Commons talk:Wikivoyage Shared transfer task force/Archive

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

Thoughts by User:Sven Manguard

  • I'll wait for other people to filter in and give their thoughts for most of the questions. The only one that I'm going to address now is naming conflicts. I was told in no uncertain terms by SJ (we spoke about the transfer a tad at Wikimania) that in the event of naming conflicts, Commons would have the priority. Considering that we can never be entirely sure what off-WMF sites are using what images, I think that this makes sense for both images we see are in use and images we don't see as being in use. Our existing import bots (i.e. the Flickr importers) handle naming conflict by adding a number in parenthesis after the name if there's already one without parenthesis on Commons (File:Example.png, File:Example (1).png, File:Example (2).png, etc.). We could do something like File:Example (WTS).png if we do bot transfers, I think. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Responses to comments made thus far

  • Yes, this conversation is also for Wikivoyage. My bad on the naming of the page.
  • Stefan4's comment that there is an FOP problem at Wikitravel is troubling. Combined with Peterfitzgerald's comments on the lack of licensing templates for some files, and Jmabel, Hedwig in Washington, and Wrh2's opinions, I think it would be wise to avoid bot uploads at least in the early stages.
  • I'm not sure what to make of the Wikitravel/Wikivoyage repository merge. As long as we keep the attribution and licenses correct, I suppose it doesn't matter.
  • Every effort should be made to preserve the function Peterfitzgerald mentioned in regards to maps. I honestly don't understand it, but (and I am just assuming they're using MediaWiki) it can't be too hard to import.
  • More soon! Sven Manguard Wha? 21:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts by User:Stefan4

See a discussion at Wikivoyage here. I get the impression that Wikitravel largely has ignored freedom of panorama and that the project wishes to continue to do so, since User:LtPowers proposed writing an EDP. This probably means that there will be some images which can't be copied over to Commons.

Reading more over at the Wikivoyage page, I see that Wikitravel Shared has been backed up here and that files are included. Thus, Wikimedia use of the file doesn't have to depend on availability of a website operated by Internet Brands. I take it that this means that we don't have to do anything immediately, since Wikimedia could set up a separate copy of the Shared repository on some Wikimedia server.

There is in fact not just one Shared repository, but two. You have Wikitravel Shared and Wikivoyage Shared. I think I saw some comments on how to handle this situation somewhere on Wikivoyage. I think that the discussion on this page should be coordinated with the discussion at Wikivoyage, or maybe it should even be held there instead. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to ask User:MGA73 to help. He occasionally runs a bot on English Wikipedia which finds images available on both Wikipedia and Commons. This would help finding duplicates. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

As does this entire page, my points assume that we will be becoming a Wikimedia, but that decision is not yet final, as of 17:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

  • There is a WT-derived Shared repository and a Wikivoyage Shared repository. These will either need to be dealt with separately, or reconciled in advance. We are, to an extent working on reconciling them and generally cleaning them up as part of the migration to Wikivoyage.
  • For a good long time, Wikitravel did not use licensing templates, as all uploaders agreed to license their images under CC-by-SA 1.0. These images were "upgraded" to CC-by-SA 3.0 as part of our general upgrade from 1.0. I'm not sure what the date is, but all images without licensing information are CC-by-SA 3.0. (This will be a headache.)
  • There are a limited number of images that the travel project will likely want to keep local, ideally on a Shared image repository for all travel project language versions. Is that feasible?
  • Our Shared has some navigation functionality that is extremely useful for our purposes. A good example would be our geographical hierarchy of maps. Is there a way to keep that without hosting the map files on a local Shared repository?
  • We handle maps differently from other Wikimedia projects, which use them (ideally) only in SVG form. We use an SVG "workshop" file, which has more data than the PNG images we export from it. This allows us to have one SVG file for multiple language versions, with sub-layers of text layers for each language. Thus we are able to make updates to maps (say, the formation of a new country) without having to update 8–10 SVGs!
  • As with the various other Wikimedia projects, our rules for non-free content are a little looser than Commons. Again, we would like to have some leeway in keeping some non-free content local to the travel project, but ideally in a Shared repository for our language versions. We would probably need to check with the WMF at some point to make sure that our non-free content policies are acceptable to them.
  • There are still a very large number of files hosted locally on language versions of our Wikitravel back ups. We are going to try and delete the irrelevant ones and merge the important ones to our shared repository before a migration to WM.

More thoughts by User:Stefan4

Above, User:Peterfitzgerald wrote that CC-BY-SA 1.0 was upgraded into CC-BY-SA 3.0 at some point. How was this done? As far as I can tell, CC-BY-SA 1.0 doesn't allow you to upgrade to a later version of CC-BY-SA. Licence number upgrading was, I believe, one of the new features which was added to CC-BY-SA 2.0. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts by User:Foroa

It might be a good idea to look first in:

And get User:Multichill involved. --Foroa (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Integrate automated duplicate detection as there might be many. --Foroa (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts by User:Jmabel

From past experience w/ data migrations, it would be wise to massage certain data on the Wikitravel side before proceeding in an automated manner. For example, if there are templates that need to be brought in line, in many cases it will be easiest to solve that *before* the merge.

In general, I'd bring over Wikitravel categories as something initially distinct from any Commons categories. For example, if there is a Wikitravel:Category:New York (state), map it in Commons to Category:Wikitravel New York (state). After merging, we can then use Commons delinker to merge any categories that are 1-1 (regardless of original name on Wikitravel), and allow human action (or less general bots) for cases subtler than that. - Jmabel ! talk 22:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts by User:Wrh2

I'm helping Hans with the actual setup of the new Wikivoyage language versions, so the following is a summary of what we've been thinking and discussing with the rest of the Wikitravel/Wikivoyage community. As Peter and Stefan noted, much of this information is also to be found amidst the discussions on [1]:

  • I'd agree with others who have said that it would be good to initially provide some time for the project to review images and do some manual transfer before attempting anything automated.
  • See [2]. The current plan is to import the Wikitravel Shared repository into Wikivoyage as a second "shared" repository to be used by the new language versions imported from Wikitravel; this import will be a complete copy of current Wikitravel Shared including all revisions, author history, etc. Merging Wikivoyage's existing shared repository with the imported Wikitravel Shared repository at this time would be a huge technical challenge, so we will instead import them as-is, with the long term plan of moving most of the content from both to Commons (after appropriate review) and then merging what remains into a single shared repository.
  • A significant number of the images in the Wikitravel/Wikivoyage repositories either originated in Commons or have already been uploaded to Commons by other users; any such duplicates would probably be ideal candidates for an automated scrub from the Wikitravel/Wikivoyage repositories.
  • Commenters above have raised some other non-technical issues (categorization, freedom of panorama, etc) that would benefit from discussion prior to any final effort to move to Commons.

-- Wrh2 (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't believe that a bot upload is the easy thing to do. Sure, all images are suddenly on Commons. And suddenly we have a ton of duplicates, wrong categories, non-existing categories, and so on. Every single image has to be checked by an User. I'd prefer splitting the whole thing up. We could use the countries and go from there. Users pick a country (or state) and start uploading. I wouldn't mind downloading the images first and transferring using the upload tool Com:Up! or something else. On the other hand, if a bot can 99% correctly identify the necessary data, I'd be happy to check those uploads for mistakes in the categories. One has to open both Commons and WT-shared to check the license etc. That's a ton of extra time that could be spent by uploading images without bot.
  • To get started, we'll need new templates, like now commons and bot transfer to commons. If at all possible, the bot transfer template should have parameters where one can enter the name of the original uploader, source, license, and categories. Maybe the first three are easy for a bot to pick up, so just for categories would be nice.

My 2 cents. --Hedwig in Washington (Woof?) 04:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


Just did I high speed scan through what special:random/file threw up and wikitravel isn't obviously copyvio heavy.This was however a fairly small sample size and I didn't look closely.Geni (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Reuse OxygenPump?

