User:Mardus/Sandbox

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

Images with bad filenames[edit]

Lisboa (P), 2011, Arraial Pride 2011. (6236745301).jpg

If, for example, in a category, there's an image that cannot be accessed by clicking on a link, then it contains non-alphanumeric characters that should not be in a filename, as they are used elsewhere within the Wikimedia Commons infrastructure, and cause the filename to become invalid, which thus requires that the file be renamed.

  • The permitted alphanumeric characters for filenames are a-z, A-Z, 0-9, standard minus/dash -; and an underscore _. Filesystems that support UTF-8 allow for more.
  • The non-alphanumeric characters that cause issues are commas ,, parentheses (), and apostrophes '. In operating system command line environments these characters must almost always be escaped, typically with a backslash \, as in \', otherwise the characters will be interpreted as parts of a command.

To access the file to rename it using the SeaMonkey (1.1) browser:

  • Right-click on the image in a category for the context menu and click Properties.
  • In the Element Properties window, there is the Link Properties section and in it the Address field. Click the tab button once to move focus to the address and to select it. Copy the address (Ctrl+C or Ctrl+Insert or leave as is in X).
  • In your sandbox textarea, paste the image address (Ctrl+V or Shift+Insert or middle-click in X) to create a normal thumbnail of the image and save the sandbox page.
  • The image is then only accessible by clicking on it directly. Not by opening it in another (new) tab, dragging and dropping the image or in any other way.
  • Click on the Move link at the top of the image page to request renaming.

Update:
Turns out that at least with SeaMonkey 1.1, its NoScript 1.10 extension (the last version for SeaMonkey 1.1) sanitizes some URLs as unclean, and specifically replaces percent-encoded parentheses %28 and %29 with percent-encoded spaces %20. This issue can be resolved by adding XSS exceptions in NoScript options to Wikimedia and Wikipedia domains. That resolution does not fix an issue, wherein modern browsers are unable to show a category listing of files with these characters.

Add to File talk:Firefox-2-options-window.png[edit]

The issue stems from the contradiction between the file name and the upload date: The file name states that the preferences window seems to be that of Firefox 2, while the file was uploaded on 25.08.2006, which is before Firefox 2.0 was officially published.

There are two possibilities:

  • Either the user used number '2' to mark concurrence, or
  • the uploader knew for certain that he uploaded a screenshot of what is Firefox 2.


File:KDE pbx wikiLinux.png can refer to Mandriva on 28.08.2006, because the start button of the taskbar shows a star, which is characteristic to Mandriva.

Only that Firefox 2.0 was not included in Mandriva before 17.04.2007, when Mandriva 2007.1 was released.
Before 25.08.2006., the current Mandriva release was 2006, released on 6 October 2005, which then only included Firefox 1.0.6; Firefox 1.5.0.7 was only included in the 2007 release, published on 3 October 2006.

https://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php?wikifam=commons.wikimedia.org&wikilang=en&order=-img_timestamp&img_user_text=Rafax&max=25&ofs=275&max=25

Without directly comparing the two user interfaces, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the user might have uploaded a screenshot of what could be at most Firefox 2.0 Beta 1 (Beta 2 was released on 31.08.2006).

Comment[edit]

I think I worked out how to use Lynx+Vim when editing Wikipedia pages ^_^

Unfree screenshots in breach of Commons:Screenshots, To create a free screenshot, article 3[edit]

The files below are picked up from Category:German Wikipedia screenshots and Category:English Wikipedia screenshots :

These files are created in breach of Commons:Screenshots#To_create_a_free_screenshot #3 "Cut away all possibly copyrighted elements. Only show the relevant content." A door must be either open or closed. Similarly a file is either free or unfree. Users must be told if they are allowed to reuse the file on their own website or not. Something cannot simultaneously be allowed and forbidden. The simultaneous presence of a Free Licence tag (such as CC-BY-SA or GFDL) and an unfree license tag ({{CopyrightByWikimedia}}) as seen on File:Arora 0.4 de.png is impossible.

(On the other hand, File:IuW Banner.jpg is OK because no free license tag is tagged on it : the door is clearly closed, not open. It is marked as copyrighted and reuse is clearly forbidden) (On the other hand, File:History comparison example.png is OK because no "all rights reserved" tag is tagged on it. The door is clearly open. It is marked as free and reuse is clearly allowed)

Additionally, the files I marked as "unused", or used on user page, or used in talk pages, might be out of COM:SCOPE (but not necessarily so : anyway the above mentioned reason is enough to request deletion). Screenshots in general contain text and are mostly suitable for one language. It is rare that two different language Wikipedias share this kind of files (that alone would not be a sufficient reason to request deletion, though).

