Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Village pump)
Jump to: navigation, search
  Welcome to Commons   Community Portal   Help Desk
Upload help
  Village Pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' Noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
 
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
This project page in other languages:

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

Welcome to the Village pump

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. For old discussions, see the Archive. Recent sections with no replies for 3 days may be archived.

Please note


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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page


Search archives


 


Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals

Please help by translating these messages into other languages.
Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
Archive  • Discussion • Edit • Page history • Watch
Cast iron pump with handle dated 1875 in the form of a fluted column with Corinthian capital on a profiled, square stone base [add]





Oldies[edit]

Looking for a famous image of an alien[edit]

I recall a famous image of an alien that was drawn by/for a purported abductee/encounteree, and I would like to use it in an article. Someone here might recognize the image, I cannot find it here.

Basically it was a humanoid with few features, especially on the face. Instead, the head sported three long cones, two from where the ears would be, and one from the nose.

This image was widely featured in books I read in the 1970s and 80s. Anyone have any tips?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't tell anyone, but I am in fact an alien in disguise. So you can take mine, although I have only ordinary eyes and ears... Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;oD Yann (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Don't believe Yann. The selfies he is posting are retouched. He HAS three cones. ;) --Maxxl2 - talk 17:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Try Category:Aliens. --Túrelio (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Clearly the category does not contain the image in question. No one remembers this image? As I said, it was widely copied back in the day? Or am I just the oldest person here?! Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you mean the "Pascagoula monsters"? That's about the only one fitting your description that I could find. See here (scroll down), or just google the phrase in Google's image search. Seems to date back to 1973. There was even a book about it (co-authored by one of the abductees ;-), Ufo Contact at Pascagoula, ISBN 0960855866. Lupo 21:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
.P.S.: [1] Lupo 22:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd say Lupo has it. There are multiple images of it at "Pascagoula Alien Abductors (Mississippi, USA)" on the American Monsters site. There are also Wikipedia articles at en:Pascagoula Abduction and three other languages, but no images there. --Closeapple (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Lupo, you rock! Yes, that's it definitely! Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Terrible choice of filter being used for image downsizing.[edit]

I've recently uploaded File:Engraving after Matthew Paris drawing of John of Wallingford (1255).jpg, which is an 1890s line engraving.

I was appalled at the amount of aliasing being shown in the Commons thumbnail. At this scale (434 × 599 pixels), the apparent horizontal lines are misleading artefacts, created by a poor choice of filter when the image has been downsampled, that should not be visible. At this scale the background of the image should instead appear to be a uniform grey.

The introduction of artefacts of this kind should not be acceptable. They can easily be avoided, eg by specifying that a Lanczos filter or a Mitchell filter should be used when doing image size reduction. (ImageMagick has code that gets this right; GIMP may be broken).

