User talk:Fæ/2014

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



Hi Fæ, I hope you're well. I seem to be discussing whether Category:Fæ should be a hidden category or not with User:High Contrast - see User_talk:High_Contrast#Hidden_user_categories. Please feel free to join in if you're interested. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This should be a category using your actual name, by all rights. russavia (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Meh, there are no rules about actual names. As a Wikimedian I am always called Fæ and these photographs are of Fæ. I'll say something about hidden cats on HC's page. -- (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


{{Autotranslate|1=|2=Files in Category:Boryspil International Airport|3=plural|base=Idw}} Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, LGA talkedits 07:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Airport, Terminal JP7445298.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Airport, Terminal JP7445298.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} LGA talkedits 07:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

British Museum


I noticed your message about the British Museum. I am looking for a high-resolution picture of John Ruskin. We don't have any good picture of him. I supposed that it would be available in the British Museum. Would you be able to get that? Thanks, Yann (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably the sort of thing that the British Library might have tucked away (which split off from the British Museum in 1971), they are quite friendly with us (via WMUK) and might make a scan for free. I spot at least two reasonable portraits File:John Ruskin 1879 C.jpg and File:John Ruskin Collingwood large.jpg, let me know if these are sufficient.
It may take me a few weeks before I follow up, but I'm happy to check the BL catalogue and ask for a high resolution copy of a portrait we do not have if you need this for, say, a featured article or similar. -- (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I know, I uploaded them as well as most other stuffs by Ruskin here. ;o)
The first is quite small, and the second is a painting, not a photo. Yes, if we get a HR picture, I would restore it and nominate for FP and VI. BTW, any HR copy of his work would be great. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, at a convenient point I'll check out their holdings. I'm sure reprographics costs would be covered if there is potential for FP here or to illustrate FA/GAs on en.wp. -- (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

More re your question

The timing of your question was interesting. First, you wondered if we had interacted. Of course, I know who you are, but do not believe we've had material interaction, although I've read a lot about you. I don't believe there is anything close to a COI.

I don't believe I've had substantial involvement in WMUK projects, although I've read a fair amount, as I think out general relationship with Museums,a ad the British Museum in particular, is one the crown jewels of Wikimedia.

In my application, I mentioned that I read the unsuccessful requests. Reading yours almost persuaded me to abandon my request. If your experience isn't adequate, I'm not sure why I'm bothering.--Sphilbrick (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL, thanks for the feedback. Posting a question shortly. -- (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

File:An Afghan National Army Special Forces lieutenant with the 9th Special Operations Kandak poses for a photo during a mission in Pashtun Zarghun district, Herat province, Afghanistan, Dec. 19, 2013 131219-O-ZZ999-002-AF.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:An Afghan National Army Special Forces lieutenant with the 9th Special Operations Kandak poses for a photo during a mission in Pashtun Zarghun district, Herat province, Afghanistan, Dec. 19, 2013 131219-O-ZZ999-002-AF.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} High Contrast (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Commented. -- (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Upload tools

Hi. I notice you upload a lot of US military images. Do you have an upload tool to make uploading easier? Thanks Gbawden (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, unfortunately I don't have a standard tool that could be shared. In fact uploading from is quite complex as I use an iMacro script to produce a list of files I would like to upload, create a text file from it, and then use that for a pywikipediabot script to process the source pages and populate the Commons templates. I do have the heuristics that I use to match Commons categories published at /DoD matching, and this gets updated with more "value" every time I run a new upload and manually add further possible matches.
The process seems complex, but because of the way the site renders their searches this is not easy for me to automatically data-mine using python. It's not impossible, but my work arounds are okay for the odd thousand images I want to upload. If we wanted to upload hundreds of thousands en-mass it might be worth fully automating, but I suspect there would be a lot of push back due to categorization difficulties. -- (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Batch crop

I remember you coded a script to batch crop files. If so, do you think it can handle this request? (You can also send me the code so I can have a look.) --McZusatz (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a pile of spaghetti really, and relies on my laptop setup (the way PIL works and copying across the EXIF data, which otherwise gets lost, is very much custom). Tweaking it is easy though, I should get to this today. In the long term I'm thinking of investigating watermarks more generally, it's a knotty problem but it might be possible to have a bot do identification and possibly removal of watermarks of some 'classic' types. -- (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This DR

Dear Fae,

Could you view and perhaps vote in this DR before it is closed? I assumed that this image of a building interior is prohibited on Commons since Italy has no COM:FOP but it is a picture of an elevator--so perhaps it can be kept. I don't know. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done but TBH it's a slightly arbitrary call. -- (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. Its an arbitrary call but the Italians, like the French, are picky about copyright and the stairs are an intricate part of the building. That was what I thought--and Lymantria thinks too. But I think this DR will remain open. Thanks again, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Batch cropping

Hi, I don't think you cropped the right thing at File:Vienna, Austria (7997172433).jpg. darkweasel94 19:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Same for File:Vienna, Austria (7997175228).jpg and probably others. I will revert you at those two files because your crop isn't an improvement. darkweasel94 19:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Please do, though don't add them back to the same category (perhaps one for 'crop at 90 degrees'?)
I suggest letting the cropping finish and then do a visual check (less than 10% of the originals left). I fixed one other like this, but glancing through I could not spot any more off the cuff. It's a drag, but the residuals will need the original version cropping. -- (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay the run has now finished. The 118 files in the category did not get processed due to non-standard characters (never got around to de-bugging this for the numbers involved) but doing these by hand seems a lot less of a challenge than 2,000. :-) -- (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
After tweaking my script this is now down to zero. So only the left hand watermarks to worry about. -- (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:U.S. Marines with the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing (Forward) fire M4 carbines and M16 rifles during training at Camp Leatherneck, Helmand province, Afghanistan, Oct. 25, 2013 131025-M-SA716-052.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:U.S. Marines with the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing (Forward) fire M4 carbines and M16 rifles during training at Camp Leatherneck, Helmand province, Afghanistan, Oct. 25, 2013 131025-M-SA716-052.jpg|base=Image license}}

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Another annoying WMF server outage I think. Added to my todo list. -- (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Military image Bot uploads.

If possible please always separate information section, the license section and the categories by an empty line/line feed, we had problems in the past where someone modified a category and accidentally deleted the license tag. Thanks. BTW is it possible to determine the branch responsible for creating an image and use the branch's license tag instead of the generic DoD version? --Denniss (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I have added extra newlines to the layout, see this photo as a first example. This will apply to my uploads from hereon.
  • With regard to choosing more specific licences (Army/Navy/Coast Guard...) in line with VIRIN, yes this is possible, and I can fiddle with this in a couple of weeks. I recently added a trap for "Other/foreign nationals" ("O" in the VIRIN) and skip them (they may or may not be controversial for copyright, this was an issue easier to side-step for the moment), so extending that trap to choose a military branch licence is not unreasonable (✓ Done 15:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)). It would not be hard to go back over all my past uploads and amend the licence this way, once shown to be a reliable improvement and particularly beneficial.
By the way, I would say DoD uploads are more automated than full bot tasks as each batch is manually selected, and I get nudged to make decisions when no categories get returned using /DoD matching. -- (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for this update although an empty line feed below the license section header is not really needed. Further suggestion: use language template with proper syntax {{en|1=text}}. --Denniss (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll look at removing the line feed. With regard to templates, I did a lot of work in the old days on template design (on some very widely used templates) and don't see any difference between enumerating the parameter or just putting it in the right position. For simple templates like this one, the extra text seems there for the sake of it. -- (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The 1= is the standard usage for these language templates to prevent them from showing up in Category:Language templates with no text displayed if the text has an "=" somewhere or an "=" is added on later ("=" used as example, other reasons may brake it as well). AFAIR this is also the syntax used by Mediawiki for uploads. --Denniss (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, for a quiet life I'll have a look at it. However if a bot or tool is categorizing images as a maintenance problem based on the optional format of a template, then the bot or tool is at fault, not the users applying the template, and it should be fixed. I do not accept that enumerating parameters is a requirement for uploads. -- (talk) 10:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Not an optional format anymore, standard now. The template dosumentation should be updated though. The old version works unless someone uses a strange format.--Denniss (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
"We had problems in the past where someone modified a category and accidentally deleted the license tag." To avoid accidental deletions, the best place is to place the license tag under "permissions"? Jee 05:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
No, what do you think the license-header is for? It was never intended to have this stuffed under the Permissions section. That's intended for OTRS or similar stuff. --Denniss (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Denniss. have a look at the documentation of Template:Information: "Permission:License and other usage limitations and warnings. Due to the size of many license templates they are often placed in a separate section below {{information}} template. In such a case please leave this field blank."
IMHO, adding license under "license-header" makes it floats and people add assessments, COM:GLAM and all other fancy tags in between making the license less important, pushing to the tail end. :) Jee 13:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate photo

Looks like File:Retired U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Jeanne Goldy-Sanitate smiles after completing a lap in the swimming pool at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colo., May 7, 2010 100507-F-QE915-231.jpg was already uploaded as photo essay 100507-F-1830P-231.jpg. --Pmsyyz (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are not digitally identical (different sizes) and they have different VIRINs. Had the VIRINs matched I would have picked that up. I have marked the older one as a duplicate as the later one has slightly more information on it, if they are to be merged. -- (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Turkish F-190s and Spitfires.

Found this on the net and I and trying to find a legal way that we can add them to the commons website. Any thoughts? Articseahorse (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The decals look copyrighted to me and the old photos would need better sourcing (I may be missing it, but did not spot any notes back to an original source). -- (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Some info

I don't want to make a complaint about your oppose, but I wanted to make thing sure: it was Hym411's own action to use cropbot on this image is not true. Per this edit, Holger1959 put {{Crop}}, and it was in the Category:Images with borders, and I cropped. It was not fully my own decision to crop it. Just I wanted to say this. My apology if this made you unhappy. —레비Revi 13:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, your action to use cropbot was not the issue. In general it is the tool user that takes responsibility for any action taken, even if in response to a request. Thanks -- (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Fæ's upload of the month for January 2014

A hyena is seen at Serengeti National Park in Tanzania Nov. 14, 2013 131114-N-LE393-074.jpg

Cute hyena. Jee 10:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Swapping for this zebra action shot, good enough to be a FP I think. -- (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Zebra are seen running at the Serengeti National Park in Tanzania Nov. 14, 2013 131114-N-LE393-065.jpg

USC Digital Library

Hi, Fæ!

I've noticed that you have been uploading a lot of images to Commons. You are doing a great job. I find there are 65, 010 images on USC Digital Library. [big photo direct download link] Some of them are in public domain. Can you upload the no-in-copyright items to Wikicommon? Thank you.

@維基小霸王: I have made a cautious test with six photographs at Images from USC Digital Library uploaded by Fæ. As the catalogue does not include a standard PD or CC type licence statement, filtering in any automated way is next to impossible. Pre-1923 photographs published in the USA are okay. If you have any comments about the layout and so forth with the test sample, please leave me a note as I'd like to get the format settled before uploading thousands of images (I get over 3,000 in the pre-1923 glass plate negative collections, so that's not a bad start). -- (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I think they are OK.
I've found that if change the "action" value to 1, there will be a json file putout. Maybe we can put them together, and identify the copyright status manually. Through the "big photo" url, image with width or height bigger than 9999 (if any) will be downloaded in a wrong size. We can also use the json file to filter them. So, how about get all the json file as the next step?--維基小霸王 (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I took a quick look at the JSON, but it seems to add little to what can be taken from the online catalogue entries.
Now proceeding with 3405 records, but those with multiple images are going to be skipped (only a small number it appears), I may handle those later on but it's more programming effort that I have time for right now. Note, "page" does not work remotely for some weird reason, however "display" can be much long than the live version and so I can query 4000 images in one gulp. -- (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Invalid images?

I'm looking at a couple of images you've put up as part of the Imperial War Museums upload and I think they don't they're allowable. The ones I'm looking at are File:Victoria Cross and Vc OMD3700.jpg and File:Second World War campaign medal awarded to Group Captain Geoffrey Leonard Cheshire. For recipient's full biographical details see OMD 3700. One of a bar of 10 medals, OMD 3700-3709. OMD3707.jpg. Both are relatively recent images given that there's a colour chart present in the shot. (You can see a copyright date of 2000 on the chart in the one pic). The IWM Non-Commercial License expires 50 years after creation, so where do we start the clock on these? When the awards were originally given? (The most recent is dated 1977) Or when the photos were taken?? (Reason for my interest is if we can host them, then I'd love to crop the colour charts out and use them in Leonard Cheshire's article). Tabercil (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll speedy these tomorrow as the photo has creative content being of 3D objects. Unfortunately the IWM has made them very hard to filter, though I do filter out a lot. :-) -- (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Fæ's upload of the month 2013

March (Norden)
March (Norden)  
April (DoD)  
June (DoD)
June (DoD)  
August (MoD)
August (MoD)  
September (DoD)
September (DoD)  
October (MoD)
October (MoD)  
November (JetPhotos)
November (JetPhotos)  
December (DoD)
December (DoD)  

University of Wisconsin-Madison

I list some list some of my findings here, which may help you to upload more:

  1. US Army's 15th Infantry Regiment--China Service, 1911-1938 (please notice that max size some are large while others are xlarge.)
  2. World War I, 1914-1918 images by Sitzmann, Jako(It's very old, but I can't find the death date of the creator. I don't know if it is allowed to upload.)--維基小霸王 (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Your first search does not show anything for me, perhaps you could explain the search text rather than giving a link to your session?
The second search is more successful, I can find Jako Sitzmann as an author. As Sitzmann would have been taking these photos during his active service during World War 1, they fall under {{PD-USGov-Mil}} and probably {{PD-US}}, depending on whether we believe these were previously published or available to the public. As there is a claim of copyright by the University, I would have to look carefully at the background and see if there are exceptions before uploading.
I am happy to add this to my backlog to set up a batch download, though it may take a while as I would like to experiment a bit more with the previous case. :-) -- (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you may search "US Army's 15th Infantry Regiment--China Service, 1911-1938".

And I've find more:

search text copyright status
As a work of the United States government, this material is in the public domain. PD-US
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture I don't know the copyright status of Wisconsin gov works.
The Nash Collection of Primates in Art and Illustration In most instances the images included in this collection are copyright-free, but it is always advisable to check copyright ownership before using images.
Based on date of publication, this material is presumed to be in the public domain PD-old
Mills Music Library Tams-Witmark Collection PD-old
E. Murray Bruner I don't know the death date of the author, maybe PD-old or PD-USGov-Mil.
Postcard Some of them are PD-old. But it's not easy to identify because the author of most postcards are unknown. Maybe some of those published more than 70 years are PD-EU-no author disclosure.
Jesuit Iconography PD-old
The State of Wisconsin Collection Part of it are PD-old.
The University of Wisconsin Collection Part of it are PD-old.

Download notice: the format are various. Some item have more than one image and max size of some are xlarge. --維基小霸王 (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


Images from National Museum of Japan. Copyright: {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}. "撮影時期" means the date of photography. 明治 means en:Meiji period.--維基小霸王 (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

These would be a challenge for me.:-) I have a pending Russian upload project of several thousand images that I'll do first. This will test my unicode skills before trying anything in Japanese. -- (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Maybe this can be put in the end of your to-do list. --維基小霸王 (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
more: --維基小霸王 (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Harvard Hollis

And there are more images from harvard hollis collection.

Frank N. Meyer (1875-1918)

(Link does not work for me, however the simpler query does produce a list of photos (talk))

Purdom, William, 1880-1921
Wilson, Ernest Henry
Oliver Wendell Holmes
Gannett, Henry, 1846-1914
Walling, Henry Francis, 1825-1888
John Adams Whipple

Happy upload.:-)--維基小霸王 (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

State Library of Victoria

There are many books, pictures, maps, and manuscripts here. tiff download link are provided. Copyright status are indicated. Index terms can be used as categories in Commons. I've seen you upload each page of newspaper to Commons.

I think may be it will be more convenient for you and future Wikisource proofreader if you merge each page of a issue into a djvu file. But it will lower the quality of images. So may be the present practice is right.

I've added so many sources for you. Is that so many that became a burden for you? Should I take a pause?--維基小霸王 (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, these can just add to a backlog. So long as they don't disappear it does not matter if it takes me a month or 6 months to get around to looking at them, and documenting them may encourage anther uploader to have a go. :-) -- (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

File:The British Army in the United Kingdom 1939-45 H31847.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:The British Army in the United Kingdom 1939-45 H31847.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Andy king50 (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Commented. -- (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

File:2013 Rally for Transgender Equality 21152 (8604829200).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:2013 Rally for Transgender Equality 21152 (8604829200).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} -mattbuck (Talk) 11:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Commented. -- (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Off and Vaughn Drug Company, Fourth Street and Spring Street, ca.1890-1900 (CHS-357).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Off and Vaughn Drug Company, Fourth Street and Spring Street, ca.1890-1900 (CHS-357).jpg|base=Image license}} Lymantria (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Fixed. If you see uploads with no text like this from me when part of a batch upload, then it is always going to be due to a WMF server glitch or a similar time-out problem. -- (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

error in upload script?

Lots (or all) series recently uploaded lack a specifically named image, usually the second of the list. See 1, 2 and 3. Please have a look and run a cleanup script. --Denniss (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Leave it with me. I have some commitments today and the uploads have yet to complete, so it may take a day or two to do the housekeeping - probably by sniffing out remaining redlinks after upload is complete and trimming down the other_versions parameter.
I believe the cause is that where I was uploading multiple images for the same artefact from USC's digital library, some of the files were not images but data files and videos. These were not uploaded but were present in the list of expected files and assumed to be jpgs. Due to the peculiarities of the source website, this is one of these knotty problems that are probably a lot more efficient to do as a hour or two of housekeeping rather than days of programming out all the bugs in advance. -- (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I think this is mostly the Muybridge collection due to there being video files. Testing a script on the set associated with File:Cat trotting, changing to a gallop (rbm-QP301M8-1887-717a~1).jpg, will let it run elsewhere probably later today. -- (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
7.4k files missing something again, in most cases these are image links with just a, b or c and no additional number but I have seen images missing a lot linked files and some images with only one or two missing files of a numbered sheme. Files like this may have an error in the image gallery, some leftover BRs + number (others tend to have this at the bottom of the list). --Denniss (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
These are being fixed after upload as they need enough time for all photographs in a set to be completed. I am at 655 out of 924 historical images or image "multiples" at the USC digital library, so this may take a few days yet. My custom redlink fixer does around 1 image/30 seconds so this itself now takes a day to complete and I have just kicked it off again. I believe this fully corrects the issue, so if there are examples where you think numbers and newlines are being skipped, it would be useful to link to them.
Peters album - this was aborted due to the later quantity of post-1922 photographs. Once the Muybridge photographs are complete I can run my script on the Korean collections.
The example you give of an image with just links at the beginning will be fine, I am limiting the number of thumbnails to 25 in the sequence before and 25 after the photograph being looked at. This avoids problems with 300 or more images being uploaded, such as with Kankai ibun, which is likely to cause lag problems for many viewers. -- (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done the Peters album.
Working Muybridge. Delays due to spotty wifi, but re-run as of 12:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:El Rodeo (1908) (147024).jpg

Autotranslate|1=File:El Rodeo (1908) (147024).jpg|base=Image license}} And also:

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Definitely WMF server problems. These plague API uploads. These are all PD, a chore to sort out by hand but I'll get around to chiselling them away. -- (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I have added *another* trap to the most recent uploads from the USC digital library to test for a blank text page after upload. This appears to happen if there is a 503 error so that an upload succeeds but the text file drops out. This is rare-ish and before c.November 2013 never used to happen, then the WMF did something to damage the servers which has never been fixed. After raising several times on the village pump and raising as bugfix requests, I have given up expecting that WMF operations will ever diagnose the problem and fix it. -- (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Mobile upload category tracking

Fæ, I don't know how you're marking all these new uploads for category tracking. Is it a bot? If so, could you please open a request for bot? If not, could you still open a request for bot and do it via bot Face-smile.svg? Namely, the problem is that I can't filter out your edits on my watchlist under the "ignore bots" category. Obviously this isn't extremely urgent if the edits you're performing aren't already via bot, but I would like to present it to you as a long-term request. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure. This is a clunky bit of low-volume script, but doesn't really fit under Faebot's current scope. It has been running for a while, so I'll think about either adding it to Faebot long term or setting up a specific bot. -- (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
This was moved over to bot a day ago, I doubt anyone noticed. -- (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Kankai ibun, (1807), vol. 5 (RBM-910-41-O88k-v5~004).jpg

Seems there was yet another 503. --McZusatz (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done-- (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Fæ

I've found a Japanese website where have many books in public domain containing photos about China. I request them to provide the books and they replied that they "make documents only to the responsible person". You are a member of Wikimedia UK. Can you be that "responsible person" please? Thank you.--維基小霸王 (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look. The odd thing about Commons is that we have no hierarchy and no "official" representatives, however I am using WMUK kit to do uploads, so that makes me engaged on a sponsored project. -- (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I know there is no hierarchy in Commons, but they refused to provide files to an ordinary volunteer. You are a member of Wikimedia UK, and they are willing to provide files to other institutions, so I wonder if they file can first go to Wikimedia UK, and then send to me.:-) I can do the crop & enhancement and upload to Wikimedia Commons. To provide more information, I've emailed you the mails between the library and me.--維基小霸王 (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Mikhail Boulgakov monument (8162282814).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Mikhail Boulgakov monument (8162282814).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Kulmalukko (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Commented. -- (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

File:!Аэродромы и терминалы! терминал -, Южно-Сахалинск - Хомутово RP115997.jpg and other in batch

Is it possible to remove exclamation marks from file names? At least leading one. Other could/should be replaced with dots. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably done. -- (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Houston, we have a problem. I've just noticed the photos which you are uploading, and there is one field in which you are pulling the incorrect information. For the aircraft registration, you are actually pulling the aircraft construction number (s/n). Using File:Антонов Ан-12 4342609, Москва - Домодедово RP33589.jpg as an example, the registration is RA-93913. From here you can see that this correlates to the field Регистрация. In this view the registration correlates to the field Бортовой:. Could we get this change for the rest of the RP uploads (I'll be advising you of more to upload before long). Cheers, russavia (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Draped woman opening a parasol and turning around 1.gif

Bonjour, en regardant les documents mis en ligne, il y a quelques jours, j'ai vu votre série sur "Eadweard Muybridge in the USC digital library ". J'ai téléchargé une série afin de faire une animation. Voici le résultat. J'ai recopié les informations que vous aviez indiquées. Je ne sais pas comment vous associer à ce travail, puisque c'est vous qui avez téléchargé ces photos. Merci de me dire comment faire, afin que je puisse mettre les deux autres en ligne. Cordialement. François de Dijon (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, looking at documents posted there a few days ago, I saw your series on "Eadweard Muybridge in the USC Digital Library." I downloaded a series to make an animation. Here is the result. I copied the information you have provided. I do not know how you associate with this work, since it is you who have downloaded these photos. Thank you to tell me what to do, so I can put the other two online. Cordially. François de Dijon (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC) (machine translation)

File:Draped woman opening a parasol and turning around 1.gif

Hi François. I do not require any attribution as the uploader, the data and links to the original images is sufficient good context. Thank you for your work. -- (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, and thank you for letting us see these photographs. François de Dijon (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, here are the two others. François de Dijon (talk)

File:Draped woman opening a parasol and turning around 2.gif

File:Draped woman opening a parasol and turning around 3.gif

Uploaded lithographies (Wellcome Images)

Hi Fae, I saw that you uploaded some lithographies. But I think the licences could not be okay, if the images are freoim 1850 appr. like File:Giorgio Regnoli. Lithograph by Martin, 1851. Wellcome V0004976.jpg- they must be PD-old- or? --regards K@rl (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Karl. This was a test batch and we are in discussion with the Wellcome Trust about how best to manage the licensing. At the moment I am taking a default of CC-BY-SA as this is Wellcome's release. I suggest you defer worrying too much for a month as by then we should have a strategy agreed for the full upload. You can read more and add your opinions on the project page Commons:Batch_uploading/Wellcome_Images_CC-BY where this point has been under discussion. -- (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thanks for your answer, i well check there the disussion. --regards from Vienna K@rl (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


Im a gumpla modelits. I took photos of my models to share in the article Gundam Model of the Spanish Wikipedia. But someone erased the photoes because supposedly the photoes of my models (the models y bought with my money) violated copyrioght laws. i dont understand. i want to share photoes o f my collection and models. but what kind of licence do i need for use them in the spanish wikipedia???? PLEASE HELP

I WORK IN THE SPANISH WIKIPEDIA, but i speak english good.