Teofilo (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think something is wrong with these files, why don't you fix it instead of this rather destructive request? Multichill (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Screenshots#To_create_a_free_screenshot #3 (cropping out copyrighted parts) is a duty which incumbs upon the uploader. Teofilo (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
We only allow free files with one big exception: {{CopyrightByWikimedia}}. This rule applies also to your rule #3. Multichill (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
{{CopyrightByWikimedia}} is controversial and must be limited to the strict minimum, the Wikimedia logos and only that. {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} is not a rule. It is a tolerance. The principle on Wikimedia Commons is that the files must be free. At all events, the user must be given a clear answer to the question "can I upload the file on my own website ?" Teofilo (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC). {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} is for logos like File:Wikimedia-logo.svg. Not for screenshots. Teofilo (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
In order to satisfy your wish to make this request less destructive, I have tried to upload a new censored version on File:Bildschirmfoto-Hauptseite - Wikipedia - Konqueror.png : Bildschirmfoto-Hauptseite - Wikipedia - Konqueror.png. But I won't do this for every file. These files have a lot of other problems and I don't want to be the one responsible if they violate people's copyright or if they violate any law. It is too dangerous. Teofilo (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Not only do these files break the "Share Alike" clause of the Free license by merging the Free content with unfree contents, but most of them breach the "BY (parternity) clause too by failing to mention the creator's names. Teofilo (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
@Teofilo, do you still consider File:WP has a problem.jpg a problem even after I had removed the conflicting CC-BY-SA license tag? (done before you tagged it) --Túrelio (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. File:WP has a problem.jpg is OK now (the same kind as File:IuW Banner.jpg which I mentionned as being OK above).Teofilo (talk)
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I think this DR is a misunderstanding. The {{Wikipedia screenshot}} says it all loud and clear: "You may use everything except the logo(s) of Wikipedia etc.". If you do not like that ides start a discussion at the talk page of that template or at the village pump.
The idea of the screenshots is mainly for internal purpose such as creating guides for the use of Wikipedia or to be used fun on userpages or to illustrate a historic moment on Wikipedia. The term to crop away all copyrighted stuff is for files that is supposed to be used in articles etc.
I agree that some unused screenshots could be deleted. But only if we are sure they are not wanted anymore. Files can be used just by being in a category. If a wiki somewhere wants a screenshot they should be alloved to do so. We host files.
I think files should be nominated one by one and only the files that really should be deleted. One way to find out is to ask the uploader. --MGA73 (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, but as he notified the uploaders, such a "slow" DR gives the uploader the opportunity to remove conflicting license/copyright tags (as were present in my 2 files) and thereby to heal the problem. --Túrelio (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Please check File:Anxietyonwiki v.png. File was uploaded on en-wiki. I got the notice because I moved this (and thousands of other files) to Commons. Original uploader was not notified. --MGA73 (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Notifying only the person moving the picture from Wikipedia to Commons is the usual procedure. If the file gets deleted on Commons, he can request for the file to be undeleted on Wikipedia. If he never expected the File to be on Commons, he should not be that much bothered by its deletion from Commons. Teofilo (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia screenshot}} is wrong. After this Deletion Request is closed, it will need to be reworded, including, I hope, Commons:Screenshots#To_create_a_free_screenshot #3. Things for internal purpose should be uploaded direcly on each wiki. Things for external purpose should be uploaded on each wiki too. For example, onto the English Wikipedia, with a fair use rationale if a fair use rationale is available for the copyrighted logo. This way, if people want to copy the article on their own website, they can use the same fair use rationale and enjoy the article. How about creating a list of the files you want to keep ? Are they so many ? Teofilo (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
So you are saying that Commons should not host files that is intented to be used only on some Wikipedia? You do not seem to understand the purpose of Commons then. For your information some Wikipedias do NOT allow local upload. So it is impossible to upload locally!!! We are actually trying to get more and more Wikipedias to close for local uploads. We do not need someone to spoil it all by nominating files for deletion with the reason that "Wikipedias should host their own files." --MGA73 (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
"With the exception of Wikimedia Commons" in with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project community may develop and adopt an EDP at foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy means that Commons is not allowed to have an EDP. Fair use files can be uploaded only on those Wikipedias which have an EDP for fair use. Teofilo (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I ofcourse agree that we should not allow fair use on Commons. Everything that has other unfree stuff than the Wikimedia logos should just be nuked or fixed. What I did not like was the "Things for internal purpose should be uploaded direcly on each wiki. Things for external purpose should be uploaded on each wiki too." I think that if we can host the logos - we can also host screenshots where logos are included. --MGA73 (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I also disagree with "Only include official Wikimedia logos if they are absolutely essential to what the screenshot is intending to illustrate - in most cases, these should be removed before uploading" written at the bottom of Commons:Screenshots. A Free license does not allow to merge the contents with unfree contents, even if they are "absolutely essential". "Absolutely essential" is not a valid excuse. At all events, user pages and talk pages are not absolutely essential. For example File:IE9 Developer Preview.png whose purpose is to show Internet Explorer 9 does not absolutely need to show a Wikipedia page. Any logo-free screenshot of Wikipedia or any other free website can illustrate Internet Explorer 9. Teofilo (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment So, if someone proposes to remove Wikipedia, WMF and MediaWiki logos from numerous screenshots, then let him provide dummy images (for use in place of removed logos) and guidelines for editing existing screenshots. "Screenshots" like Image:Mozilla Firefox 1.0 front page screenshot.png are not good because contain an irritating blank space instead of well recognized Wikipedia logo. Let us use some similarly looking replacement at least. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Replacing means uploading again. As I wrote again, I don't want to do this because I am afraid these files break many other rules (such as the BY (paternity) clause). I suggest to undelete the file everytime someone wants to take the risk and to provide such censored versions. Teofilo (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem with Image:Mozilla Firefox 1.0 front page screenshot.png and many others like that is that it contains visuals and elements of proprietary software (like the Windows titlebar), which means that it and others should not be eligible for Commons anyway. -Mardus (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I am having a difficult time following what the deletion requester exactly wants changed. I have changed the tag on the file File:Buttons1.PNG, is everything with regards to this satisfactory, or are additional changes still required? Thanks, --Hans2520 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't you feel the designers of the mediawiki software might complain that the "Share alike" clause of the Free license is breached ? I think it would be safer for you to remove the logo from the picture, like I did on File:Bildschirmfoto-Hauptseite - Wikipedia - Konqueror.png with yellow paint, and release the file as a 100% free file, without fear to receive such complaints. Or perhaps your screenshot is so small that it does not pass the threshold of originality (quite commonplace tabs and buttons like many website designs). Your file is a little borderline in the sense that it is close to the "too simple to be copyrighted" case, for the remaining part of the screenshot. Teofilo (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm failing to see what the difference between my photo and File:WP has a problem.jpg is then. My understanding was that the tag was put there because "part" of the work may be copyrighted. Personally, I'm not too worried about receiving complaints from the designers of the mediawiki software, given the purpose of the usage, I think they would support it; however that is besides the point.--Hans2520 (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I withdraw my request for your file. Please license it as you think is suitable. Teofilo (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Flowering plant talk 2008-01-02 pointing to former Magnoliophyta talk.png
Thanks, Theophilo, &sorry. This was a meanwhile outdated reference image in order to inform User:CarolSpears on display in FF_2. -- Remove ASAP. Best, Wolfgang [w.] 09:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Ähemm, the Wikipedia logo, of course. --Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Similar to FOP-images, PD logos, and personality rights: The logos shown in theses images may have additional restrictions apart from copyright. Therefore, this dicussion here is NOT about copyright but about whether we want to keep images that are potentially unfree due to other restrictions like trademark law, personality rights, etc. --ALE! ¿…? 10:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - One of my uploads is included in this deletion proposal, and I am happy for that to be deleted as I no longer use it. But I have little familiarity with the wider context here, so I'm going to vote neutral. Anthøny 13:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • A couple of my images (kmeleon screenshots) are included in this list, I'm happy for them to be deleted. I do think it is worth warning users when they are uploading screenshots of free software that they should scroll down or otherwise obscure any non-free logos, particularly the wikipedia logo which many people erroneously assume to be free Little Professor (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep File:Shiira screenshot.png - Screenshot in question shows the Shiira web browser (BSD licensed) user interface (the point of the screencap) and the Wikipedia web page. Note that the image consists of only the browser window itself, the desktop and menu bar are not represented. CyberSkull (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
It includes the Wikipedia logo, which is unfree. Couldn't you make another screenshot without the Wikipedia logo ? That means scrolling the page down a little bit. Teofilo (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep File:Screenshot of Computer form factor.png - Is it because I use the wrong license tag? I have removed the PD tag. I also cropped away the wikipedia logo such that I can use another tag. I am not familiar to all the rules of Commons, so please tell me how to improve it. --Quest for Truth (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
It is OK now. Thank you for the crop. Teofilo (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I got notified because of my three WikiMiniAtlas screenshots. They show a userinterface element on Wikipedia. Censoring or cropping away the Wikiball would lessen the usefulness of the screenshots considerably, as context and with it recognizability would be lost. Images of the Wikimedia logo are allowed on commons. It is as simple as that. The DR is (at least for images that show a Wikimedia logo) without merit. I haven't read the discussion on the page (too busr IRL right now), but it makes me wonder if this is a political thing. --Dschwen (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Adding a copyrighted logo on a free picture is a breach of the "share alike" terms of the licence. It should never be allowed, even (and even more so, I would say) if it is a Wikimedia/Wikipedia logo. Yes it is political. This is Free Culture activism. Trying to have people be true to the terms of Free Licenses. Teofilo (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
What about a CC BY screenshot where a CC BY-SA icon is visible? --AVRS (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't think so. This meta site was started 2 days after this DR. But anyway, the creation of a separate project for the (C)-Wikimedia logos/material was discussed every now and then already years ago. --Túrelio (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
That just tells me how wrong this is. You should not start a DR to force a change of policy through. The correct thing is to start a discussion somewhere and put notices on Village Pump and major Wikis etc. Once a new policy has been approved or excisting ones have been changed you could start a move of the files or a cleanup if something needs to be deleted. Tagging files for deletion to en:WP:POINT should not be tolerated. --MGA73 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)