Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
introduction
Help desk Village pump
copyrightproposals
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump

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

Please note


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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page


Search archives


 

Village pump and gaslight at a meeting place in the village of Amstetten, Germany. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


January 29[edit]

Dbachmann vs Jcb and JuTa[edit]

A week ago, Dbachmann (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) was blocked for disagreement with Jcb and JuTa over what to with files with bad license tags, for example File:Alhazen, the Persian.gif (histlogsabuse log). Edit-warring against two sysops should not be considered a good thing, really. But I ask the community to:

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, could you please just start following proper procedure as clearly explaned at your user talk page, instead of wasting our time with pointless questioning? Jcb (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Jcb, are you contracted for keeping “various maintenance categories” clean? I expect you are not, hence in any time you can step back from quarreling with me and Dbachmann and spend your time for things more productive. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
You are frustrating my work on 'more productive' things by counterproductive deviation from the processes. If you disagree with a license, don't remove the license, but nominate the file for deletion instead. I really don't think we ask to much if we request that you don't do counterproductive editing. It was not without a reason that Taivo declined the unblock request of Dbachmann. We are heavily understaffed, we can do without such stubborn actions. Jcb (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
All these accusations are very vague. I do not see any wrongdoings of Jcb or JuTa. but I see a very bad thing: removing licenses by other users. Taivo (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, where are regulations which castigate removal of forgeries in critically important fields as “a very bad thing”? This might create some overhead dealing with problematical files, but combats license laundering rather effectively. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
If Taivo refers to Incnis Mrsi specifically, then how many Commons members won’t really entrust me removal of rubbish made by causal uploaders? I can untangle cases even more complicated, see File talk:Zubr 002.jpg for a fresh example. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Taivo: thanks for your sane-minded intervention, but could you also wipe out the rest of fraud (namely “date=” and “author=”) please? I am unwilling to wage an edit war in the same page because it could be used as a legitimate pretext for block. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Incnis Mrsi, if your concern is simply the question of best prcatice, I´d recommend you don´t mix it with a personal conflict. The basic question seems to be whether "If you stumble upon an obviously inapplicable licence or author information and can´t fix it, remove the information and leave the field blank" or "If you stumble upon an obviously inapplicable licence or author information and can´t fix it, don´t remove the information but nominate the file for deletion" is the better solution. Personally, I think that Jcbs logic sounds plausible. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Which personal conflict? And again, File:La bandiera.jpg is not about to be deleted, it just needed fixes in {{Description}}, which Taivo eventually accomplished. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't even seen this discussion. JuTa abuses the minor edit mark and has been warned before about that. They should stop using the minor edit mark when reverting by more than one version and ideally also add a cleanup template that puts the page in a category for pages of which the history should be checked. If they don't stop, there should be repercussions but I hope and even expect there will be no need for that.

Jcb should have asked an uninvolved administrator to deal with the issue. Jcb's response above "Hi, could you please just start following proper procedure as clearly explaned at your user talk page, instead of wasting our time with pointless questioning?" shows absolutely zero respect for the community here. The people in this community are not your slaves. Instead of being open to a discussion about the shape and form of "the proper procedure", you just start slapping and blocking people who don't follow it.

The solution to all this shit (I'm pissed, can you tell?) is rather simple. And I'll once more waste my time explaining the solution, which will be completely ignored and everyone will simply continue banging their head against the wall until the whole building falls apart. There needs to be a cleanup-tag or something similar for this issue. "Nominate for deletion" should only be used when a user actually wants a file to be deleted/when the file is suspected copyvio. When this is not the desired outcome, it should be tagged. Preferably in a way that specifies what part needs to be cleaned or added: license/author information, layout, description and adds it to a category for this. There should be no time limit on this. When a user tags the file as needing license/author cleanup, a warning should appear on the file page that the license/author information has been tagged as possibly not fully accurate by at least one user and extra care should be taken to verify the license is valid before reuse.

In addition, to reduce the load on admins/OTRS/etc some serious changes need to be made to the upload wizard. I had started on a proposal, but the attitude I keep seeing from those in charge killed my enthusiasm. Have fun banging your head against the wall. - Alexis Jazz 21:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

So buddies… you (except for Alexis Jazz) weren’t interested in this case. Hence you have another drama now, which could be mitigated by timely reaction on this abuse. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

February 03[edit]

IRC office hour - Structured Commons - 13 February 2018[edit]

There will be an IRC office hour for Structured Data on Commons on Tuesday, 13 February from 18:00-19:00 UTC. More information, including how to join the meeting using a browser, is available on Meta. I'll post a reminder a few hours before the meeting starts. Thanks. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Reminder[edit]

  • Friendly reminder that this is happening tomorrow. See you there. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

How Google Photos is outflanking Wikimedia Commons[edit]