--Cheposo (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cheposo. Models from kits are copyright of the designers as well as the model builders who may claim some copyright themselves due to paint finish or customization. To release photographs you would need to get a release from the kit production company, a release from the model builder if there is significant customization and the photographer. -- (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Minor edits may not remove "uncategorized" tags

I am working my way through categorizing images in Category:Media_from_the_National_Archives_and_Records_Administration_needing_categories_as_of_8_October_2011 I notice that occasionally an image remains in that category, but has been categorized. These are images you categorized, for example: File:Castle Rocks, at the head of Echo Canyon. Summit County, Utah. - NARA - 516632.jpg You marked the edit as "minor", and the words " (Sync 3 cats" appear in the edit summary. I am wondering if either of those actions are what cause the "uncategorized" tag to remain on the image. May I suggest that you try not marking the edit as minor, and see what happens? Thank you. Downtowngal (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


{{Autotranslate|1=|2=Works by Laura Knight for the War Artists Advisory Committee|3=plural|base=Idw}} RP88 12:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Hi, I thought you might be interested in this discussion, in light of the work you have done with the IWM. Hope you can help.14GTR (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

14GTR, I don't mind you asking Fae to contribute to the discussion, but please don't sign my name to your comments (or if you were intending to quote me, please make that clearer). Thanks. I've stuck through my signature line on your comment. —RP88 14:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Commented. -- (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Buy print?

I just removed a "Buy print" link from File:16fl.jpg, which you appear to have uploaded. Probably something you should look for more carefully when uploading. - Jmabel ! talk 18:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Language templates with no text displayed

Hi Fæ. Several of your uploads are in this maintenance category. Could you please fix the errors? --Leyo 00:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done -- (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Categories and please avoid "over-categorization"

Hi, as being tagged {categorize}, p.e. that one and some more files, has been fixed. Please also check Commons:categories and avoid "over-categorization". Best regards, Roland zh (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, referring to your above mentioned mass-uploads of Category:India related media by Category:Frank and Frances Carpenter Collection, please use (p.e.) Category:Frank and Frances Carpenter Collection black and white photographs of India, instead of 'overwhelming' (see section 'over-categorization') the main categories, among them "India", thx.
btw, just a suggestion: for Category:Library of Congress related uploads you may create accordingly subcategories for a more user-friendly access to p.e. country-related content ;-) Regards, Roland zh (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC) [fixed Roland zh (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)]
I suggest waiting until enough are uploaded as I only created the parent category today for this collection. The total available PD works in the LoC by Frank Carpenter is not necessarily that large by country though if useful the sub-categorization can be done as a quick VFC/hotcat job once this is clearer. It would be more relevant to separate out tifs from the associated jpgs, but again, this is not worth doing until the uploading for this collection is more complete, and would be a snap to do with VFC. In general it is quite useful to leave the LoC Collection in one big category as we can then easily apply catscan or similar when comparing with categories like "India" or "Women" or "Churches". -- (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
As of March 3, 2014 evening again, as pointed before, please avoid repeatedly 'over-whelming', as p.e. that one, of the main categories, among them countries as p.e. Category:India, Roland zh (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The WDL and LoC are two different projects. I'll think about how to look more intelligently at the categories, it should be possible to weight towards categorization without templates like {{Categorise}}. -- (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
For LoC uploads, I have added a double check on suggested categories and skipping them if their source matches the template Categorize, which seems consistently used for top level place categories. -- (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

World war II photos from 1945

Hi Fæ, in Category:Uelzen I see seven black&white photos uploaded by you, with conflicting date/year data. I assume all the 7 photos were taken in April 1945 when British troops reached Uelzen, do you agree ? -- Gerd Fahrenhorst (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this would be logical. The dates used are taken from the IWM's catalogue which may suffer from typos of this type, as with any large database. -- (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I moved the dates. -- Gerd Fahrenhorst (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


Fæ, thanks again for your upload of Files from Wellcome Images in advance of the Wellcome Library editathon. Your careful work impressed the Wellcome Library staff and enabled newcomers to see how these images could be put to use in Wikipedia. Cheers, MartinPoulter Jisc (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:PD Old auto: no death date

Fæ, a couple thousands of your uploads ended up in Category:PD Old auto: no death date. I do not know what happen there, but any chance you can fix it? --Jarekt (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, it may take me a day or two to get to it. -- (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Whenever you have a chance. Thanks. --Jarekt (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Catscan: link - 2,102 files @14:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Add deathyear where birth-death is used. Result: 1,636 left @ 16:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Change to PD-1923 where date=year is available and before 1923. Result: 100 left @ 23:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Change to PD-old-70 where last year in author field is more than 70 years ago, presuming a death date. Result: 33 left @ 00:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Find Gutenburg source for Kracher work, convert to CC-0. Result: 25 left @ 00:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Find "date = YYYY?" format and detect pre-1923. All were 19th Century. Result: 0 left. 00:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done

OTRS issue

Hi Fae, a student in my Wikipedia class brought up an issue where she has tried to establish permission via OTRS for an image she tried to place in an article. The image's address is File:Jenny Holzer.jpg (which has since been deleted by @Fastily, I think because the OTRS ticket was not processed in time). I looked at the ticket and it looks pretty complex. I see it is assigned to you, but unless I'm misunderstanding the software it seems you haven't yet sent a reply -- it seems my student has sent four separate emails documenting pieces of a complex chain of emails.

I don't pretend to understand all the ins and outs, and I'm not active enough on OTRS to know what the typical response would be to something like this. Would you mind CC'ing me on any responses you send, or otherwise alerting me? I'm happy to coach her through whatever process she needs to follow, but would prefer to do so in deference to how you would normally handle it. So if you don't mind, please keep me in the loop. Thanks, -Pete F (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping me a note. I should be looking at this later today. Good advice for new correspondents to OTRS is that emails may easily take up to 30 days to be read as we rely on unpaid volunteers, so we frequently handle files that have been deleted in that time and can be easily undeleted. COM:OTRS/N is a good way to have emails checked more quickly, particularly if they ought to be 'merged' and replied to as a group, even if the end response takes just as long. :-)
PS a couple of emails from this February have been merged into similar correspondence from a year ago - ticket:2013031310001711. If I merge the most recent, I'll email back an explanation. -- (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Fae. I looked at the ticket you linked above, and I'm not seeing the connection to ticket:2014021210002105. Are you just saying it's a similar case of scattered emails over a period of time? At any rate, I'll be sure to let our student know that patience is the best approach, and that it's likely she'll hear from somebody in the coming weeks (which fortunately should be within the timeframe of our course!) By the way, I noticed that this file (also deleted) is probably related as well: File:Jenny-Holzer 1986.jpg -Pete F (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Crossed wires. I must have been looking at the wrong window when writing the above. It's not related. -- (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Reviewed and in progress. Undel request created. -- (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Category talk:Falkirk

Hi Fae, I've made a proposal here which might affect your Geograph work, so I invite you to comment. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Journey to Ethiopia

Hello Fæ,

I was trying to find more appropriate subcategories for a number of pictures contained within the very broad Category:Ethiopia when I fell upon this one [2]. Is there something I should know in order to understand the purpose of it ? Regards, Ji-Elle (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It is one of several books from the World Digital Library where I only managed to download the png of the cover. The full pdf is 320MB (the standard upload is a maximum of 100MB).
PDF now uploaded, so I have marked the jpg as an unnecessary inferior duplicate. -- (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with adding the category! --Richenza (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status where photographer is unknown

Hi Fae, I believe a long time ago I saw a page on Commons with advice on how to proceed in a case where a photographer is unknown, but where it is highly likely their death date exceeds a relevant threshold (e.g. 70 years). I have been trying to find that page ever since -- did I imagine it? If you could point me to some information on this point I'd really appreciate it, I run into this situation frequently and am never quite sure what to do. (For instance this photo, whose subject died in 1885.) -Pete F (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

There are a couple of bundled points:
  1. "Unknown" can be argued from both sides. If a photographer's identity might become known, then the unknown rules may not apply as with sufficient research they might become named. I have had several images deleted on this precautionary basis, even when nobody had any suggestion as to how we might unearth the name of a photographer where there are no obvious records to check. This falls into our eternal debate about how to interpret "reasonable" effort or "significant" concern.
  2. "70 years" is a nominal period, primarily across Europe. However many countries are exceptions, both changing the 70 years into other terms, like 50 years, and adding variations depending on the medium. From time to time countries update their rules and even Europe's 70 years may change again one day. These need to be checked at COM:CRT.
Hopefully the CRT page might be the one you are thinking of. -- (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Fae. I'm relatively familiar with point #2 -- what I'm looking for is some guidance on point #1. Your breakdown is helpful, and pretty well matches my understanding. I take it you're not aware of a page on Commons dedicated to the various considerations around this point? I thought I had seen one here, but it's possible I saw it on another web site -- it's been at least a year. I know that a definitive answer is elusive, just looking for something that captures the various considerations in a way that relates to Commons. If it doesn't exist yet, maybe I'll start building a draft. -Pete F (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
There is Commons:Anonymous works which acts as a nice summary. It probably could do with a work flow at the beginning. -- (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Categorizing items under Category:Eadweard Muybridge in the USC digital library

Take a look at these two:

I suppose that this is the kind of categorization you envisaged for this collection, right? -- Tuválkin 15:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be better to use the book reference rather than a library catalogue reference. A long time ago I created Animal Locomotion with the volumes underneath it. So Plate rbm-QP301M8-1887-027 would categorize as:
This seems a lot more readable, and under that readable hierarchy a lot easier to discover that File:Animal locomotion. Plate 27 (Boston Public Library).jpg is a scan of the same object and should be in the same categories—compare with the impossibility of working out that "BPLDC no.: 08_11_000010" means the same thing as "rbm-QP301M8-1887-033". :-) -- (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that’s much better. I found the Boston image later on, and the categories under the book title. Unless it is productive to keep the plates categorized separately (if they were published in a second book or something to that effect), renaming Category:Plate rbm-QP301M8-1887-027 to Animal Locomotion I, Plate 27 sees to be the way to go — and then the same for all other plates. -- Tuválkin 18:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:El matador.jpg

The photo shows male toplessness. Isn't that nudity? Rybec (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No, per Nudity. -- (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
As the person who created the nudity and sexuality DR category, this is not what it was meant for. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article Fae has linked to currently says "toplessness is regarded by most people as partial nudity." Here on Commons, Category:Male_toplessness is in the category category:Partially nude males. Is the NSDR category not meant to encompass partial nudity? Rybec (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


{{Autotranslate|1=|2=Files in Category:Kermit the Frog|3=plural|base=Idw}} Affected:

Yours sincerely, russavia (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Commented. -- (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:An Afghan woman holds up baby boy for the camera, during a women medical engagement at Operation Spartan Stork on Dasht Camp, Kandahar province, Afghanistan, Oct. 26, 2011 111026-A-VB845-015.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:An Afghan woman holds up baby boy for the camera, during a women medical engagement at Operation Spartan Stork on Dasht Camp, Kandahar province, Afghanistan, Oct. 26, 2011 111026-A-VB845-015.jpg|base=Image license}} TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Err, did MediaWiki eat up the image descriptions again? bugzilla:32551... TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, server 503 errors, the ones that are so rare (apparently) that they are not worth the WMF operations team time to investigate. Re-uploaded text. -- (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Al-Zaura, No. 426, March 14, 1874 WDL9960.pdf

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Al-Zaura, No. 426, March 14, 1874 WDL9960.pdf|base=Image license}} And also:

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Will sort out these incredibly rare, not worth fixing, WMF server failures as part of my backlog. -- (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

+ File:Canadian Army Brig. Gen. Wayne Eyre, at lectern, the incoming commander of NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan (NTM-A), addresses joint coalition forces during a transfer of authority ceremony March 10, 2014 140310-N-ZZ999-005.jpg

Private information in DR

Hi I've closed this DR and renamed it in order to have less private information directly available. Would you consider it ok to stay like that or do you think it be better to oversight every piece of information that can be found ? --PierreSelim (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The concern from the correspondent was to remove their identity from public view. I doubt that full oversight is needed. I think the red-link in the DR should be renamed as the old filename is a problem; could we link to the image number rather than the name? -- (talk) 08:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: A matter of Foundation templates

I just wanted to help avoid useless bureaucracy, as nobody seems to challenge that T.S. ha a contract with WMF. Certainly I'm not in any way attached to my edit [3] and if someone already wasted time on OTRS paperwork it's good to take profit from it. :) --Nemo 09:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I would say more but you never know who is looking. -- (talk) 09:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Photograph album of V.W. Peters, 1928-2002 (Peters album~1).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Photograph album of V.W. Peters, 1928-2002 (Peters album~1).jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Commented. -- (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Flag of Tanzania.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Flag of Tanzania.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Antemister (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Commented. -- (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I've now finished this work and Category:Falkirk council area is now the top-level, and Category:Falkirk is the town. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Market in Vilnius (7932269670).jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Market in Vilnius (7932269670).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

JuTa 23:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Uploading photo's from

Hi Fae

I wanted to know where do I add the request for the pictures to be uploaded. MoHasanie (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Add a note in the opinions section, or feel free to add a 'Requests' sub-section. :-) -- (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Your challenge (c.f. Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2014/03#79_historic_books_to_upload.2C_all_greater_than_100MB)

The 1.7 GB PDF can easily be imported by a dev. Russavia already mentioned it but we also have a help page located here. Just click the link on the help page leading to bugzilla which gives a prefilled bug report. Let me know if there is a problem. --McZusatz (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Picasa images from the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force


There seems to be a duplicate-problem with the photographs by the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force from the picasa photo stream. Obviously, the same images have also appeared on flickr before and have (maybe partly) been transferred by Russavia before (also in March 2014). Example: your transfer - Russavia's transfer. A solution should be found in order to prevent such redundancies. Anyway, thanks for bringing those images from picasa to Commons. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If you can think of a way of spotting a unique identifier, I would be happy to check for duplicates using it. If they were digitally identical, the uploads should be automatically filtered out. -- (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Is the review by the uploader himself valid? Are these uploads by a bot? No such info in the log. Jee 10:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

My experience as an OTRS volunteer and licence reviewer spans a few years now. Rest assured the licences on these uploads are verified and this was a semi-automated process though I have no current plans to write a Picasa upload bot for approval. If someone wishes to invoke a community consensus about an uploader not reviewing their own uploads, then I will happily remove my picasa-reviewed templates, or make it appear better by swapping my name to another licence reviewer/admin, however in this case an additional manual review seems exceedingly pointless and I do not think that ZooFari's change to the guidance in 2012 (this is not an agreed policy document or official guideline) catered for special batch upload projects like this one, nor does in match our working practice for OTRS volunteers who may upload on behalf of others and mark the upload as reviewed.
Proposed amendment at Commons_talk:License_review#Situations_where_licensing_self-uploads_is_okay. Note, ZooFari became inactive not long after making this edit so they are not about to discuss the background of this change. -- (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Good point. I see so many people ask new candidates this question and point them to this update at Commons:License review/requests. Let us see what the community decide. Jee 15:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@Fae: It is the uploader's job to avoid duplicates. If some bot script does not help you or if such a script is insufficient. Then you need to apply more traditional paths like a manual preselection of your uploads. --High Contrast (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

We have a very similar long conversation about this in my archives. Sometimes perfection is impossible and we have to settle for 99.7%. -- (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Contact sheet

I have generated a visual contact sheet for all images in JGSDF at User:Faebot/SandboxJ. This is sorted purely by height and width and should be an easy way of identifying duplicates by eye.

I have spotted a couple of (non-identical) duplicates this way, fortunately there only appear to be a handful duplicated between Flickr and Picasa albums. -- (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

File:水路訓練(レッドビーチ) 教育訓練等 227.jpg

Two issues:

--Martin H. (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a second look later today and may ping Russavia who asked for these to be uploaded as a batch. Luckily the stream is in several different albums so any issue may be containable. (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
@Martin H.: I am looking at the two links you provided and the original on Picasa. The date given in the photo info on Picasa is Oct 4, 2013, however no EXIF information is there (see EXIF data), even though the high resolution image is there; I would conclude that the date is when it was put on Picasa, rather than a claim of the photo taken date as the original EXIF data has been lost. The article date is given as 26/07/2013, however only a thumbnail version is given and there is no named photographer or copyright. The page has the event date rather than publication date as June 5th, however again only a thumbnail is reproduced and there is no named photographer or claim of copyright copyright. At the current time the only source of high resolution originals is the Picasa stream, even if this was compiled at a later date. From the links you have provided I can see no challenge to the current copyright statement. -- (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
[4] --Martin H. (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Also .File:Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) members participate in combat rubber rating craft training at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in California June 4, 2013, during exercise Dawn Blitz 2013 130604-M-QH793-031.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Looking at that VIRIN is interesting. No doubt this is the JMSDF and the JMSDF have used it on their photostream. We do need to work these out, but this example is not actually a copyright failure (the photo being PD), more an attribution inaccuracy. I'll talk to Russavia about how to "triage" these. -- (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
As always: The only desirable result would be that we have no files with inaccurate or missing or misleading legal information on the project. From the few examples I found the extend of the problem is not visible, but yes, a case-by-case review seems to be required at the time of the upload. --Martin H. (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
It may be as easy as separating those without EXIF data (some look perfectly good), but I'm short of time to research this today. -- (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I created a sub-category populated with images without good EXIF data. Unfortunately this appears to be 80% of the images uploaded. We'll have to think of another approach, though at the moment volunteers are chipping away at the visual checks. -- (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Good job! 維基小霸王 (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

incorrect place

Prisoners-of-war in a Cellar, Tauberbischofsheim Art.IWMARTLD5070.jpg

File:Prisoners-of-war in a Cellar, Tauberbischofsheim Art.IWMARTLD5070.jpg

The picture was uploaded by you. You have written among subjects:

  • Associated places
    Germany (pre 1945 and post 1990) DE, Tauberbischofsheim, Bavaria, Germany

This is incorrect: Tauberbischofsheim never belonged to Bavaria. When the picture was drawn (World War II) Tauberbischofsheim belonged to Baden (Germany (pre 1945)). Today it belongs to Baden-Württemberg (Germany (post 1990)).

It seems to me, that there are rules, about how and what has to be written in the table there ("subject"). But I don't know these rules and haven't found them yet. Therefore I'm sorry, but I'm not sure how to correct this in the right way. Could you do that, please? --Kleiner Tümmler (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kleiner, there are no rules :-). The information I have included is that supplied by the Imperial War Museum in their on-line catalogue. This is not perfect, there are many mistakes. Please do go ahead an correct the text by editing the image page as you see fit. Thanks -- (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I changed the place of the file-subject.
It looks so formulary. Therefore I was seeking for a rule. I'm confused, that the museum puts Germany before 1945 and after 1990 (and leaving out the years between) in one "category" (or whatever is meant). --Kleiner Tümmler (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Two analogic images uploaded with an interval of one year

Hello again. On 27 Jan 2013 you uploaded File:Cecil Beaton Photographs- General CBM2488.jpg and on 27 Jan 2014 – File:A Cecil Beaton photograph showing Italian gasmasks abandoned in the Western Desert during 1942. CBM2488.jpg, so User:Ain92/List of possible IWM duplicates have to be refreshed. They are quite different so I doubt we should delete one of these two. Regards, Ain92 (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe the IWM has been re-doing their released scans. I am unsure why my upload did not pick up on the duplicated reference number, it may be too short to be used. I agree that these should either be kept, or the file histories merged. I'm happy to see them left as they are, though we might cross-link them as alternative versions. -- (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:MobileUpload-related deletion requests

Hello, Fæ. Would you consider offloading the addition of these categories to DRs to a bot? This would help us filter our watchlists. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear what is wanted, could you spell out what the task to be done would look like a bit more? -- (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
You're performing the task by hand. Please perform it with a bot. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I have migrated this over to Faebot. It does mean this becomes less visible to me, the presumption being that this is a very stable process. If you see anything going wrong, I would appreciate a note. -- (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Slipped through the cracks?