We should not be trashing the appearance of our images like this. Jheald (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have found better ImageMagick parameters/settings for creating thumbnails than the currently used ones, please share them so they could be tested. --Malyacko (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Jheald -- I'm not 100% sure what you're complaining about: the original full-size JPEG is full of strange wavy horizontal lines, and the resized thumbnail is full of strange wavy horizontal lines. Strange in, strange out... It's possible that if a slight blurring were applied with downsizing (instead of the slight sharpening which is actually applied), then the lines and background would become a texture. However, I'm skeptical as to how clean-looking the resulting image would be, and in fact the slight sharpening works well for a broad range of ordinary photographic-type JPEGs. The algorithm should presumably be tuned for types of JPEGs commonly encountered on Commons, not for unusual and infrequent special cases... AnonMoos (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so I've now uploaded a copy of the image reduced to 435 x 600 using ImageMagick's default settings: File:Reduced engraving of John of Wallingford, using Image Magick.jpg, using
convert engraving.jpg -resize 22.73% reduced_engraving.jpg done with ImageMagick-6.8.3-Q16 running on Cygwin
This is what the reduced image ought to look like (IMO). It's not actually a blurring filter. Technically, a Lanczos filter (or the very similar Mitchell filter that IM uses by default) is actually a slightly sharpening filter. But the important thing is that it is a filter designed with awareness of aliasing. (See also en:User:Jheald/image_resize_testing for an exploration of the effect of downsizing a test image with different filters in ImageMagick and in GIMP). What Commons is doing isn't absolutely as bad as it could be (we're not using decimation), but it isn't as good as it should be.
@AnonMoos: yes, the full-size image includes "strange wavy horizontal lines" -- it's a line engraving. But the point of a line engraving (as an illustration in a real book) is that when you don't look close up you don't see those horizontal lines, you see an even tone, which doesn't distract from the key lines of the drawing. That's what we ought to be showing our readers at 600 x 435.
Instead, what we are showing readers at 600 x 435 is a different set of (much cruder) strange wavy horizontal lines, which do distract from the key lines of the drawing, and which are aliasing artefacts produced in the image reduction process.
(To see that the lines we're showing are indeed much cruder, count for example up from the top border of the picture to bottom of the word 'Infirmarius' above it. From what we're showing at 600 x 435, it looks like there are 3 quite crude engraving lines in between. But at full size there were actually nine. What looks like three are actually artefacts, which misrepresent the underlying image.)
There's a simple fix for this, which is to use a filter in the image downsizing process that has been mathematically designed for the job. That's what IM does by default; and it's what Commons ought to be doing, because it should not be acceptable for images of line engravings to be trashed in this way. Jheald (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Mathematically designed for what job? The problem is most of the images on Commons are photographs, and you can't compromise their quality to improve the quality of engravings.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The treatment of such photographs wouldn't be noticeably affected. (Try it for yourself with ImageMagick -- or load a big photograph into Firefox, which appears to use a filter similar to IM's in image downsizing). It's specifically periodic structures with spatial frequencies close to multiples of the pixel spatial frequency that give problems -- periodic structures like the almost parallel lines of line engravings -- and this is what appropriate filters specifically notch out. But for most images you will simply never see a difference -- unless they are images with particular periodic structures like the bricks in the example image at the top of the en-wiki aliasing article. Jheald (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
If Commons were to use e.g. the Lanczos filter, there could maybe be performance issues? At least the popular image viewer and converter tool IrfanView has a "slow" warning accompanying the Lanczos option. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, performance problems make more sense than actual artifacts from scaling photographs. Lanczos is the default scaling algorithm for both Firefox and Chrome, and nobody complains about such photos looking bad. However, due to performance issues, what they actually do is a linear interpolation initially, and then replace it with a lanczos once the slower rendering is finished. I'm not sure how viable that method would be for Wikimedia. Trlkly (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Remember that most images served by Commons (especially the default 600px views) are cached, so the image downsizing would only need to be calculated once. So yes there might be a performance hit, but it wouldn't be as if the algorithm was being re-run every time an image was served. Jheald (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I know. But I still think a staggered approach might be worthwhile. Use the current method when files are first uploaded (or even a faster method), but cue up a lanczos transformation that can take as long as necessary. That way we wouldn't run into any timing restrictions (like we do with large progressive JPEGs). Once cached, of course, there's no performance penalty at all. Trlkly (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I would be concerned if we caused problems for photos of bricks (or insect eyes) as a side effect of improving our treatments of engravings. Is it technically possible to have per-image control of the thumbnailing? If not, could we submit this as a feature request? --99of9 (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@ 99of9: With bricks, insect eyes etc, any issues will be issues in our present rendering of such images, which should be fixed by using a more considered filter. Jheald (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
While I would also really like more options for thumbnailing, there is an interim solution. Just upload your own thumbnails and use those in actual articles. Have the thumbnail's description include a link to the full sized image. This is how we currently handle problem with SVG rendering as well. If this only affects a few files, this is probably the only solution we'll ever get for a while, as other problems will take priority. —Trlkly (talk) 04:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I should clarify that, while there may be some similar problems with thumbnails, it's really the standard Commons 600px sized views that sparked my concern. Yes, people could make there own 600px images and upload those, in the same way that we sometimes upload alternate versions for ultra-big images; but I think that would be a pity on a number of grounds. Firstly, because in most cases people wouldn't do it, and it would be a lot of work for those that did. But also, because it would silt up the system and image categories with unnecessary duplicates; because the images that were actually better quality would still look crap in preview, so people wouldn't realise they were actually better quality; because we'd still be providing poor images at intermediate higher resolutions, rather than the best reference-quality images we could for those resolutions. And I think finally because there are so many images of engravings already on the system -- eg the works of people like Category:Gustave Doré -- which I think people don't realise how significantly better they would look, if the resizing had been done better.
Yes, most of the images on the system are not engravings. But that is because Commons is so huge. There are a lot of engravings here, and the number is increasing as people start to systematically upload the illustrations from out-of-copyright 19th-century sources -- eg the million Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection images, and perhaps in future systematic uploads from the Internet Archive's 19th-century scans. Some of these images are really good (what's available is well worth a browse), but people will be more motivated to upload them if they can be sure that when the images get to Commons they will be shown properly, rather than full of Moiré patterns and other garbage from scaling artefacts. Jheald (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, then, I'd say it doesn't just affect a few images. I was thinking that maybe not all engravings were affected, just ones at a certain resolution. In that case, sure, we should file a bug report. It's clearly possible to set thumbnailing settings, as we can set TIFFs to produce either JPEG or PNG thumbnails. Though, honestly, I think the staggered approach I mentioned would be better--few users are going to know to use the special options. And it would mean an increase in quality for all reduced images. (Here's an example where I had to upload my own thumbnail due to aliasing.) Trlkly (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, its possible to add new thumbnailing options. It does add extra complexity though. There may be some resistance to adding it just for specific edge cases (or maybe there won't be, not 100% sure, just mentioning the possibility). We currently use image magick for resizing images, but with the -thumbnail option instead of -resize, which I guess is for speed(?). In my test of that particular file, -thumbnail took 0.278s vs -resize taking 0.940s (The true test though is big images) . For reference, the command we use is something like: '/usr/bin/convert' '-quality' '80' '-background' 'white' '-define' 'jpeg:size=435x600' '/var/www/w/git/../phase3/images/8/82/Engraving_after_Matthew_Paris_drawing_of_John_of_Wallingford_(1255).jpg' '-thumbnail' '435x600!' '-set' 'comment' 'File source: http://localhost/w/git/index.php/File:Engraving_after_Matthew_Paris_drawing_of_John_of_Wallingford_(1255).jpg' '-depth' '8' '-sharpen' '0x0.4' '-rotate' '-0' '/tmp/transform_4dbf5d5a8a4c-1.jpg' (but with some of the paths changed, obviously). Bawolff (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
As for performance (This is off the top of my head from things I've heard second. Possibly entirely wrong. Take with lots of grains of salt). I believe image scaling has typically been more worried about memory usage, then it has about CPU time. The image scalars don't exactly look overloaded cpu wise [2]. However, I do believe that the multimedia team has been concerned with latency on uncached thumbnailing hits (particularly in relation to media viewer), so they would probably be opposed to increasing that latency further. Bawolff (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Having now just uploaded ca 150 more engravings, of London in the 1820s (Category:Metropolitan Improvements (1828) Thomas Hosmer Shepherd -- some renaming and description still to do), most of which show this problem at least to some extent, I'm now even more convinced that something needs to be done.
Re Trickly's delayed display suggestion (ie: show uploaders a quick rough and ready downscaling, but queue those newly uploaded images for a higher quality downscaling), I wonder if that is necessary. Small thumbnail images, as presented by UploadWizard, should be possible to generate pretty quickly whatever the algorithm. When (or if) the uploader then clicks through to see a 600px version, waiting one second should not be too noticeable.
More generally, there seem to be two ways to go about organising a fix for this. One would be to add some sort of MAGICWORD to the description page of images that need more careful downscaling, that the software would then pick up and take note of. But this would require uploaders to be aware as to which images could benefit from such an option; to be aware that the option did in fact exist; and to remember (or be bothered to) apply it; including adding it to all our old images. The other option is simply to use the more careful size reduction for everything, and if that requires another server rack to be bought, then so be it. I think the second option is the one we should follow. Images are held on Commons not just for Wikipedia, or for casual viewing, but as a reusable resource for the whole world. If we're aiming to provide reference versions of images at particular pixel sizes, then we should be aiming to provide as clean a resource as we can, and not compromise quality. In connection with which "-quality 80" also seems quite mean. If we see ourselves as creating a resource for the world here, we should be aiming to provide resource-quality images. Jheald (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

John of Wallingford's Shield of the Trinity diagram[edit]

By the way, File:Reduced engraving of John of Wallingford, using Image Magick.jpg is about what I was expecting -- the mysterious lines and the background intermix to form a overall "dirty" texture, and the image doesn't end up looking overall too clean. I'm not sure that there is any resizing procedure which would make this type of engraving (which is not a usual type of engraving) look clean...
P.S. Since John of Wallingford was mentioned, if there's any scan of the John of Wallingford Shield of the Trinity diagram available which is better than that at [3] available, that would actually be helpful for an article (the image at [4] isn't really worth uploading at Commons), thanks... AnonMoos (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@ AnonMoos: Is the image at [5] so bad? The est and non est relations are clearly legible, and the image could easily be cropped to just the MS page, without the other leaves, binding, background etc.
As per the links at the top of Category:John of Wallingford, Collecteana (c.1250s) - BL Cotton MS Julius D VII, the Cotton MSS haven't yet been added to the BL's ongoing Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts; and this one isn't one of the ones that has been fully digitised yet. The hit at "Online Gallery" you have already found. The blog search is flaky, because of limitations in the Typepad's online searching, but it looks like there's nothing there. There is a hit at BL Images Online; but it's not one of the 430 images they released to Flickr in February and since uploaded to Commons. But I suppose it's possible that if you sent a nice request to the Manuscripts team (Twitter: @BLMedieval) they might be able to get some sort of release. Though I don't know if it's much better than what's already on Online Gallery. If anyone has included the Images Online pic in a published paper (typically 2000px), you might be able to scrape it from there. It doesn't look as if Bridgeman have it, so it doesn't seem to be gettable-at from any of their resellers. Looks like for the time being "Online Gallery" may be the only bet. Jheald (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
If the [6] image is cropped to just the manuscript page, then you get a 432x624 pixels image, which is fine as 432x624 size images go, but leaves much of the text either barely above or barely below the threshold of reasonable legibility. What's most interesting is not necessarily the standard text seen in Latin Shield of the Trinity diagrams, but the distinctive features of this particular manuscript illustration, which only come across in a semi-mediocre way at 432x624 px.
Thanks for info. As for contacting the British Library website people, I did have one success in pointing out a mirror-flipped image long ago (ca. 2005) before they completely restructured and commercialized the website, but my only contact attempt since then (to point out that the image at [7] seems to fail to match the description at [8]) appears to have been a complete and ignominious failure, so I'm not sure I really feel like begging favors from them... AnonMoos (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Remember that there are different teams at the BL, working in different departments/silos, who may have very different outlooks. (Which is one reason that the image categories for BL manuscripts now have anything up to six different search links to different BL silos, for Commons people looking for more or better images or cataloguing information re a particular MS).
BL Images Online is the commercial side, which I imagine is pretty commercial. BL Online Gallery is the former curatorial outlet, which I think is now pretty much a set of legacy pages that nobody around at present feels much responsibility for. Digitised manuscripts and Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts are both live, but (I think) supported by different grants, which may be why they don't appear to talk to each other. Finally there are the blogs, which are more informal. The last three (I think) are all run by the curatorial side, who tend to be *much* more positive towards content reuse (the Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts images, for example, are all explicitly licensed CC0). So if you got in touch with those guys, (who are also the people responsible for the @BLMedieval twitter feed), you might well have more luck. Jheald (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, but I don't really feel motivated to play another round of British Library contact information roulette at this time... AnonMoos (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Testing if a picture is already on Commons[edit]

Sometimes I upload a picture only to notice it already is on Commons, is there a quick way to check? Palosirkka (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If an exact byte-for-byte identical file has been previously uploaded (or uploaded and deleted), then the upload form should tell you. Otherwise you can search on keywords or do a TinEye search... AnonMoos (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. Or one could make a search for the source URL I guess. Looks like that doesn't work for too recent uploads though. Palosirkka (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
You can check for a byte-by-byte copy without uploading, given that you are running a modern browser, with FileAnalyzer. -- Rillke(q?) 19:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

April 12[edit]

What are the rules covering awards?[edit]

What are the rules covering awards?

I'm looking at OTRS permission for this image: File:Global Jurist Award.jpg

The permission for the photo seems fine, but I am concerned about the underlying copyright of the award itself.

I see that we have a photo of an Academy Award on Commons: File:ACMI 14.jpg

On the other hand, that file description says "This is not a valid license on Commons;" so I am puzzled.

I also need to deal with

File:2013 Global Jurist Award Presentation.jpg

That file is currently deleted, but because the permission was originally provided by someone other than the photographer. I now have permission from the photographer. This second photo includes presenter, recipient and the trophy, I think the trophy is small enough to qualify for de minimus even if the trophy alone is problematic.

How should I proceed?--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The first image should be nominated for deletion - it is a copyright violation. As to the second, you can ask it to be undeleted at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests. Ruslik (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

April 13[edit]

"Theshold of originality" in India[edit]

I was going over this user's uploads, and while some of them are (IMHO) above-the-threshold-of-originality copyvios- assuming user doesn't have permission- others are clearly below that standard and would be considered PD under US rules.

However, Commons requires that images be free both under the laws of the US and their country of origin, and these appear to be for Indian companies. The Threshold of originality article does not cover India. Does anyone know how that applies under Indian law?

Ubcule (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, The logo you nominated is certainly above the ToO. The other logos may be OK on this point, but may be be out of scope. The picture is a probable copyvio. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, but does your comment "the other logos may [my emphasis] be OK on this point" reflect Indian law on the threshold of originality? Given that India is a large country, it is probably useful for us that we have that information on record.
Yes, I agree that the nominated logo is above the ToO (that's why I nominated it! :-) )
I had my suspicions about the image too, mainly due to its low resolution. If you're confident that it's a copyvio, feel free to nominate it yourself. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

April 14[edit]

Change of colours after a move[edit]

Hi, this image completely changed colours after a move. How can this be resolved? --Eleassar (t/p) 12:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It is probably related to the fact that this tiff file uses jpeg compression. Ruslik (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
bugzilla:63907 --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status of wood samples?[edit]

I have a small book which has a box, containing 16 numbered wood samples, attached to it. No special treatment has been done to the blocks apart from the numbering, it's just a selection of the 16 different wood types that are described in the book.

While the book itself is clearly a copyrighted work, what is the status of the blocks inside the box? Can a scan of the blocks be uploaded with a public domain tag? - Anonimski (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you upload an example image? Ruslik (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Here it is: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:16_wood_samples.jpg
You should use {{PD-ineligible}} tag with these files. Ruslik (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I've tagged it now with both PD-ineligible (for the wood patterns) and PD-self (for the arrangement). - Anonimski (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of images in use by "serious" university project[edit]

The files nominated in this deletion request appear- after some investigation- to consist of images being hotlinked by a legitimate student project at the Tokyo Institute of Technology. Apparently, it's won an award and appears to have had quite a lot of work put into it.

However, the files themselves are arguably too specific to their original use to warrant in-scope retention at Commons. However, I do not wish the project to be broken.

If anyone has an opinion on this, could you please contribute at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Taku_Ueki. Thanks, Ubcule (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

How to fix the localization on the file pages?[edit]

I just noticed that some parts of every file page are sometimes not localized on commons. I tried: to play with file pages with uselang=pl and setlang=pl options and sometimes the "Upload a new version of this file" is in English and sometimes in Polish. The same with "File usage on Commons" and "Metadata" section title and text. I could not see any pattern of when I would get one language or the other. Does anybody understand what is going on or can figure out under what conditions we get the wrong localization so we can fill a bug report. I hate reporting bugs which have 50/50 chance of being reproducible. --Jarekt (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

With 'uselang' it is in Polish and with 'setlang' it is in English. Ruslik (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Upload user statistics[edit]

Userboxes

It is now possible transcluding your upload count to your user page. A bot will update these statistics every 24 hours.

How can You use it?
  1. Create a subpage in your user namespace. For example, Special:MyPage/top uploads with the following content: {{UploadStats/alive}}.
  2. Wait 24h for the bot updating the page.
  3. Transclude Special:MyPage/top uploads{{User:Example/top uploads}} to your user page.
Example
  1. I created User:Rillke/testpage.
  2. The page was updated by the bot.
  3. Now I could use a fancy userbox, for example
    {{Userboxtop|extra-css=float:right; clear:right;}}{{MyGallery/userbox |1=Rillke |heading='''{{User:Rillke/testpage}}''' uploads }}
    {{Userboxbottom}}
Extending?

Admittedly, these I-have-soooo-many-edits-tools are not very educational (c.f. mission statement of WMF). However, if it is strengthening editors engagement — mission accomplished.

Anyone who feels it would be useful to extend to edits, all uploads alive (including overwritten)? Let me know. Here. -- Rillke(q?) 21:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Automatically created pronunciation recording files from Wiktionary[edit]

If a pronunciation recording gadget is developed and used by Wiktionaries, a considerable amount of pronunciation audio files will be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and a gadget will be installed at Commons so Wiktionaries can use shared code from Commons for producing these recordings. I believe this is in the interest of Commons as we will be able to adjust how the file description page is build and to specify the information that has to be present on it.

These files will be categorized by language or even dialect; the description will be automatically created. There is not a lot to say, except that I don't expect a lot of trouble here at Commons with these files/ file description pages. -- Rillke(q?) 21:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

+1 for hosting as many such files as possible. :) --Nemo 10:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

April 15[edit]

Queen Street Mill editathon (England)[edit]

We're running another editathon, at Queen Street Mill in Burnley, England, on 10 May. Photographers/ video makers will be welcome. Sign-up essential! Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Archiving[edit]

What happened to MiszaBot? Last auto-archiving run was on April 8. Does it have a problem with the WMF's SSL certificate change (Heartbleed)? Lupo 11:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Do these images need a third party review?[edit]

I came across a flickr contributor from Vancouver who uploaded several hundred before and after collages. They are beautiful. From his collages I selected and started to populate Category:Old streetcars in Vancouver.

This individual has marked their collages "all rights reserved". IMO, when the before portion of the image is old enough that it would be in the public domain in Canada, any of us could legitimately crop out their copyright "after" image, and upload the public domain "before" image. I do think the flickr contributor can legitimately mark their collage as all rights reserved. In a few instances they gave vague indications of where they acquired the before images -- like listing the main page of the Vancouver public library

I try to always spend an extra twenty seconds to inform flickr contributors who use a free license that I uploaded their image, and give them the URL to where it is being re-used here, to encourage flickr contributors to use free licenses, and also to help other Commons contributors from wasting their time uploading the image a second time. But I didn't do that in this particular case, since they didn't use a free license. In fact they used some kind of flickr-fu, that locked out flickr's regular download feature, and I had to use Mozilla's Page Info tool to download a medium-resolution image.

My two questions:

  1. Do other contributors agree that uploading just the public domain "before" images is legitimate?
  2. There is a mechanism where someone can request a third party to confirm that an image was found on a particular site, to be used when the source site is unstable, and the image may go away. This flickr uploader may remove these images. Is it necessary for me to request one of those third party reviews?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you simply get the originals from the City of Vancouver Archives? They have them available at much larger sizes. For instance, let's take this flickr image. You cropped out (badly, since the crop includes parts of the lower color image) the upper part and uploaded it as File:Southbound streetcar at Granville and Smithe - 1920.jpg. A very quick search in Google for "granville smithe streetcar" brought me to the web page of the City of Vancouver Archives, and a quick search there for "granville smithe" turned up the original image as a 3000×1993px scan as the 10th search result. I would have used that directly, and sourced it to the City of Vancouver Archives, bypassing Flickr completely. The City of Vancouver Archives also clearly state that the photo was PD in Canada. (BTW, note the left-hand traffic! So the photo was taken before 1922.) Lupo 09:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Only one of the two dozen or so images I cropped and uploaded, so far, gave any indication of where the collage-maker found the "before".
It sounds like you are familiar with the Vancouver Public Library site. That is great! I am not. Many sites with archives of old images are very hard to search. Congratulations on finding that one higher-res image.
Are you suggesting I am at fault for not looking everywhere for more original sources for those two dozen images -- when I think we already know they are in the public domain? Geo Swan (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting you were "at fault" for anything. I just think that using the originals from the City of Vancouver Archives is (a) easier, since you don't need to crop, (b) gives us higher-resolution scans, (c) better sourcing, and (d) sidesteps the first of your issues completely. Whether a {{licensereview}} template should be used even for the City of Vancouver Archives I don't know -- basically, that site could also go away, but it'd probably be overkill as they're very unlikely to change the license.
I am not familiar with that archive; I've seen it a few days ago for the first time. But their search function is very simple to use, and it appears that Flickr user got most of his "old" versions (at least those that are not old postcards) from there. I only spot-checked, but File:A streetcar at Hastings and Granville, Vancouver, in 1905.jpg is [9] (found by searching for "granville hastings 1905" at the archive; they even identify the photographer), File:A streetcar at Hastings and Granville -a.jpg is [10] (much better scan, creator identified; found by searching for "granville hastings 1908 bank"), and File:A streetcar passes the Manhattan apartments in Vancouver, in 1912.jpg is [11] (search "manhattan streetcar 1912"; again better reproduction and photographer identified). Finding these images took me less than five minutes. So I was suggesting to do a quick check at the City of Vancouver Archives search page to get better versions easily. Lupo 20:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
BTW, the postcard at File:A streetcar passes Hamilton and Hastings in old Vancouver.jpg is probably [12] (Postcard by Philip Timms). Unfortunately, that archive at UofBC does not have a digital version online. Lupo 20:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: but the Vancouver Public Library does have the original photograph: [13], albeit only as a small version. At least that confirms the photographer and dates it. Lupo 09:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Image from the German Federal Archive[edit]

I found this File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-R98690, Hitler und Franco.jpg. Is it valid? It does not seem to comply with the standards in the category. Regards. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

What standards does not it comply? Ruslik (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Not uploaded by the correct bot, but by an individual user and work of a photographer, whose works are still copyrighted in Germany. I've opened a discussion about that image at COM:Forum. --Túrelio (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Image has now been deleted. Thanks for notifying us. --Túrelio (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to you, Túrelio. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 15:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

April 16[edit]

Media Viewer Launching Soon[edit]

Media Viewer lets you browse larger images on Wikimedia sites.

Greetings! We are happy to announce the upcoming release of Media Viewer, a new tool for browsing multimedia content on Wikipedia, Commons and other Wikimedia sites.

This new tool provides a more immersive media experience for our users: they can now see larger images when they click on article thumbnails, right where they expect them. It was developed by the Wikimedia Foundation's multimedia team in recent months, with the help of many community members. We now plan to gradually release this tool in coming weeks -- starting with a few pilot tests this month, followed by wider deployments next month, as described in this release plan.

As we approach release, we would like to know what you think of this tool, so we can address any critical issues, based on your feedback. If you haven't already, we invite you to try the tool in beta as described here, then join this local discussion on Commons -- or this wider discussion on MediaWiki.org. Both discussion pages include a list of features we would like more feedback on.

IRC Chat: To learn more about this release, please join our next IRC chat, on Wed. Apr. 16 at 18:00 UTC at Wikimedia's Office IRC Channel. Hope to see you there! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, this is in 50 minutes! --Dschwen (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Value on print of The Temptation of Adam[edit]

What is the value on a print of The Temptation of Adam 1905 Karl Witkowski, How do I find this information please advise thank you Lois Arrigo -- 15:37, 16 April 2014‎ User:Lois Arrigo

Unfortunately, we're not art dealers or appraisers. You need to find one of those... AnonMoos (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

April 17[edit]

Low German or Low Saxon[edit]

Commons seems inconsistent with regards to whether categories should contain "Low German" or "Low Saxon"; c.f. Special:Search/Low German versus Special:Search/Low Saxon, and Category:1614 Low German Bible categorized into Category:Low Saxon. Which one should I use for new categories, and should I ask for mass renaming them? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Also of note is that Category:Low Saxon seems like a nonstandard category name, as other language categories tend to be called "Category:French language" instead of just "Category:French" for example. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I think Low Saxon is a subset of Low German, so ideally Category:Low Saxon should be a subcategory of Category:Low German or Category:Low German language... AnonMoos (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't think so; w:Low_German#Nomenclature. A quick Google Books search leads me to agree with that claim; there are works using "Low German" for the whole collection, and books using "Low Saxon" for the same languages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

April 18[edit]

Borked uploads at Category:Tibi (brand)[edit]

I've been uploading thousands of fashion photographs from Flickr using meta:Flickr2commons. It's generally gone well, but during a run of 300 or so images into Category:Tibi (brand), the following files seem to have been uploaded incorrectly. User:Magnus Manske, the flickr2commons developer believes it is a Mediawiki/Commons issue. The following files are -

I cannot reupload them through Flickr2Commons because the tool believes that these files are duplicates. I have not tried manually reuploading the files. Take a look, see if you can diagnose what went wrong. - hahnchen 12:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

maybe some sort of temporary swift outage occured during upload(?). I added those images to bugzilla:64071. Note, you can reupload if you use special:upload and check the ignore all warnings box. Bawolff (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
By the way, it also looks like you referenced a bunch of categories you did not bother to create. - Jmabel ! talk 15:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Now that it's noted in Bugzilla, is there any reason to keep these files? If not, please just delete them. I'd rather reupload them through flickr2commons rather than doing it manually. - hahnchen 01:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Adrianne Wadewitz authority control[edit]

Can someone please help me add {{Authority control}} to Creator:Adrianne Wadewitz ?

Also, how come it's not showing all the parameters I used for the "occupation" field ?

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Gadget-VIAFDataImporter is useful to accomplish the first task; you possibly have to allow your browser loading unsafe contents from VIAF.org -- Rillke(q?) 19:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Only the first four occupations are parsed by {{Creator}}: {{NationAndOccupation|{{{Gender|m}}}|{{{Nationality|}}}|{{#titleparts:{{{Occupation|}}}|1|1}}|{{#titleparts:{{{Occupation|}}}|1|2}}|{{#titleparts:{{{Occupation|}}}|1|3}}|{{#titleparts:{{{Occupation|}}}|1|4}}}}<br>}}
Someone with Lua knowledge could however fix this quickly or less quickly rewriting the whole template in Lua. -- Rillke(q?) 19:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

April 19[edit]

CommonsHelper out of service[edit]

Hello everyone, I inform you that CommonsHelper is not operational (...again...) and that it is annoying that cyclically this and other tools stop working. Please, unlock this...--Threecharlie (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@Threecharlie: This is the tragedy with tools running on Labs or Toolserver. Please consider commenting on Commons:Requests for comment/Allow transferring files from other Wikimedia Wikis server side so we can build tools not running on external servers. -- Rillke(q?) 09:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
FYI. --Magnus Manske (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


Are sounds of nature educational enough for Commons?[edit]

Dear Commons community. Someone shared an idea with me that within the Commons:Wiki Loves Earth 2014 contest Wikimedia Ukraine could have a special sub-nomination for sounds of nature. I think that would be interesting, but it would require some criteria for the sounds. And I wonder, what sounds of this kind would be educational enough for Commons? Sounds of animals - probably yes. And what about forest ambiance without distinguishable animal sounds? The latter probably not. What do you think? (there's http://freesound.org/ with a lot of nature sounds, but they don't have the educational requirement and they don't have a lot of sounds from Ukraine. So educational usefulness should be in focus if we want to create something unique). --YurB (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've uploaded a few media files from Freesound myself, see Template:Freesound which I've created along with Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Freesound for a list of sample files. However, I've limited myself mostly to files that clearly describe what species of animal the recording is about, for the purposes of Commons categorization and scope issues. Cases like sounds of dogs (as in an indiscriminate recording of a pack of dogs on any given day) might not have educational scope if we cannot even identify the type of dogs that are barking. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Also, you might want to explore a few files from Category:Sounds of nature and tell us what you think about them, in terms of scope or otherwise. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I think all of that is more educational than our huge collection of porn and crude drawings. FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
If there is something identifiable (i.e. the sound quality should be good enough) and a timestamp (date+time) when the recording was created plus the exact location, I think it's perfectly in scope. As for your example: It will help people getting an impression of how the forest sounds like at a specific time - which birds are primarily singing or when deer roars. Although possibly not that important for Wikipedia, for Wikivoyage it is, I could imagine. -- Rillke(q?) 10:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you all for your comments, they're useful. We'll think how to develop this idea. --YurB (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

WhatIsThat? tool for multilingual descriptions doesn't seem to work anymore[edit]

See here. Anyone knows what's the issue? Thanks. --Codrin.B (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The webservice died. @Magnus Manske: kannst Du mal webservice restart? Weißt Du eine gute Methode, um diesen Webservice zu überwachen zu lassen und bei Nichtfunktionieren e-Mail o.ä? -- Rillke(q?) 17:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Done. Someone at Labs changed something, killed a lot of webservices, but didn't restart them. Still cleaning up... --Magnus Manske (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I am now using a google apps script to monitor my most critical tools. Do you know a good free service/ less hacky approach with a public dashboard like status.wikimedia.org ? -- Rillke(q?) 23:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
@Rillke: https://tools.wmflabs.org/tools-info/migration-status.php ? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

April 20[edit]