I have not looked at the details, but maybe OxygenPump could be modified to download all media? OxygenPump is an open source tool I wrote to download Wikitravel's wiki pages (wikicode, not media). Nicolas1981 (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There are already lots of tools which can be used for moving files between Wikipedia and Commons, such as Commons Helper and For the Common Good. I would assume that the same tools also can be used for moving files from Wikitravel to Commons. Assuming that the API is enabled, of course. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The API isn't enabled. It's still possible to get the data through screen-scraping, but it's more work. --Carnildo (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm aware of that, and that's why I mentioned the API above. However, I assume that the migrated server will have the API enabled. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The API will be enabled on Wikivoyage, and that's where the imported data will end up coming from. As of right now, Wikitravel is dead to us. Powers (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Just make sure that the Wikitravel to Wikivoyage migration is done properly, because if it's wrong on Wikivoyage (i.e. attribution or licensing information didn't come over), there will be issues when it comes over to Commons and it may be too late to fix (Wikitravel without editors might just up and disappear). No one wants to be in the position of preventing files from coming over from Wikivoyage because of something like that. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The data source being used to load Wikivoyage can currently be viewed at - see for example [3]. All revisions and author history is there and available, and the same is also true of the Wikivoyage load (Hans is loading data now, but I don't think the site is publicly accessible yet). -- Wrh2 (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts by User:LtPowers

So I was wrong about being the only Wikitravel and Commons admin. =)

I'm beginning to think that import is going to almost require going through each image one-by-one. I see four possible dispositions:

  1. Files already extant on Commons
    • Do not need importing
    • If in use, references may need to be changed to refer to Commons file; alternatively, redirects should work well
  2. Files suitable for Commons but not already there
    • Need importing, and license vetting
    • Some of these may have come from sources that are no longer available; we'd have to decide if we trust the uploader's word or not
  3. Files unsuitable for Commons but allowable under a non-free content justification
    • Pictures of copyrighted artwork, primarily
  4. Files of dubious copyright status, or known copyvios

The big question is, can the travel projects set up their own shared repository separate from Commons, for hosting non-free content, or would such content need to be uploaded to each language version?

-- Powers (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, the projects could decide to just not allow non-free content. Trust me, whatever your thoughts going in, non-free files quickly become an enforcement nightmare and cause no end of contentious, largely subjective argument based fights. Mind you, considering your mission and the FOP laws in several countries, that'll be a tough sell, but a lot of projects have gone Commons-only. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your dedication to the ideals of free content, but it's just not going to fly in a travel guide. We generally only accept photographs that would otherwise be free except for the presence of a copyrighted article in the frame; we do so because photographs of major art installations and architectural works are essential to a good travel guide. It's not like we're including movie posters or company logos or any of the many other non-free content that projects like English Wikipedia include; our domain is much more restricted and much easier to police. (The only additional snag beyond what we do currently is deciding whether something is free enough for Commons or not -- and that's ultimately up to the Commons community.) Powers (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding #1, some files already extant on Commons were modified before being uploaded to Wikitravel Shared. I'm sure I've personally downloaded Commons images, edited them, and then uploaded the derivative works to Wikitravel Shared under the same name, noting the changes made in my edit summary (all before instantcommons was a possibility). I guess, as a practical matter, that work could pretty easily get lost in the transition. Hopefully not too much of it would be important enough to worry about. --Peter Talk 04:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Túrelio makes a similar point here [4]. --Peter Talk 16:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
And some are just low quality duplicates. I uploaded hundreds of images to both Wikitravel and Commons. But Wikitravel used to have restrictions on the filesize of images and currently fails to make thumbnails of bit images, so I scaled and compressed them for Wikitravel. So eventually those should just be deleted and the higher quality Commons ones should be used instead. Elgaard (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Another reason to transfer by hand. Are there any templates on WV or WT that can be used to indicate that an images is on Commons (now)? That would be nice, saves a lot of time and double uploades. Anyone able to put something together quickly? --Hedwig in Washington (Woof?) 05:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
And I think we would need another one indicating that the image should not be transferred to Commons, with a reason as a field (for instance, everything with a FoP issue).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Hedwig: Most projects have a template called "NowCommons" (cf. en:Template:NowCommons, fr:Template:NowCommons, de:Template:NowCommons, ru:Template:NowCommons) which tells that a file is available on Commons. Unless the file is available under the same name, the template takes the Commons file name as the first parameter. For the sake of consistency, Wikivoyage should probably have a template with the same name, or at least a redirect from that name to some other name. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
That's my point. Couldn't find a template in WT. Again: Any takers? --Hedwig in Washington (Woof?) 13:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Before InstantCommons was enabled, we (in theory, not always) used Template:Information, since that allowed for quick copy-pasting from Commons' own informational templates. What links there will cover a good amount, but not all, of Commons images that were re-uploaded to Shared. --Peter Talk 17:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, that helps. :) How about a template WE can use after transferring from WT/WV? That would be the perfect tool to avoid double work. :-) --Hedwig in Washington (Woof?) 18:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Fact sheet

  • Additions are welcome
es798not public
pt536not public
pl1029not public
ja1692not public
zh63not public
fi114not public
Files on Wikitravel and Wikivoyage by local project (lang)

-- Rillke(q?) 12:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

What is this? Is it articles? Images used in articles? Images by local language project? Sven Manguard Wha? 12:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I added the ones for Wikivoyage. Romaine (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

There are also 34,132 files on the shared project. Romaine (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Local shared repository

The biggest open question is whether we'll be able to keep a shared repository between language versions of the travel site. It seems preferable to me, since that way we can share content that isn't quite free enough for Commons, without having to upload a separate copy for each language version! It will also make the migration process easier, as we can continue to work without a disruption.

Who can answer this question? --Peter Talk 18:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not think this is possible. Every language version is considered as a separate project and it is up to them to decide which images they allow. Wikipedias do not have a shared repository, even though many of them have similar fair use policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
It is not possible as the projects stand right now. It's also not desirable. One of the side effects of moving over to the WMF umbrella is that we care a lot more about respecting copyright than most websites do, and we possess a sizable body of people who oppose the use of any non-free content on any project for any reason. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
The license of Wikivoyage is the same as Wikipedia and others, so the images should be able to be on Commons too. If there are images which aren't allowed on Commons, they should be allowed on Wikivoyage for the exact same reason. Romaine (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Now, you are talking about the shared repository. There are files added to language projects as well, and, moreover, the projects can consider adopting some fair use provisions. I definitely want to discuss this in the Russian version.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
On some Wikipedia's the users have arranged an agreement with WMF about allowing certain types of files which aren't allowed on Commons. This certainly can be discussed, but needs to be arranged properly. Greetings - Romaine (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

To do

  • According to this mail we should make sure the pages (especially templates) are checked for old code. After that, edited to prevent problems.
  • We should mark images on Wikivoyage which have their original format on Commons. Note that this has to be done both on the local projects as on the shared project.

Anyone busy with this? Romaine (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Transfer Process and Tool Proposal

Given the creation of this on meta, it looks like the WMF is deadly serious about a travel project. That said, we are going to require a set process and (likely) a semi-automated program/script to transfer files. I'm planning on creating such a transfer tool. Before I get started on that though, I'd like to know exactly what features or processes you would all would like to see in this program. Here's what I came up with (rough, generalized use case):

  1. The system shall prompt the user for Commons login credentials
  2. The system shall prompt the user for files to download from wikitravel/wikivoyage/wikitravel-shared (copy+paste dialog or random files)
  3. The system shall download the named files and their respective file description pages.
  4. The system shall generate automatic file description pages for each file, based on the wikitravel file description page.
  5. The system shall allow the user to modify: each file's new file description page in a side-by-side comparison with the old file description page, and file title in preparation for upload
  6. The system shall upload each file with the specified file description page and title.

I'm also looking for some interested Java developers to help me write this program. I'll be using the wiki-java library, so we'll working exclusively with high-level, GUI code. Let me know if you're interested so I can add you to the google code project. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

We'll also need some way to track files that have already been transferred and check for duplicates (this part can be done internally within the program) -FASTILY (TALK) 06:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
We should also decide on how we are going to filter out cases where freedom of panorama issues are important (we do not want to upload non-free files to Commons in big amounts). A solution might be to run this bot for FoP-countries, and to sort the non-FoP countries somehow manually first (or to create a temporary namespace for them here on Commons and manually transfer to the file space).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
A pure bot would be bad. I envision a bot that generates all of the text and does the uploading for the user, but the user still has to look at that text and the image itself and click a button that says "transfer". The bot should have a disclaimer that the trasnferer is responsible for making sure the file is really able to be held on Commons. While I am not a coder, I am willing to make any resources I have (mainly time and a bot account which could be activated on Commons) avalible. I'm not enthusiastic about the travel site coming over, but I want to make sure that the file transfer goes off without a hitch. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that we should use the usual tools such as Commons Helper. A human needs to decide if an image can be moved or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I also think that images should be manually and individually reviewed before transfer. The most efficient way would be to have a bot that would automatically transfer images that have been tagged with a {{movetowmc}} tag, no? That way would-be reviewers wouldn't get bogged down in the transfer process itself, and could cover much more ground. --Peter Talk 23:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
My Java's a bit very rusty, but I'd be willing to help out with the coding. Powers (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Transfer questions

Let's say that someone were to transfer a file to Commons. File:Durham dukechapel.JPG, for example. What do we do next?