I'm enjoying sifting through the stuff you pulled down from USC recently. I just found this one, which appears to me to have a bad license, but I thought I'd mention it here in case I'm missing something, or as feedback in the case that it is a bad upload... Junkyardsparkle (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting this. The wrong date was checked on the batch upload. Luckily this does not seem to be a common pattern. -- (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Sure, thanks again for your work. If you feel like raiding a similar CONTENTdm library, it looks like there might be some worthwhile stuff (although with possible overlap, I suppose) here. One thought that I had looking over the USC dump was that possibly the "subcollection" field in the metadata could be used for creating an easier-to-manage heirarchy of initial cats? Just a thought. Junkyardsparkle (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

U.S. Navy Diver enters the water during a training evolution at the Naval Diving and Salvage Training Center 140218-N-IC111-156.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:U.S. Navy Diver enters the water during a training evolution at the Naval Diving and Salvage Training Center 140218-N-IC111-156.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:U.S. Navy Diver enters the water during a training evolution at the Naval Diving and Salvage Training Center 140218-N-IC111-156.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


File:Mian Shehbaz Sharif.JPG restored. Let me know if it doesn't check out. Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't use "-signs in filenames

Usage of "-signs may cause some conflicts with scripts or templates, please use '-sign instead. Thanks. Please start cleaning up your files in Category:Files with broken file links, many of them are old ones sitting there for almost two months. --Denniss (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting point. As this is an allowed character for filenames, indeed increasingly common amongst tablet and mobile device contributors, I think that scripts and templates that are at risk of falling over are the thing to fix, rather than this being a reason for mass renaming as they are likely to struggle handling other characters such as "&", "£" or "—". Personally, I would much rather ensure we stick to title names suggested by source archives rather than incorrectly using the potentially confusing single apostrophe for a quotation mark. However if you can link to an existing community consensus on this filenaming convention, I would be happy to adapt my view or join in with that discussion.
I am aware of the broken filelinks issue. I can automate this in the same way as I tidied up the Muybridge collection, so please don't spend too much of your time deleting the links. Unfortunately the Library of Congress photographs have been problematic, with many tiffs unpredictably failing to download for reasons that I have yet to identify. The ongoing issues of 503 errors caused by WMF server time-outs are a similar not-a-bug-but-a-design-feature that also eats up our volunteer time on housekeeping rather than generating content. -- (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
With regard to the LoC upload failures, I have started a log at User:Fæ/sandboxL to help with housekeeping/analysis.
I am running a housekeeping script to trim redlinks from LoC uploads, where these are more than 5 hours old. I'll keep the script to hand so it can be repeated if needed. -- (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Das ist der Weg zum Frieden - die Feinde wollen es so! Darum zeichne Kriegsanleihe! LCCN2004665832.tif

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Das ist der Weg zum Frieden - die Feinde wollen es so! Darum zeichne Kriegsanleihe! LCCN2004665832.tif|base=Copyvionote}} Martin H. (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Converted to DR to discuss in more detail. -- (talk) 05:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Das ist der Weg zum Frieden - die Feinde wollen es so! Darum zeichne Kriegsanleihe! LCCN2004665832.jpg|base=Copyvionote}} Martin H. (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd also critizise the careless use of the description "unknown" in the author field. Also your last upload File:Landes-Kriegsfürsorge-Ausstellung LCCN2004666189.jpg is signed by its (co)author Paul (or Pal) Suján. That artists name is even named in the LOC catalog entry that you refere to ( Unless you can provide a source that the author was never known or decided to hide his/her identity you should avoid using the term "unknown". --Martin H. (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Also File:Frieden ... Kriegsanleihe LCCN2004666152.jpg, the LOC catalog provides the artists name based in her signature on the print: Ida Bohatta (1900-1992). --Martin H. (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Or your next upload, File:Kriegsausstellung Wien 1916 LCCN2004666190.jpg. The LOC not knows an author here, but the Austrian National Library does. It associates architect Carl Witzmann (d. 1952) with the illustration. [5] --Martin H. (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
And next upload File:Ersatzmiddel-Ausstellung, Wien, 1918 LCCN2004666191.jpg, artist is Alfred Offner (b. 1879 according to ÖNB [6], death date only by some auction houses c. 1937 [7]). The claim that this is the work of an unknown author is again false information planted by you. That leaves questions, but no answers here. Seriosly: Do you upload this by bot? Do you have an bot emergency shutdown button? --Martin H. (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Fae, the author of the poster File:Ersatzmiddel-Ausstellung, Wien, 1918 LCCN2004666191.jpg is identified by the source (Library of Congress) as Alfred Offner, not unknown, as you noted in your description. From the note above I see this is not the first image from this source where this problem has occurred. Are you automating these uploads? If so, could you halt the upload and see if you can fix your script to correctly identify the author? —RP88 00:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I just noticed that Martin H. added a note about this file while I was composing my own note. Sorry about that Martin. Sorry about the duplicate note Fae. —RP88 00:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Martin, RP88, I'll take a look, probably late today UK time, and have a think about how to systematically identify author, which the LoC does not make easy for some of these. Keep in mind this is Easter weekend, today is a Sunday and I will be joining friends in real life for lunch. In the meantime I'll pause this work until after investigation. Martin, I have a long track record of successful batch uploads and fixing issues as they arise, with the help of tools I have designed for this sort of issue. Predicting everything about a batch upload 100% in advance is not possible when you are uploading 10,000 images, even from a reliable public archive like the Library of Congress. Having to tweak 100 images afterwards is not all that terrible, even if I have to do a triage exercise. I'd appreciate it if folks stayed mellow for a matter than I can probably happily resolve in a day or two. Thanks -- (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Report of World War I posters in the Library of Congress for jpg file matches to "Rehse-Archiv" and with author marked as unknown

I am going to be travelling for a couple of days, so I plan to look at the Rehse-Archiv cases further mid-week. -- (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Large file uploads

In the past 4 hours you've uploaded hundreds of 100+ MB multipage TIFFs (e.g. NYPL maps). This is an unusual strain to our media storage & image scaler infrastructure and is creating operational problems. Please stop doing that ASAP and coordinate with us (probably in Bugzilla) on the best way to accomplish the same result in a more graceful manner. On behalf of Wikimedia Foundation's technical operations, Faidon Liambotis (WMF) (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

As pointed out on irc, we probably need a bit of configuration tweaking to prevent too much load on the thumbnail rendering of these huges files Multichill (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Could you email me any related IRC discussion? I'm not on there right now. -- (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
@Faidon Liambotis (WMF): Hi, thanks for contacting me. There are a few more committed to GWT (I estimate 300 images in the queue) which I cannot halt, so I suggest these are allowed to finish. I'll put a pause on the project right now until we have talked about it and agreed a solution. I am travelling until Thursday, so will defer until then. Off the top of my head I suggest simple changes to the way I'm running this project, perhaps limiting the batch runs to, say, 1,000 to 2,000 files per day (about 10% of 20,000 map images are completed) or setting the option in GMT to only use 2 threads rather than the maximum of 20; I'm open to suggestions on how to even out the operational load. Unfortunately I cannot measure file sizes in advance as the NYPL does not have this accessible on their website or their API. The average file size appears to be around 50MB.
Rather than discussion on bugzilla, could you raise a comment on the project page, the opinions section at Commons:Batch uploading/NYPL Maps would be good, and we can openly discuss it there so everything is in one place?
Whatever we learn I may be able to add to our documentation of GWT, as the tool is likely to be used on projects similar to the NYPL maps archive. -- (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

Chuck Sketch, a Wounded Warrior with the veteran swim team, swims laps during a practice session 120214-M-YO938-177.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Chuck Sketch, a Wounded Warrior with the veteran swim team, swims laps during a practice session 120214-M-YO938-177.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chuck Sketch, a Wounded Warrior with the veteran swim team, swims laps during a practice session 120214-M-YO938-177.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


/FPCBot (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Upload of pictures from Flicker

Hello Fæ, somebody told me, you can help me: I have a permission to upload 10.000 pictures from a german agency under a free licence on Commons. But yet nobody answered my request on Commons:Batch_uploading/EnergieagenturNRW. The agency send a permission under ticket:2014042210011645 to So I don't know what to do. Can you help me? Thank you very much in advance! Alkab (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alkab: I see 3,749 photographs on the stream. Are there more than this to be uploaded? -- (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, then my number is to high. Yes. Those 3,749 photographs are waiting to get uploaded. Alkab (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Cool. I am progressing with gradual upload, see the project page. The images are very poorly categorized, please do have a go with Hotcat or similar. I am incorporating both Flickr set names and Flickr tags, so these may be useful for other categorization tools, such as VisualFileChange. -- (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much!!! I will ask the community for help, too. Thank you and have a nice weekend. Alkab (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done If the photos that were skipped due to a lack of description text are important, get back to me and we might upload them with some default text. -- (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

metadata for Category:California Historical Society Collection, 1860-1960

I'm hoping to get around to categorizing these files in earnest soon, starting with placenames. It occurred to me that you might possibly still have the file info in a form that could be easily grep'd for the names occuring in the "Geographic subject (city or populated place):" field. This would be a great dictionary to base my searches on, if it's possible... any chance? Junkyardsparkle (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

These were actually done 'live' from the website, i.e. I never had a data set stored anywhere. VFC might be an option using the cute select features. -- (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It might be interesting to distill a list of some values for future large transfers, seems like it would be a great help to cat-a-lotting. I wasn't under the impression that VFC could do that sort of thing, but I'll look into it, thanks. Junkyardsparkle (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
(In case I wasn't making much sense, I was thinking of something like this.) --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Fæ. You have new messages at Natuur12's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Natuur12 (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Wacky Races? (9030154309).jpg

What a Great photo! I specially like photos of old things taken when the things were new. And the girls are interested in the car load at the far left (the back Humber) and the car load knows because they have dirtied-up their licence plate for anonymity. Eddaido (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. There are many amusing photographs in this collection. It is a shame that the NLI's flickrstream experiment seems to have ended for the time being. -- (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

GLAMwiki toolset

Hi Fæ,

Congratulations on becoming a user of the GLAMwiki Toolset. You can find some frequently asked questions and helpful links for using the tool at GLAMwiki Toolset. As your first step, please add yourself to the list of users at GWToolset users and follow the good practice of creating pages explaining your new projects, as these can help create a focus for our wider community of volunteers. A standard place to set up a project page is at Batch uploading, though long term GLAM programmes may fall under GLAM. To discuss the tool with fellow users, please join the email list GLAMtools or try chatting at #wikimedia-commons webchat. SteinsplitterBot (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks SteinsplitterBot. -- (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

NYPL map geodata

Hi. I found your project page for batch uploading of the NYPL maps.

I also saw the thoughts there about what to do with accompanying geo-referencing data, that the NYPL is now actively crowdsourcing for these maps.

You probably know about it already, but I thought that you might be interested to know that there is a project here on Commons, at Commons:Wikimaps, that is on the point of adding similar geo-referencing functionality for maps here on Commons.

It seems to me that if the NYPL maps are being mass uploaded, with available geodata, that would be the perfect seed to get this really kick-started here on Commons, by jumping us to the position of having a lot of maps on Wikimaps, with a lot of geo-data, in a single step.

So I've opened a thread to that effect on the project's talk page, which you might like to chip in on.

One first suggestion is that you might want to use a new {{map}} template that they're developing for metadata about maps; so you might want to give your thoughts on that too. Jheald (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a think about it. I'm planning on getting as many as possible from the 20,000 uploaded this week (not all are actually properly catalogued, apparently) in a consistent way. I can always move them over to other templates later on. I did experiment with the map template, but it really does not fit ancient maps. In this case it would probably have been worse than using the standard information template. -- (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

More LACMA images?

Woman's Mantua, Stomacher, and Petticoat. Italy, circa 1700.

Hi Fæ - I noticed that a lovely mantua at LACMA M.88.39 didn't come over with your batch upload. I'd like to use these images in an article, but without manually uploading everything since you seem to have a script. Are these images not in Commons because they are newer than your upload, or is there some other issue? No rush on this since I know you have a very full plate, but I'd appreciate your advice.

Thanks much. - PKM (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The NYPL maps has taken more "tendering" than I expected :-).
Yes, this must have been released since my last upload. I'll try re-running the LACMA script, avoiding the temptation to start re-writing the code. The Mantua photos done as a priority, I love the photo in that set of a woman wearing the costume.
Progress is listed on this catscan report. -- (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Bot import

Example video from

Hi Fae! I heard you are good with bot imports, so I have a question. Sadly enough, a lot of pictures of the 2014 Nuclear Security Summit in The Heague (NL) were deleted because the NL-MoD's Flickr page has not the right license. Some of them are however listed on the MoD's website, which is available under CC1.0 (for example Obama leaving his Air Force One). My question is whether it is possible for you to import these around 50 pictures. Kind regards, Adnergje (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Possibly. How do I get a list of what was deleted, and then what unique identifier would match the deleted file to the ones available at
By the way, if you can produce such a list, then the photos can just be undeleted rather than re-uploaded, because the licence is okay at -- (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice about NYPL maps

This is a draft of a notice I'm planning on putting on the Village pump. The batch upload is likely to take a few more days. -- (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Atlantes! 8,000 historic maps in research quality resolution

NYPL maps: 5,896R, NYPL maps (over 50 megapixels): 1,244R

Project page Commons:Batch uploading/NYPL Maps

Sample gallery:

With the help of the GWToolset, over the last couple of weeks I have been uploading maps from NYPL's release earlier this year. In the collection are maps of all countries, made in many periods. They represent the highest available research quality images of these works available anywhere for historians and cartographers. The largest proportion of maps are detailed historic views of the New York area, down to street and house level. In the collection is a low level aerial photographic survey of New York made in 1924, spread over many photographs, this was the Google Maps of its time.

The scans are original archive quality tiffs, many over 100MB in size. This batch was a significant technical challenge, from the beginning needing to be throttled back due to overloading the WMF servers with the exceptional demand it created for rendering very high resolution images.

The collection remains a massive opportunity for experimentation.

  • There is continued discussion about what we can do to make use of NYPL's crowd-sourced KML files which enable interesting reuse such as using the historic map as an Open Street Map overlay.
  • How to present multiple map images in a way that can be 'surfed' on-wiki is a puzzle, particularly as the NYPL has scanned entire books of maps that could now be stitched together.
  • Some images are literally massive both in resolution and filesize, handling of tiffs of this extreme size and how to associate versions in jpeg or re-compressed png form remains both difficult and slightly controversial. As an example of a tiff too large to be rendered on Commons, this 1779 map of New York is 8,130 × 10,728 pixels (87 megapixels), significantly over the maximum 50 megapixels, though this jpeg version can be viewed on-wiki, and looks like a map of the moon until you use the zoomviewer to examine fine detail and realize that there is tiny lettering showing districts.
  • Around half of the maps on NYPL's website have been uploaded, the remainder may have been skipped due to the NYPL website migrating to a new display format and not making records available under the old system, along with some possible mime-type mismatches. After investigation, this may result in a second phase of batch uploads to Commons later in the year.

If you are reusing some of these, making derived versions (crops, details), creating Wikipedia articles about the most notable maps, or have started a related project, don't forget to tell the community about it here. :-)

DRAFT - this will be moved!

Code to push the contents of a category through a data ingestion template ?

Hi Fae, I wondered if you had any code fragments I could swipe, to push the contents of a category through a data ingestion template ?

The pics I'm working with are from the Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection sets.

Using the Flickr2Commons uploader, it's straightforward to upload all the pics from a particular book into a Commons category, eg Category:Old and New London, Illustrated (1873) by Walter Thornbury and Edward Walford - BL 1887 copy. The next step in the workflow I've been using is then to re-format the information brought over from the Flickr page into a format specific for the MechCurator files on Commons, including setting up various attribution templates, categorisations and sort orders -- eg diff. This (amongst other things) means the pics should finally appear in a sane volume-by-volume page-by-page order.

(Subsequent steps are then renaming the file, cropping it, categorising it, and seeing if I can get it into use; but those are a different story)

For the data transformation I have been using the Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/script ingestion template, using AWB.

In this case the YEAR, SHELFMARK, and SYSTEM fields I can leave set for the entire run; the FLICKR url, PAGE, and VOLUME fields need to be set individually for each pic; and the AUTHOR field gets toggled between {{w|Walter Thornbury}} and {{w|Edward Walford}}, depending on whether the volume is in (1, 2) or (3...6) respectively.

Using AWB helps a bit, but it's still a mindless, miserable, slow, manual, soul-destroying process.

I wondered if you had any code I could swipe or adapt to try to automate it? I haven't used Python yet, nor have I ever yet written or run a bot, but I'm a reasonable Perl programmer, so I hope I should be able to pick things up reasonably straightforwardly.

I don't think it's going to need to be anything very sophisticated, I just need to get it to run through a category reading the description pages, pull out the data for the fields I want with a regex, chop out the old information template, put in the ingestion template instead, and then re-upload to the page.

So I wondered, would there be any code that you could give me as a starting point to adjust and adapt? Jheald (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I may not get to it today, but it makes sense for me to post something at User:Faebot/guide. It is quite simple in Pywikipediabot to pull the text from everything in a category (or child categories) and do interesting stuff with it. I'll get to that in a bit, quite busy today.
This is a "I would not start from here" comment, apologies as it is probably a tangent - I never use AWB, however I think your workflow is complex. Although C2F is handy, laying around waiting to be used, had you delved into Flickrripper or wrote your own script in whatever programming language to use the Flickrapi, then your workflow would be (1) pull metadata off Flickr using the API for all files not already uploaded, possibly checking for existing Flickr photo_id on Commons, (2) create image page text or xml file as you see fit, possibly with conditional checking of categories against tags and album names, (3) upload to Commons directly or using the GWToolset. Your current workflow relies on a lot of housekeeping, which seems hard work. It may not be relevant for this project, but you may want to investigate the Commons API, the Flickr API and Pywikipediabot as part of building up your own experience. Python itself can be handy for (intelligent) mass image transformation such as crops that vary depending on pixel values detected, the sort of thing that would never be done by hand on 10,000 images :-) -- (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Jheald, I think it is still the easiest with AWB and regexp. I can help you modifying your existing AWB script if you want. --Jarekt (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Jarekt Thanks, Python would be more flexible, but there are a lot of new user barriers to get thorough if this is a one-off need. -- (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks guys, that was useful.
@Jarekt: I think you're right. The first way forward should be for me to knuckle down and write some regexps. I suppose I was put off by the multi-line-ness of it, but you're right: this is a comparatively simple extraction, so there's no reason why it shouldn't be done with a regexp. I just needed some encouragement to get started. So thank you, and thanks for your offer of help if I run into snags.
The big advantage of an AWB script is that I then put it on a Commons page, and anyone with AWB rights will be able to use it.
One question: I don't think I'm going to need it, but is there any documentation on the "external processing" option in AWB. If I was to use the external processing option to re-write a page, do I just need to get the program to write it to STDOUT, or is there some other thing I would have to do to get the re-written page back into AWB ?
@Fae. You're also right, a bot would be more flexible, allow much higher volumes, and would better extend my own competences. After all, it's over 1 million images in the Mechanical Curator set on Flickr, not just 10000, with perhaps anything up to 300,000 that might be of use here.
BTW, I was very struck by your initial comment on 14 Dec: "... Doing it is not hard, just pump it all through Flickrripper. Doing it right will take a little longer."
I've been wondering ever since what you meant by doing it "right" ...
The big problem with the set is that there is rather limited description: no image titles, only some very limited image tagging. We do now have some indexing at a title level, so about 40% of images are from titles on a subject reasonably well geographically located, a further 35% geographically located roughly to a country level, plus a further 20% of images identified as from fiction/plays/poems/collected works etc. Also, about a third of images across the board are decorative fillers, probably not worth uploading. Which are not identified.
(Also, as I understand it, the original approach from the BL for batch uploading here was rejected, as it was thought the collection was just too big to describe).
Cropping I think is less of an issue. The BL images already show what can be done with quite a cautious auto-crop. To do a lot better than that probably needs a manual crop. Metilsteiner (talk · contribs), who's been cropping and colour-adjusting as he goes along has been doing a fantastic job. He's personally uploaded almost all of the roughly 5,500 images which have been uploaded so far -- an amazing achievment on the one hand, but a drop in the ocean on the other, which does show the limits of what we can ever expect to do manually.
I do have some sympathy (scroll down to second #2) for getting the images all up here first, and then working through them (an "adopt a book" drive becomes much easier if the images have all been uploaded here first), and it means that things can be done in a standardised way, with probably better accuracy and better quality-control, and systematic book-level templating, and much less soul-destroying mindlessness. But there would still need to be an awful lot -- describing, renaming, categorising -- to be done by hand.
So I really welcome your "I would not start from here" thoughts -- it would be wonderful if we could get the whole thing more mechanised, and get a much deeper bite into the collection.
But proceeding book-by-book with the AWB approach (and whatever Metilsteiner uses) we can at least immediately start to show what's there. Jheald (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I have never used external processing option so I do not know, but I find the Module option very useful, see User:JarektBot/AWB Modules. --Jarekt (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Public domain images, by Rosendahl