I've uploaded perhaps two thousand images to Wikimedia Commons, and could have uploaded thousands more, except the uploading process via the Upload Wizard is, as everybody knows, time-consuming and slow. I visited Italy and took 800 photos on my Android smartphone (which has time & location data via Google Maps). I clicked on 'share' and Google linked time and place data with each photo, eliminating the description & uploading fuss; Google shares it extensively with whoever it wants, and can use these images for their own marketing purposes. Google emailed me that my shared images were seen over 500 times over a few months. What does this mean for Wikimedia Commons? My sense is that it is both a problem and an opportunity, the problem being that over time Wikimedia Commons may become less relevant as the Google databases quickly eclipse the Commons ones, and also an opportunity in that it may be possible to somehow work with Google to import their images to Commons -- that is, to get Google to share their shared images.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You too can do bulk upload to WC without Wizard Commons:Guide to batch uploading. Also, Google images are not free to use. Google is a different horse. P.g.champion (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Sheesh I checked out the Commons:Guide to batch uploading and simply trying to read the instructions is intimidating.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@P.g.champion: Yes, obviously but there is no reason why in principle we can't have a tool to import freely-licensed work or somesuch. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The weak point is, that there many images on other sites that 'declare' they are freely-licensed when they clearly are not. So we should not automatically import them without human over-sight. P.g.champion (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, our goals differ. That said, our goals could be better met by imitating some of Google Photo's software features. For example Category:Media with geo-coordinates needing categories has nearly 200,000 pictures, and similar numbers of pictures could get better categories if Commons were able to convert long-lat to location cats.
I wouldn't recommend imports from GP in the way we get pictures from libraries and museums, but uploaders with accounts at both sites ought to be able to import their own from GP with metadata conversion. Of course, that's a bigger software job than merely reading coordinates and assigning a country or city or Universal Transverse Mercator coordinate system zone. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tomwsulcer: Forget it. While the upload wizard allows you to upload multiple files, it would have been very doable for it to also allow a zip archive to be uploaded. But it won't accept it. Commons is broken in so many places, I see no way to fix it. Such a shame. - Alexis Jazz 17:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
How is it supposed to allow you fill out separate forms for every images in a zip archive? Uploading multiple images with the same description is problematic; uploading so many that not being able to upload a zip file is exceedingly so. And zip files have directories and subdirectories, and various OSs feel free to add hidden files in there, and it's another potential security hole. Between the development work and the UI work, I can't see it being high on the list to do.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Hidden files and other rubbish are no argument. Any directory structure would be removed and only files with acceptable extension would be shown. Filtering automatically generated thumbnails isn't hard either. If the files already have a sensible filename (or a sensible filename for Commons can be aquired some other way) there is no problem. I do agree in the sense that the upload wizard has such massive problems that anything like this would indeed be at the bottom of the list. If such a list exists at all, I doubt anything has been done about the upload wizard in years. - Alexis Jazz 03:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Claim it's simple all you want, but I still see a dozen potential problems. The problems with "only files with acceptable extension" should be clear to someone complaining that .mp4 files aren't accepted. If it's important to you, write the code, or at least a very narrow implementable specification.
And no, a sensible filename is not "no problem". The filename is of marginal importance; all the descriptive text, infoboxes, license tags, etc. are what are really important.
It doesn't really look like a solution for a problem that Commons has. Commons doesn't really need more uncategorized, undescribed images.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
There was some discussion of adding support for zip file uploads back in 2010 on the wikitech-l mailing list. Some of that discussion spawned the Commons:Restricted uploads proposal, but in the end both ideas seem to have died from lack of interest. Kaldari (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Prosfilaes, I apologize - I obviously meant magic number. Or maybe I didn't. The current upload wizard selects by extension, even refusing picture.jpe while allowing the same file if it's renamed to picture.jpg. So if one would simply discard all files from an archive the same (not very smart) way the upload wizard refuses them now, it would take care of most of the issues.
If the files in the archive have a good descriptive filename, that can also take care of the description. License tags are important, but if you want to upload 800 photos that all have the same license, again, it doesn't have to be a problem.
It's not that important to me. It's just something that isn't insanely hard to support, even if it would be made accessible only to trusted users who understand they still need to provide descriptions and categories somehow. I'm personally not familiar with the code base. Say I actually would write that code. Then what? Same reason it's pointless to write any specification. - Alexis Jazz 12:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I have to say, it’s the first time I read that feature request (Uploading a bunch of pictures by sending an archive of them). It’s a bit unclear to me how that’s going to help − could you clarify what root problem you are encountering that would be addressed by this? Typically, if you have stability issues with UW when uploading multiple files, I’m not sure UW would work better with being shipped a ZIP of 800 files (that I expect would weigh several hundreds MBs?) Jean-Fred (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tomwsulcer: If Upload Wizard does not work for you, many tools may make your life easier, see Commons:Upload tools − the desktop application VicuñaUploader is, I understand, a go-to solution these days. Also, since you are using an Android Smartphone as your main device, you may be interested in the Android mobile app (I actually have a friend who takes pictures with his camera and uploads them from his tablet using the app − he finds it much easier). Jean-Fred (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jean-Frédéric: Okay thanks Jean-Frédéric I'll try to do the Android app when I get some free time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Google certainly abuses its market dominance to push all its products and kill the competition across the board, it's no mistery. Hundreds millions of Android users are enslaved by Google in return of some candy, e.g. to provide photos and other data about businesses to be used on Google Maps, Google advertising and so on. --Nemo 16:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Google has its own scope (like COM:SCOPE), does it? Also, I am not sure why it's the concern for Wikimedia Commons, whose mission is (way?) different from others, like free licensing and all that. BTW, I use Google Photos and Flickr... but not much. George Ho (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion on how to deal with INeverCry/Daphne Lantier[edit]

INeverCry keeps nominating images for deletion, though I have confessed before that I don't mind sockpuppetry if it's done for constructive edits like creating useful educational content nominating photographs for deletion with intimidating templates can be a major demotivator for potential new editors which is why I don't exactly see these nominations as something positive. That aside, INeverCry is currently community banned from all Wikimedia projects and also Foundation banned by the Wikimedia Foundation itself (for reasons publicly unreported) so as long as we keep accepting these nominations (as “a community”) INeverCry will continue evading their WMF ban as long their edits affect Wikimedia Commons. As a remedy to this I would like to suggest moving all nominations made by INeverCry to the user space of their sockpuppet as “User:[Sockpuppet]/Commons:Deletion request/File:[nominated file]” and if any legitimate user wants to nominate those images they can simply check Category:Sockpuppets of INeverCry for new requests. If we all send a message to INeverCry by moving all their deletion requests to userspace and ignoring them then maybe they will finally give up and leave the site alone as they still continue to switch between categorising and trolling. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 12:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The first step is to stop making noticeboard threads about suspected socks. Take it to IRC and approach an admin that has been dealing with these cases. Alternatively respect WMF's self claim of authority and email evidence to them, they are paid to do it, so if they do nothing volunteers should not be wasting time on it. -- (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Admins are happy with this, so why aren't you?
New users need to be demotivated. - Alexis Jazz 13:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Why only new? Related: Revision of Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
and another Jcb. Waiting him to make appearance here, after that. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
The best is to ignore. For one, I don't care who nominate a file for deletion, I decide on the merit of the case. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
As Yann says, decisions should be made on merit and not necessarily by who has nominated them for deletion. Equally, it makes no sense to delete correctly licensed or public domain images simply because they were uploaded by a blocked or banned user. If they are in the project scope, why should we not keep them? Why should we put ourselves at the mercy of disruptive people? (That’s a rhetorical question by the way). Green Giant (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
+1. I agree with Yann and Green Giant. Jianhui67 TC 10:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Green Giant about "Equally, it makes no sense to delete correctly licensed or public domain images simply because they were uploaded by a blocked or banned user. If they are in the project scope", but plenty of images have been deleted solely as "sock uploads" as can be seen here,, and personally I would welcome a content-centric change, but it's mostly the double standard that when I look in article history I find that many images were deleted by INeverCry for the exact same reasons that we are defending his actions now. I personally am neutral on letting INeverCry's edits stand if good edits in general would be based on the merit of the edit and not the editor. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
+1 - looking for merit, rather than tilted "4th times the charm" and "i doubt your license". when you have a cadre of admins, who appear to be here only to delete files, by whatever means necessary, it does not support confidence in merit. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: this looks to be a precursor of ideas of your compatriot Christian Ferrer, but I already explained – this demonstrably doesn’t work as envisaged by you both. Commons has no pool of sysops qualified enough to cope with this DoS attack with delreqs. Can we move the focus of discussion from the troll himself to the problem of processing banned content on the site? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Serbian Wikipedia 15th Birthday[edit]

Hi all,

Serbian Wikipedia is going to be 15-year old. They put a message on international list (here) to say how happy they were and how much they would enjoy to receive "Birthday photos" by photographers and contributors from all over the world. They created this category: Category:Serbian Wikipedia 15. The anniversary date is approaching quickly, I thought maybe I could post here to get people participating. (If it's not the right place, sorry and thanks for moving my message elsewhere, on a more adequate one Face-smile.svg) -- Wikinade (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-07[edit]

21:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

February 13[edit]

Special:Upload prepending...[edit]

Why is Special:Upload now prepending "== {{int:filedesc}} ==" to uploads even if that is already the first line (so you get it twice)? - Jmabel ! talk 01:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It may be related to this. Ruslik (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: any insight into this? - Jmabel ! talk 21:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Not related to my fixes/changes to the form script. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
It's reported to be since some days. Special:Contributions/OgreBot_2 Cleansup this. I've looked in relevant code and could not find something. Is the line inserted after or before submiting? (as the summary shows the line only once, which is strange too). PS: The first affected upload I found is from 2018-02-07T20:37:02 -- User: Perhelion 22:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Line appears in the file without being any part of what is submitted; appears twice if it is th start of what is submitted. - Jmabel ! talk 00:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Filled bug report. -- User: Perhelion 10:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Dismissal of deletion requests from “bad” sources[edit]

Wrote an essay (or a draft guideline) on dealing with requests from banned persons. Related also to this thread. Please, assess (especially such troll’s survivors as Guanaco and A.Savin). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I actually agree 🤝🏻 that their edits should still stand on their merits, and we probably shouldn't hurt 🤕 Wikimedia Commons in order to enforce bans so I agree that we should still process copyright violations as normal. Anyhow good luck with your propositions. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
this is good, but assumes that the deletionists (the same ones you interacted with) will actually abide by consensus. as we know, they are prepared to block people, or sock, to delete a file (with impunity) so not much hope there. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: I agree. Now what?
You might also want to take a look at File:Ameily Radke.jpg. The file is in widespread use now, so it won't be deleted. (according to the text on User:Slowking4) It was once kept by INC after nomination and another time had a troll nomination. What I find funny is that it would at least be questionable this "Ameily Radke" created this account. Actually after some digging I'm just gonna nominate it. Fourth time's a charm! - Alexis Jazz 13:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
here are the previous discussions: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ameily radke es vato!!.jpg; Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Selfies; Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ameily_Radke.jpg why don't you stop and nominate it the right way? do not inject me in your deletion drama, when you should be able to look at the file talk page. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Slowking4: I don't inject you into anything, I was just citing something from your user page. What, I'm not allowed to do that? And what's wrong with the way I nominated it? I just used the link. Did something go wrong with that? And why are you calling it "my deletion drama", what have I ever done to you? - Alexis Jazz 16:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Banned users are not permitted to edit. Their edits may be deleted/blanked. It isn't "hurting" Commons to do this any more than one might make an argument that an effective ban of any user capable of making mostly useful edits "hurts" Commons. The reason they are banned are typically social but occasionally legal (e.g. child porn, excessive copyright violations). A crappy out-of-source image was on Commons yesterday and is still on Commons tomorrow. Commons is no worse off than if the banned user had not edited, which is the status we as a community desire. Any action that makes it look like the banned user is "helping" Commons is likely to encourage the banned user to remain and increase the chance of social/legal issues recurring. The crappy out-of-source JPG is just so many bytes on the internet, whereas the social issues that occur when undesirable users edit affect real living people. For deletions with copyright or other legal concerns, the only parties that matter are (a) the uploader (b) the owner/subject and (c) WMF. Admins are never required to act on these concerns and I would not support a policy that appears to compel any volunteer or appears to make them responsible for fixing legal problems. It is misguided thinking that we should try to make use of the good bits of a banned users edits. Doing so simply converts the ban to "we'll let you edit and keep the good bits". It's a ban.
Btw, Incnis, please don't write proposals/essays with terms like "deletionist" and "inclusionist". Language that polarises groups is unhelpful. -- Colin (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Colin: if you adhere to this radical stance abandoned even by myself (an ardent opponent of blanket bombings for any case except as a reaction to mass uploads), then why didn’t you question actions by Jcb and Taivo which prompted the recent drama? Deletion of File:KKL Fakultas Kehutanan.png by Taivo wasn’t, actually, unique. I reacted angrily to this single case because Taivo overrode my edits to File: siding with INeverCry overtly against a legitimate member. You don’t like my language, but what should I tell if Taivo served INeverCry in less than two days, but essentially ignored my request? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think my stance is radical at all. It is what a ban means. You don't get to edit and your sock edits may be deleted. The difference between us is I would discuss with the others and try to come to an agreement, rather than just edit war. And ultimately I have an opinion but there is a limit to how much I care. I would very much like if admins and others would stop encouraging INC with silly ideas about having to honour his DRs. If Jcb starts restoring banned-user edits, and blocking people who disagree, then he will end up like Dennis who lost his bit via WMF. -- Colin (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Do you suggest that I would be supporting the presence of INC? I think you should know better. But there is a difference between 'reverting their edits and cleaning up' and 'semi-reverting their edits and leaving a mess'. And while you have continued to suggest that the block of Incnis Mrsi was a means to support INC, you should have known better on this point as well. The story with this user began here on 2 Februari in a case totally unrelated to INC. And what has blaming Taivo for having a real life (10 Februari) to do with INC? The whole discussion at AN/U was so short-sighted. Am I expecting too much if I expect that the people who usually populate that noticeboard look a bit further than the lenght of their nose? Jcb (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
How long will you bash me for the communication failure, Colin? Being subjected to overt insults I performed a way worse than more resistant Wikimedians could, but did you see that and this, indeed? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I see no links to a constructive conversation between you two guys. Jcb blocked the person he was edit warring with. On any functional wiki, he'd have lost his bit for that, or at least be required to agree not to do it ever again. -- Colin (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

February 14[edit]

Organisations on Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Generally speaking accounts operated by multiple people representing an organisation (such as the Swiss National Library) aren't discouraged on Wikimedia Commons, but I have seen organisational accounts get blocked in the past (mostly by INeverCry/Daphne Lantier, but also other administrators) which gave me the impression that such role accounts aren't both actively encouraged or discouraged. Personally I would prefer that if companies want to donate their images to Wikimedia Commons that they should be able to do so, so I would like to suggest this to be acceptable (for non-promotional accounts) by default, but before proposing this I want to know if there are currently any restrictions on these organizational accounts, and if the content they produce follows different copyright rules than those of individual photographers. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The advice continues to be that though role accounts exist, the questions and limitations this raises are not worth the hassle for any large upload project.
Past cases raised questions like:
  • Shared accounts where the project means using COM:GWT, which means the account needs to apply for special rights. This raises the question of how will the organization act transparently to ensure only the authorized person uses those rights?
  • How will the role account be managed over time? Specifically if serious problems are raised a year or two down the line, perhaps with mass deletions that need to be examined, then who will be the organizational contact responsible. In practice a year or two later, we find that nobody in the current organization has a clue about the Wikimedia Commons project, and cannot answer questions about copyright because nobody has the time or can get legal permission to do so.
  • Wikimedia projects value transparency, if the role account is shared, will there be a transparent way to log who uses it? Frankly I have never seen this done, which means role accounts tend to be deliberately opaque for reasons that can never make sense for our open project.
I know that the WMF and some affiliates use role accounts. In my view, they should not. The reasons for having them are weak and ill thought out, invariably just a way of avoiding basic ethical accountability and good governance. -- (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, I would say that User:Swiss National Library is a good example of a role account operated by multiple people, and they always sign with the current operator, maybe a technical feature can be added where edits by role accounts could be attributed to a name. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and the easiest way of doing that in the least bureaucratic way, is for them all to have their own official project use only accounts, like User:John Smith (SNL).
With respect to this example, I see 3 named people (not accounts), with access to this account and they are all named as concurrently "managing" it. By looking at this example edit, I cannot tell who made it. That's not easy for accountability, and I don't see why fellow contributors have to spend time investigating a one-off bureaucracy to work out who might have made the edit.
Looking at the history (which I was part of), Emmanuel Engelhart (EE) requested GWT rights for this account in 2014 when he was their Wikimedian in Residence, which was a fine decision by a bureaucrat at the time. The rights have stayed with the account ever since, though EE's name no longer appears on the user page, so presumably they are not coordinating its use any more. This means that Commons has given this important right indefinitely to a group, without any process of review, or expectation that the right would need to be reapplied for at any point in the future. In these circumstances, I would rather recommend that rights like these be granted for a specified project time, which could be extended on request, or expire otherwise. As you might expect, this has been suggested to the Bureaucrats in the past as good practice, it's in the archives somewhere. -- (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
corporate accounts work on German wikipedia. i do not see much evidence of abuse. so why all the english drama? it's all very tiresome, and leads to biting of good faith GLAMs and their exit from collaboration. i.e. commons has been harmed by enforcement of "user name", whatever the philosophical justification may have been. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
There are more serious issues around time consuming complexity, bureaucracy and the risk of being publicly embarrassed due to poor copyright review or lack of resources to ensure reliable implementation in their own archives to worry a GLAM employee. When it comes to managing accounts, if we just said "please avoid role accounts", hardly any GLAMs would care, they would just follow the rules. In many ways, giving lots of choices creates more problems than it solves. -- (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Visible WikiWomen Project[edit]

Hello team,

This is May Hachem, I am a wikipedian for almost five years now and project coordinator for Visible WikiWomen project. Kindly check here We will be expecting users to upload their images starting from March in accordance with the International Women's Day and for one month. I would appreciate if you could help us creating a category for the project and an upload wizard to make things easier for new comers. Please let me know if you have any questions. And Thank you! --May Hachem93 (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

MPEG-2 patents have expired[edit]

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M2/Pages/PatentList.aspxJustin (koavf)TCM 23:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hooray!!! ...Um, the MPEG-2 patents are still active in the Philippines and Malaysia. May we allow MPEG-2 content made in those countries? George Ho (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
True. And no, not yet. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
In the Philippines, a patent is protected for twenty years; in Malaysia, twenty years from filing date. Still, that's awesome for the US. IMHO, MPEG-2 would be not be appropriate for Extended Uploader rights at this time. How about treating access to an edit filter on MPEG-2 as a separate right, i.e. "MPEG-2 Uploader", for an indefinite amount of time until the last patent expires in each of both countries? --George Ho (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why we are obliged to reject MPEG-2 content made in those countries. There are policy reasons to generally reject patented formats, and practical reasons to reject formats where patents make them hard to handle; but there's no rule of the shorter term in play, nor is there any relevance to the file; parts of the encoding and decoding processes are patented, but that's not part of the file. We should absolutely not make it a stumbling block on our users that a format now patent-free is restricted in a few places; there's a lot more concern about uploading copyrighted images.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
To search for "MPEG-2" (with dash) and "MPEG2" (w/o dash), Malaysian Patent database and Philippine patent database are best to find. At the Philippine one, "Abstract" is more helpful to use for broader search; typing "MPEG-2" at ABSTRACT will result in two records. George Ho (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to do this. It's very hard to tell whether these things are relevant to our implementation of MPEG-2 (which may change), and it's likely you're missing some things that may or may not be (and may or may not be asserted to be) relevant to our usage.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

February 15[edit]

Long file names[edit]

File:I'm not a fan of this particular product (Mae Ploy FTW), but at least this Trader Joe's knows about lumpia! -Filipino -FilipinoFood -lumpia (15519652412).jpg. A lot of this replicated in the description.Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I claim my prize. The long filename is longest of my uploads, but there are some very slightly longer... -- (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Overview of Independence Street, with Building 1001 (administration building) on right, looking south, Naval Air Station Chase Field, Texas State Highway 202, east of intersection of Texas State Highway 202 and US Highway 181, Beeville, Bee County, TX.jpg sadly is a redirect now.
File:2015-11-05 16 37 37 View north along I-495 (Capital Beltway) crossing the American Legion Memorial Bridge over the Potomac River from McLean, Fairfax County, Virginia to Potomac, Montgomery County, Maryland and Cabin John, Montgomery County, Maryland.jpg is the longest I think. What do I win? - Alexis Jazz 23:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Tabs inaccessible / unresponsive[edit]

Since today I can not use any tabs on Commons. I can see them, but clicking them does nothing. No problems on Wikipedia with using tabs. It occurs on file pages, user pages, also here in the Village Pump, but not while editing this message. Then the Read and Show History tabs are accessible for opening by right clicking them. --oSeveno (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@OSeveno: Typical troubleshooting steps would be trying different browser/device, restarting them, logging out/in, etc. Also, bug reports generally require specifics, please see mw:How to report a bug for details.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I submitted an error report at phabricator. T187463 --oSeveno (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes in Special:Upload[edit]

When one tries to upload a new version of a file, among others they get Please mind our guidelines on overwriting existing files. You agree to publish your upload under the same license as stated on the file description page. message. How to translate it? Using uselang=qqx doesn't show the message name but message text in English. Also, wouldn't "bear in mind" (or, perhaps, "remember") instead of "mind" be better wording? --jdx Re: 19:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data on Commons - What gets stored where[edit]

Greetings,

Another month, another round of feedback needed for Structured Data on Commons. This request is pretty significant, as it deals with what file metadata gets stored where between the three future mediums: text in Mediawiki here on Commons, Wikibase (the Wikidata software) stored here on Commons, or in Wikibase on Wikidata itself.

You can find the discussion by following this link. It will be open formally for two weeks, but no decisions will be made at or by that time as this is part of the information-gathering process.

If you have not subscribed to the SDC newsletter yet and would like to get the new issue going out in March, you can sign up at any time. If you would like to get short talk page messages about new SDC feedback requests, IRC office hours, and other invitations to participate, you can sign up for that as well.

Thank you for your time. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

February 16[edit]

Special:Upload creating empty file pages[edit]

Special:Upload is failing to include any information, and instead uploading blank pages. The file itself is unaffected. See for example my recent file upload here. It doesn't seem to be affecting UploadWizard and other common upload forms, just Special:Upload.

A recent test upload that I made displayed the following error message: Error: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:UploadForm.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript at line 1609: Uncaught TypeError: UploadForm.saveForm is not a function

I am guessing it's related to the recent Mediawiki rollout, possibly from git #db223bc5 - mediawiki.special.upload: Reorder functions, but I cannot be sure. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Spelling: anonimus --> anonymous[edit]

Hi, anybody hanging around who is willing to take a look at this list? There are 955 left with the "anonimus" spelling of which I guess most of them could be corrected in one go. Thank you for your time. :) Lotje (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Semper Anonimus pseudonymum est – nihil corrigere. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi:, indeed, that is one of the few that need not to be corrected. :) Lotje (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:User extendeduploader[edit]

I have made this, but it is incomplete because I am unsure of the rest. Can some people perhaps translate for the template? I had based it off the film mover template and the translations are of the flemover perms and thus need translation into the respective languages. Those are, Bengali, be-tarask, German, Esperanto, Spanish, Persian (Farsi), French, Galician, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Malayalam, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Swedish, and Ukranian. Thanks. Artix Kreiger (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Translations would be good. It would also be nice if it had a slightly different image on the template then the file mover image to keep the level of confusion down slightly. Just a thought. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Sixflashphoto, removed the pic. Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Well I intended to mean a different photo, not the same one, but it isn't the most urgent matter in the universe. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I know. I just forgot to remove it. A photo hasn't been created yet. Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Artix, in my eyes it would actually be much better to delete all not adapted languages or at least to comment them out (did the last myself). — Speravir – 00:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Internet research agency indictment.pdf unreadable, but original upload isn't[edit]

The pdf file File:Internet research agency indictment.pdf is unreadable as presented from Commons but the original uploaded file is perfectly legible. Does anybody know how to access the document as uploaded so that the file can be viewed on Wikipedia?

The document is part of Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference into US elections, and is mainly about an organization often called "Trolls from Olgino"

Smallbones (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

A new version of the file has been uploaded and it is readable File:Internet Research Agency Indictment Feb 2018 with text.pdf. Can anybody say why the first file became illegible on Commons and have any suggestions on how to avoid it? Smallbones (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

February 17[edit]

End of Wikipedia Zero[edit]

FYI. No clear dates yet, but we're probably talking months or more. --Nemo 13:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

That's sad, I know a lot of people in the Kingdom of Thailand that really liked the service, well too bad, it touched so many lives. ☹ --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking for examples of alternative business models for organisations considering open licensing[edit]

Hi all

I'm compiling a guide for UN agencies on the steps to implement open licensing.

The piece I'm really missing is alternative business models to those which require traditional copyright. This include publishing books, images and other multimedia licensing and also data.

If you know of any existing compilations of information and/or any examples of organisations which have working business models please brain dump below and I will organise it.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you clarify how the business model matters to UNO publications? There are some examples in https://creativecommons.org/tag/publishing/ and other places on creativecommons.org. There are many publishers using CC or copyleft licenses, but it also depends whether you're thinking fiction, academic, other non-fiction, ... E.g. in Italy http://www.ledizioni.it/ . --Nemo 20:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC) --Nemo 20:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
There is Pixabay, which hosts user-submitted content under a CC0 license (release into public domain). They have ads and I don't know if they only make enough money to host the site or if it is a profit-making business. Although it does NOT use open licensing (so may not be what you're looking for), a business that doesn't rely on traditional "limited-rights" licenses are the subscription-based websites Storyblocks (images), Videoblocks (for videos, motion graphics), and Audioblocks (songs, sound effects). For a monthly subscription fee, you can download unlimited content and use it royalty-free, in perpetuity, and without geographic limitations, subject to a few conditions: you can't resell/relicense the content (but can use it within other content, like using a clip/image in a video), you can't use content from the site in logos/trademarks, and images with models can't be used in an offensive manner (subject to terms of model release). See this link for details about the licenses (full terms of license). AHeneen (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

February 18[edit]

OTRS needed?[edit]

THYR issues123 covers-b.jpg
I'm just wondering, do we need an OTRS on images such as this? The uploader claims to be the copyright holder, but I can't find any indication that he/she is in any way connected with the publisher, Dark Horse. I've noticed a number of similar cases listed under Category:Covers of comic books and was wondering how to proceed when copyright ownership seems to be unclear. AshFriday (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, we need OTRS. - Jmabel ! talk 05:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I emailed Dark Horse Comics about this and am awaiting response. George Ho (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Como contactar con los administradores de la imagen[edit]

Buenas, necesito ayuda. Quiero saber el origen de esta imagen: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planta_(pie)#/media/File:Pies_de_Hombre.jpg Me gustaría saber su origen, quien es la persona de la imagen. Como puedo contactar con el que la publicó?? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.154.78.159 (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Pies de Hombre.jpg es un imagen de ARTPOP-4-6L. puedes contactarlo en User talk:ARTPOP-4-6L.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: they “puedes contactarlo”, but do you really expect a reaction? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Incnis Mrsi It's not likely, but it's not impossible.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Google Images and direct links[edit]

It will be curious to see what's the effect of the recent Google Images changes. The agreement with Getty might be used to convey some Google traffic towards "curated" content à la Knowledge Graph, rather than let people visit other websites. The removal of direct links to original files might result in a bigger share of visits going to file descriptions on Wikimedia Commons and other Wikimedia wikis rather than to the files themselves. There might also be some changes to the frequency of copyvio uploads of thumbnails downloaded from Google Images results (though I believe most of those were through the cross-wiki upload). --Nemo 16:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Does complex collage avoid copyright?[edit]

Curious as to whether User:Stephencdickson's File:Pastel portrait of John Ure Primrose by Stephen C Dickson.jpg is permissible under Commons use of copyrighted images. It appears to be an old photo as can be seen at http://www.thegallantpioneers.co.uk/images/SirJohnUre.jpg, cut out as a collage on a new background with some pastel effects added over the top. Is this enough complexity and original creation to avoid any copyright problems that would arise from using the original photo? --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused. That page says the photo taken with a Canon EOS 450D. It does appear to be a creative work (not just some photoshop filter), but would it be free from the copyright of the photo it seems to be based on? (assuming that photo is not in the public domain yet) IMHO, this case is right on the edge. It seems like even a slight change to the angle has been made. Out of courtesy it should mention the photo it's based on. One could argue that if a painter had been in the same room where this man was posing for the camera, this could very well have been the result, independent of the photo. Of course, the painter wasn't in that room and it's right on the edge. - Alexis Jazz 17:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Not a liminal case, it fails COM:DW. Several past DRs for similar derivative types have come to the same conclusion. -- (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@: By liminal case you mean a case that's on the edge, do I understand that correctly? And by "it fails DW", do you mean it fails to be a DW because it's just a copy and has no copyright of its own at all, or do you mean it fails to be a DW because it is completely original and does not depend on the copyright of the photo? I would disagree with the former, I do believe this work has at least some copyright of it's own. I'm not fully sure if copyrights from the photo would be an issue or not. I'm talking about the legal side though, the rules on Commons may lead to different conclusions. - Alexis Jazz 17:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes.
WRT DW, the digital image may have copyright of its own so long as the process is not fully automated, but the copyright status of the original source is part of the derivative. You would need to absorb DW and have a browse through past cases to appreciate its interpretation. Wikimedia Commons has a conservative but fairly sophisticated interpretation of these legal terms. -- (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I still don't really understand if you are saying the image is a DW or not. Maybe I'm missing something. Legally the question would probably be: is the work just inspired by the other work or is it really based on it? When I look at it that way, I think it's on the edge. It's either heavily inspired by, or quite loosely based on. I am personally leaning towards being based on, but I do not find it a clean-cut case. - Alexis Jazz 20:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The works are redone as pastel images and the only "collage" is that I use a standard shaded grey pastel background... I would point out that other parties on Wikipedia/Wikimedia encouraged me to use the technique and I do not see it as "borderline! in any way. They are original works of art necessarily based upon what I can find historically as they obviously cannot sit for me. I studied copyright law for three years so if you think this is a breach please point me to the relevant clause in the law. I know it does NOT breach copyright which is ther whole POINT of me using this rather elaborate and time consuming technique--Stephencdickson (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC) As to the "canon" image I photograph eachj work individually...as pastel smudges if you scan--Stephencdickson (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If it's based on another work, the copyright of that work applies in addition to that of your derivative. As there doesn't seem like there's any question regarding whether or not it was based on that other work, it's a pretty straightforward case of DW. Regardless, it seems this is probably all moot. Based on this page, it seems highly likely (granted, not quite 100%) that this image is from before 1923 and thus quite likely in the public domain. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The question is: is it really based on it or just inspired by? You could make a work that is clearly inspired by another work without it being a DW. The photo was published in this 1924 book but it may have been published before that. - Alexis Jazz 00:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Stephencdickson: I imagine there are people who would be able to (perhaps you as well) to make a picture from this person from a completely different angle, just by looking at a photograph. Or with completely different lighting. In such a case, there would never be any question: it would obviously be a completely new original work. I do not judge how creative you are or how much work you have put into this - I just wonder if, were the author of the photograph to sue you, there would be any chance they could win. And I think such a case would not be completely hopeless. I wouldn't say they would win for sure either. This is like rephrasing copyrighted works for Wikipedia. Generally if you rephrase it in such a manner it can't be recognized as the original work anymore you'll get away with it. However, if you rephrase a complete Harry Potter book, you won't get away with it. Even if every single word is different. You get some copyright on your new version, but you will also depend on the copyright of the original. I do wonder who suggested this technique to you and in what context, do you have a link? - Alexis Jazz 00:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Source?[edit]

Waterfalls near Algeciras GWW.jpg

In the description under the only mentions George Washington Wilson. I suspect this comes from https://www.abdn.ac.uk/news/3984/ , but if so the source should be atributed. The date is certainly not in 2012. Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It's also found on http://campo-old-photos.blogspot.nl/ and https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-waterfalls-near-algeciras-gww-153124258.html. - Alexis Jazz 22:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The first one is good, but the second one tries to make money out of PD pictures. Really? Can all the pictures be uploaded from the first source? All are old.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

February 19[edit]