  • Should I request {{Licensereview}} as with Flickr images, or do I treat Wikivoyage files as Wikipedia files which don't need that?
  • How do I tag the file as being available on Commons? Wikivoyage doesn't seem to have a "NowCommons" template.
  • How do I fill in {{PD-user}} and similar templates properly? I'm not aware of any interwiki prefix for Wikivoyage. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Flickr images are treated that way because of the possibility a user of Flickr can modify the license from free to unfree, but we still can use that image as that image was once free and we need to be sure that it was really so.
    • We should create such template. I thought it was mentioned above somewhere.
    • Just as to all projects the [[wikivoyage: should be working later on from other projects than this type of project. For the English Wikivoyage [[wikivoyage:en: most work in future. However for I don't know as that project is undefined after the transfer. But just as files on Wikipedia are located in Commons, the user can be in Wikipedia, here we can link to the home-wikivoyage of that user. Romaine (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
      • {{Licensereview}} is also used for other websites since they might change or go offline. This post suggests that Wikivoyage Shared isn't going to be imported, so maybe it means that the source will become inaccessible at some point in the future, and I was thinking that {{Licensereview}} might be necessary for the same reason. If the source is Wikipedia, there is, on the other hand, typically some administrator around somewhere who can check the deleted source if needed. Formally speaking, there are currently two different "Wikivoyage Shared": Shared and Wts. However, I assume that the e-mail was meant to refer to both and not just to the former of them.
      • The problem is indeed that it's not clear what will happen with or whether it will get some interwiki prefix. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


Can we enumerate precisely what needs to get done right now? We have a lot of very active workers on WV who are ready to get to work marking images or whatever. Would it help to have a template {{move}} or something like that, which would mark the images that can be moved? Can we simply move the images as is with the licensing and attribution information in its current format? Or will that have to be reformatted to gel with Commons' style? --Peter Talk 17:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I think the problem is that before the move (Nov 1 if I am right) the Commons images will not show up at WV, and after the move it is not clear what happens with the share. My best case scenario would be moving the share along with the projects (so that for some limited time WV in all languages will show both the Commons images and the share images), and then we could gradually empty the share. I am not sure what the developers are going to do though.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The following things need to be done:

  • Wikivoyage needs templates for indicating that a file is available to Commons. On most Wikimedia projects, this template is called, or redirected from, "Template:NowCommons", see e.g. en:Template:NowCommons, fr:Template:NowCommons, de:Template:NowCommons and ru:Template:NowCommons. If a different name is used, consider creating a redirect from "Template:NowCommons" to the template name. The template needs to exist on all Wikivoyage projects hosting images, and in particular on "wts" and "shared". The template uses the syntax {{NowCommons|file name on Commons}} and should be used for all images which exist on both projects.
  • If a file has been copied to Commons, then the file may be deleted from Wikivoyage, but only if Wikivoyage can display the Commons file instead. If the Commons file can't be displayed, it's better to wait with deleting the file until Commons files can be used directly on Wikivoyage.
  • If the file has a different name on Commons, all language versions of Wikivoyage need to be updated to use the new file name, but again this assumes that Wikivoyage allows Commons images in the first place.
  • When copying a file to Commons, remember to convert Wikivoyage templates to Commons templates. For example, Wikivoyage's "Imagecredit" template needs to be converted to Commons' "Information" template. The image page on Commons should clearly indicate the licence of the image, the name of the photographer (for a photo normally the uploader) and where it comes from (Wikivoyage). Normally, you would include a file revision table which indicates the file name on Wikivoyage, the upload date, the uploader's user name and the uploader's edit summary. For an example of how to fill in everything, see File:Durham dukechapel.JPG.

Files are usually copied to Commons from Wikimedia projects using semi-automated tools such as Commonshelper and For the Common Good. Commonshelper only works on a few selected projects and is not enabled on Wikivoyage. For the Common Good works on Wikivoyage (except for projects hosted under the www subdomain, such as de and it), but you need to remember to disable HTTPS as Wikivoyage only supports HTTP. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Actually, I see ([5]) that at least some files on wts are already marked as duplicates of files on Commons. Could this be automated somehow?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
    Ask User:MGA73. He has a bot which sometimes tags English Wikipedia files as being available on Commons. It might be possible to use the same code on Wikivoyage. This is really needed: some Wikivoyage images have been copied from Commons, and there might have been files which have been copied in the opposite direction too. Besides, both projects have copied images from Flickr, sometimes possibly the same images. Besides, Wikivoyage Shared was forked from Wikitravel Shared several years ago while Wikivoyage Wts was forked from Wikitravel Shared in 2012, so there ought to be a huge overlap with old images. If one image is moved from Wikivoyage Wts to Commons, this would ideally also be indicated on Wikivoyage Shared, and vice versa. If users don't tag old images on both projects, it would really be necessary to have a bot which sorts this out later. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
    Let us wait till tomorrow morning (I guess US morning) whether someones makes the {{Now Commons}} template at wts. (I tries today and this would require an adaptation of several templates from en.wp, additionally, I am not an expert). If nobody will be willing to do it, I will do it myself. Then subsequently I will invite User:MGA73 to this discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
    The necessary templates were created overnight, and I contacted User:MGA73 on his Commons talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
    Pywikipedia does not work as it is now on Wikitravel/Wikivoyage so it needs a bit of changes to work. I will try to find out just how much work is needed. --MGA73 (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks, it would be great--Ymblanter (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
    (Edit conflict) Pywikipedia does not work on Wikitravel because Internet Brands switched off the Mediawiki API which is used by all bots. Do not attempt to run anything there; there's no way it's going to work.
    Pywikipedia works for me on Wikivoyage, but I've only tried reading the contents on the main page. I've not attempted to change anything. Example:
Put this code in "families/"
import family

class Family(family.Family):
    def __init__(self):
        family.Family.__init__(self) = 'wikivoyage'

        self.langs = {
                'wts': ''
    def path(self, code):
        return '/w/index.php'
    def apipath(self, code):
        return '/w/api.php'
Put this in ""
import wikipedia
site = wikipedia.getSite("wts", "wikivoyage")

page = wikipedia.Page(site, "Main Page")

print page.get()
This downloads the wiki code of the main page at Wikivoyage Wts and prints it to the screen. If you wish to work on other projects (and not only on Wikivoyage Wts), you'll need to modify the file to support other sites. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both. I think that the best thing would be to make a script (family file etc.) that everyone could download and use so that maintaining Wikivoyage is just as easy as maintaining Wikipedia and Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I've started a discussion on wts [6] and we are creating tags with categories. We'll really need to find ways to speed up the process, though—there are just too many files to be reviewed. In particular, it would be extremely useful to be able to identify which images are not in use on any language version. --Peter Talk 01:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, I found indeed the following problem. This file, of fine quality, was transferred to Wikitravel in 2007, and subsequently migrated to Wikivoyage. It contains a mail from the photographer who agrees to release it under unclear but acceptable license. Now, in 2007 this mail would be sufficient to host the file on Commons. However, now it is 2012, and such mails are only accepted via OTRS. What should we do? Just reject the file? But this is stupid. We do not remove the 2007 submissions from Commons just because at the time there was no OTRS.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

COM:GOF allows e-mail quotes for files uploaded until early 2006, but haven't there been some cases where files have been accepted anyway because OTRS was less advertised at that time? --Stefan4 (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
We probably need to discuss it in a more general setting if we do not want the files mass-deleted. Village Pump:Copyright?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'd suggest discussing this at COM:VPC. Also add a notice to COM:GOF if someone is watching that page but not COM:VPC. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Wikivoyage file migration.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes you are right that [[wts:User:Xyz]] does not work. We either need to get the prefix to work or change the link. Does anyone know if prefix will be working?
The standard pywikipedia script I used when I started the task tagging with NowCommons on en-wiki was changed after the bot was approved so it does not work as good as before. I need to do some manual filtering before I run the bot. I do not know how the script will work on wts yet.
I noiced that files may seem to be unused on wts but if you check carefully it is used on another language of wikivoyage. Not sure how we handle that. Admins should check carefully before they delete files on wts or perhaps we should always move to the same name on Commons and do a rename here (with a redirect).
I noticed that at some point files was moved from xx.wikitravel to wts.wikivoyage and with no link back to source it is hard to verify the original upload date and to give attribution to the original uploader. I do not know how the transfer was done and if we can trust that if a file says it was uploaded by xxx on wikitravel then it WAS uploaded by xxx on wiktravel or there is a risk of errors.
Therefore I started moving some Flickr files because with Flickr files we do not have the same problem. We could just copy the file and ask the flickrreview bot for a review just like with all other Flickr files. Some files are not under a free license now. We need to discuss if a local review on wts can be used like a review on Commons or we need a new review. --MGA73 (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The file information page on only shows file use on I've written a small script which checks file usage of files available on Commons under a different name and opens up file information pages in my web browser so that I can update file names to match Commons if the tagging seems correct. Moving to the same name on Commons might not always work if there is a file name conflict. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Error in transfer?