Hi Fæ - I found duplicates of some of the Public Domain Images photos at Magnus Rosendahl's website; the versions there are lower resolution, but do have the major advantage of giving the date and location of the photos (which has enabled identification of several unidentified plant photos). Is it possible to compile a list of those tagged {{PD-author|1=Rosendahl}}, so as to look for others where additional information could be obtained? - MPF (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll look into it in the next day or two and see if there is a way of doing some matching. -- (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
See User:Fæ/SandboxR for a report. ✓ Done -- (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Public domain images, by Rosendahl

Hi Fæ - I found duplicates of some of the Public Domain Images photos at Magnus Rosendahl's website; the versions there are lower resolution, but do have the major advantage of giving the date and location of the photos (which has enabled identification of several unidentified plant photos). Is it possible to compile a list of those tagged {{PD-author|1=Rosendahl}}, so as to look for others where additional information could be obtained? - MPF (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll look into it in the next day or two and see if there is a way of doing some matching. -- (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
See User:Fæ/SandboxR for a report. ✓ Done -- (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll work through it slowly over the next few weeks. PS please leave this discussion with the link here, I had to go back to an old version of your talk page to find the discussion because it had been deleted by 'ArchiveBot' far too soon (not everyone can work on 1-2 day turnarounds!!) (so I fear some more recent edits may have been lost?). And please tell 'ArchiveBot' not to remove discussions until they are done for at least a month or so! - MPF (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
You might find using {{Todo}} at the top of your talk page helpful to keep track of things you are working on. -- (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I am very grateful for categories Faebot has added to images from the Geograph project with a high degree of accuracy, they have been tremendously helpful as an aid to sorting those images out. However I want to draw your attention to the history of File:Christ Church, Beckenham - - 35351.jpg. The bot has correctly added Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Bromley then at a latter date it has removed that category and added Category:Geograph images in Kent instead. I feel that the first category was the more appropriate for our usage here at Commons. The area was historically in Kent, but for the categories here I feel that Category:Geograph images in the London Borough of Bromley is the better and more relevant option. Thanks for all the work that you have done in helping to categorise these images Oxyman (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Oxyman. Long answer follows... I may write this up on the project pages when planning the next phase; perhaps for post-Wikimania 2014 period.
This seems to be a classic liminal case. There were two separate runs using OS data, one being for the South East, the other being London Boroughs; unfortunately the South East being the last one to touch the images. New projects using the GLAMwiki Toolset have been a priority for the last few months, so Geograph has been parked for quite a while, something to feel guilty about.
Faebot's intelligence can be ramped up by considering complete version history and file history rather than just current image page content (projects on mobile uploads have needed this), so this might become part of his decision making on Geograph categorization so that more detailed place data does not get overwritten by higher level data, and Faebot does not start over-ruling wiser human decisions (an important anti-Skynet policy in my book). If the OS data down below county is the next phase to experiment with (how far this can reliably work must rely on good test samples, possibly through passive tests), then it may become possible to let Faebot use some slightly fuzzy decision making given multiple conditions. So long as decisions are not actively wrong, and always better than the previous state, the outcome would be worthwhile.
Thanks for correctly pointing out the Bromley vs. Kent anomaly, we should try to ensure that London has a better script and is refreshed soon, and that this balancing act works rather better on the next run.
Part of the delay has been the hope that Wikidata starts to address "place". Unfortunately it looks like this might either take another couple of years or never be ready. If that is the case, then finding a hackish way of adding a geographic polygon based on OS data to a Wikimedia Commons place category, could be an extremely interesting experiment, if only for London... possibly beyond current skill sets and highly knotty as a programming puzzle. :-)
There is a massive Geograph refresher upload waiting in the wings, a pity to delay this more than another year. This will need a lot of programmer and test time to do well and may need, say, a proposal for a bit of funding this time rather than doing in dribs and drabs. Worth pondering as anything with money involved becomes instantly controversial. -- (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
No need to feel guilty, I hugely appreciate your work here, I do appreciate that things take time and don't always work as planned first time around, Thanks for the explanation Oxyman (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

File:An Edwardian silver mounted photograph frame. Fellows-1443-246-1.jpg

Hi Fae, isn't this a painting by Vincent van Gogh in this frame? --Túrelio (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry for coming in between. Yes! It is a van Gogh painting. It is called "Van Gogh's chair" . You have it here on Commons under this link.

Yes. It is probably a rather cheap postcard version used by the auctioneers to help show off the frame.
PS don't make a fuss of these uploads yet, there has yet to be an "announcement". -- (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The photograph is quite cool. Although the van Gogh painting is not the original version :-)

Using Commons for spreading anti-Polish sentiment

Fae, this will be your one and only warning. It had come to my attention via File:Castle at Lazionki (i.e. Lazienki), Warsaw, Russia (i.e. Warsaw, Poland)-LCCN2001697521.tif that you are clearly using Commons to spread anti-Polish sentiment by way of historical revisionism. Please cease and desist from all such activity immediately. Or you may find yourself błócked. russavia (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting it, I blame the Americans and their famous cultural insensitivity. You may wish to ask the Library of Congress to improve their records. In the meantime, feel free to rename any problem files. -- (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Mazomanie downtown historic district buildings 2012.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mazomanie downtown historic district buildings 2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image Promotion

Pawtucket Armory 2013.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pawtucket Armory 2013.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image Promotion

Swan Point Cemetery entrance.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Swan Point Cemetery entrance.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image Promotion

Stanley Woolen Mill Uxbridge MA reflected in Blackstone canal.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Stanley Woolen Mill Uxbridge MA reflected in Blackstone canal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Recent images

Hi Fæ. I'm Mifter and you've probably seen the messages my bot left you. It appears that a bunch of images you uploaded earlier today didn't have a license tag (I'm assuming it was an accident). I've stopped my bot as I don't want to inundate your talk page, but you're going to have to go through your uploads from earlier to add a tag. A number of them were logged by my bot (I have since fixed the errors it threw but they still are logged) here so it may give you a starting point. Best, Mifter (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the additional messages, I had done a limited test run (which I stopped) but forgot to stop my bots scheduled run. Best, Mifter (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It was a slip up, now being corrected. -- (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
No problem, I had figured as much. I've paused my bot's autorun for the time being so it doesn't try to start tagging images while you are correcting them. Best, Mifter (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice to meet you, let me know if

I can ever be of assistance, esp. on science or adjudication issues. And congrats on the Mac Mini. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

full TIFF of File:Italy, and Sardinia, from the best authorities. NYPL1404028.tiff

Hi, I am unable to locate the source TIFF in full resolution. Maybe you can help me. --McZusatz (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I seem to have sorted this one out. If there is a pattern of failures, do let me know and I'll investigate as best I can. These uploads require using the NYPL API, I think because the NYPL are cautious about mass automated downloads so they seem to want to track accounts and get users to register. The jpg versions are much easier. -- (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I doubt there is a pattern in all those 503 and friends... :-\
Also I think File:Plate 18- Bounded by W. 36th Street, Eighth Avenue, W. 25th Street, (Hudson River, Piers 55-66) Thirteenth Avenue and Twelfth Avenue.) NYPL1516792.tiff has some bits flipped during upload. --McZusatz (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done -- (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:Martin H./World War I posters in the Library of Congress for jpg file matches to "Rehse-Archiv"

Mandatory notification. --Martin H. (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Royal Society

Hi, C'est moi qui parle! Royal Society uploader (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Try not to get blocked. :-)
PS ADMINS watching my page - the above account is genuine, I have just got off the phone to the Royal Society. We will be sorting out an OTRS verification for the uploads soon. -- (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Crematorium (14246965482).jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Crematorium (14246965482).jpg|base=Image source}} Leoboudv (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The source is clearly indicated. I have removed the template. -- (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
My bot tags uploads from external sources for LicenseReview. Sadly the source is missing and I can no longer confirm the CC-license. --McZusatz (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
That is correct. Fortunately the licence was checked by my helpful upload script when it was uploaded.
By the way, I could add a 'license verified' template when uploading using a script that uses the Flickr API to check the license, however it seems to be that the conventional interpretation is that 'someone else' does the verification. Bizarrely, I suspect that if I created a special bot account to review the uploaded from an uploading bot account, this would be accepted as evidence, even though the material checks would remain unchanged.
In a court of law, the production of the upload script used to automatically verify a license would be highly likely to be considered sufficient evidence of a release statement being on record. -- (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
UploadWizard does the verification by itself, too. (Which is questionable considering the amount of bugs in this piece of software)...
I'd propose your upload bot includes the template right after upload and leaves the verification to the Flickr-Review-Bot. Thus, we have the license confirmed by two independent Bots which seems sufficient to me. --McZusatz (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll look at adding that on the next run. My use of the Flickr API is currently a "beta" sort of thing, limited to the Kargaltsev stream. The intention was to reuse this for a larger project when it arose, particularly for images that were "friends only" or "restricted" as the standard uploaders will not do these. I suspect that the Flickr-Review-Bot will actually be unable to handle those cases though. -- (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
That's true but even in those cases I'd prefer some custom review- or otrs-template. Otherwise sometime in future all untagged files will get deleted because someone thinks they have missing permission. --McZusatz (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll ponder it on the next run. It may be relevant for me to create a very short explanatory line linking to a "tool" page, which can then explain my particular upload technique for these, similar to how we leave a clue that Flickr2Commons has been used, perhaps along with a link to the source code. The way this currently works is that a terminal window advises on licence, restricted status and then actively prompts for potential over-writes of file title and description as, for this particular stream, there are often issues with both. The Flickr licence default is "Attribution License" which is mapped to '{{CC-BY-2.0|1=Sasha Kargaltsev}}'. To date, I have not encountered a single image on Kargaltsev's stream that did not use this default, so I have not done anything more fancy in the code. I doubt I will ever turn this into a more general tool, but the code may be useful for others to look at as an example of what is possible without using Flickrripper etc. An OTRS statement from Kargaltsev is probably too excessive considering his very clear statement on his Flickr profile, which I have quoted as an explanation in the main category for his photos.
User:Fæ/Flickr API created, I'll incorporate this in future uploads in the permissions field. -- (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Crematorium (14246988242).jpg

Autotranslate|1=File:Crematorium (14246988242).jpg|base=Image source}} Ww2censor (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Resting on toilet 2.jpg

Autotranslate|1=File:Resting on toilet 2.jpg|base=Image source}} Ww2censor (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

See earlier discussion on this talk page about this Flickrstream. I have converted to DRs so that you can put a policy based case for deletion. I do not believe there is one. -- (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Sherman tanks advancing towards Vire, Normandy, 2 August 1944. B8484.jpg

The licence on this image contradicts the licence on the source page which says it is available as IWM Non-Commercial Licence which is right ? LGA talkedits 23:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The expired Crown Copyright is correct as a licence. Please refer to User:Fæ/email/IWM, which in turn is linked to in the parent category Collections of the Imperial War Museum. If you still have doubts, I would be happy for another discussion on the copyright noticeboard, though I believe there was a discussion on this last year if you dig through the archive. -- (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, it might however be helpful if this could be made clear on the images, maybe by way of a template message. This would then stop the situation where anyone verifying the licence seeing that there is a mismatch and either deleting or nominate the file for deletion. LGA talkedits 23:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
There is an explanation in the Permissions field of the template. As you know, there may be multiple types of licence claimed on the same image, so long as some are suitable for Commons they can be hosted here. In what way is the permissions statement insufficient (if you want to propose some additional text, I would be happy to consider adding it)?
By the way, over the last 18 months and around 50,000 photographs, not a single one has been subject to a deletion discussion due to a confusion of this type. -- (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
A link to User:Fæ/email/IWM would be good. LGA talkedits 23:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll sleep on it. I do have to follow-up with the IWM with regard to higher resolution images, and so I may be adding to the correspondence page which may be worth linking to at that point. -- (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Common house fly on screen of window.jpg

File:Common house fly on screen of window.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Common house fly on screen of window.jpg Achim Raschka (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

File:The endangered gray wolf canis lupus.jpg

File:The endangered gray wolf canis lupus.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:The endangered gray wolf canis lupus.jpg Mariomassone (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Higher resolution IWM images

Hi Fae, I have found quite a few ( 100 plus) higher resolution images from IWM, all of which have already been uploaded, mostly by you I believe. If there is a method of forwarding these to you for upload in bulk I would be happy to do so. At present I am saving them with the IWM number as filename, optimised for web. I could share a link to the folder via dropbox if that is convenient to you.Lockeyear (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll investigate the IWM's apparently recent introduction of deep zoom images further. I have uploaded around 50,000 of these images to Commons, so I need to take a while to ponder if there is a systematic approach to upgrading images that are now available in the dzi format. No problem if you want to carry on doing these manually, but I'd like to use my time to do the lot, if possible. -- (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Fantastic work! One thing to be aware of, however: the two new versions of the above file seem to have different contrast/gray levels... I can't see why that should happen with the steps you list above. May be worth investigating. Best regards, Storkk (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I believe the contrast changes were introduced by the IWM when they created the small versions for the main catalogue pages. The large versions are likely to be as originally scanned before later processing.
Note, I'm looking at issues behind the scenes with regard to UK law. This may introduce a delay of weeks, if not a few months, before I can make any meaningful statement as to next steps in public. -- (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:19th century photochrome prints of Switzerland

Hello Fæ
Category:19th century photochrome prints of Switzerland
  1. File:Leysin, Chaussy and the Ormont Valley in winter, Nand, Canton of, Switzerland-LCCN2001703350.tif
  2. File:Leysin, general view of village and hotels, Nand, Canton of, Switzerland-LCCN2001703348.tif
  3. File:Leysin, Grand Hotel, Nand of Canton, Switzerland-LCCN2001703131.tif
  4. File:Leysin, Nand, Canton, Switzerland-LCCN2001703132.tif
  5. File:Leysin, the hotels, Nand, Canton of, Switzerland-LCCN2001703349.tif
  6. File:Leysin, the sanatorium and Chaussy in winter, Nand, Canton of, Switzerland-LCCN2001703352.tif
  7. File:Leysin, the village and sanatorium in winter, Nand, Canton of, Switzerland-LCCN2001703351.tif
  8. File:Leysin, view of the Rhone Valley in winter, Nand, Canton of, Switzerland-LCCN2001703353.tif
These files haven't JPEG format derivatives. I assume that I'd need a whole day to create these JPEG derivatives, and you only have to push one button. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I have not kept the original xml file used to run the GWT upload (it was done in stages), so this might be more complex than it first appears as I'd rather avoid regenerating the full list (it takes ages). I think this catscan report includes all your files, please double check it. I can create a script that duplicates the image page with a few tweaks and then uploads the missing file, it may take me a while to get to it due to distractions such as the the fuss about my UK chapter membership renewal, which unfortunately may lead to having to reconsider how I can or should support these particular projects[8]. -- (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done -- (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Thx --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Upload help

Hi! As part of a WiR project in a University in Barcelona they have agreed to free around 30 to 40 videos that we would like to upload to Commons. I have been trying the upload wizard for days but it doesn't work really well for big files. Is there another method I could use? Thanks a lot! --Jey86 (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, take a look at User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js. Simple to install and it works very well. You should be able to upload videos up to 500MB without an issue. :-) -- (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Forgive me I'm not sure how to install it. Do I need to copy it in my user page?--Jey86 (talk) 12:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
You need to create User:Jey86/common.js by adding the text importScript('User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js'); (exactly as typed) to that page. There are instructions at User_talk:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js. If you run into problems, ask an admin to create it for you or to take a look, I can't edit your preference pages to do it. -- (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again! I uploaded a video with the tool and worked much better than the wizard. Not ideal for uploading many at a time but at least seems reliable! :)--Jey86 (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Colinga (sic) oil field LCCN2007661660.tif

I am very much impressed by some of the images tht you uploaded today. Could you please check, why the following one cannot be displayed? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the compliment. :-). There is a well known technical problem on Commons, in that TIFFs over 50,000,000 pixels in total resolution are too big for the Wiki software to generate thumbnails for. You can still download the file and view it. The best solution is to create a jpeg at the same resolution and upload that as an alternative derivative image. This is not lossless, but it provides a high quality image for reusers to see. Eventually, the Commons software will improve and images of this size will be displayed, so hosting the image is part of our "preserve" mission, even though access is not ideal in the meantime.
I think there will be a handful in the collection of several thousand that will have this problem, but I have not tested that in advance. The uploads of panoramas will take a day or two to complete.
✓ Done jpeg version created and cross-linked. -- (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Australian army Pvt. Naomi Gangell, right, with the 10th Force Support Battalion, fires at a 300-meter target while U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Aaron Paul, with the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, records her 120507-F-MQ656-070.jpg

File:Australian army Pvt. Naomi Gangell, right, with the 10th Force Support Battalion, fires at a 300-meter target while U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Aaron Paul, with the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, records her 120507-F-MQ656-070.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Australian army Pvt. Naomi Gangell, right, with the 10th Force Support Battalion, fires at a 300-meter target while U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Aaron Paul, with the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, records her 120507-F-MQ656-070.jpg 01:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

File:U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Aaron Paul, foreground, with the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, fires at a 300-meter target as Australian army Pvt. Naomi Gangell, with the 10th Force Support Battalion, records his 120507-F-MQ656-032.jpg

File:U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Aaron Paul, foreground, with the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, fires at a 300-meter target as Australian army Pvt. Naomi Gangell, with the 10th Force Support Battalion, records his 120507-F-MQ656-032.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Aaron Paul, foreground, with the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, fires at a 300-meter target as Australian army Pvt. Naomi Gangell, with the 10th Force Support Battalion, records his 120507-F-MQ656-032.jpg Bane44$$254 (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

File:U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Aaron Paul, left, with the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, goes over his score card with Australian army Pvt. Naomi Gangell, with the 10th Force Support Battalion, during the first day 120507-F-MQ656-040.jpg

File:U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Aaron Paul, left, with the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, goes over his score card with Australian army Pvt. Naomi Gangell, with the 10th Force Support Battalion, during the first day 120507-F-MQ656-040.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Aaron Paul, left, with the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, goes over his score card with Australian army Pvt. Naomi Gangell, with the 10th Force Support Battalion, during the first day 120507-F-MQ656-040.j Bane44$$254 (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello, Fæ! I’ve been cleaning out the disambiguation category Norfolk (almost all of whose contents belong in Norfolk, England, having apparently been put in the dab-cat by a bot harvesting files from Geograph), and I just noticed some recent additions by you of historical photos that belong in (or under) Norfolk, Virginia. Please use the more specific category.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting them. I have added it as a fix to post-upload housekeeping, so you should see these sort themselves out. -- (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I am not sure if is there copyvio File:Wrath of the Titans logo.jpg--Ayrıntılı Bilgi (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a copyvio to me too. You can mark the image page with {{Copyvio}}. -- (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Noaabot weather maps for page June 2014

Hi Fæ, weather-(wo)-man, what's up with your daily weather? You have stoped with Noaabot-maps on 2 June. For June 2014 there are enough Commons-photos and other media, so I've started the gallery-page June 2014. Hollydays, or do you need a Commons-break? (sleeping enough is necessary!). A link is in the page, for the future NOAA-maps (or other weather related maps of June from the globe, if you know some). bye. --LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have been distracted with projects and some Chapter politics, glad that someone noticed that Noaabot has been unloved. I'll look at giving it a kick this weekend. Noaabot is quite robust and can happily do any backlog. -- (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
You're very fast with your answer, normaly I wait days or months ... or I am very slowly sitting in the landscape here, thinking about one of that deletions ... But your upload-work is noticed: de:Wikipedia Diskussion:WikiProjekt Schweiz#Photochromdruck. --LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The de.wp link is interesting to read (using Google translate), it is rewarding to see folks engaging with these uploads. I agree with the point made about photographer attribution being unsatisfactory, unfortunately the only source I have is the LoC with metadata like If someone did find a better source for the photographer names, it might be possible to automate adding photographer based on the print number or similar. -- (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
And the NOAA-bot works again, thank you! So we have the daily weather in June 2014. --LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


I see you made ​​a mistake on File:A map exhibiting all the new discoveries in the interior parts of North America. NYPL465250.tiff. Good to overwrite the file. Regards Ortisa (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC) ((Automatic translation from Spanish))

Thanks, it is not an error, only the Commons software failing to create thumbnails for a very large tiff. One day, this will be fixed by WMF development. -- (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Postscript; here's an example of how to go about formatting a derived version (TIFF → PNG) that does display, go to the image page to check it out:

File:50p a pant (4746731770).jpg

File:50p a pant (4746731770).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:50p a pant (4746731770).jpg Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 20:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

File:View from flying bridge looking aft - USS SHACKLE, ARS 9, Ketchikan, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, AK HAER AK-49-13.tif

Just to alert you that this image was not uploaded correctly. Also thank you very much for your efforts in uploading this images from HABS, HAER and HALS in addiction to your other several batch uploads. Tm (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it is an addiction :-). The HABS+ have been more fiddly to get right than I expected, particularly as these are not included in the LoC's API. File uploaded, though the upload history now makes it appear that it was there all along, possibly a more subtle thumbnail creation issue, this seems to happen from time to time. -- (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Supported by WMUK template language

Hi Fæ. You might be interested in commenting on Template talk:Supported by Wikimedia UK. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There are two templates, the supported by and the made by one. They have been added inconsistently as originally I thought that only the one existed. I could easily get Faebot to swap them over if it makes sense. I think the last figure I got was that 85%+ or 90%+ usage in 2014 were my uploads.
Due to the current extreme circumstances, I consider this process and the future of the proposed projects under review. Hopefully the UK chapter will want to agree something positive. That outcome rests with others, not me. -- (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, OK, in the random sample I was looking at I only spotted the 'Made by' version. Fixing it would be good regardless of the future of the upload projects... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

HABS notes

Two quick things:

  1. Are you doing just HABS, or HAER and HALS as well? See their sections of the en:Heritage Documentation Programs article; I know that HAER images are included in the same LOC database (and you have to pay attention sometimes to figure out which one an image comes from), but I just wondered if you were familiar with both, and the rare HALS images as well.
  2. Is there a way to figure out (with automation) which images have already been uploaded? Most images in Category:Other people's pictures by User:Nyttend are HABS and HAER images, and other people have also done many of them. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
1. HALS and HAER - yes! I have knocked up a quick report based on catscan, below is the current list of new HALS files I have uploaded. If you want to play around with {{HABS-source}} I'll be happy to swap over to using more specific templates (and hence categories). Out of interest, I have have used the same query script to create a list of slave ownership related buildings.
2. Probably not. I am relying on the API's ability to detect identical duplicates, but as I was unconvinced by the reference number's format to provide unique results if used as a search term (a problem I ran into with IWM uploads and in this collection we want numbers like HALS AR-4 (sheet 2 of 6) and HALS AR-4 (sheet 3 of 6) to be uploaded, so there are validly multiple images under the same document reference), I have avoided depending on it. If you do notice any duplicates, please do highlight them and I'll investigate the cause and see how I can filter against them (and indeed identify them amongst current uploads).
On a general point, please do browse and ponder if anything could work better on the uploads. There would be a limit on what would be feasible in terms of programming effort (I'm just one person with a bit of volunteer time), however a quick fix early on might save a lot of later hassle. :-)
I am aware of the HABS lists on en.wp. Just as I've generated the current HALS list above, I could do other interesting tables, though it probably is not worth pulling these until the upload is complete... I'm not exactly sure when that will be, right now I'm seeing a magnitude more images than I was expecting, so this might take a lot longer than another week to complete. -- (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Rose Tseronis Vardas, 1920–2007 (1465488214).jpg

File:Rose Tseronis Vardas, 1920–2007 (1465488214).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rose Tseronis Vardas, 1920–2007 (1465488214).jpg 12:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Nature at the beginng of autumn.jpg

File:Nature at the beginng of autumn.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nature at the beginng of autumn.jpg Ies (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

File:One flower.jpg

File:One flower.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:One flower.jpg Ies (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Casting Process 1995 - Southern Ductile Casting Company, Bessemer Foundry, 2217 Carolina Avenue, Bessemer, Jefferson County, AL HAER ALA,37-BES,5- (sheet 3 of 9).png

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft notice about HABS uploads

This draft will turn into a note on the Village Pump, it'll be deleted from here at that time. My crude estimate is that the total new upload should be around 25,000 100,000 200,000 images. It'll probably take a couple several of weeks to finish. An advance notice was posted on the relevant WikiProject on en.wp. -- (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

200,000 Historic American Buildings Survey images

See Commons:Village pump#Upload of 200,000 Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) photographs

Copyright status: File:HABS CAL,1-OAK,2- (sheet 11 of 12) - J. Mora Moss House, Broadway and MacArthur Boulevard, Oakland, Alameda County, CA HABS CAL,1-OAK,2- (sheet 11 of 12).png

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Searching your pictures

Hi, I'm really impressed with the pictures that you've posted but I'm having a hard time finding ones that I want. For instance, I found a picture of L.A.'s Central Station and make a Wikipedia page for it but in the process I learned that there were other stations even before that (e.g. Arcade Depot) and I would like to create pages for these as well. Looking at the images on this page[9] I think some of them were likely upload by you but I can't figure out a way to find them without clicking through all 23,000 images. Do you have any suggestions? Many thanks Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot more to come in this upload, so searching will be a puzzle with such large numbers. I'm happy to create a gallery for you matching "train" or other keywords you would like to suggest. I can run this now, but it makes sense to defer creating more definitive lists of interest (or sub-categories) until the upload is completed. I'm not sure when that will be, but I would guesstimate 5 weeks or more.
✓ Done Link on your talk page. -- (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Due to the new search engine, these tables are no longer needed. Just use "intitle:" and "incategory:" to qualify anything you want to search for. See example search for 'Train'. -- (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:State office complex, downtown Raleigh, North Carolina.pdf

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!!!!

I was desperate to find images of the Mk. IV series of radars, hoping that I might just find one. Instead you have provided an image of a Mk. III on a If! Most useful! Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the occasional thank you. :-)
You may find this search interesting. Keep in mind that I'm only 25% through my uploads of US historic buildings, so it's worth re-searching in a few weeks time. -- (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-NCGov LGA talkedits 04:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

File:One armed bandit (1351437341).jpg

File:One armed bandit (1351437341).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:One armed bandit (1351437341).jpg Rudolph Buch (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

File:West Midlands Police Museum (13175361163).jpg

File:West Midlands Police Museum (13175361163).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:West Midlands Police Museum (13175361163).jpg Hchc2009 (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Historical Base Map - Yosemite National Park Roads and Bridges, Yosemite Village, Mariposa County, CA HAER CAL,22-YOSEM,5- (sheet 2 of 19).png

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Qing Chinese paediatric face diagnosis chart Wellcome L0039678.jpg

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

This one looks like a single server failure out of 732 high resolution files. Not too bad. -- (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional info for HABS files.

Thanks for working on this, and sorry if this is a little bit late to be useful feedback, but for whatever it's worth... there is additional useful information on the LOC site page for a HABS survey that doesn't appear on the pages of the individual images. Quick example is this edit. Seems like it might be worth including in future uploads (possibly worth automated adding to existing ones?). --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the example, I'll investigate. It is possible to re-do the uploads if new information can be 'scraped' for it. One issue with the LoC catalogue was inconsistency in which fields were available, this might have been the cause of missing this one. I'm around half way through on the "scraping" side of things, which is slightly in advance of when the uploads happen. -- (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I completely sympathize with your experience of the wonkiness of the LoC site, don't even get me started... but best of luck anyway! :P --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:U.S. Army Col. Timothy White, the incoming commander of the 501st Sustainment Brigade, salutes brigade Soldiers during a change of command ceremony at Camp Walker, South Korea, June 27, 2014 140627-A-NY467-007.jpg

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, I hate fixing these. Server drop outs are a pain in my backside. I'll get to it eventually, after taking some tips from Mr. Rabbit. -- (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done

Error when uploading some files with GWToolset

Dear Fæ. I noticed than some files were not uploaded successfully using GWToolset (only the pages of them were created). Don't forget to upload them and/or report a possible error in the tool. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

These are unlikely to be an error in the tool. A low number of uploads (something like 0.1%, it varies) suffer from the connection being dropped during upload, at some point on the WMF server side of things. If you are uploading 200,000 images, it turns out that this can be a bit of a headache to fix, though it can be planned for as part of necessary post-upload housekeeping.
This particular example fix. ✓ Done -- (talk) 08:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Also I noticed than various huge TIFF files uploaded from the project appears to be corrupted. Have you some time to to find them and reupload? I can have some time to find them in New uploads page. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
If you list a few I'll take a look.
If the file appears corrupted (not just a TIFF > 50 MP), please add Images uploaded by Fæ (reload needed). I should be able to sort out an automated re-upload. -- (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong category: minerals

You made a batch upload on July 4 that incorrectly categorized many files. They are categorized as minerals when they should all have been in Category:Lassen Volcanic National Park and its subcategories. Granted that the park is close to Mineral, California, but none of the images display minerals, the naturally occurring substances and the subject of the category they are in. Will you be correcting these miscategorizations in the near future? 23:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If you give me an example file, I can add it to the 'housekeeping' jobs. There are several USA locations that have tripped up category identification, though several are essentially sorting themselves out for different reasons. -- (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Example files to be changed, first and last in Category:Minerals:
Corrected examples: 10:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I have fixed these as a one-off with VFC and I have added the place "Mineral" as a special exception to avoiding re-touching whatever RussBot does (which was moving Mineral to Minerals). -- (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Still the wrong category. Every one of those files should be in Category:Lassen Volcanic National Park or its subcategories, as I said above. The name "Lassen Volcanic National Park" is in every file name. Can you actually fix them or shall I do it by hand? 11:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done -- (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Another HABS thought: temp (or not) cats per survey.

Looking at the >1k files that are in the base category:Los Angeles, California, the thought of trying to diffuse all with available tools is a little daunting. Probably what I'll end up doing is adding them to cats named after the survey (HABS CAL,19-LOSAN,5 etc.) via search+hotcat, then operating on those bite-sized chunks to remove them from the L.A. category with VFC, and commence categorization from there. Do you suppose it might be better to take this approach during upload, and then tag the survey cat with a general placename, rather than tagging the individual files? It might make for a much easier time for the people sorting them all out... (and nice work on the scraping enhancements, btw!) --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense to maintain the surveys as the objects that they are, in their own persistent categories. Might even make sense to grab the PDF files, too. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm less sure about this as renaming categories is a drag. The new search features on Commons actually make it easy to produce a list of all files matching the survey number without creating a temporary category. I have just manually created Kate Chopin House, and have a script that is then automatically populating it with HABS uploads one the first file from HABS is added to it (so long at the category uses {{NRHP}}). This is the sort of category name we really want, the nearest I could make automatically would be the group parent title of "Kate Chopin House, State Highway 495, Cloutierville, Natchitoches Parish, LA" which is understandable English but still a bit naff.
I'll have a think about creating a backlog of "categories wanted" along with the matching search results. -- (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not really hung up on there being any categories named for the surveys, so much as there being some containment of the uploaded images, rather than all being dumped into a general category, by whatever means makes sense to you. Bulk adding files to categories is really easy with cat-a-lot; getting 500 of them out of a category already backlogged with 800 or so other images is much harder, as they have to be manually selected (no regex-select on cat-a-lot, alas). In simplest terms, probably almost anything is better than tagging them all with an already-overpopulated general category, in my opinion. As long as that doesn't happen, then, as you say, grouping them via search for adding further cats is pretty simple for most people using the available tools. Hope that makes sense. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've started populating a backlog list at Commons:Batch uploading/Library of Congress/HABS. Experimental, so don't rely on it yet... -- (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I am reworking the script for this report as there are some images within the same NRHP number being added to different categories, 4 so far: ['84003872', '82004845', '74000424', '76000177']. The extra jiggery-pokery will be to test if suggested categories are parents/grandparents of each other and then pick the one lowest in the hierarchy, plus move any in the parent/grandparent to the better category. Busy with RL stuff today, so parking and returning to this later... -- (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks pretty good now, even though it is slow (several hours to get through 5,000 NRHP identified images). ✓ Done -- (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
That's some interesting magic. Do you have a rough idea of what proportion of HABS subjects are actually on the NRHP? I know the former predates the latter, but no clue as to how closely aligned they may be... --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I have been guessing 5% to 10% but it's a wild guess. Once the upload is finished, a catscan report will be able to give the numbers. As of this moment there are 10,091 images out of nearly 130,000 uploads, however this represents a minimum ratio as the NRHP template is being retrospectively added to a large number of past uploads (new uploads should have this included already). -- (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Building 930, Mare Island Naval Shipyard

Could you please take care about your bot? Looks like no any photo in category shows building 930. I fixed this problem yesterday, but it resurface again. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It may be an oddity of the LoC chosen NRHP number. Travelling but should be free to sort this out tomorrow. -- (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Could you give an example of a couple where this has gone wrong? I still think this may be an issue with the LoC identification. Thanks -- (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
File:Building 736, first floor interior at southwest front, view of bathroom with original windows, looking to northeast - Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Electrical Distribution Centers, HABS CA-1543-CV-4.tif, File:A272, west side and south rear, with A279 visible in the background - Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Sentry Houses, Railroad Avenue near Eighteenth Street, Vallejo, Solano County, CA HABS CA-1543-CZ-5.tif, etc. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
But where building 930 on this images? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The issue was caused by adding references to NRHP 96001058 to multiple categories, only one of these was the category for building 930, but this was adopted as the first "child" category match. As far as I can work out, the only place where several sub-categories identify themselves with the same NRHP number has been this one. In categorizing the HABS uploads there has been a presumption that where one image in an "album" has been added to an NRHP identified category, that it would be an improvement to add the same category to all other images in the same album. For the Mare Island photographs this was not the case, but this still appears to be an exception, so adding a special exception to the categorization projects is probably sufficient remedy for the moment. -- (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

LACMA images

If I adjust the categories on LACMA images, will your category "Images from LACMA uploaded by Fæ (check needed)" automatically update when I remove the check categories tag, or do you want me to change that hidden category as well? I don't like to mess with private cats without asking ... PKM (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do remove the check needed category as soon as you've had a look at the file. This is mainly to ensure we look at the uploads to ensure this image related to the title and is not a potential copyright issue, in some rare cases the LACMA online catalog had either a test photograph, or had incorrectly put a photograph against the wrong catalog entry, so a simple visual check tests for that. Thanks -- (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Will do. - PKM (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hi, is it okay to upload this kinda photo to commons? because it is not original work.--Ayrıntılı Bilgi (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The wood effect background and the way the counters are shaded are more than simple geometric shapes. For this reason the work is sufficiently creative to be copyrightable. If you can show the elements are public domain, then the derived work might not be sufficiently creative to be copyright. Normally, we would expect a release statement from the website source, in this case I cannot find any specific statement of copyright, so the default presumption is that all artwork has a claim of all rights reserved. -- (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Curating HABS uploads

I've been working on curating your HABS/HAER uploads for Delaware, and have run across a few interesting things.

  1. File:VIEW NORTHEAST SHOWING AN ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE COMPLEX. FROM LEFT TO RIGHT- STORAGE HOUSES (2), CART SHED, BANK BARN AND CRIB BARN (DEMOLISHED IN 1983) - Wheatland HABS DEL,2-MOPLE.V,1-1.tif turns out to be the wrong photo. I contacted LOC and they say it's now in the "fix-it" queue but it will be some time before the correct one is uploaded. Are you able to monitor those kind of fixes as they occur?
    I do not have any system for monitoring changes at the moment. If the LoC has a system for identifying "fixed" entries, it would be useful to consider using it to run an update at some point. In the absence of a system, please do keep a note to do this 'by hand'. -- (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. The geocoding is better than nothing, but a lot of it is pretty badly off, e.g., a lot of the photos with Wilmington, Delaware addresses are geocoded to the center of Wilmington rather than to their actual location. This is apparently an issue throughout the collection Checking geocoding should be considered a post-upload task, along with categorization and writing descriptions.
    Yes, I had noticed that some geolocations were nearby, rather than right on the place. In general this seemed good enough if not ideal. We could add a backlog to check all the geolocations, but to be honest as we are going to have over 200,000 images, this looks too large to expect volunteers to ever do all the checks needed. The alternative might be to mark the geolocations as being within, say, 200m accuracy, or similar, though I'm not sure how this would look or how it fits with the current location dec template.
  3. At least one of the surveys appears to have only partially uploaded: compare Category:Garrett Snuff Mill (20 files, 19 from the survey) with the original survey (41 files). Any idea what went wrong?
    The earlier uploads were often more "partial" than later ones. I was actually skipping diagrams under a certain file size (in error). Some uploads have broken for haphazard reasons of GWToolkit outages or other errors in pulling the files. When this HABS run is completed, and I've recovered from the experience :-), I'll take a look at how we can run "refreshes" both for missing files and new images that are added to the LoC archive.

Thanks for all the uploads: I really appreciate the wealth of new material. Choess (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. I'm mainly looking forward to some good stories of where these turn out to be useful for new article creation or other projects, such as the next Wiki Loves Monuments campaign. -- (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll be interested to see what comes of this, too. I don't think it will cover as much of the NRHP as originally projected, but a lot of interesting odds and ends are showing up. Having the full stock of photos does encourage one to go look at the survey text. I've been dealing with the poor geolocation as I sort things into categories: for most of the HABS material, we have pictures of a single building, and that category can be templated with object location dec. (The existing geocoding doesn't seem to reflect camera locations anyway.) That still leaves the dodgy geocoding on the individual files, but I gradually strip that off as I write descriptions and so on. Some of the HAER material covers enough ground to require locating and geocoding each photo individually, but that's much less common. Choess (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
By the way, the uploads have 'paused' due to a possible GWT bug. Not sure how long WMF development will take to sort it out. I was more than half way through... -- (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Now restarted! -- (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


File:Charles_Ferdinand_Pahud_(1803-73)._Gouverneur-generaal_(1855-61)_Rijksmuseum_SK-A-3804.jpeg appears to be cut off. Looks like a bug on the museum's end, not gwtoolset, as the source file [10] is cut off too. Bawolff (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Worked for me, re-uploaded. :-) -- (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:- U.S.D.A. Plant Quarantine Building, 209 River Street, Hoboken, Hudson County, NJ HABS NJ,9-HOBO-9-19.tif

File:- U.S.D.A. Plant Quarantine Building, 209 River Street, Hoboken, Hudson County, NJ HABS NJ,9-HOBO-9-19.tif (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Yuval Y § Chat § 22:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Oblique of front and side elevations - Wilmington City Hall-Thalian Hall, 102 North Third Street, Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC HABS NC,65-WILM,4-2.tif

File:Oblique of front and side elevations - Wilmington City Hall-Thalian Hall, 102 North Third Street, Wilmington, New Hanover County, NC HABS NC,65-WILM,4-2.tif (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Yuval Y § Chat § 22:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Please tag your images

Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images and other files on Commons must be under a free license and should be useful to the Wikimedia projects. To allow others to use your files, some additional information must be given on the description page. Most importantly:

  • Describe what it is about in a short sentence. (What does the image show?)
  • State the author and the date of creation. If you made it yourself, say so explicitly. If it is from another Wikimedia user, link to the person's local user page. Best to use CommonsHelper.
  • If you did not create the file yourself, state the source you got it from.
  • Add a copyright tag - images without an appropriate license tag will be deleted.
  • Add the image to one or more gallery pages and/or appropriate categories, so it can be found by others. To find out where an image belongs, you can use CommonsSense.

If you copied the file from another wiki, please copy all information given there and say who uploaded it to that wiki. Use CommonsHelper.

It is recommended to use Template:Information to put that information on the description page. Have a look at Template talk:Information for details of the use of this template.

You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file.

Please add as much information as possible. If there is not sufficient information, the file may have to be deleted. For more information, follow the Commons:First steps guide. If you need help or have questions, please ask at the Help desk.

Thank you.

Yuval Y § Chat § 22:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. :-) However the current images you are finding with missing descriptions are due to server issues at the WMF end, rather than anything I have control over. -- (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:South-southeast elevation. - Christ Church, 121 East Main Street (Route 18), Stevensville, Queen Anne's County, MD HABS MD-1396-3.tif

File:South-southeast elevation. - Christ Church, 121 East Main Street (Route 18), Stevensville, Queen Anne's County, MD HABS MD-1396-3.tif (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Yuval Y § Chat § 22:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


Restorationist's Barnstar.png The Historical Media Barnstar
I'm not sure if anyone has bothered to thank you before, but I wanted to thank you for all of the work you've been doing using the GWToolkit. Its pretty awesome to look at the Latest Files and just see the masses of images that you have been uploading lately. Pass my thanks on to the Library of Congress too! Zellfaze (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks is always appreciated. I tend to get a magnitude more comments about issues being found with some of the uploads, than I ever get thanks for spending my time volunteering this way. It seems to be the way things work. :-) -- (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Thanks Fæ. You are doing a great job with GWT! Happy to have you on Commons :-). --Steinsplitter (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You're doing a great job uploading the pictures

But, I'd be happy if you'd go to preferences and on the "Gadgets" menu, mark the Add {{Information}} : Show a new "Add Information" link in the sidebar on file pages that do not use a {{Information}} template.

Yuval Y § Chat § 22:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Historic American Buildings Survey M. James Slack, Photographer, April 9, 1934 REAR BLOCK NO. 2 (FROM NORTHWEST) - Pueblo of Acoma, Casa Blanca vicinity, Acoma Pueblo, Cibola HABS NM,31-ACOMP,1-24.tif
File:Historic American Buildings Survey M. James Slack, Photographer, April 17, 1934 GENERAL VIEW FROM NORTH SHOWING WATERHOLE - Pueblo of Acoma, Casa Blanca vicinity, Acoma Pueblo, HABS NM,31-ACOMP,1-6.tif
File:EAST END OF OUTBUILDING - Charles Ilfeld Company Warehouse, 200 First Street Northwest, Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, NM HABS NM,1-ALBU,3-25.tif

Well, you've got the picture ;) Yuval Y § Chat § 22:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure. However we could probably identify these automatically after the batch upload completes. A bug was fixed earlier today, resulting in a flood of backlogged images. No doubt the server is glitching a bit due to the rush. All of the HABS uploads are PD and the source can be directly deduced from the file names I have chosen for them, though I have not written an automated fix for server glitches resulting in empty image text pages, they are a bit too rare, probably less than 1/1000 uploads. Unfortunately when you are uploading 200,000+ files, this mounts up in terms of maintenance work. Anyway my bedtime here, so I'll have to ponder the skipped text pages a bit more tomorrow. :-) -- (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's 2:35 am here... Goodnight Face-smile.svg --Yuval Y § Chat § 23:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

wrong category

Hello Fae,

youd did move more than 100 files in wrong category (Category:Hannover is in Germany, not in Morris County, New Jersey, USA), in the future choose the right category, thank you. Regards --Jean11 (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, that's an odd one :-) Could you link me to an example file, I'd like to check the history to see if this was a systematic error that could be trapped. -- (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Electron Hydroelectric Project

Railway line atop the wooden flume of the Electron Hydroelectric Project

Thanks for the photographs of the en:Electron Hydroelectric Project --NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice to see them in use. :-) You may want to try the gallery template and you can always create cropped versions to remove the border if you feel they are distracting. -- (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Yep, that's easily my favorite of the surveys so far, and I had no idea that it existed... of course, the fact that the files ended up in Category:Electron is another good example of the pitfalls of automated placename cats :P. On the subject of cropping borders, is it preferable to create a new filename, even if it's just scanning calibration charts etc. being cropped? --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
If you are not reducing the quality of the image, it's probably fine to upload over the current photograph. The borders on the HABS photos do little more than show that someone wrote the reference on the photo by hand. The old version stays in the file history. This is not true if you are making other fixes, such as removing scuff marks or cropping off blank areas. -- (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Narrows national park.jpg

File:Narrows national park.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Narrows national park.jpg Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

229 Meeting Street

Hi. In File:Historic American Buildings Survey, Louis I. Schwartz, Photographer August, 1963 FACADE. - 229 Meeting Street (Commercial Building), Charleston, Charleston County, SC HABS SC,10-CHAR,190-1.tif and similar, there is the misspelling Pheonix, but in the description of the name on original castings. It looks as if the works was "Phoenix Iron Works. John F. Taylor and Co.", but I suppose the name could really be incorrect on the castings, so I thought I would check with you before correcting. --Mirokado (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a typo to me, I see no harm in correcting it. To make sure, I suggest you review the documents at - these should be the original survey reports. I'm a bit busy with Wikimania this week to research it further. :-) -- (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, I will check but not tonight it is too late now. Have fun with Wikimania! --Mirokado (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Har, "Pheonix" occurs in the LOC notes. I have added {{sic}}, but left the metadata alone, not sure how, or whether, to change that. I'll send an email to LOC and let you know if they reply. --Mirokado (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Looked again while preparing the message for LOC, noticed the data pages pdf. That says "Phoenix" so I have updated the pages accordingly and added that file as a reference. I'll notify LOC of the typo. --Mirokado (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

NYPL maps

Thanks for our chat at Wikimania today. I think I have now spotted how to get the control-point data from the NYPL. But in the process I noticed that several of the images seem to have acquired a marked purple cast, eg File:Plate 16- (Bounded by 72nd Street, Twentyfirst Avenue, 86th Street and Fourteenth Avenue.) NYPL1519732.tiff

Is it known what causes this? I've left a thread on the talk page, here.

