made is not the same as what does the image show.
To stay at the given instance: This page lists all new files uploaded in the Category:Mittelhessen (including Category:Wetzlar). It doesn't work anymore if a ship in Taiwan is listed there.
Please don't argue with other miscategorized files, I know that there are many, but I seek a solution for the given ones. Regards, --Emha (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, image sources are where the images were taken from, and it seems a bit different to how images were made. Perhaps you could argue that "hidden" categories are only for maintenance and shouldn't be part of the Topics category tree. However there's no policy for that, and hidden categories like Category:People by name fit into the topical tree without any problem. It's also logical that the "taken with" categories are associated with the cameras they refer to. My example of the Gravity escapement image was not to demonstrate miscategorization but to suggest that the category system varies in how categories are related to their subcategories. --ghouston (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know anything about User:OgreBot/gallery. Perhaps there is some way (or should be some way) of excluding particular subcategories. I don't think you'd want anything in Category:Leica included. --ghouston (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: Commons:Categories#Major categories mentions Category:Image sources as a root category, which is wrong: it's a sub-category of the root categories Category:Media types and Category:Media by source. I'll change Commons:Categories#Major categories to reflect reality (put Category:Media by source in the place of Category:Image sources). Doesn't have to do anything with this discussion, just noting it here to avoid confusion. --El Grafo (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) User:Ghouston, the technical source of the named images is the camera, what else?
It doesn't make sense of dealing with the symptoms if the cause isn't removed.
Sure I want the Leica-Category and her content in this category, it's a company based in Wetzlar with a rich history including all the cameras that are produced here, but not the images of the cameras, because they are from elsewhere... Regards, --Emha (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
But then what about similar things like Category:Photographs by lens or Category:Photographs by film? "source" doesn't really make sense there and it doesn't really fit the description at Commons:Categories. If anything, I'd rather have a new root category for stuff like that. --El Grafo (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The cause is varying relationships between categories and their subcategories, so that the relationship of a category with its grandparent etc., categories is unclear. A big part of it in this case is caused by putting the whole Leica company under Wetzlar. The relationship is "based in", I suppose meaning that its head office is located there. However Leica now makes at least some of its cameras in China [2] and it has shops and offices in other countries [3]. --ghouston (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there are several root categories or entry points. But I don't think it's possible to separate them entirely. Simple example: Category:Photographs is in the root categories
--El Grafo (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is a problem with understanding our category system, but it is not me who misunderstands the categories. We use categories in a hierarchical tree. We don't use tags! That's actually all you need to understand about our categories and why this is a problem. --h-stt !? 12:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@H-stt: I don't know what exactly it is, but the category system at Commons is certainly not a tree, as sub-categories can have multiple parent categories and it contains loops that (indirectly) make categories their own sub-categories. Commons:Categories calls it a en:Directed acyclic graph, but in reality even that is more like wishful thinking because of all the loops … --El Grafo (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
What is deeply troubling here is these two things:
  1. that we have an admin who not only doesn’t understand the underlying approach of our categorization scheme, but also comes to the Village Pump making a spectacle of it and demanding a “solution”, and
  2. that we have another admin who comes to the Village Pump to promote what would amount to vandalism were it perpetrated by an IP user («the appropriate solution is to delete each and every "taken with"-cat»).
-- Tuválkin 19:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Tuvalkin: This is not the Administrators' noticeboard and not an admin-relevant cause. This is the village pump and I am not talking as an admin, but as a normal user like you.
I would be pleased if it would be possible to you not arguing personally but along the facts. And yes, I have a problem with the situation and would be glad if we could find a solution for this. If all the other users would have told me, that this is only my problem, that's okay for me, too. But as you can read, that's not the case. Regards, --Emha (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, if we are looking for a solution for your gallery problem, it seems that User:OgreBot/gallery does have a facility for excluding subcategories. If you don't want to exclude Category:Leica, at least exclude Category:Leica cameras. --ghouston (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Ghouston, thanks, but I know how to cure the symptoms but that's not the only concerned case and that doesn't heal the problem in principle. --Emha (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:Emha: Categorization system of wiki projects is (since its beginning) designed as multifactorial, comprising many types of categorization relations to one interconnected modular complex. The main your problem is not the categorization system nor specific categories about cameras but your baseless assumptions about the system. The categorization tree here can be never supposed as a simple hyponymic hierarchy, nor a simple meronymic hierarchy. If we would extract pure hyponymic or pure meronymic threads from the categorization structure, wee need to mark a type of relation to every one category relation and filter such threads using these additional marks. --ŠJů (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

User talk:ŠJů: baseless assumptions? I read on Commons:Categories: The main principles are: Hierarchic principle.. And a ship in Taiwan is not situated in the city of Wetzlar. It's that simple. If you don't agree to this you have to discuss about changing this official policy of Commons. --Emha (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Multi-hierarchic principle. Not only simple location hierarchy principle. The hierarchy is compound and incorporates many other kinds of relations than only current location. Categorization at wiki projects was allways multifactorial and allways supposed to combine more and very different types of relations. If it uses also relations as "originate from", "registered in", "produced by/in" etc., then, logically, we cannot suppose that every categorization thread will correspond with immediate spatial meronymy. If you don't agree to this you have to discuss about changing the basic principles of all Wikimedia wiki projects, or rather to create your own project which would be not based on them. There exist two ways to comply with your assumptions: to choose a simple-criterion system instead of the current all-embracing complex categorization, or to make the current system more sophisticated (using a thread filter by kind of relation). However, if you want to propose an alternative system, you should well understand the current system at first. --ŠJů (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Scanner Categories[edit]

Laying aside the obvious matter that not all category relations are is-a relations, I still have a problem with some of this "taken with" stuff. For example, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Mr._Bouatier_working_on_meter,_1954.jpg&curid=30755448&diff=164488000&oldid=149609367, as discussed in part at User_talk:BotAdventures#Scanner.... It seems pretty silly to say that a 1954 photo was "taken with" an Epson scanner. - Jmabel ! talk 19:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, that should obviously be something like Photographs digitized with … and separate from photographs taken using a scanner as a camera … --El Grafo (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
You can digitize books, digitize photos, and image/digitize 3D objects with either a camera or a scanner. I'm not sure that creating separate categories for all these possibilities for every type of device is a good idea. I think there should be device categories (which will later be converted to Wikidata-like properties if Structured data ever happens) which can be assigned automatically from Exif in many cases. A single file can potentially have more than one device, e.g., the original camera, the scanner, or software that processes it (e.g., for enhancements or processing raw camera images), although sometimes only one can found in Exif. Any other information, e.g., that it's a book digitization, or a photo of a 3D object made by a scanner, can be added separately instead of creating intersections with the device type. --ghouston (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Q: Portrait photo with written permission[edit]

At the Dutch Wikipedia is an article about WW2 resistance fighter nl:Gerrit Willem Kastein, who was executed in February 1942. After trying to find a suitable portait photo (CC license or PD), which I couldn find, I contacted the author of the biography about Mr. Kastein. I asked specifically if he could release a portrait photo for use under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license for use on Wikipedia. He graciously send me a picture I may use as such. I assume I first need to submit the e-mail correspondence somewhere at Commons Wikimedia, but do not know how or where. It's saved in my GMAIL inbox and it is written in the Dutch language. What to do now ? Regards, --OSeveno (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi OSeveno, look at COM:OTRS. We need the permission by the author of the photo, not the author of the biography. The release must be for all purposes, not only Wikipedia/Commons. Regards, --Emha (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Emha, I guess I first need additional information. Regards, --OSeveno (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:PD-NL-Gov/en depreciated or not ?[edit]

At Template talk:PD-NL-Gov/en is a 'kept' tag, while at Commons:Copyright_tags#Non-U.S._works under Netherlands it says it is depreciated. On Template:PD-NL-Gov/en it says: Images using the PD-NL-Gov tag need to be relicensed or deleted, as appropriate. To me it appears that if after a deletion request discussion it is decided it is 'kept', this would mean the template isn't depreciated. Do I understand this correctly ? Regards, --OSeveno (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@OSeveno: They are not the same.. a template can be 'deprecated' (meaning it's no longer intended to be used) but 'kept' (because it has an unwieldy number of existing uses that need to be fixed, and deletion of the template would remove the ability to track them). In the case of this particular template, it was actually deleted after the original discussion, but then recreated later that same day as a 'deprecated' template, presumably after it was pointed out that it was in use. The 'kept' is misleading. As it stands now, the template is not intended to be used (but is linked quite a few times from old discussion). No files use it, and none should. Revent (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
(as a further note) The 'kept' on the talk page was added by a bot, when it noticed that the (recreated) page still existed after the discussion was closed. Revent (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. Regards, --OSeveno (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

GlobalReplace - Please update your version[edit]

All previous versions of Commons:GlobalReplace will likely break in two days due to the missing rawcontinue parameter when calling the API. Please refer to the Help page to update your version.

Beside the above fix, the new version comes with some improvements like

  • Log all replacements on a user subpage
  • Sign up is done before running this tool for the first time
  • Check for a new version at start up

Don't forget to report any bugs to the GitHub repository. --McZusatz (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

June 30[edit]

[edit]

The Commons logo in the corner is blurry. Crisper versions are available.

SVG PNG PNG used in the corner

The PNG version of the logo also has other issues: a bump right where the outer ring turns into the arrow, and variable spacing b/t the arrow tips and the red circle. But the fuzziness is most noticeable. Is the simplest solution just replacing it with a crisper PNG? --SJ+ 06:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It is suggested to use the .svg logo, not the png. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@Sj, Steinsplitter:The best was to resolve this problem is to convert the crisper .png, to a .svg image, "Convert. That was easy." From the friendly, Doorknob 747 (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC) :D
✓ fixed. -- Tuválkin 21:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

eBay upload script wanted[edit]

1909 postcard

From time to time, I find out-of-copyright images, such as old postcards, on eBay. There's one above. It would be handy to have a tool or script that will do the upload, capturing the appropriate metadata, like we have for Flickr. Does anyone know of one? Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. eBay has their own API, however as users can upload many photographs of objects, auction entries may be for multiple items and most sections of the auction page can be used in varied custom fashions by the seller, I think useful automation is a bit of a nightmare. Were I designing a tool, I would provide a webform, harvest details and then let the user fill in the blanks or correct details (like selecting which image is the relevant one to upload from a drop-list). All in all, it's a weak scenario compared to Flickr, where the API is explicitly returning fields about an image you want to upload, not information about what it may represent, tangential events, or as part of a group object.
P.S. Flickr upload tools are a bit of a hazard for mass uploads, however I'm reading your request as a tool for item by item uploads, not mass uploads. -- (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes; item by item. A pre-filled form would be fine - anything that removes a step or two from the drudgery. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@: Idea: would you consider automatically submitting the eBay page to one of the web citation websites when your form is used? Eventually, the eBay link goes away and sometimes the licensing is questionable without being able to see it. Example: if a postcard is uploaded with the claim that it was published pre-1978 with no copyright notice and all we have is the front of the postcard, it's difficult to know that the license is valid because we can't see the back to verify that there is no copyright notice on there. But if the eBay link was preserved, then we could see the other side of the postcard and verify that there was no notice ... or we could see that the seller never provided a copy of the other side of the postcard, in which case it should be nominated for deletion. --B (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, auto-archiving the page would be possible, within whatever usage limits there are for the service. It may mean a bit more cookie-fiddling and a wrapped-in or popped-up human-check or similar jiggery pokery.
Sorry if my text above might be misleading, but I do not have the volunteer time to do this as a project, my real life commitments are likely to be a bit overwhelming for several more months (believe me, I would *much* rather be playing code monkey than handle the depressing stuff I'm going through). Anyway, though I can do this sort of API experiment, I'm actually rather hacky/bad and slow at it, and I have a big guilty secret backlog of projects I ought to return to and finish off. My description above was how I would initially think about it, with the hope that someone faster and smarter would have a crack at it. :-) -- (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Tool for changing the descriptions of multiple images[edit]

Hello, is there by any chance a tool, similar to cat-a-lot, with which I can change the description of multiple images at once? That would be very helpful for Wiki Loves Earth, because sometimes there are 10 different images from the same place. Thanks in advance, --Лорд Бъмбъри (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC).

You could possibly use COM:VFC for the purpose, if you are simply replacing one block to text with another. Revent (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@Revent:How can your utc time stamp for June 30, be 19 hour, when my UTC Wikmedia gadget displays 18 hour still. where did the hour go? Did I go back in time. Places check mark on discoveries to make "go back in time. Check". Doorknob 747 (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC) :D
@Doorknob747: It's a mystery, lol. My timestamp (just checked it) matches both the UTC time gadget, and a quick check against a network time server. Revent (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Labadie Collection, University of Michigan[edit]

Labadie Collection, University of Michigan. A good deal of this should be in the public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 23:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Baffin Island fjord[edit]

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

Affected file(s):

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#Baffin Island fjord Thank you! Jalexander--WMF 23:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

July 01[edit]

NoScript warning when trying to view full size photo[edit]

When I clicked on this photo I got a NoScript warning in Firefox "The resource could not be found. File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-commons-local-public.2f/2/2f/Ford_A9745_NLGRF_photo_contact_sheet_%201976-05-11%20%20Gerald_Ford_Library%20.jpg ". With other images no problem. What is the cause? Wouter (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed, Noscript in Firefox gives "NoScript filtered a potential cross-site scripting (XSS) attempt from https://commons.wikimedia.org." and a 404 page. Selecting "unsafe reload" to bypass XSS protection from NoScript options shows the image normally. Firefox 38.0.5, NoScript 2.6.9.27, Win7/x64. Note that wikimedia.org is on my NoScript whitelist. MKFI (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It sounds like noscript is replacing brackets in the image name with spaces, which unsurprisingly causes the image not to be found. I have no idea why noscript would do that. Bawolff (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
We had this with a custom gadget on de:Wikipedia:Technik/Archiv/2013#NoScript_meldet_Cross-Site-Script-Versuch in 2013. -- Rillke(q?) 08:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Study reports that Wikimedia Commons media has large financial value[edit]

Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Bluerasberry As with pretty much all "scientific" studies of Wikipedia, this one is complete rot. I strongly advice nobody on Wikimedia give this report any oxygen. The authors build a case by assuming many things that are patently untrue or seriously unlikely. Given that the paper is about "Public Domain", it is startling that their definition of this is completely wrong. They include CC-licensed works, saying "For the purposes of this paper, therefore, we include works which may be freely used under a Creative Commons license, even though in many cases the author technically retains title". There's no "technically" or "in many cases" about who retains "title". Claiming that works with a "free" licence are public domain, and that credit of authorship is merely a technicality is stupendously ignorant and disrespectful. They make further assumptions about how much Google increases traffic flow if a web page contains in image and how much a Wikipedia page is worth in terms of advertising revenue (I kid you not). At one point, when discussing novels becoming public domain and therefore sold at a cheaper price, they completely confuse "publisher" with "copyright owner" (i.e., author). I can only assume that Harvard Journal of Law & Technology is where C-grade term papers go to be archived, and shouldn't be confused with a serious academic publication. Sigh. -- Colin (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Colin The paper at least demonstrates public interest in the value of Wikimedia content. If it is wrong then it gives the next researcher something to challenge. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
When I read the list of assumptions in the paper half of them did not seem reasonable, so just like Colin I was taking the findings with a grain of salt; however I think it is a good start and the numbers are likely to be within of the right order of magnitude. Hopefully next iteration will get it closer. I always had a problem with estimations calculated by assuming dozen numbers with some huge or unknowable error bars and then multiplying them together to get your estimate. I am mostly interested in those error bars because that is what will tell me if the real value is likely to be off by 1%, 100% or 1000%. --Jarekt (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Jarekt, I don't believe the figures are anywhere near the right order of magnitude because they ask us to imagine a world without PD and a world where Wikipedia is not a free content project that attracts freely licensed images and a world where Wikipedia's budget could pay for $250 million of photos per year (which is about five times WMF's entire annual budget). Their $250 million is naively worked out by taking the 2 million pages with free photos and multiplying that with the cost that Getty/Corbis charge to licence a single photo on a website for a year ($105-$117). Now I don't know where they get that licence figure from -- it often varies by the size of image you are licensing and quite possibly also by other factors like age or quality. The thing is that nobody who needs to licence 2 million images would pay the same unit cost as someone who licenses one. The incompetence of this economic mistake is staggering. (Getty own 80 million still images and annual revenue is $869 million -- there's no way 2 million thumbnail images licensed to a non-profit would bring in $250 million) And many images are sold for a great deal more than that for higher value purposes such as advertising. A world without public domain images or freely licensed images would much more heavily use photo agencies, so market forces means the price per image would also be less. And a Wikipedia that had to pay for images would undoubtedly licence 240px thumbnails rather than the multi-megapixel images that Commons actually hosts. Given the big stock photo corporations recent behaviour, I can well imagine them coming to a deal with Wikipedia that lets them use the small thumbnails for free, in return for a link on the file-description page that allowed viewers to see the high-resolution photo for a fee or to license it themselves. So in this world, without Commons, the cost of the images that Wikipedia uses is zero. $0. No error bars or orders of magnitude. Wikipedia pays nothing for the images. But there is no Commons for anyone else to use high resolution images. And you have to pay to look at any image in detail. How does someone put a price on how shit that world would be? -- Colin (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
If Commons didn't exist, most people would probably put their free images on some other site. There are already quite a lot on Flickr. --ghouston (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Although some images from people who just want to put an image on a Wikipedia page, without caring much about license, probably wouldn't be CC licensed otherwise. --ghouston (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
--ghouston, they are imagining a world without free image content at all. So not just "no Commons" but "no CC anywhere". They aren't particularly interested in Wikipedia/Commons but in trying to put a value on the "public domain" (even though they completely misdefine it). They are only using Wikipedia as it is a publicly available source of information to mine. The two most disappointing things about this are that it is yet another study of Wikipedia / Free Content Project where the authors don't really understand the domain and that such a dire C-grade effort is being published at all. Have they never heard of Getty Embed -- 50 million images freely usable. What is most sad really, is the ideology that one needs to (or it even makes sense to) put a monetary value on things that are in the community (public domain images) or that are donated to the community (freely licensed images). -- Colin (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Personally I think that study is overrated. We can see how much this site would be worth by looking at how much Wikia makes. Sure we get a bit more traffic, so add about 10 or 15% but its no where near the hundreds of millions they say in the study and we would lose a lot as well. If this site were for profit then that means the donations would stop and it would be taxed on what it makes. I heard that the WMF gets a little bit of a discount on IT services from the data warehouse they are using due to its ta free status so that would be lost too. A lot of the volunteers would leave and would need to be replaced by paid folks. So to me the whole study makes assumptions of things being equal when they would be far from equal in reality. Reguyla (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Way back in the day there were several Spanish-speaking Wikipedians who forked and created en:Enciclopedia Libre to protest a proposal to make Wikipedia into a for-profit venture. We don't want that repeated. We can't do what the study proposes. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Preview shows an image wrongly rotated[edit]

I found that image that is strangely converted by image preview (but is correct in thumbnails): File:Gyaru-ikebukuro-aug2007.jpg You can see the effect on Category:Gyaru if you click on the image (Gyaru-ikebukuro-aug2007.jpg), it shows up rotated but with the original dimensions, so it's weirdly squeezed. I checked the Exif and there's no rotation, orientation is top-left as usual. Might be worth checking out? SilverbackNettalk 19:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The file has been rotated after upload but thumbnails seem to have not been updated properly. Purged. MKFI (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong, except the dimension was changed from 650px → 640px with 0° rotation. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 17:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: What do you mean? User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  06:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
EXIF-Orientation has been fixed. Please note that MW is automatically rotating files based on EXIF-Oriantation. In raw-modus you see the the bot has worked correctly. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

July 03[edit]

Batch upload advice[edit]

Hi there. I'm planning on tackling the batch upload request Commons:Batch uploading/Freshwater and Marine Image Bank. I'm looking for some advice on how to display various information from the files in the Information box. I moved my questions from here to the Batch Uploading page above. I appreciate any help or advice!

BMacZero (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

updated information suggest file name includes error[edit]

How do you fix a file name that communicates erroneous information? See [4]. --Smkolins (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at Commons:File renaming, --Pristurus (talk) 11:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks --Smkolins (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

TIFF from LoC[edit]

Hi, On every file available from the Library of Congress, there are a 8-bit and a 16-bit TIFF files (e.g. [5]). I usually upload the TIFF (by URL) before uploading a JPEG version because downloading from WM servers is much faster (x10) than from LoC servers. ;o) The TIFF much be converted to JPEG (8-bit), so is there any interest to upload the 16-bit TIFF file? I do the conversion with Gimp, which only handles 8-bit. The 16-bit file is always available on LoC. So? Regards, Yann (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

How about just uploading tiffs? --Jarekt (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@Jarekt: You mean not uploading JPEG? Or uploading both 8-bit and 16-bit files? Regards, Yann (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Source information incorrect on an image[edit]

I was working on some images today and noticed that the source information on File:Don_J._Jenkins.jpg is incorrect. We have the description that this person is Bryan Battaglia, Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff but its actually Don Jenkins the medal of Honor recipient. I noticed this because I know what they both look like in person and I knew this was not a picture of Bryan Battaglia. Otherwise I probably wouldn't have caught this. When I looked at the source for the photo it is also incorrect. My question here is, what are our procedures for correcting something like this? I can contact the DoD source and get that fixed, but I'm not sure how we would change it here to reflect the correct information. Reguyla (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • We'd change it by editing, just like anything else that gets corrected. I'm not sure what you think is difficult, so I can't give you anything more specific. - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the misunderstanding, it wasn't a matter of not knowing how, I just wanted to make sure that it was appropriate since any change would not match the supporting source link. Reguyla (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Presumably you will have some source for your change. Cite it. - Jmabel ! talk 19:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Not for this one I don't other than anyone can look at the corresponding articles on ENWP and see that the image is not of Battaglia but of Jenkins. The group of images on Flickr all seem to refer to Battaglia even in the ones he isn't in and several have the exact same description, so I wanted to ask what should be done about that. Should we leave the incorrect description that was pulled in from the source, should we change it to reflect something more accurate or should we just leave it and maybe put a history statement or note saying that its wrong, but the description is actually X. Reguyla (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
          • I'd just replace the original description with a correct one. It will be easily verified as correct if there are other photos in Commons of the same person, or he's easily identified in a web image search. --ghouston (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

NASA picture[edit]

How can I tell the copyright on this amazing photo of a Chrysler turbine engine? I would love to upload it, but I cannot seem to determine what its copyright might be? Thanks for assistance, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 01:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It says the image was created by NASA so license tag should be {{PD-USGov-NASA}} Offnfopt(talk) 02:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

July 04[edit]