File:Finger Lakes View Wine by visit~fingerlakes.jpg was transfered as "own work" even though it came from Flickr and is correctly attributed on Wikivoyage ([7]). Powers (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Broken images

Virtually every image used on WV right now is hosted on wts/shared. If we are not importing those sites, will every image on WV break? This seems undesirable. --Peter Talk 17:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

We are taking all the files we can. As for WV itself, it won't change at all from transferring. Transfer means, in this case, "take a copy". Sven Manguard Wha? 23:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


We need to decide how to reference the source of files we transfer (that is, Wikivoyage/Wikitravel Shared). A link is pointless because the history will be going away at some point. Erik Moeller has suggested a template that explains the situation. Powers (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

We could archive pages using en:Webcite, but it probably takes too much time. I agree that file links are pointless. That's also why I asked about {{Licensereview}} above. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I think we should just create two websites, for WTS and for WV shared.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Calls for action

We now started the massive transfer of files from Wikivoyage/Travel shared (the repository which serves all Wikivoyage projects with the exception of German and Italian). Massive human intervention is needed at this point.

More tasks will be needed to be performed, we will keep posting here.

Thanks in advance to everybody who can contribute.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

See also [8]. There's a list of files which have been copied from Wikipedia to Wikivoyage. Users of Commonshelper and similar tools could check if the files are compatible with Commons and then copy them from Wikipedia to Commons using Commonshelper. I've usually just listed the filenames there without checking if licensing etc. is fine: you'll need to check that too. After copying the files from Wikipedia to Commons, please add {{NowCommons|filename}} to the file information page on Wikivoyage and strike out the filename. There's no need to update file names on Wikivoyage as there is a bot for that task.
If a file can't be copied to Commons, add {{KeepLocal|reason}} if it is an FOP reason, or {{Ignore|reason}} if there is some other reason (e.g. "image copied from unknown source"). --Stefan4 (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It would have been really nice for some advanced warning before the transfers began, so that we could get our people ready beforehand. We'd have also told you to wait a few days because we just brought a new project life and a lot of user and developer attention is focused on it at the moment. Whatever though, keep us in the loop I suppose. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
    Right now, we are talking about less than two hundred files transfer. The real work will start later, with the transfer of the files which are not on Flickr, and now we are tagging files on wts share like crazy (and help there is much needed, see the topics on the bottom here). It is very difficult to talk about the schedule though: We only got an explanation from Erik that the shared repositories are not going to be migrated two days ago, and the migration of the project currently is scheduled for next week. We do not even know whether the images are going to be visible after migration, and whether we will get info on the file transclusion, which we currently do not have. So I expect the main things to happen next week, but how they exactly could happen depends on what the developers do. If you want, this is an advances warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
    Update [9]. It seems like the transfer is scheduled for Tuesday, and the link will go red after the transfer.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
    Just been informed as well. Is there anything the de:/it: community can help to move the shared: files to commons? Is there anything we should prepare in advance? -- DerFussi 09:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
    Well, I guess you should work on the original Wikivoyage Shared at As far as I can see, nobody has done anything yet. --Atsirlin (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
    (ec) So far, I am not aware of anything happening on share. I thing you should continue tagging (files which are available on Commons - these can be deleted; files for move; files for local upload - those not appropriate for Commons). Then you probably need to get in contact with bot owners: Stefan, MGA73 and Magog the Ogre to see what can be automated, and ask here for human help for what can not be automated. (I am not a bot owner and understand very little in technical details).The two places where the discussion is happening right now are here and here. We will be happy to help with any advise. Bot moves are probably best coordinated, since we ask for assistance (Erik even suggested a site notice), and it is usually not handy to ask for assistance twice.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
    Our from commons imported files are tagged already. Fortunately we started it a long time ago, not knowing exactly for what we can use it one day... I am going to contact the bot owner and you guys at wts. Thanks. -- DerFussi 09:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Tasks for Wikivoyage Shared:

  • The templates "NowCommons", "KeepLocal", "Move" and "Ignore" need to be copied from Wikivoyage Wts. The templates depend on a few layout templates (I think) and will look wrong if the layout templates are not copied, but this might not be crucial. The current Commons template does not seem to indicate the file name on Commons, so it is not enough.
  • Once the "NowCommons" template has been added, ask User:MGA73 to start his bot which tags files as available on Commons.
  • Assign bot status for the account "MGA73bot" on Wikivoyage Shared. The account might not have been created yet but is used for tagging lots of files with "NowCommons" on the shared projects.
  • Assign bot status for the account "Stefan2bot" on German and Italian Wikivoyage. I've just created this account. It is used for replacing file names on the shared projects with file names on Commons if the names differ. Currently only running on the "new" projects since they (unlike the "old" projects) already support Commons files.

There is also a lot of information in an unstructured way on the Wikivoyage Wts Traveller's pub. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. It seems to become a very long weekend. I will try to write bot that changes the template's name and includes the file name. -- DerFussi 12:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't matter what the template is called. Also, the templates only need to specify a file name if the name on Commons is different to the name on Wikivoyage Shared. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
OK. We have stated the source name as well. I will write bot that merges the template and the filename. -- DerFussi 12:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Sven Manguard says "It would have been really nice for some advanced warning before the transfers began"... Well I think It would have been really nice if there were a time line so we could see how this project is supposed to work. As I understood the comments on wts then wts would be locked on tuesday and after that it would no longer be possible to edit anything there. So that is why I cleared my calendar and started to do everything I could to get things working. No point in doing that if the help is not welcome. So what is the big plan here? Who will do what and when? --MGA73 (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree that would be nice to see a timeline, as well as some clarity as to what is going to happen to the images in Shared and wts.
    • After Tuesday, are we still going to be able to edit wts and Shared to add tags, etc. (I'm seeing conflicting information on this)?
    • What happens to the files that are tagged with the Move template (i.e., they've been reviewed and are considered OK to move to Commons) before Tuesday -- will these images be imported into Commons or will we have to move them manually? -Shaundd (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
      For the first question - I do not know. I think the Wikivoyage eV guys wanted to close the repositories for uploads, but not for editing; I am not sure though. For the second question: It depends on us. I think if there is a more or less reliable way to import these files by bot they should be imported by bot. I guess we are talking about a couple of dozen thousands files. But I am not an expert.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Unless we get any new information, the timeline is Tuesday=(( No matter what happens to wts and Shared, our travel guides will be heavily impaired because images will not appear in the articles. Therefore, we have to start the file transfer ASAP. The files tagged for "move" should be fine in terms of the license, so the only drawback of the immediate file transfer is the sudden upload of thousands of uncategorized images. It's not good, but I think it is better than leaving the whole Wikivoyage in an impaired state for an indefinite period.
It is also clear that licensing issues can not be fully settled on such a short time scale. I have seen that images like this one are labeled with a link to wts. I suggest that we rather link to, which is already available and will stay online after the migration. I hope that the operation of this can be further negotiated until a good solution for the storage of license information is found. --Atsirlin (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, links need to change to "". I assume that this can be done by bot and that it isn't urgent. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Sure, but could you modify the bot (or template?) so that it puts link to wikivoyage-old in the future? --Atsirlin (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
wts still still be editable. The plan is just to limit uploads but that to is still up for discussion. James Heilman, MD (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons Notification