Also, in the next couple of days I intend to add links to the NYPL Georeferencer pages for the maps, probably with a bespoke template added to the "source" field on the page, eg diff. Hope this is okay. All best, Jheald (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The purple cast can be fixed by removing the colour profile, they then display perfectly (various tools can do this, including photoshop in the save options). Unfortunately it looks like the NYPL were automatically saving some files with some sort of duff profile which sometimes affects the file when displayed on Commons but may not be apparent if you are viewing the downloaded version of the file locally on your own viewer.
Good ideas on making better use of the NYPL database. We probably should start a thread with the wider map-interested community somewhere. -- (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Masive upload of new images from

(¯`•.¸♥ LOVE ♥¸.•´¯)

Could you, please, help to upload the images from the collections on this page

I asked Rillke to help to upload them too. He started the batch uploading request is at Commons:Batch uploading/Openclipart.

Natkabrown (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

David Horvitz

Fae: Do you think that I am David Horvitz?--Nowa (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks for highlighting my wording. -- (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem. It was widely believed I was DH on wikipedia when I joined the discussion of his banning with a bit of snarky attitude towards the whole proceeding.--Nowa (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


File:Антон.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Антон.jpg Ю. Данилевский (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

File:AURORA AVENUE BRIDGE TROLL AT NORTH END OF BRIDGE - Aurora Avenue Bridge, Spanning Lake Washington Ship Channel, Seattle, King County, WA HAER WASH,17-SEAT,12-12.tif

File:AURORA AVENUE BRIDGE TROLL AT NORTH END OF BRIDGE - Aurora Avenue Bridge, Spanning Lake Washington Ship Channel, Seattle, King County, WA HAER WASH,17-SEAT,12-12.tif (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:AURORA AVENUE BRIDGE TROLL AT NORTH END OF BRIDGE - Aurora Avenue Bridge, Spanning Lake Washington Ship Channel, Seattle, King County, WA HAER WASH,17-SEAT,12-12.tif Jmabel ! talk 02:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleted content

{{autotranslate|1=File:Brouwer-Rosa House, 14 North Church Street, Schenectady, Schenectady County, NY HABS NY,47-SCHE,8- (sheet 12 of 13).png|base=speedywhat}}

Yours sincerely, Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: see File:Brouwer-Rosa_House,_14_North_Church_Street,_Schenectady,_Schenectady_County,_NY_HABS_NY,47-SCHE,8-_(sheet_12_of_13).tif -- (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I deleted ~300 files with missing information since 8/11/14 in one sitting. Thanks for rescuing! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi, you are tireless (I hope that is the right English word) in uploading zillions of files to Commons. I try to keep track and help categorizing them (although it just consumes too much time). Now, you are (or were) uploading the HAER/HABS files. Since I am not proficient in using bots, I wanted to ask if you could give me some assistance on how to categorize these quickly, for example the "Quonset Point Naval Air Station" files to something like "Naval Air Station Quonset Point HAER/HABS files". Thank you and Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi the easiest tool to use is Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot. It is quite visual. Per #HABS/HAER identifiers as sort keys? I am gradually adding the survey number as a 'sort code' to place categories (unless the file has been recategorized by someone else), so even in very large place categories, it should become simpler to find all related files. -- (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! The idea with the code seems logical. I will try the bot thing (I hope I won't mix up everything that way...). Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


VIEW OF CISTERN AND SMOKE STACK - Estate Cinnamon Bay, Sugar Mill Ruins, Cinnamon Bay, Windberg, St. John, VI HAER VI,2-MABA,3-8.tif

Hi, you used a wrong cat "Windberg" for some files. I changed cat to "Buildings in the United States Virgin Island". As an example see this file. Regards, --Gomera-b (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The place categories are particularly hard to get right, so please to correct any you notice that have odd results. -- (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

HABS/HAER identifiers as sort keys?

As I was attempting to wrangle some of the 2,000+ files in Category:Los Angeles County, California , using a creaky mess of and duct tape, and grumbling over the lack of survey grouping that would make Cat-a-lot a viable option, I had this little thought: what about, instead of just adding

[[Category:Los Angeles County, California]]

to the files, doing something like

[[Category:Los Angeles County, California|HAER CAL,19-LOSAN,74]]

which would provide some grouping within category listings without the problems of creating a temporary category? Does that sound feasible? :-) --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

With a couple of caveats, this is a good idea. I'll ponder how to implement it before restarting HABS housekeeping.
Doing a run with this. I'm still travelling, so this is a small experiment by laptop. See example. -- (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Now included in housekeeping and will gradually roll out to all files where another editor has not changed the location categories. -- (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

milim template other versions

Hi Fae, is it possible that you milim template will support other versions (like here)? Thx--Sanandros (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It should do, thanks for highlighting it. I'll take a look at it probably tomorrow. Hopefully an easy tweak. -- (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
No Problem.--Sanandros (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Not forgotten i hope to return to this forgotten,the week. (tablet editing!) I mean later this week. -- (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, {{Milim}} is okay, you just need to use "other_versions" rather than "other version", this is in line with the standard information template. The example you linked to is actually a duplicate, so I have marked it as such and they should be merged. The reason for this was that the photograph was used on the DoD blog, which in the process changed the EXIF data, meaning the two images are not "digitally identical" even though they appear the same. -- (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete HAER files

Non-urgent business (and you've mentioned it's on hold for the moment): At least three of the HAER files appear to have been cut off mid-upload. I can only view the top parts of them in an external viewer, and they seem to be well under the 30MB range that complete photos usually have. I think there are a lot more, but here are the three I've caught already:

✓ Done
✓ Done
✓ Done

Contrast with File:AERIAL VIEW OF PEORIA LOCK AND DAM. LOOKING NORTH. - Illinois Waterway, Peoria Lock and Dam, 1071 Wesley Road, Creve Coeur, Tazewell County, IL HAER IL-164-B-30.tif and File:AERIAL VIEW OF PROJECT OFFICE. LOOKING SOUTHWEST. - Illinois Waterway, Project Office, 257 Grant Street, Peoria, Peoria County, IL HAER IL-164-C-15.tif, which are complete. (P.S.: Should all these HABS/HAER things be put on a separate talk page for later, so they don't get in the way of other talk for now?) --Closeapple (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I see no alternative but to download the tiff from the Library of Congress and re-upload it using a chunked upload tool. These seem caused by server drop-outs which I don't get any warnings about and there is no tool (I think) that will sniff out these failures after a batch upload. I believe this sort of error occurs in fewer than 1/1000 files, but again I have no way of reporting on that at this time. This is not a specific issue with 30MB files, there are 130MB+ files from the same upload that are fine.
It's fine to raise this stuff on my talk page here, I'm less likely to forget about it. :-) -- (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Caught two more HAER images that are partials:

--Closeapple (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrong category


Yes, here. --Jean11 (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the example. The batch is complete now, but if I return to refresh these (in a year or two?) I will review false matches like this to add to my ignore-this-cat trap. :-) -- (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I have many pictures of Category:Morris County, New Jersey‎ sorted into subcategories, for example Category:Houses in Morris County, New Jersey‎. Regards --Jean11 (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Related names/photographer

[11]: why do the related names go in the photographer section? I don't get it. - Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice example, all the others I've noticed were names of people rather than boats. These are often lists of names of those in the records, both survey project members or those involved in archiving the records. Sometimes none is specifically named as photographer. It just seemed mostly appropriate to add them as additions to the photographer field with their own sub-title, rather than floating in the general notes or description. -- (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
So presumably this is wrong here. I don't know enough about how this template should be used to easily edit accordingly, could you do that? - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done

Landscapes is not a dustbin category

Well, you've done it again. You've dumped dozens of photos of trees, towns etc into the landscapes category. You did this last year, and it took myself and several other editors almost 12 months to fix the mess. Could you please stop doing this? If you feel the need to dump images into an existing category, could you just dump them into the "Killer Whale" category or similar? They clearly don't belong there any more than they do in Landscapes, but at least those catgeories aren't labelled as being overcrowded. You really couldn't find a worse category in which to dump random images than the one that you have chosen. The landscape page says quite clearly that buildings, mountains and forests do NOT belong into this category, a point that I drew to your attention last year. Yet here we are again. It would also be appreciated if you could assist with cleaning up your mess. Thank you. Mark Marathon (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know which files you are referring to. Landscapes does not appear to have any of my uploads in it. Thanks -- (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

And so on and so forth.Mark Marathon (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the feedback. These were uploaded in 2012, not 2014, so asking me 2 years later to stop uploading them is an odd request. I'll think about taking a look, but there are only a relatively small handful of files there. -- (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Historic American buildings survey

Hi, Fae. Good job getting us all the new images! I've been doing other work with images of historical places, so I'll look at these to see if I can help improve the categories. I've already done a few.

I found one image whose title and description are wrong. I can fix the description and move the image, but I thought I'd run it by you first. If nothing else, I didn't know if you'd want to correct the place where the title and description came from. The image is this one. It says it's a detail of a mosaic in a floor, but it's actually the interior of the dome in the building. You can compare it to other images in Category:San Mateo County History Museum to see.

So would you like me to do the fixes, or would you like to take care of it?

Regards. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit over-committed on Wikimania stuff. It would be great if you could take action to improve those that have obvious issues. -- (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure thing. I moved this one. Is it OK to change the commented metadata, or would that mess up some sourcing info or anything? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
if you mean the invisible metadata then it is probably better to leave those comments as they are. The *visible* text in the main template are perfectly fine to change. Once changed, my housekeeping is likely to ignore the file though, on the presumption that if a human has reviewed it, it should not be reverted. -- (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The HABS files in Category:Fort_Miller,_California could use some filemover attention, as well. They're designated as being in Marin County (probably confused with the Millerton there) but are actually related to the Millerton in Madera County... maybe @Auntof6: could take care of these, too? --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
It looks like those have been taken care of. Am I missing something? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The "Marin County" in the filenames (and the info, but I can do that) should be "Madera County", sorry for not making that clear enough. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, got it! I've been so focused on categories that I didn't pay attention to your mention of "filemover" and I just looked at the categories. Stand by and I'll take care of these right now. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, I did the moves. One of them didn't need moving because it didn't have "Marin" in the file name. If you want, I could use AWB to change the text. I'm just not sure whether it's OK to change every occurrence of "Marin" to "Madera", because I don't know if some need to be left as they are to match a source or something. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! For now I changed it in the "depicted place" field, but left the title alone; If I get confirmation from LoC that it's being fixed on their end, I'll change that, too (if someone else doesn't in the meantime). --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Examples of complicated metadata

Hi Fae,

You were saying some very interesting things at Wikimania about some of the more complicated examples of metadata that you have encountered in some of your recent bulk uploads -- things like multiple relevant creation dates, different licenses attached to different parts of the data and image, etc.

Would it be possible to give some examples, and for you to expand on this?

I know I'd personally find it very helpful.

It would be great if you could. All best, Jheald (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I might have to return to this at the weekend, after the bank holiday my diary is looking a bit tight. -- (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely no hurry. Thanks! Jheald (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding intelligent match categories

Hi, Fæ. I just noticed this edit, where you added back a category that I had removed. I removed it when I was diffusing Category:Presidio of San Francisco. That category was pretty crowded, so I made subcategories for some of the identifiable buildings. It looks like you made the same change to a lot of other files as well.

I did a lot of work over the last week or two on HABS files related to San Francisco. I'm now wondering if you made similar changes to any of the other files where I diffused categories. Is there a way you can check the changes you did to see? I think the files belong in the lower-level categories and not in the higher-level ones. Do you disagree? Is there a way you can avoid un-diffusing in the future?

Let me know how we can resolve this. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I'm currently removing Category:Presidio of San Francisco again. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I have added "Building" and "Presidio" to a category check, if found the image is skipped for the intelligent NRHP matching as categories including those words are a give-away that a detailed place category has been added. This is a tricky area of housekeeping as it may be beneficial to add a place category twice. If you have ideas for better pattern matching I'd be happy to try them. -- (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much. The only better idea I have is not to add a category if a file is already in a subcategory of the one being added. However, I know that's probably not practical. Is this something you do multiple times, or do you just do one pass at any given group of files? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
At the moment a NRHP marked category has its parents checked. If these match one of the place categories, then an image in the parent should move to the child. This has to be multiple passes, I'd need a flow diagram to explain why... I can be more cognizant of the history of changes, and I have thought of ignoring files with more than N existing edits, as a crude precaution. I'll think about revising the exclusion criteria.
Unfortunately after having my membership of the Wikimedia UK chapter publicly rejected in a way that makes me look like a criminal, and this appears to be the reason that I was kicked out of OTRS this week (not apparently for anything I have actually done as my work there was exemplary) I am stepping back a little this month. After next week I might pause my housekeeping scripts and when I return from holiday I'll take a review of whether my work here is worth the petty minded political shit I receive, which has far more impact on me than any thanks I get for my volunteer time. -- (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons Beta

Hi Fae! Could you please grant me GWToolset on beta.commons? I'd like to get my feet wet. :-) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Added admin rights as well, as being able to delete is handy (something I always feel the lack of here). -- (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Purrfect. Thanks a bunch! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Ough, ran into the first problem. I can't get the XML file part to work properly. Could you provide me with an example of one you use for my beta-playground? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Email me and I'll send an example back, prob tomorrow. There are some examples in the tool manual too. -- (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated! email sent. :) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

A lot of cleanup work for you due to backend problems in July

See User:Ilmari Karonen/Queries/Zombie images --Denniss (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it is a useful list. I could probably reformat this in a way to pump through my upload process for a second time (but it will probably have to defer until I return from holiday later in September). It is a pity that we do not have a way of making it a WMF problem to sort out consequences resulting from WMF server/software outages or time-outs. If nothing else, if I spend an extra two FTE days tidying up after outages, then it would be great to be able to invoice someone for my time, as it is not how I imagined I would invest my unpaid volunteer time. -- (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


In this series of posts, that you just made to the Village Pump you said amongst other things "I would feel a lot happier if your charity would correctly and promptly respond to my DPA request, or my complaint about the misleading statements made to voting members of the UK charity during the recent AGM". As you know, your Subject Access Request that you made to Wikimedia UK under the terms of the Data Protection Act was promptly acknowledged and, as we said, you will receive all the information you are entitled to within the statutory period. We were keeping the existence of your DPA request confidential as a courtesy to you, but it's fine if you want to mention it publicly. As to your 'complaint', I advised you on 14th August that I would be on holiday until 1st September. That is today, and I am already working on it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Had you been bothered to have a real conversation with me before the AGM rather than behaving as if I were a plaintiff, you might have saved us both a lot of time now. Thanks for assuring me that I am free to publish whatever I wish, living in the UK, I presumed that was the case without seeking your permission.
By the way your use of quote marks in referring to my complaint has been noted, I take this as a sign that you either intend to be sarcastic, or as the Chairman of the Wikimedia UK national charity, you are not taking my complaint seriously. I have no idea why you would think that would be to the benefit of the charity, or is a smart way of demonstrating your professionalism in handling a governance problem, especially where it relates to an official complaint of improper conduct during the charity's legally required Annual General Meeting.
Please keep in mind this is a wiki not a blog or twitter. Editing a comment within a reasonable period and before anyone else has commented is not a "series of posts", it is editing the same comment. You previously made similar remarks as a way to marginalise my comments on another wiki, however this is not actually how talk pages work and are used by project contributors. -- (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Fae, you have read into my post a sign which was not there. As to the issues you have raised with me by email, we are taking them extremely seriously and I am in confidential email correspondence with you about them - which is as it should be. It is not likely to be of benefit either to you or to the charity to discuss details in public on-wiki, and I will therefore not be continuing this thread. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
You wrote your 'complaint' rather than your complaint—it is hard to escape as it is published above. Anyone reading your use of quote marks with a good grasp of English punctuation would interpret that as not for direct speech but for irony. See quotation mark.
As I have stated to you already, I am at the stage of no longer believing that the obsession with secrecy about how I have been treated protects me at all, considering what has gradually been revealed about what has happened without my knowledge at the time. As you continue to be unable to pick up your telephone and actually talk to me as if I were human and a fellow unpaid volunteer on Wikimedia projects, rather than a legal case to fight, despite several invites from me for you to talk over a period of months, I think it is a logical assumption that your priorities here do not include what would best benefit me, but how best to make me go away, preferably forever.
I have seen your email, including your defence of the behaviour of one of your trustees during the AGM which was likely to have affected a legal vote of members of the charity while it was being conducted, because you think their public statements were in a "closed list"; pretty odd as if I did precisely the same thing by gossiping at back of the room as a "closed discussion" while people were voting, I doubt you would have thought that appropriate. I do not accept your defence as it does not survive scrutiny.
Most of the evidence you are insisting I provide, is as easy as asking your employees to confirm the facts. However when I find time between preparing to go on holiday and helping with a close relative dangerously ill in hospital, I shall provide the text you now appear to require before investigating. -- (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Acknowledged. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI: some renaming

I've been doing a little cleanup on the IWM images so they have more natural file names. I can't imagine why they uploaded everything to their web site with the same (*&*%&% name, but at least we can fix it for them :-) Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into these and giving them better names. When you hit 1,000+ edits you can ask for the filemover right which will make this a bit easier. :-) -- (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

A cup of coffee for you!

Not sure if you’re a coffee man, but I’m right now off to get some and you’re one of the many imaginary guests I would not mind to have a quick chat over it with (though I’m ranking Carl Sagan above you, sorry).

Seriously, seems that the crap you routinely have to shovel off on here to get through the day is piled even higher these last days, so I want you to know that some people here, albeit silent, do value your work and do dig your style.

-- Tuválkin 08:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Tried to send this as a “wikilove” poste, but it said «Something went wrong when sending the message. Please try again.» repeatedly. -- Tuválkin 08:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm very much a coffee person, the sentiment is much appreciated. :-) -- (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

"Search and Retrieval of Similar Images"

Of any interest? --Nemo 16:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Going by the abstract, this was about using description to match images along with identification of sub-regions of images; I have not ferreted out the paper as it seemed a narrow academic domain rather than a general treatment. We could do similar things, in effect we do using categories, but a reliable way of finding similar photographs by the image itself is what we really need, so that differing resolutions and even crops can be listed. -- (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
This is something I'd be very interested in for the British Library Mechanical Curator collection of images -- a million scanned images from 19th century books, with little or no metadata, currently sitting on Flickr. There are a lot of repeated engravings -- mostly decorative fillers, but also repeated feature engravings -- and it would be really good to be able to identify them, tag them, and trace the works they are used in.
I bookmarked some links a few months ago from a quick Google search, at User:Jheald/sandbox/Image similarity search, but it would be good to share ideas with other people. Do you know if there is any kind of community group or wikiproject interested in practical image analysis, here on Commons? Jheald (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the nearest would be the Graphics lab people, but it's not the same thing. There are well established free Python libraries to handle this type of image analysis, which could take a reference image and do region based comparisons using polygon matching (the same libraries that underpin face matching). With some thought this could probably do everything we want. What would be revolutionary for us would be finding a way of storing the relevant processed 'key data' with an image so that this matching could be highlighted on upload and even better if we could publicly retain the same key data for deleted images.
It is pretty easy for me to get to your college/Wellcome, or to the Mozilla place, how about arranging an open image lab workshop to get some demos working, maybe with someone who can explain this from the software development side? This month is a bust, but it might be interesting in a couple of months. -- (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I should warn that I'm no longer quite as attached to my college as my 20 year old email address might suggest.  :-) But not living too far away. It would certainly be interesting to get together people who are interested in this issue, to see what people know.
Interestingly the Yahoo academic who's just released the Commons:Internet Archive/Book Images collection, which they're hoping to also roll out to a number of other U.S. libraries that have images to be extracted from exisiting scanning, cited me this post and says he's been working with people on the Flickr team to "apply algorithms to cluster similar images together and to tag images by type as to whether they are a map, illustration, photograph, etc, so a lot of those features should be coming soon" -- so it will be interesting to see what may be forthcoming, and whether the algroithms work as well on b/w engravings as on photographs. I'll see whether Ben at the BL has more suggestions about people it might be interesting to try to get together. Jheald (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Just seen this thread about some guys proposing to apply "perceptual image hashing" to the whole of Commons. Not sure how well it may cope with cropping, contrast changes, etc; but sounds as if they might be interesting to talk to. Jheald (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I did read the email previously. If they can produce a free and open service to check for rescaled matching images anywhere, then this could be a way to short-cut our needs without having to enter into a partnership with the more obvious services of Google or Tin-eye (both of which would be likely to end up being a commercial service of some sort). Strategically it makes sense to consider this an external service, we just need a decent API to wrap it.
However I would not abandon other options yet, from the nature of their fairly basic questions about mapping thumbnails, I suspect this is very early days for their project. -- (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
One guy at any rate seems to have got a decent similarity filter going -- that, or he's building himself a good sample set (based on the internet archive images) to investigate: Jheald (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

And a question...

AI Mk VIIIA in Beaufighter. Uploaded to Commons in Feb 2013.

So I came across this page which has a number of images of the AI MK. VIII (I've just posted an article on this on Some of these images we don't have here, so...

1) have you found any way to find these images on the IWM? When I try I get nothing.

2) I once stumbled upon a way to see all the image in a particular collection, in this case RAF RADAR, but have never managed to find it again. Is there an entry point to the collection as a whole?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, try[0]=contentDate%3ASecond%20World%20War (due to the use of brackets in the URL, it does not parse easily into a link on-wiki). I have created AI radar and have uploaded 15 new photographs to Commons based on this search. Feel free to rename the category or move stuff around, you have far more knowledge in this area than I do. :-) -- (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

NYPL maps

Hi Fae. Where's progress at with the NYPL maps currently?

I'm just about to put in a bot proposal (my first!) to add links where possible to the NYPL Georeferencer like this (diff) with the file's appropriate georeferencing ID; the template also adds them to a tracking category.

There are 4890 of the maps that have been georeferenced (or there were when I pulled the data), but I was only able to find 2905 of them on Commons. It's possible some are duplicates, and others may be ones you haven't reached in the list yet -- eg one had a description which started with '['

But if it's useful I can email the list of what I was and wasn't able to match. Jheald (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

There were a couple of aspects that probably caused images to be skipped, as I was scraping the website if pages gave me the equivalent of null strings or similar, I would have skipped that image rather than trying lots of parsing experiments. It is also quite likely that many more images/scans have been added to the on-line pages by the NYPL, from memory, I believe that quite a few that were in the catalogue were not necessarily released to the website, probably because they had an on-going release programme.
I can look at re-running the upload, but at the moment that point would probably be well into October or possibly November due to holidays and urgent matters. Having your list would be a good double check on what is getting filtered during that upload.
Depending on whether I get a scholarship and whether Europeana are having the task force meeting in the Netherlands, I am planning on going to the hackerthon in November (looks for website about it, can't find it...), that might be a good time to look again at how wikidata/commons might make better use of the NYPL map data and how we might handle 'deltas' which is an on-going endless back-burner without realistic solutions at this moment. -- (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
10:30 and still haven't made my first bot edit, but not for want of trying... (Commons:Bots/Requests/JhealdBot‎) Wretched thing looks like it should work, goes away and thinks for a bit, then returns "Error code 0" with no other explanation. Looks like the time may have come for me to finally bite the bullet and learn Python.
As for the data, Tim Waters (User:Chippyy) has installed a copy of the map warper at , and there's an API that makes it easy to upload the files and the geo-control points whenever we like. (Which Tim knows about, since he wrote it all). So replicating the kind of functionality New York has is no problem. At the moment there's just some debate about whether there are things that should be further along first before opening it up to the whole community. These include plugging it into the OAuth system, more systematic cacheing, and a new prettier appearance. There's also the suggestion of tile-serving some of the very big maps (and their geo-rectifications). So there are some views about how fast to move; but I'm impatient, so I'd like to see as much live as soon as possible, even if it has rough edges (which probably means I haven't got enough respect for the technical issues.
As for synchronising the deltas, I still think the simplest way is just to get people to update NYPL maps on the NYPL site, and then re-extract the data periodically. But it is certainly Susanna's view that people should be able to do as much as possible here on-site, rather than losing them to other websites, so her view will probably prevail.
Good to know that you're hoping to the hackathon in November (which I don't know anything about either), and stay close to the GW Toolkit team. I still wish I was clearer about how the Commons/Wikidata/CommonsData thing is going to go, because there seems to me just too much complexity that's not in the initial modelling from the MM team, and some big questions that really need some thought. But it's impressive what people are already starting to build, pulling data from Wikidata. See especially recent threads at d:Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts, including the impressive testcases at d:Template:Artwork/testcases. I've tried to air some of my thoughts about some of the complexities that bother me in the corresponding thread and its sequels, including a couple of cases where there's a bit more going on than just 'original artwork' / 'scanned reproduction' when one's trying to think about associated artists and dates. That's something where you've surely seen much more than any of us, I think could give some really useful food for thought.
But the most important thing now is just: Hope you have a really good holiday, get away from wiki totally for a while, & then come back all the more fired up! All the best, Jheald (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Shadow puppet of Bima, Java, Indonesia (17th-18th century).jpg

File:Shadow puppet of Bima, Java, Indonesia (17th-18th century).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shadow puppet of Bima, Java, Indonesia (17th-18th century).jpg  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding images of Category:Jethro Coffin house back into Category:Nantucket

Category:Nantucket contains hundreds of images which I've been sorting into subcategories. Per COM:OVERCAT, always place an image in the most specific categories, and not in the levels above those. The images that you re-added to Category:Nantucket belong in Category:Jethro Coffin house but not in Category:Jethro Coffin house's ancestor Category:Nantucket. (You should be able to verify this by yourself.) It would be nice if Commons provided some automated check for this, but as you know it doesn't. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It could be we are talking grandchild categories rather than child categories (which should be checked for), without a specific example it's hard to say what happened. My exclusions are now "Mare Island Naval Shipyard|Building|Presidio|Nantucket", if these match any category on an image page then the NRHP sorting gives up. Not ideal, but this is probably the cause of what you have seen. Note that from tomorrow, I am on holiday and will not be running "housekeeping" while I'm away, even though I might be able to keep a distant eye on some stuff unless the swimming pool/ancient Roman site is more attractive :-). -- (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
It's really not hard to find a specific example. Take File:Historic American Buildings Survey Cortlandt V. D. Hubbard, Photographer June 1965 SOUTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS - Jethro Coffin House, Sunset Hill, Nantucket, Nantucket County, MA HABS MASS,10-NANT,40-5.tif. You or someone/something using your account re-added Category:Nantucket to that image when it was already in Category:Jethro Coffin house.
-- DanielPenfield (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the examples. This makes sense as I'm not looking out for grandchildren and some of these are great-grandchild relationships. Nantucket is worth making an exception for as it is the largest single National Historic Landmark District, consequently the NRHP number as a way of finding related images is almost useless for checking Commons categories. -- (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Yo, Mom (Imagicity 865).jpg

File:Yo, Mom (Imagicity 865).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yo, Mom (Imagicity 865).jpg Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Same pic from multiple sources

Hi Fæ,

Glad to see someone, who shares the same passion for aircraft. Whil cleaning up some cats, I came across some of the pictures you uploaded to commons. I noticed recently some files that show the identical picture (see as an example Category:G-BMTF (aircraft)). tThe autor is in both cases the same, once th pic is uploaded from and the other from How do we avoid redundant photos? May I request deletion? Regards, -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 10:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Wo st 01. I'm not Fæ, but the category you mentioned, included two identical images. I marked the other one as duplicate. --Kulmalukko (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in. My access in Turkey is nonexistent, happen to be in a restaurant in Patara and the waiter sorted me out. Discovered that Grindr really is blocked by the networks here, and this is supposed to be a secular country! -- (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Missing image file

Looks like you ended up with a missing image file at File:- Ellis Island, Restaurant and Bath House, New York Harbor, New York, New York County, NY HABS NY,31-ELLIS,1F-5.tif - Jmabel ! talk 22:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The file is actually at File:Ellis Island, Restaurant and Bath House, New York Harbor, New York, New York County, NY HABS NY,31-ELLIS,1F-5.tif. Marked for speedy as an apparently faulty move request. -- (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Another Place (479136575).jpg

File:Another Place (479136575).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Another Place (479136575).jpg BrightRaven (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Another Place (479136585).jpg

File:Another Place (479136585).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Another Place (479136585).jpg BrightRaven (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Sentinel Mapping of Flood Hit Areas MOD 45157032.jpg

File:Sentinel Mapping of Flood Hit Areas MOD 45157032.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sentinel Mapping of Flood Hit Areas MOD 45157032.jpg Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Green Hill (Long Island, Virginia)

The images you recently posted of the Green Hill (Long Island, Virginia) are not on Long Island. I've moved several them, but the others should be moved too. ----DanTD (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thai chicken risotto???

A pink unicorn of risottos.

About this file that you've uploaded: there is no such thing as Thai chicken risotto. This dish, with its fantasy name, was apparently made by someone in the United States who was either completely unhampered by any knowledge of Thai cuisine, or knowingly faked the title to make it sound "exotic". Unfortunately, the latter happens a lot. Even the otherwise fairly reliable BBC does this on their cooking website, giving recipes which are only pretend-Thai, with only the name of it being Thai but otherwise completely false. This particular image is also of an extremely low quality: it is small and the white balance is off. It is also totally oversharpened which introduces crippling artefacts into the image making it unusable. Is there any policy on wikimedia to delete these unusable images? The only use I could think of for this image is if someone would write an article on "fantasy dishes inspired by Thai cuisine by cooks without any knowledge of Thai cuisine". Sorry to sound so vehement about this but I've just seen too many images like this one on Wikimedia. Having images like these pretending to be examples of cuisines can only introduce incorrect content into articles as some people might actually think that these dishes actually exist in those cuisines. - Takeaway (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

On Commons we have images of "false" things as the image is useful to illustrate the subject. In this case, it might be useful for someone who wants to add a note to an article pointing out that this is a faux dish (perhaps similar to how the balti curry started), or for someone to write about on their personal blog. If you feel it is misleading, then please do add more explanation to the image description, this would ensure that someone reusing the image is not confused about what the image is of.
By the way, I knock up a risotto with anything handy; so I'm not sure that one can rule out fusion style dishes as too bizarre to include. I agree the image is over-sharpened. It could possibly be made cleaner by someone playing with it in an image editor, but for the moment it's the only one we have. -- (talk) 07:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, now I understand. The 100+ pretend-Thai cuisine images that I've had to plough my way through when I started cleaning up Category:Cuisine of Thailand is for showing how not to do it in Wikipedia articles. Luckily enough, most people have stopped uploading these faux/fake dishes since I cleaned up the categories and started adding images of real Thai dishes. - Takeaway (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


Greetings Fæ, thank you for your excellent uploads so far using the Glam-Wiki Toolset, and for your hard work in general. Do you think you can help me get authorized to use this toolset, at least on Beta? I would like to start out with a hitherto-unposted collection of images from the Library of Congress. This is kind of a key part of my task(s) w/r/t "Summer of Monuments". Thanks & happy equinox. Monumenteer2014 (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Monumenteer2014: No problem, I have added the GWT right to your account at beta. When you have played around with how it works there, you can raise a request at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard as it needs a bureaucrat to add the right on Commons. :-) -- (talk) 07:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Fae, I appreciate you. At the risk of seeming n00b: Do you have any advice on going from the LOC's JSON output to the flat XML that seems to be required? I confess I'm a little confused because your mapping (along with most of them, actually) has the .json extension, but it's not allowed to upload this file type. Monumenteer2014 (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The JSON mappings are just a way of mapping whatever source XML file you provide to a Commons template. The LoC provide outputs like MODS which you would have to parse in some way to turn them into an XML file that you define (as far as I recall these are 'flat' records). There is no guarantee that a JSON file can be turned into a flat XML file, so there are choices you have to make by hand (but then automate for the batch). I'm not around much for a few days, so it may be worth posting an example to the glamtools email list for feedback if you get stuck. -- (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion log for Image:Drthunder.jpg

Hi User:Fae. I wonder if you could help me with a small copyright question. The New Museum in New York asked me for help in tracking down the copyright of an image no longer on Wikipedia. That is, the image illustrating the article w:Dr. Thunder, an article which was merged into another, w:List of Walmart brands a while back. In the process, File:Drthunder.jpg was removed from that page, and seems to now also be gone from Commons. I'm trying to track down the image owner/uploader now because the Museum wants to use the image, but I'm not sure where to look. Any way you can help me with this puzzle or refer me to someone who can help me sleuth? Thanks. OR drohowa (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@OR drohowa: I get lots of matches. I have asked the deleting admin for a copy to be emailed to me. -- (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Despite several enquiries I never got a reply from the deleting admin, nor did any other admin seem interested in responding. I'm unsure why, so in the information vacuum I've let this drop. Get back to me if you still want the image as it was hosted on Commons and I'll try pinging a few folks for a second time. -- (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Re:DR closures

Thanks for noticing that. I have worked on more than 100 DRs, but it appears that lately the script does not erase the Deletion Request notice on the page when the page is kept. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I am doing something in the background today and have notices the system is remarkably slow in response times compared to a could of weeks ago. This could be related and generally causing scripts to drop out in unpredictable fashions. Hopefully it is a transient problem, though I have not noticed any bug reports being mentioned about it. -- (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

HAER images in Category:Crescent City, California

Could you take a look at the HAER images in this category? I think many of them don't belong there. Here are some examples:

  • Some of the files, like This one and this one, says they're in Oregon, not California.
  • Crescent City is in Del Norte County. A lot of the images, like this one, say they're in other counties such as Humboldt County or Mendocino County.

Another thing I notice is that many of the images give the same coordinates for "camera location", although the images are clearly not in the same place. Clicking on the link to display the location in Google Maps gives a location that appears to be in the middle of an area with a lot of houses and other buildings. None of the images here appear to be in such a place.

I don't know how these images get their location data, but it seems to me that a batch of them were incorrectly given the same coordinates at some point. Those coordinates are in or near Crescent City, so I think the Crescent City category got added because of that. A lot of the image names mention Crescent City, but it's because the roads shown in many of them run through there.

What can I do to help figure out what needs to be done here? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look, probably later on today, so try not to fix it all before that :-). The geodata is based on the Library of Congress catalogue entry for the image. Though this tends to be a rough coordinate, I have not noticed any pattern of serious failures. If as a group these are wrong, it would be worth reporting back to the LoC so they might correct the official catalogue. The place categorization is based on the LoC catalogue text(s) for place, this can go astray due to the non-uniqueness of placenames and other confusions about categories with similar names, so an error trap might be needed for such cases. -- (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll leave them alone until you get a chance to look at them. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 08:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about the images from, which includes File:EEL RIVER SOUTH FORK BRIDGE, OLD HIGHWAY 101. NORTH OF LEGGETT, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. LOOKING N. - Redwood National and State Parks Roads, California coast from Crescent City to HAER CA-269-8.tif? Just wanting to be clear before anything else. I'd advise that we create categories for each of these Crescent City HABS/HAER locations (being careful not to put them in the Crescent City category if they're not in the city limits) and then deal with the one with problematic status, since we'd just need to fix the category instead of all images together. Nyttend (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by. I think so. If the "problem" is that the LoC album ca2890 has a confusing geocode, this might be the source of the weak metadata I've used as a default (as we have no other geodata). I would have to add an exception to my housekeeping jobs too, though if another editor has touched these to do the categorization, that ought to be picked up and automated changes avoided anyway. P.S. I'm really short of time this week, but I can spend a bit of time on this next week if necessary. -- (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
One thing is that ca2890 isn't a single location: it's "Redwood National & State Parks Roads, California coast from Crescent City to Trinidad, Crescent City, Del Norte County, CA". Trinidad is in Humboldt County, over an hour's drive south of Crescent City, and these parks aren't in either city: they're in between, straddling the county line, so images such as CA-269-18 are correctly marked in the metadata as having a Humboldt County location, and images such as CA-269-32 are correctly marked in the metadata as having a Del Norte County location. I can check on the Oregon issue, which may be an error (the parks are definitely not in Oregon), but at least part of the problem is the unusually broad geographical scope of ca2890. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can help here, beyond having pointed out the problem, but I wanted to thank everyone for the research you're doing! --Auntof6 (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Restoring High Bridge category by NRHP number

AERIAL VIEW LOOKING SOUTH, SHOWING AQUEDUCT RIGHT-OF-WAY AS IT PASSES OVER MILL RIVER CULVERT. - Old Croton Aqueduct, Mill River Culvert, U.S. Route 9 at Sleepy Hollow Cemetery, HAER NY,60-TARYN,3A-3.tif

First of several that the bot restored two days ago to Category:High Bridge (New York City) after I moved them to their parental cat. All are miles from the aqueduct bridge. No need for you to do anything about this particular batch as I intend to take care of them a few hours from now, but you should see whether you can keep your mighty power tool from making the same error elsewhere or again. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look today, but this might skip into next week. There are two processes, one a wide ranging bit of housekeeping, the other is the NRHP categories matching. Both can have exclusions if needed, but I'll not be running either from tomorrow through to Monday afternoon as I like to be about to monitor any issues. -- (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Noaabot weather maps (upload stopped in September 2014)

Hi Fæ, back again? Noaabot stopped working after the uploaded NCEP weather maps of 28 September 2014. The daily weather for the gallery-page October 2014? --LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Noaabot was on holiday at the same time as me. At some point I'll change this over to a crontab job, it's a bit ad-hoc in design and as it works, reworking him is not a high priority (especially as it involved reformatting image types on the fly, something I would have to think about if moved to WMFlabs). -- (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Confusion re use of Public Domain image.


I wonder if you can help me with a copyright question. I am wanting to use an image in a book I am writing which I see you have added an enhanced version of in Wikimedia Commons - it is found at:,_27-28_March_1942_A13626A.jpg

I am confused - on the one hand it seems to say that this image is in the Public Domain and therefore can be used freely. On the other hand under the Permissions section above it says:-

Permission (Reusing this file)

This image was created and released by the Imperial War Museum on the IWM Non Commercial Licence. Photographs taken, or artworks created, by a member of the forces during their active service duties are covered by Crown Copyright provisions. Faithful reproductions may be reused under that licence, which is considered expired 50 years after their creation. Part of Admiralty Official Collection

So, my question is whether the Public Domain claim overrides the Permission section and therefore I can use the image as I like without seeking approval of the IWM.

Thank you for your help.


@IanGarden: In short yes -- On Commons when multiple licences are included on an image page, you are free to select whichever suits your reuse. As a courtesy the IWM licence is quoted but the expired Crown Copyright can be correctly applied. Refer to my correspondence with the IWM at user:Fæ/email/IWM. -- (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Fae - Thanks for your swift response - this makes perfect sense but I just needed to have some objective confirmation.

Thanks again - ian

Landscapes is not a dustbin category.

Well, you've done it again. You've dumped dozens of photos of trees, people, islands, towns etc into the landscapes category. You did this last year, and it took myself and several other editors almost 12 months to fix the mess. Could you please stop doing this? If you feel the need to dump images into an existing category, could you just dump them into the "Killer Whale" category or similar? They clearly don't belong there any more than they do in Landscapes, but at least those categories aren't labelled as being overcrowded. You really couldn't find a worse category in which to dump random images than the one that you have chosen. The landscape page says quite clearly that buildings, mountains and forests do NOT belong into this category, a point that I drew to your attention last year. Yet here we are again. It would also be appreciated if you could assist with cleaning up your mess. Thank you.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done I may be misunderstanding the point you are making, possibly I'm looking at the wrong category. I counted a grand total of 10 files where I used the landscapes category (all were landscape views in China), which I have now removed using cat-a-lot; this took about 20 seconds of effort. Hopefully this resolves your issue for the moment, though as I mentioned above I have to look at automatically skipping category matches for categories which use "{{categorise}}" for the Wellcome uploads. If you have never used cat-a-lot I can recommend it, please feel free to apply it to any other uploaded files of mine that you might notice. -- (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Anna Margaretha van Petcum (1676-1745). Echtgenote van Johan Arnold Zoutman Rijksmuseum SK-A-2804.jpeg

Hi Fæ, You uploaded this file. But because of a mistake by the Rijksmuseum you accidentally uploaded the wrong file. This should be this young lady. The portrait of the man with the powdered wig is actually number SK-A-2084 and can be found at File:Zelfportret Rijksmuseum SK-A-2084.jpeg. If you have a moment, could you look at this. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Good spot. As this looks like a one-off error, I have re-uploaded manually. -- (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I didn't see it at first, but after some purging and F5-ing I did. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Categories and please avoid "over-categorization"

Hi, as imho pointed before in ~March 2004, some categories have been tagged as {categorize}, therefore p.e. that edit has been fixed. Please also check Commons:categories and avoid so-called "over-categorization", among them categories of countries, cities etc. Best regards, Roland zh (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look at ensuring that categories with the diffusion template are skipped. It may take until Tuesday though. -- (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@Roland zh: Out of interest, I have been running a (slow) script to sniff through the Wellcome images and out of over 7,000 files checked so far, not one appears to have been in a diffusion category. I'm pretty sure it's working correctly, just a surprising lack of suspect images. -- (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, a second way of doing this shows something like 1/20 categories I'm using is a candidate for removing. Sorting this out as housekeeping... -- (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
thx and just fyki, above mentioned example (October 12) of some more for your 'housekeeping': 1) Category:Tamil Nadu + Category:India + Category:Fishing + Category:Market + Category:Trading etc or 2) Category:Snakes + Category:Serpent + Category:Dancing + Category:India + Category:Kerala + Category:Snake and so on. Kindly regards, Roland zh (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Raised on the project page, along with my fix, at Commons:Batch_uploading/Wellcome_Images#Avoiding_over-categorization. -- (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


And also:

--  Gazebo (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Pamphlet; The medical consequences of nuclear war Wellcome L0075369.jpg

File:Pamphlet; The medical consequences of nuclear war Wellcome L0075369.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pamphlet; The medical consequences of nuclear war Wellcome L0075369.jpg Prosfilaes (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Confusion re use of Public Domain image - additional comment

Dear Fae,

I refer to your earlier response of 10th October to my question regarding the IWM comment attached to Wikipedia Commons images of WW2 that they are being released under a non-commercial IWM licence.