I think it would be a good idea if we notify the ordinary Commons users that in the coming days there is a massive bot uploads expected, and the files may be initially not in the best shape. We may also need to indicate contact persons. I volunteer to be one, but given my workload in real life we need several. Or just advise to notify us here?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

There's not even a list of things to do, files needed/reviewed/to review/to import... Tasks must be identified exactly, then all the users who signed up should be asked to help on their talk page, then when there's some knowledge of what needs to be done on Commons COM:VP is the place where to discuss it/ask help. --Nemo 21:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
No, I do not mean here asking for help. I think we need to inform the community that 20000 new files may be uploaded over a week, and these files may be insufficiently categorized etc. Otherwise we invite village pump topics "What the hell is going on", with blocks subsequently awarded to bots etc. We do not want this.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I doubt you can just "inform" them that you're going to upload 20000 files, you have to get the community agreement. In any case, you can't do anything if you have no idea of what are the files. According to the first list I made, they look more like 13000 (if they can really be imported). --Nemo 00:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
On wts, the files which are tagged for transfer are in this category and are now about 5K with I guess less than a half tagged. All maps have been tagged authomatically (via the template), and a tiny fraction of maps (location maps and CIA handbook maps) are redundant and should be deleted after the links have been corrected. The photos were tagged manually, and we still continue tagging. I am not familiar with the situation on Shared, but Stefan (DerFussi) writes on this page that everything was already tagged.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm writing a bot for our shared: right now, tagging 1. all files that are imported from commons (by scanning and finding links to Commons). 2. I have a list with our reliable main contributors. Images with an entry "author= foo" will get the tags to move. 3. I will try to find the images that where imported from WT:shared when we started six years ago. They should be found in your repository as well. So I am going to deactivate them. 4. I will deactivate the CIA factbook images. 5. I think I will deactivate all the flags, seals and coat of arms. Sometimes we used different names. So we should change our links in the articles later..... Something more I forgot? I hope I can manage it by this evening. Using the bot will take a whil as well becaus I manipulate the XML files. So I have to export packages of articles manipulate them and import them again. And some testing is necessary as well. -- DerFussi 12:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The script should be able to find all files that are exact duplicates of files on Commons no matter what the files are called and no matter what text is on the file page. The biggest problem is files that have been changed in a way so they are (no longer) 100 % the same. --MGA73 (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
How to run it? At the moment I check for the commons Interwiki link and a link link "" oder "". So I can find even changed files. But if somebody used a strange way to state the source ...... hmm. What to do? .... What about the ones that were imported from WP lanuage versions? Some of them may be saved in commons as well. -- DerFussi 16:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  1. Ask MGA73 to run his bot on Shared.
  2. When files have been tagged, I can run my bot instead to replace file names if they differ. Problem: German and Italian Wikivoyage currently don't support Commons images. There will either be red links today (which start working on Tuesday), or there will be red links on Tuesday (which will hopefully be replaced quickly), depending on what you prefer.
Problem on Wts: People have often copied thumbnails of Commons images to Wts. These have to be tagged manually. The same problem probably also exists on Shared. Files imported from Wikipedia may need to be copied to Commons from Wikipedia instead. If they already have been copied to Commons, just tag them as available on Commons. My user page on Wts has been "abused" for listing some files on Wts which need to be copied to Commons from Wikipedia. You'd need some similar to-do list on Shared somewhere, I suppose. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, there's presumably a huge overlap between Wts and Shared regarding old files. Many old files on Shared may already have been copied from Wts to Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

de: and it: does support Images from Commons now. My bot will deactivate old WT:shared imports. Just working on it. This is what I do now (use a PHP skript with some regex to manipulate the files):

  1. Flags ( Filename: 'Flag[[:alnum:]]*?.svg' ) are being deactivated: Tagged: {{Ignore|Flags should not be imported}} - These files are from openClipart and commons but always named like this
  2. LocationMaps ( Filename: '/(Location[[:alnum:]]*?.png)' ) are being deactivated: Tagged: {{NowCommonos|File:Locationfoo.png}}
  3. CIA Factbook images ( Pattern in the article: '' ) are being deactivated : Tagged: {{Ignore|Images from CIA factbook should not be imported}} - I think they are available here as well. Aren't they?
  4. Commons pictures are tagged {{NowCommons|foo}}. These patterns in the description are currently found:
    1. '\[\[:commons:File.(.*?)\|'
    2. '*?)[ \]\n]'
    3. '*?)[ \]\n]'
  5. Old WT/shared imports are tagged {{Ignore|Old imports from WT shared}}. These patterns in the description are currently found:
    1. ''
    2. '\[\[:WTshared:'

All other images will get the {{move}} Tag. Our repository is well patrolled (license tags and categories). And I rename all license tags and change them to the ones from commons. I rename our "location" template to the "Object location" template. More things to do? -- DerFussi 16:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Just tested the bot with 10-15 articles. See our shared > recent changes > ands switch on the bots.... -- DerFussi 17:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean these edits? I found this edit that looks wrong. Link to Commons does not work. --MGA73 (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
It's the template which is broken. There is nothing wrong with the bot edit. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The template works now. -- DerFussi 07:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

How to help

I am unclear where help is needed at this point? Or where we are at? Per the note from Eric it appears we could be up and live in a week. The issue it seems is just the images and how we will get them moved over to commons. IMO it would be easier to figure out the image issue if we could see how each image moved over from wts improves the new travel site. Would be nice to start with all the images working but I guess for some images at least we will need to verify copyright. James Heilman, MD (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

See subject page: I've tried to do a list of things to do but currently there's basically no organization. --Nemo 21:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

sorting out credit

I note that in a lot of cases the only credit is in the image upload name. Are we taking steps to preserve this info?Geni (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing deleted files from wts and Shared

I assume that there will be a fair number of files from our travel repositories that will be deleted here. I'm mostly concerned about ones that are deleted for FOP reasons, which might be candidates to remain on local WV language versions under our (still under approval) non-free content policies. Will there be an easy way to track wts/Shared files up for deletion? --Peter Talk 18:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a perfect solution here. At least FOP issues should lead to a deletion request, not speedy deletion. The intersection of Category:Deletion requests with Category:Files moved from wts.wikivoyage to Commons requiring review finds a few such requests. It relies on the reviewer not removing the {{BotMoveToCommons}} template, however, so it might be missing a lot. Perhaps the bot transferring the files could add another, more permanent category to help keep track of the files.
I've also created Category:Files by Wikivoyage users, which then lets you look at a similar intersection for images categorised under Wikivoyage user categories. New Wikivoyage user categories would need to be manually added to the parent category once their files are uploaded here, however, and many of the transferred files are not in such categories. --Avenue (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I thought that the uploader is notified about vfd nominations. Does it apply to bots? Can't we simply monitor the talk page of MGA's bot? --Atsirlin (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
You'd think so, but that doesn't seem to be reliable in practice. The standard script that runs when someone uses the "Nominate for deletion" link in the sidebar does try to drop a notice on the uploader's talk page, but I got an edit conflict at that point for my nom. I'm not sure why; no one else had edited MGA73's talk page for days. I added the notice manually (partly because I had something else to ask), but no notice was placed on his talk page for the other two deletion requests listed in the category intersection above. (BTW, the bot's talk page redirects to MGA73's talk page.) --Avenue (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
That CatScan tool is nifty. --Peter Talk 08:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it can be very handy. I've asked MGA73 if his bot can add a more persistent category. --Avenue (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed 2 Deletion Requests where I was not notified:

  1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kronborg canons.jpg
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:A bronze sculpture on the street, Xiamen, China.JPG

So monitoring my talk page is not enough :-(

DR # 2 # 1 is interessting. The file is sourced to Flickr and it was reviewed on WTS.

It is possible to add a category like "Files from wts.wikitravel". We can do it by adding a category or a template that include the file in a category. If we add a template we can also give a small text explaing the situation. --MGA73 (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a template does sound more useful. Maybe with an argument indicating which repository it came from (WTS or Shared)? --Avenue (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about not notifying MGA73 on #2; since it was a bot upload, I didn't think you wanted to get the notifications. =) The file is indeed sourced to Flickr, and I'm not questioning that; the problem is whether the file -- being derivative of the pictured sculpture -- can actually be freely licensed or not. Just because it's on Flickr doesn't mean there aren't FOP issues. Powers (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Oooops... I Meant that # 1 was interessting... When it is a derivative work that is ofcourse something we should take care of. --MGA73 (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was imported from Wikivoyage.

The template needs to be improved and fixed. At the moment it is ignoring the wts or shared in {{Wikivoyage|wts}} / {{Wikivoyage|shared}}. --MGA73 (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - that's wonderful! Now this category intersection should let everyone easily keep track of deletion requests on files from Wikivoyage. I've also updated the template to make use of the parameter. --Avenue (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Some figures on tagging progress

I can't get through to at the moment, but earlier today I looked at some figures on how the tagging is progressing, and thought I would share them here.

WTS Shared
Category Number % Number %
Category:Files to be moved to Commons 8381 28% 22053 74%
Category:Files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons 1669 6% 5606 19%
Category:Files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons 3642 12% 2061 7%
Category:Files to be ignored 447 2% 753 3%
Category:Files to be kept locally 462 2% 0 0%
Category:Files to replace with the same name on Wikimedia Commons 10 0% 0 0%
Category:Files to replace with a different name on Wikimedia Commons 20 0% 0 0%
Number of files uploaded 29793 29739
Total 49% 102%

The tagging on WTS seems about half done. While the tagging on Shared is more complete, all the zeroes there suggest that it was probably done less carefully. Some files are in multiple categories, which e.g. leads the Shared percentages to add to more than 100%. --Avenue (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Just an update: another 2000+ files have been tagged on WTS, bringing the percentage up from 49% to 57%. (Again, that percentage includes some double counting.) There's a live update on my WTS user page. --Avenue (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Another update: now over 65% tagged. --Avenue (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
And now over 75%. --Avenue (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The multiple categories were produced by the bot, but will be removed. It seems to be done less carefully. But I edited all the pages by an own script that used "moved", "ignore" and "now commons" only. All special categories should be set by hand. I dont see any reason to keep files locally. They will be switched off one day. -- DerFussi 08:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
No, keep files locally means "upload files to individual language versions". We use this option for those files that are not acceptable to Commons because of the "freedom of panorama" issues (for example, all German buildings, sculptures and monuments from the last 70+ years). --Atsirlin (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh. Now I understand... But German building shouldn't be a problem. We have the freedom of panorama. And we checked our pictures on shared after uploading. E.g. we have no images from the Atomium in Brussels. -- DerFussi 11:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I was wrong. Sorry. Germany has freedom of panorama. But you definitely have some images that should be kept locally: for example, this one. --Atsirlin (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Never knew that. Maybe we need some help from the commons: community then when they check it. Is there a list of rules we can use? Nobody knows everything about that. -- DerFussi 12:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
See the list of countries where there is a "freedom of panorama": COM:FOP. Yann (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
But what i dont understand. If there is a problem with the FOP then we should ignore it. Then we can not use it in any wiki. So why keep it locally? Btw... Keep it at what place? The template does not state any language code. Where should it go? This local thing seems to make sense with this fair use stuff only. -- DerFussi 14:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
If there is an image with a FoP problem it should be uploaded locally on a wiki(s) it is used. For instance, if an image is used on German Wikivoyage, and conforms to EDP (for instance, it is used to illustrate a particular monument, and not the whole city or country), it should be locally uploaded in German Wikivoyage--Ymblanter (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Stefan, you probably missed this discussion in the mailing list. The idea is to develop a special policy for non-free content (check the English version) and link it on the Meta EDP page. Then local uploads will be allowed, and you can store any files that are covered by this policy. It is very inconvenient, but, unfortunately, it is the only way to go (Wikipedia is using it as well). --Atsirlin (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Ohh. I hate mailing lists. Its so terribly inefficient. Its a full time job. I have no time to sort out important information from hundreds of emails. That's why i never read all this stuff. I am sinking into all the information. I should resign from my job here and read wikis and mailing list the hole day. :) Btw. All WMF projects need a coordinating wiki like our general: as a platform between the language versions. OK, back. Concerning me, personally. I have no time for all this. So sorry. Then the images should be deleted. Unless some of the other guys have time to write a policy and tag the images. If somebody can elp out. Please! I am aware, we should develop something. -- DerFussi 16:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I share your feelings-( Anyway, the policy is not as difficult as you may think. You don't need the whole English text, only five points of "Exemption Doctrine Policy" in the end of the article. It took me something like 15 min to translate this text into Russian. Unfortunately, my German writing skills are nearly non-existent, so I can't help you with the writing. But I am sure that the de community can manage it easily! And if you don't tag the images, Commons people will do it for you by deleting the FoP cases-)) --Atsirlin (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
It's up to the local wiki to decide whether they want to use EDP. The Dutch Wikipedia (and most likely also the Dutch Wikivoyage) only uses Commons.--Globe-trotter (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, of course. But how do they deal with Atomium, La Défense, and places like that? --Atsirlin (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
They don't show them. The Dutch Wikipedia article on the Atomium [10] shows a public domain traffic sign and a miniature copy located in Austria in its place. I think this is good, because the Dutch Wikipedia/Wikivoyage articles and images are fully re-usable and thus truly "free". Besides, other travel guides are also not allowed to use images of the Atomium, and they also overcome it.--Globe-trotter (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. Maybe I will find time for a short summary on our shared: I have only 3-5 pictures that can probably be affected. Going to tag them. And if nobody goes through the others we have to live with the deletion. But similar images are at commons as well. See Phnom Penh Olympic Stadium built by the architect Vann Molyvann. But maybe nobody takes care of it especially in very unknown countries. Will try to take some of my limited free time to check it. -- DerFussi 07:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Images violating freedom of panorama are uploaded all of the time, and they are nominated for deletion as soon as someone finds them. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sheikh Zayed Mosque is a good example: a lot of files were uploaded and deleted in July. Three days later, a lot of other files of the same building were nominated for deletion, and now in October I nominated a lot of other images for deletion. Unfortunately, lots of people are unaware of freedom of panorama issues. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Files with broken description/template


I started reviewing files from Category:Files moved from wts.wikivoyage to Commons requiring review. What do we do with these:

Yann (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? Red stuff? Remove the Location template and the description will look normal. --Atsirlin (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I think MGAbot is actually doing this, so I guess Michael will comment here reasonably soon.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes, removing the Location will remove the garbage, but we loose information. Is it possible to fix this? Yann (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, to comment it out. Actually, in most of the files there is a commented category as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes I remove the review template if the file has a valid Flickr review. And location template is changed to a text like "Location: Whatever. That way the template looks much better and the information is still there and visible. --MGA73 (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Another case is the use of a "wts" template which does not exist on Commons:

Yann (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

When my bot clean up files it also removes that template (change it to "en). The cases where the bot do not fix it is in most cases because something is "strange" for example if users changed the file page without fixing all "problems". At the moment there is 10 pages using the template. They should be checked by humans. --MGA73 (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

My first evaluation


After validating a few hundred images, I think checking the whole lot is a hell of a job, seeing the strict copyright rules of Commons. I have only reviewed the obvious cases, i.e. no architecture, no art work (people, food, natural landscapes, vehicles, etc.). Especially because for most images, there is no complete information about the place, and it has to be researched in Google. Then we need to check if the building is old and/or original enough to get a copyright, whether FOP applies, etc. Then we have all borderline cases with de minimis exception. :((( Yann (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

We tried not to flag the FoP cases for transfer and leave them on WTS (possibly with subsequent local upload), but some of the images of course could still leak out to Commons. Another issue to pay attention is the categorization.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
So, if the files were already checked on WTS, what are we checking them now for? Yann (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
For categories and for general transfer bugs. And of course shit happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
True and that makes moving files to Commons a hard task. Sometimes files are tagged to "move" without checking all possible problems. I try to avoid all files with a possible FOP issue. In most cases the easiest way to find the location is to check the file on wts.wikivoyage. In many cases there is a category there informing about location. --MGA73 (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
If it were than simple... The location usually only shows the city, not the country. Worse, there are quite a number of cases where there are several cities with that name. See File:Mormon Temple from the Beltway.jpg for a good example of a bad description. There are at least 3 places called Kensington, the only location mentioned. From the description, it is possible to deduce that it is in USA, but... Yann (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
WTS has breadcrumb navigation, so if you go to the category page, you should see the whole sequence: continent->country->region etc. Normally it works. If it does not, go one level up and it will be there. --Atsirlin (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes in the case of places with the same name, though, the breadcrumbs are "wrong". For example, I found a few images that were tagged with {{Location|Sardinia}}. According to our breadcrumbs, that was Sardinia, New York; because that town has a UN/LOCODE value, it got the base undisambiguated name. But the images actually were taken in Sardinia, Italy, which is at wts:Category:Sardinia (Italy). Powers (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not the breadcrumbs that are... "wrong," it's the images tagged for the wrong category. The Kensington category for example, is crystal clear, and it doesn't have a disambiguator in the name because it's our only Kensington article: Index > North America > United States > Mid-Atlantic > Maryland > Capital Region (Maryland) > Montgomery County (Maryland) > Kensington. --Peter Talk 15:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Well that's why I put "wrong" in quotation marks. In the case of Sardinia, too, our Wikivoyage article is at just "Sardinia" (and Sardinia, New York, doesn't have an article), so one would have expected the breadcrumbs on Category:Sardinia to lead to Italy, not New York. Powers (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree it's a big job. Reviewing images thoroughly is often time-consuming and difficult. (For instance, it took me almost half an hour to do my last review, tracking down information on the species, the island, and the lighthouse shown.) But let's also keep things in perspective. We have the same problems with many of our other images, e.g. uploads from Flickr. Commons is gaining lots of free images, including some very nice ones. Hopefully the pre-transfer review will catch the worst problems. And while we need to get Wikivoyage files transferred to Commons quickly (at least those that are in use), the review process on Commons has no deadline. --Avenue (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Self on Wikivoyage Shared

It seems that User:ImportBot has been adding Template:Self to a lot of images on Wikivoyage Shared without verifying that this is correct. Example: [11]. Anyone working with files on that project (as opposed to Wikivoyage Wts) needs to be very careful with Template:Self claims and revert User:ImportBot if necessary. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

In this case "self" means that it is own work by the user mentioned as author. As far as I can tell it is a copy of the information on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, {{Self}} is supposed to mean "own work by Wikivoyage Shared uploader", which it isn't. This is very confusing and may result in errors, so be very careful with these tags. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I also use {{Own}} on files I transfer to Commons. Example: File:Oslo Holmenkollen 2.jpg. But yes it is good to be careful. --MGA73 (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
That one uses "author=", so it's different. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The license tags have been renamed to make them compatible with commons. The image mentioned above will not be transfered to commons due to it's tag. I have to admit. I am very busy at the moment (job, WV fixing and meta). If I miss any developments or questions here or at shared, don't hesitate to contact me or Roland on our userpages. -- DerFussi 10:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

New coordination

Wts was closed for editing except for files and categories, which means that the Traveller's Pub is closed. However, we should still coordinate our tagging efforts. Should I copy here the list of categories which were tagged / remain to be tagged?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Use a subpage though. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Note that the pub was restarted here. The project namespace can be edited. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I did not know about this. Sven, if we are really talking about a dozen categories left, it is easier to continue at wts than transferring everything there. May be we should post here a more visible notice.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep in mind that we still have 7500 uncategorized local files on But we can discuss them on wts as well. --Atsirlin (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Those are basically the same thing: files which need to be moved to Commons (if possible), to (in some other cases) or deleted (in yet other cases). I suggest that we use Wts for all file discussions, except for files on Shared ( which are discussed in the lounge on Shared. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Time for a new solution?

I see this issues:

  • Checking and moving files take a long time.
  • There is a lot of articles with red links.
  • Users are starting to copy files to commons without a "original upload log" and that may take very long time to fix and if it is not noted when the file is stil online it is not possible to fix later

So I think that perhaps it is better to copy all files tagged with a "move template" to Commons and do the checking here. We will probably get a few hundred files with FOP-issues but I think we can handle that. Users can just nominate the files for deletion like any other files and if it is a clear case we can speedy close and tag the file on wikivoyage wts/shared. --MGA73 (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that may be better. I've been adding original upload logs to files missing original upload logs, but this process takes an awful lot of time. It would probably be much faster if we could simply delete all of the files without original upload log and redo the "move to Commons" process. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it'd not be worst than it is now. No problem when there is a FOP. But for no FOP country, no real checking was done before the transfer. After more than 1,000 files reviewed, I think a lot more work could be done with a bot:
  1. Use proper language template syntax ({{en:description}} -> {{en|description}}}.
  2. Remove non existent templates: Imagecredit, Wts.
  3. Remove unnecessary <BR />.
There are also duplicate images. Yann (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The problem with duplicate images might be solved partially by running w:Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MGA73bot 3 once in a while. It seems that there are many dupes both within the same project and between different Wikivoyage projects. If 1000 files have been moved to Commons from Wts, there might be dozens of dupes on Shared which need NowCommons tags, and there might sometimes also be dupes on Wts. For example, a very large amount of the images uploaded before 2007 appear on both projects. The {{Wts}} template is supposed to mean the same thing as {{En}}, so maybe it could be created as a redirect to that template as a first solution. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought of another way to solve this... Maybe I could request bot status on Commons to run a bot which searches through all images on Wikivoyage Wts and Shared with "NowCommons" and automatically adds an original upload log at the end of the page if the first version on Commons was uploaded later than the first version on Wikivoyage, unless the file information page transcludes either {{Flickrreview}} or {{Original upload log}}. If the files have different hash values, the bot should maybe ask me if adding an original upload log really is correct. Maybe it's the only way to repair all incorrect Commons moves before the old Wikivoyage servers are taken down. However, it won't work if someone already has deleted the file on Wikivoyage. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Well you could give it a try :-) Just make the bot and do some tests. If it works you can request a flag. --MGA73 (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Request at Commons:Bots/Requests/Stefan2bot. I don't know if I should make a test run before a bureaucrat has commented or not, so I felt that it was safer not to make any test run. The code seems to work: I've tested by printing the text of file information pages to the standard output. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Another reason to just move the tagged files here and check them here (and deal with deletion requests as they come) is that well-meaning editors on Wikivoyage are starting to remove red-linked thumbs from articles... --Peter Talk 16:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I'll speed up the transfers. --MGA73 (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Own work

I copied a couple of my own photos to Commons, uploading them as I would with any new photo I took (though I did add a note that I originally uploaded them to Wikitravel). Then I found instructions that suggested I shouldn't do that without also posting an "original upload log". I'm familiar with the logs that bots post on imported images, but I don't know of an easy way to generate one myself. Is there one? Powers (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Try tools:~magog/fileinfo.php. Remember to type in the file name without namespace. Otherwise, you will get an original upload log with a double namespace ("File:File:Example.jpg"). --Stefan4 (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Verified files from Flickr

What are we doing with files from Flickr that have been verified by a WT admin but no longer available under a free license at Flickr? Powers (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

A few days ago, I placed a lot of these here. Most of those files have a local licencereview, but the licence can't be verified for any reason (different reason on Flickr, image deleted from Flickr, link pointing at a different image et cetera). In a few cases, there is a different problem with the image, e.g. something which might require an exemption from COM:GOF. This was discussed at some point, but I don't remember if anything was concluded.
Did the reviewers know how to determine if a licence is free or not? If so, I wouldn't mind accepting the licence reviews as valid reviews. Maybe we have to approve reviews of some users and discard reviews of other users. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
To my knowledge, the license review template was used on wts only by admins who definitely knew what they were doing--really just about 4-5 users in total. --Peter Talk 00:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I believe only Peter and I reviewed any significant number of them; I don't think any non-admins ever used it. But of course, it's hard to be certain. Anything reviewed by an admin should be as trusted as any flickrreviewed image here on Commons; if any photos were ever tagged by a non-admin, that review should probably be discounted. Powers (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
By searching for the review tag, I estimate that we have about 600 files tagged. Around 350 or so have my name on them; another 200+ have Peter's name. Powers (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of those 600 files, many still have a free licence on Flickr, so there's no problem. If the files still have a free licence on Flickr, I believe that they have often already been transferred to Commons (and got a new licencereview, usually by User:FlickreviewR). I checked the category with files with WTS licencereview where the licence status can't be confirmed. Most had licencereview by Peter or Powers, and a few had licencereview by Sertmann or Tatata. I don't know if there are other Flickr files which have not been checked at all. I've done a few searches for custom strings (e.g. "Commons" and "Wikipedia) on Wikivoyage in order to find images copied from elsewhere. I suppose that I should do the same thing with Flickr images, so that we get the full list of affected images. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Sertmann, Tatata, and Vidimian are trustworthy as well. Most of the files that came originally from Flickr were never verified because we didn't start doing it until 2008 -- and even then, not consistently. (And of course, don't forget that there may be lots of files from Flickr that aren't actually identified as such; most of these are copyvios, but they have to be uncovered through human investigation.) Powers (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Map categories

Here's a nooby question: what categories should individual travel maps be put in? If File:Manhattan districts.png is in Category:Travel maps of Manhattan, which in turn in in Category:Maps of Manhattan, New York City, does the file need any further categories (e.g., does it need to have Category:Maps of Manhattan, New York City added too)? --Peter Talk 03:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It is up to you. Normally, I am adding only one category (Travel maps of), because I don't like/understand the map categorization on Commons, and I want to save time. --Atsirlin (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I think for now it's usually fine to put travel maps in just one category, Category:Travel maps of XXX, as long as that category is itself put into appropriate categories (e.g. Category:Maps of XXX and Category:Travel maps of YYY, where YYY is some larger region containing XXX). One exception might be if the map had a particular theme; e.g. File:Bioregions of SA EEZ.png is also in Category:Maps of ecoregions and Category:Exclusive economic zones. Putting File:Manhattan districts.png into Category:Maps of Manhattan, New York City as well as Category:Travel maps of Manhattan seems like over-categorization. --Avenue (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks, it might be a good idea to document the distinction between a travel map and other sorts of locator maps, maps, old maps ... (see Category:Maps of the United States for example). If you don't do that, people will end up moving images back and forward between all sorts of map categories; I can guarantee you that within a couple of weeks, 10 % of your travel maps will be merged into other map categories. Once you have an agreement on it, you could request a bot to insert such an information template in all travel map categories. --Foroa (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Would have been easier to just name them all "Wikivoyage maps" instead of "travel maps". =) Powers (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
How is best to go about documenting this? --Peter Talk 18:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Two things are needed:
1. Agree what should be on each category page and how it could be presented
2. Find a guy, like Jarekt that can create the template, for example based on {{Wiki Loves Monuments 2012}} or {{NARA-image}} and do a bot insert in the complete category tree. (I did not find a general category documentation template). Extension of {{Wikivoyage}} might be the neatest. --Foroa (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
{{Wikivoyage}} describes where we got the file from, but I think we want the "travel maps" categories to contain more than just files transferred from the old Wikivoyage sites. For example, a new map created next month for use in Wikivoyage, following a typical Wikivoyage map style, should also be put in a travel map category.
We can rename the categories to "Wikivoyage maps of ..." if we want. I think this would be more appropriate if we want to restrict them to holding just maps in a few Wikivoyage styles, and exclude travel-themed maps drawn in other styles. If we want to include all maps that are particularly useful for travel, regardless of style, I think the current name is better. --Avenue (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Travel maps as we've conceived it seems like a euphemism for Wikivoyage maps. I'd prefer to drop the euphemism ;) --Peter Talk 23:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The concept still seems quite unclear to me. Should maps of public transport routes or tourist destinations (e.g. dive sites, archeological sites, museums) be excluded? --Avenue (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
No, they should not. Unless it is a huge map of public transport, which is already categorized elsewhere. We have only a couple of such maps, though. They are not a problem.
Personally, I don't think that we need a completely closed category that contains maps from/for Wikivoyage only. Our best criteria will be the presence of listings (sights, hotels, restaurants) or travel-related regions. For example, the map of British Columbia is clearly "travel-related" because it depicts regions that do not exist outside Wikivoyage. This map is of little use for Wikipedia or other project where the official division into districts/counties matters. I believe that such content is rather specific, and we will not get an influx of new maps that we do not need. Regarding the opposite problem (Wikivoyage maps removed from the Travel maps category), yes, we need a more clear template explaining why Wikivoyage maps are special. This template should also explain our concept of "multilingual SVG + PNG's in different languages" because this drawing principle is not obvious. I think that this template will do the job. If we rename the category, we will not know how to deal with PD maps of national parks and other useful maps created outside Wikivoyage. --Atsirlin (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The regional maps do seem pretty comprehensive. I was thinking more of new city/street maps, although I wasn't expecting a huge influx of these either. Yes, a better description of how Wikivoyage maps are distinctive would be useful. The multilingual setup is part of that, as is their cartographic style. --Avenue (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Files from Wikipedia

Please, could someone help out with voy:User:Stefan2/copy from Wikipedia? If the files are OK, they need to be transferred to Commons from Wikipedia and then tagged with NowCommons on both Wikipedia and Wikivoyage. If they are not OK, they may need to be deleted from Wikipedia and tagged with KeepLocal or Ignore on Wikivoyage. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I stopped doing it at some point. I will resume, but transferring is time consuming even with the Commons helper, so that I would appreciate if someone elce would be willing to help.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, the list is presumably incomplete. I have a list of a few hundred of files which are presumably from Wikipedia, Commons or Flickr, and some of those files will eventually end up in my list of files to copy from Wikipedia. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
To copy from enwiki to commons you could try w:WP:FTCG... sorry for the shameless promotion of my own tool! This, that and the other (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


Definition of {{Cc-by-sa-all}} on Wikivoyage doesn't match Commons definition. Please see Commons:Village_pump#Template:Cc-by-sa-all. Rd232 (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to help review files. If the "author" part of an infobox includes a dead link to a user at, what should I do? It seems that use of this file would constitute a violation of the attribution parameter of CC BY or CC BY-SA. -Pete F (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The simplest solution is to install User:Magog the Ogre/cleanup.js and use the "cleanup TS" link. This repairs all of the links (and does a lot of other things). --Stefan4 (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. But I'm not sure I know how to do that -- I copied that page to my own subpage of the same name, logged out and back in, purged the page...but I don't see the "cleanup TS" link. What did I miss? Thanks for the help! -Pete F (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Update: I figured out what I did wrong -- copying the code to my own userspace was wrong, instead I needed to put this code in my [username/common.js] file:
importScript('User:Magog the Ogre/cleanup.js'); // for wikitravel
So, the "cleanup TS" link is now showing up! Unfortunately it doesn't seem to address the issue I brought up here, though. Interested in any further advice. Thanks for pointing me to this script! -Pete F (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
What happens to you? For example, I had this (with broken links) and then I got this (with working links). --Stefan4 (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Interesting -- I think there are several layers to this. Several things:
  • The links to seem to work sometimes -- but other times I get "site not found." I can't find a pattern.
  • When clicking on the user page (when it works), I get a blank page stating "User account "(WT-shared) Bz3rk" is not registered." In this particular case, User:Bz3rk did not have a user page on Wikitravel either; so it's not a good test case. Maybe user pages have been moved over where they existed? I'm not sure.
  • Even if User:Bz3rk didn't have a page, he did have edit history at Wikitravel. I wonder how the upload terms work there? It seems to me that a link to the Wikitravel user page (not a clone of it, but the page itself) is the way attribution would be provided; that is how we attribute on Wikimedia projects. So I would think it important that, unless a user has specifically given consent to get attribution via a Wikivoyage or Commons page, we really should be pointing to their Wikitravel user page. (This is not merely theoretical -- if the person has listed an email address in their Wikitravel account, that means a reader has a way to get in touch with them, which we eliminate if we merely duplicate the user page and the edit history.) -Pete F (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
To answer each point:
  • It says "site not found" when the Toolserver is having issues. The solution is to volunteer more money to the Toolserver.
  • Bz3rk is not registered as a user (link), but his edits were imported under that username anyway (link).
  • You are correct about attribution. In fact, the bot that moved everything from Wikitravel to Wikivoyage did a really lousy job of it. IMO this is something which needs to be fixed for the userpage links at each project. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I had some problems getting the bot to create a perfect file page (in fact sometimes it was a problem even to get the bot to copy the files) and we were in a hurry to get the files moved so my originally plan was to import all the files and then do a large bot run to fix/improve all the links etc.
Then Magog came to the rescue and had his bot cleanup the transferred files. Therefore I did not change the script and I asumed/hoped that all the files copied by my bot was now fixed. Perhaps with a few exceptions if users changed something before Magogs bot came along.
If there is still pending cleanup perhaps we could get a bot to do most of it? --MGA73 (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
To jump in, all registered users with edits to Wikitravel will have a corresponding "This is the imported user page of user...," page on Wikivoyage and that may be the best page to link to, in order to preserve attribution (since Wikivoyage's future is a more certain thing). All such pages link back to the original user contributions history at Wikitravel. --Peter Talk 21:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)