In particular you referred me to your correspondence with the IWM last year and I have been reading this again. In particular, in early January, they said that:

i.e. However, IWM also wants to support and encourage public access to our collection by offering low resolution images suitable for online use under a non-commercial licence on our website. We are happy for you to download or embed images from our site for use on Wikimedia Commons under our IWM non-commercial licence.

I see that you then re-approached them on 27th January, 2013, basically challenging them by saying that they could not claim new copyright simply by reproducing or rescanning an earlier Crown Copyright expired image and then saying this was being issued under a IWM non-commercial licence.

I wonder whether you ever received a response from the IWM to that e-mail. This is of particular importance to me as the book on which I am working, and into which I would like to insert a number of WW2 images placed on Wikipedia Commons via the IWM, will technically be sold commercially - even if only a few hundred books will be sold and for which I am still likely to be out of pocket. I therefore wish to be certain that I am doing nothing illegal as far as IWM is concerned by using those images under the Public Domain licence in that the original Crown Copyright licence over those images has long since expired. The book will be published in the UK

Can you give me any final comfort that I can rely on the Public Domain licence and ignore any reference to the non-commercial use comment by the IWM which still accompanies all their images?

Thanks again,


The only responses I have are published on the page you looked at. The IWM is welcome to contact me again. You can have my amateur opinion, as someone who is not a lawyer but has uploaded over 600,000 images to Wikimedia Commons. In this case, there are a few components:
  1. The "sweat of the brow" involved is non-existent for almost all expired Crown Copyright images hosted by IWM. There has been no digital or physical restoration by curators, there has only been scanning of images, and in some cases negatives. Where photographs have been taken of 2D artworks, these are purely intended to be faithful reproductions, so there is no additional creative component that might be relevant under UK law. Lastly, there has been no additional research at the time of digitization, as far as I can see. The categorization and description of images remains pretty much as it was when the images were placed in the archives. Note that any "sweat of the brow" argument is irrelevant for images hosted on servers in the USA and the WMF has firmly rejected this as a reason to create new copyright on public domain works.
  2. Individual downloads from the IWM website cannot be challenged as systematic misuse of their website. The website terms might prohibit download of high resolution images. However if you are a reuser of the same Public Domain material from elsewhere, such as Wikimedia Commons, then any website terms on the IWM site are irrelevant as you would not be going near their website.
  3. Fees that the IWM may wish to charge are for reproduction services, not copyright. This is clear enough in their website contract. Consequently any payment would be for optional services, and has no implication for copyright. In particular, the IWM has no lawful basis to charge for copyright payments on works they cannot demonstrate they hold the copyright for; this is easy to understand in cases of Crown Copyright works and expired Crown Copyright works that they hold copies of.
  4. The risk you would take in publishing expired Crown Copyright works in a book is none. Many years have passed since "sweat of the brow" was bandied around as a blight on public domain works in the UK. To this date nobody has had to pay damages or been prosecuted by anyone. It is not in the interests of any institution that demands money for "sweat of the brow" to have the law clarified as they rely on the effect of the perceived "risk" rather than wanting to make a claim of damages that would be rejected by any judge worth their salt. However, you could do as I did, and write to the IWM IP manager and explain your intentions and ask if there is any legal reason for you not to proceed that they can put forward. This at least puts the ball in their court and you can have any response checked over by an IP lawyer or your future publisher (and perhaps make it available to educate contributors like me on Commons).
Let me know how it goes. :-) -- (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

NYPL fire insurance maps

Thank you for your excellent work. I've started a discussion on subcategorizartion of them at Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/10/Category:Sanborn maps of Manhattan. If interested, please comment. Thank you. Vzeebjtf (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I doubt there will be any controversy. :-) -- (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Crescent City

I saw that this got archived. Was anyone still following up on it? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I had left it, as I feel unknowledgeable with regard to location. It may be worth chasing up on en.wp where there is a more active project area for NRHP. -- (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, understood. It's certainly not easy to figure out. Thanks for the research you did! --Auntof6 (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

File:'the Chief' Art.IWMART1305.jpg

File:'the Chief' Art.IWMART1305.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:'the Chief' Art.IWMART1305.jpg Steinsplitter (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

File:A 'camouflage tree' was an observation post made from a hollow metal cylinder, camouflaged as a dead tree. Art.IWMART2283.jpg

File:A 'camouflage tree' was an observation post made from a hollow metal cylinder, camouflaged as a dead tree. Art.IWMART2283.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:A 'camouflage tree' was an observation post made from a hollow metal cylinder, camouflaged as a dead tree. Art.IWMART2283.jpg Steinsplitter (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Fæ/Fry1989 revert analysis

Commons:Deletion requests/User:Fæ/Fry1989 revert analysis
Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pages using Artwork template with incorrect parameter

Hi Fæ. Could you please fix your hundred uploads in this maintenance category? Thanks. --Leyo 10:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for having fixed most of the cases. --Leyo 12:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
NP. I don't like to over-compensate in batch uploads for possible rare oddities in metadata, and these seem limited to an oddly formatted reference style for Science Museum artefacts with photos in the Wellcome, and even rarer stray pipe symbols in description metadata. This upload is 65% done, so there should not be many, if any, more of these. Ping me with another alert if another run appears and I'll happily take a look. :-)

De morbis contagiosis libri septem

You've uploaded many images from the book "From Morbis contagious Libri Septem" and EACH of the images are categorized in different diseases:

This is a wrong way to categorize the images. I have corrected your wrongness creating a container category of these images: Category:De morbis contagiosis libri septem, after adding links to corresponding categories to the category. Surely you would create new specified categories in Category:De morbis contagiosis libri septem by chapters, and perhaps only one chapter can link (for example) to Category:Plague or Category:Leprosy.

After I created two categories in Category:Wellcome Rare Books Collection where I move some pictures (to Category:A collection of engravings...Midwifery‎, Category:A course of lectures on midwifery‎). It is wrong to have a category with more than 12000 images (Category:Wellcome Rare Books Collection), or EVEN a few hundred images.

BEFORE loading the images, you must create the category (or categories) where the new images will be placed, not doing this means more work. All images should be put into categories.

Also, You can read Help:Category.

Finally: Excuse me, my English is not very good

--Jmarchn (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jmarchn, thanks for looking at this book category. Please keep in mind that we now have a much improved search engine on Commons and this avoids the need for lots of highly specific sub-categories as we can create intersections of categories, and indeed filter large categories by specific text or even words in filenames. It is also quite normal to have very large categories which have their own uses, for example all images as part of my project with the Wellcome library are automatically added to Files from Wellcome Images, which is very useful to create searches like this one for "John Bull" cartoons found in the Wellcome Images archive.
In this case if the general categories were on all 250+ pages of the book, then it makes sense to filter them off, however this may not be the case for all pages of all rare books uploaded. For example we might want to be able to search for illuminated pages appearing in a general category for that, from others in the book, yet we would not wish to create sub-categories. Note that books were only a small component of the Wellcome uploads, the principle of using the Wellcome catalogue keywords to find categories has been useful for most of the rest of the collection, though there has been a significant issue with the proportion of files without useful keywords, meaning some long term housekeeping might be needed.
Let me know if there is another large book you would like me to look at, the new search feature makes it pretty easy to use cat-a-lot to quickly recategorize. -- (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I just populated Letters from David Livingstone 1841 to 1865 where the images had no categories. This may be more of the norm for other parts of the rare books collection.
I have created a SQL script to generate a list of files that share the first 30 characters of their filenames and sorted these by numbers of images in the set. These are good suspects for further book categories, you may wish to consider them. -- (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Several uploads of yours that seem to lack images

File:- Ellis Island, Restaurant and Bath House, New York Harbor, New York, New York County, NY HABS NY,31-ELLIS,1F-1.tif, File:- Ellis Island, Restaurant and Bath House, New York Harbor, New York, New York County, NY HABS NY,31-ELLIS,1F-2.tif, File:- Ellis Island, Restaurant and Bath House, New York Harbor, New York, New York County, NY HABS NY,31-ELLIS,1F-3.tif, File:- Ellis Island, Restaurant and Bath House, New York Harbor, New York, New York County, NY HABS NY,31-ELLIS,1F-4.tif - Jmabel ! talk 06:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

These are all examples of failed redirects. Presumably they timed-out or had a conflict when there was mass renaming and now should be blanked and replaced with a redirect. If you remove "- " from the start of the filename, you will find the uploaded image. I have pulled out a list below which should be all files that need redirection or speedy deletion. -- (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Marked for speedy, so the above list of links should turn red when done. -- (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Delhi sands flower loving fly rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis.jpg

Dear Fae,

The file file:Delhi sands flower loving fly rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis.jpg you uploaded is in the LR cat and the source is missing. Do you see any change in fixing the source? If not I'll remove the LR template since this image is clearly PD per the statement in the EXIF-data. There is no rush but if you have some spare time left, a quick look would be appreciated. Natuur12 (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Any of these can be fixed by searching I thought about automating it, but the PD website has been very consistently accurate for all images that have been challenged, so no really worth the volunteer programming time. :-) -- (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix :). Natuur12 (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Biogas set up in detail (5363273033).jpg and etc

This file, and a lot of file at CAT:FLICKR is different (Commons files are rotated while flickr source isn't). Any idea why this is occuring? — revimsg 05:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It'll be something in the EXIF, depending on the camera. It's a reoccurring problem that I think the community discussed a year or two back. The rotatebot makes handling these a bit easier but as photographers often rotate their cameras for shots, there probably can be no substitute for a visual check. -- (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Then, please have a look at your uploads and command rotatebot. I tried to do ~30 or ~40 and gave up. — revimsg 08:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, automatically commanding rotatebot would probably make this worse, giving faux rotations. However I'll take a look as it might help to identify a pattern which we could automate (or at least batch up). Please be aware that I am not easily available for the next two weeks, at noted at the top of this page, so I may have to park this for a period.

Taking File:26.Naivasha main valve chamber (4427168246).jpg which has just been marked for 270° rotation, we find this metadata:

<metadata name="Make" value="SONY"/>
<metadata name="Model" value="DSC-W80"/>
<metadata name="Orientation" value="6"/>

If Orientation were a key indicator, we would also have to filter by images with only one upload on the presumption that others had been worked on by rotatebot (or sniff the comment history in more detail).

Query for first 20 matching images with 1 revision where metadata contains "Orientation.;i:6;" from the SuSanA category:

17.Naivasha shower (4427167908).jpg Back view of faeces vault of urine-diverting dry toilet (UDDT) in low-income area Bulbul near Nairobi, Kenya (10543126754).jpg Back view of urine-diverting dry toilet (UDDT) in low-income area Bulbul near Nairobi, Kenya (10543178044).jpg Backside view of a closed vault (8139817770).jpg Bag to collect compost at the end of the auger (at the back of the photo- toilet seat with sawdust dispenser) (13359160594).jpg Biochar produced from artificial faeces by the Sol-Char System (13359313315).jpg Birgoy Lamizana (UNEP) addressing the gathering (15532826511).jpg Blue Diversion Toilet Prototype (13359325703).jpg Children in Kibera (10444413345).jpg Christian Zurbrugg (EAWAG- SANDEC) talking to the crowd (15349506107).jpg Combustion unit used to treat dried solid waste and generate electricity used to power the system. (13359622583).jpg Conventional household VIP latrine (8151992346).jpg Daniel Ddiba (Makerere University) raising questions (15532826651).jpg Earth auger toilet with Western-style toilet seat (13359124644).jpg Faecal sludge pumping device with manual pumping (no motor) (13358911785).jpg Faeces vault doors of a urine-diverting dry toilet (UDDT) in low-income area Bulbul near Nairobi, Kenya (10543475753).jpg First soak pit of pour flush latrine (8152036279).jpg Goat lying on the stairs of a urine-diverting dry toilet (UDDT) in low-income area Bulbul near Nairobi, Kenya (10543178836).jpg Hydroclone used to separate solid and liquid waste (13359886534).jpg Inside view of a UDDT with drying material (8139788962).jpg

Unfortunately this shows that the photographer often rotates their camera by 270° to make portrait photographs which do not require rotation, though some do...
(parking for the moment, or until something occurs or is suggested to me.)

Context data

This shows number images with "Orientation" in the camera metadata and their distinct values. Note "6" means rotate by 90° and "8" means rotate by 270°.

  Matches   Metadata
      116 | Orientation";i:0;
     6444 | Orientation";i:1; 
      209 | Orientation";i:6; 
       45 | Orientation";i:8; 

This table shows the numbers of files rotated in the category SuSanA to date and what rotation has been applied.

| Total | Deg   |
|    38 | 270°  |
|    29 | 90°   |

A partial solution is to filter out images where the current revision shows Orientation "6" or "8" which is also needing a review (triggered by height and width on Commons not matching Flickr's interpretation) and then do a quick visual check. As at the time of writing there were 119 + 24 files like this, they are easily dumped in a sandbox for a quick check through as a contact sheet - like this.

For anyone interested, the SQL to do this is:

SELECT CONCAT("[[File:", img_name, "|150px]]") AS File
FROM page
JOIN categorylinks ON page_id=cl_from
JOIN image ON page_title=img_name
        cl_to = "Files_created_by_Sustainable_Sanitation_Alliance_(SuSanA)"
        AND img_metadata REGEXP "Orientation.;i:8;"
        AND (
                SELECT COUNT(*) FROM categorylinks AS cc 
                WHERE page_id=cc.cl_from 
                AND cl_to="Flickr_images_needing_human_review"
I meant to have a look at some of them manually and command. Anyway, good to know you're investigating! — revimsg 09:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
As there are 10,000 in this category, and I'm busy with 100,000 elsewhere, any housekeeping issues need to be automated due to numbers involved; or we solve through backlog identification... -- (talk) 09:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Wellcome Images

Good afternoon. Can you upload the pictures below?

Thank you very much.--Viejo sabio (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done :-) -- (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Category talk:Sanborn maps of the Bronx published in 1900

Sorry to bother you about a minor matter, but I think I should ask you this question. Thanks. Vzeebjtf (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done -- (talk) 08:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

{{Autotranslate|1=|2=Ebola PPE videos|3=plural|base=Idw}} Dragons flight (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Long names and IDs?

A batch DOD upload resulted in filenames such as this one: File:A_U.S._Soldier_from_1st_Squadron,_8th_Cavalry_Regiment,_2nd_Brigade,_1st_Cavalry_Division,_pulls_security_at_a_routine_traffic_control_point_at_Baqubah,_Diyala_province,_Iraq,_July_24,_2011_110724-A-YV529-033.jpg

I started to shorten some of them; is there any reason to keep the long ID at the end of the filenames? --SJ+ 01:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that reusers cut&paste rather than typing these in, so this is not a significant burden. I suggest only trimming the filenames when they are misleading, duplicative or distractingly pointless such as long compound descriptive sentences which say little about the photograph itself. Unfortunately the DoD do not have snappy titles for us to reuse, it would have been great if they stuck to a twitter-style user generated 140 character short description, as well as a long one.
The ID should be retained as almost everything else can get lost on reuse, but so long as the VIRIN stays with the image we can back-track it. The VIRIN is probably the most information compact part of the name as it dates the photo, tells you which part of the military it came from and can back-track down to the photographer (check the linked essay, lots of interesting information). For DoD images this is especially true as the EXIF data is highly unreliable as various DoD related sites re-write the EXIF. When uploading a new image I check Commons for a duplicate VIRIN and skip the upload if one is found in the title, because they are almost always reliably unique (exceptions being down to human error) I actually do 4 levels of check, the filename is the server-time/processor-time cheapest to start with. We do the same best practice for Flickr.
There are at least 250,000 of these photos, it would be a better use of volunteer time to consider if there are reliable rename patterns that help make thousands of names more meaningful rather than changing files one at a time and only hitting a hundred or so. I have a routine to do regex changes of this sort if you have any ideas. -- (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Annoying aspect of Wellcome uploads

Each image seems to include a huge amount of metadata, which is copied to every downsized or thumbnailed version. So on image File:A young couple sit on a sofa holding hands while she coyly Wellcome V0039049.jpg, the 93-pixel wide thumbnail [13] is 400k in size, of which only 4k is image, while the other 396k is metadata (which one's browser has to load and then throw away before it can get around to displaying the image). This is a semi-pointless waste of bandwidth... AnonMoos (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm reading this as meaning the metadata in the EXIF rather than on the image page. If there is anything duplicative there (such as the EXIF containing the same data in different formats which Commons does not display and is unlikely to be used by others) we could consider trimming it by bot using an off-the-shelf EXIF manipulation module. Alternatively, if the data is 'thrown away', then this looks like something that could be better solved generically in the way thumbnails are generated by the wiki software. -- (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Landscapes is not a dustbin category

Well, you've done it again. You've dumped dozens of photos of statues, temples, islands, towns etc into the landscapes category. You have been doing this persistently since last year. It is taking myself and several other editors a large amount of time to clear your mess.. Could you please stop doing this? If you feel the need to dump images into an existing category, could you just dump them into the "Killer Whale" category or similar? They clearly don't belong there any more than they do in Landscapes, but at least those categories aren't labelled as being overcrowded. You really couldn't find a worse category in which to dump random images than the one that you have chosen. The landscape page says quite clearly that buildings, mountains and forests do NOT belong into this category, a point that I drew to your attention last year. Rather than suggesting useful scripts for others to clean up your mess for you, you might just persist form creating the mess in the first place? Thank you.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Using the search tool shows precisely 3 files from the Wellcome batch upload in this category. Since the last time you wrote I have uploaded around another 30,000 files in this collection, so the chances of this happening is about 1/10,000 uploads. The project is now 72% complete, so we might see another 3 files in this category. Most contributors would hardly consider this "persistent" or "dumping". Writing this reply took me about three times longer than removing the category from the three files in question, which I have done in parallel with no special tools. Your portrait of this being a mess needing "a large amount of time" just makes no sense to me.
See the fix explained at /2014#Commons:Categories and please avoid "over-categorization" 2. Thanks -- (talk) 08:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, you've done it again. You've dumped dozens of photos of trees, paintings, islands, towns etc into the landscapes category. Can you please just stop doing this? The page header says quite clearly that category is overcrowded. The page says quite clearly that images of mountains I have asked nicely multiple times for you to stop. Your last response that "we might see another 3 files in this category" is clearly nonsense. As I type this, there are at least 20 images that you have dumped into the category that do not belong there. And you just keep on doing it. Rather than suggesting easy ways for others to fix your mess, or telling us how fast it is for others to to fix your mess, or pointing out that (after other editors have cleaned up most of your mess) there are only a few images left.... you just don't make the mess? Seriously, just change whatever script you are using so that landscapes images get redirected to Category:KIller Whales or some category that isn't terminally overcrowded. Pictures of stone camels, junks and pagodas do not belong in the killer whale category, but they sure as hell don't belong landscapes either, and at least the killer whale category isn't going to suffer as badly from you dumping rubbish into it. Thank you.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

See the fix description linked above. The upload process already changed and I am not going to invest hours of my volunteer time preventing every possible scenario, especially when the behaviour of other bots is the cause. This upload has 100,000 files, please keep a sense of perspective. I am not a salesman, an employee and I am not paid to respond to your ranty repetitive complaining when you have the option of nicely asking me to correct minor problems. The files you mentioned have been removed it took me about 10 seconds, dealing with you takes much longer. -- (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

File:A T-wall painted with a 387th Human Resources Company sign is seen at Camp Liberty, Iraq, July 7, 2011 110707-A-HR697-083.jpg

File:A T-wall painted with a 387th Human Resources Company sign is seen at Camp Liberty, Iraq, July 7, 2011 110707-A-HR697-083.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:A T-wall painted with a 387th Human Resources Company sign is seen at Camp Liberty, Iraq, July 7, 2011 110707-A-HR697-083.jpg 14:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


Thank for your Barnstar, Fæ :) -- Lalupa (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

{{Autotranslate|1=|2=Files in Category:Flickr images not found|3=plural|base=Idw}} Affected:

And also:

A barnstar for you!

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Thank you, Fæ, for uploading free-use licensed media to Category:It Gets Better Project-related videos. Much appreciated. :) -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I found another overwrite sock with User:Fæ/BLP overwrites. A very useful tool with a persistent sockmaster like this one. I wish more people realized (and/or gave you credit for) how much you do for Commons and other projects... INeverCry 07:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
:-) -- (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this! A hundred times this! -- Tuválkin 20:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

File:A prototype exhibit of the flushing mechanism that works without water (13359256335).jpg

File:A prototype exhibit of the flushing mechanism that works without water (13359256335).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Leoboudv (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
This appears to be a research poster in the background with the prototype being the subject of the photograph. I believe this should have been a DR as it is not clear that the research poster is intended to be on a restrictive copyright (most UK universities now how an open licensing policy for all projects) and if this of indeterminable copyright, then the photograph could be easily cropped in half, leaving us with the useful photograph of the prototype flush mechanism.
As their website is unclear (apart from the website itself being copyright of the Bill Gates foundation), I have emailed the contact at
PS the contact is on holiday until 6th Nov, hopefully we will have something after that. -- (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done -- (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

OTRS help

If you need such help next time, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Face-smile.svg  revimsg 14:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

{{Autotranslate|1=|2=Files in Category:Photos by EnergieAgentur.NRW|3=plural|base=Idw}} Affected:

And also:

   FDMS  4    00:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


Vzeebjtf (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

{{Autotranslate|1=|2=Files in Category:Monument to Nicholas Yakovchenko, Kiev|3=plural|base=Idw}} Affected:

Yours sincerely, INeverCry 09:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

More incomplete HAER files

Non-urgent: some more HAER files that were cut off mid-upload; I guess you need to rerun it with chunked uploads like you did with User_talk:Fæ/2014#Incomplete HAER files: