Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
Help desk Village pump
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


Stone village pump in Rinnen village (pop. 380), Germany [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


Another bulk process to delete large numbers of licensed files[edit]

Yet again, we have another poorly thought out change, then an automated 'bot process, assisted by another over zealous editor, setting itself to bulk delete licensed content.

Examples are File:The time before safety gear came around.jpg and File:Westhinder II.jpg. There are many more, look at the 'bot contribs history or the intermediate category.

The core of it is this: Should files uploaded in 2007 or 2008 under {{cc-by-sa}} be deleted as "unlicensed"?

This change was made last night by Josve05a, [1], changing {{cc-by-sa}} from a redirect to {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}} into a "no-licence" warning without a licence tag. This has rendered a large number of valid files as apparently "unlicensed". This change needs reversion ASAP.

The effects of the change have been made much worse by inappropriate behaviour by JuTa: they "reviewed" files in Category:Media without a license: needs history check "manually" by instead moving them en masse for deletion. " I used Visual File Change for this. This means I don't even see the file description pages when marking the files as "no license". " In what way is that meeting "needs history check"?!

Also raised here:

I think Josve05a should be seriously warned for this unconsidered and seemingly undiscussed change and JuTa should lose their admin rights, as this is not the first time. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I repeat my answer from my talk page:
Well, I used Visual File Change for this. This means I don't even see the file description pages when marking the files as "no license". There were more than 1500 files within Category:Media without a license: needs history check. And since about the 8 hours since I did it the last time there are now more than 700 in again. It would simply take much too much time to indivual check each image individual. If I would open each file decription page and each history and each source it would likely take about 2-4 minutes per image. This means 3000-6000 minutes for those 1500 images. Thats 50 to 100 hours or 20 to 60 days because I'm not working on commons 24*7.
If somebody else is willing to spent several hundreds of hours to check the upcoming images manualy, he/she is highly wellcome. There are again more then 500 in the queue.--JuTa 12:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
PS: In my eyes most of those images were never properly licensed, by that reason they need to be tagged as I did. --JuTa 12:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Let me paraphrase, "I have spent a lot of effort, doing something both tiresome and destructive. Now be grateful to me. None of you would do something equally tiresome."
The trouble is that, yet again, you have not the wit to either avoid doing this (it was worthless and damaging), to do it correctly (you ignored "needs history check"), or to realise any better way of doing it. This is a group of images that are already identified by a distinct tag template: they are a perfect candidate for automated processing, without anyone (even you) having to waste their time on doing a bulk task manually. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted Josve05a's edit. At the very least, this should be discussed first. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for raising this topic. I see some crazy deletion notification for my own works released under CC-BY-SA license. At the moment of upload they were properly attributed. Now someone decided I need some arbitrary field to this license. (I can't remember - something live 'version', or 'phase of the moon'). And if I do not add them, someone will delete my contribution to Commons. I have one question: If I die and someone decide that license now need not only 'phase of the moon' field, but something else, like 'active president of Zimbabwe at the time of upload', and I couldn't update images due to my death, will they been removed? If yes, do I really need to spend my time updating licenses if images will be deleted after my death due to template fluctuation?
Yann says he reverted changes, but I still can see deletion templates on few hundreds of my images. Exmaples: File:Шпалерная улица.jpg, and the whole list at the bottom of my discussion page: [2] #!George Shuklin (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment These are things that cannot be managed by a bot. Nor lack of time can be an excuse to proceed with an axe. I see lots of validly licenced files that only because of a change of template now seem to be unlicenced. This is a thing that must be fixed by hand, whatever time it takes. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If the files are still tagged, with a little luck (sarcasm) an administrator will delete those hundred of files with visual change, without even to have opened the files... Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry, I will take care of it if the reverted state is still the case in some days.--JuTa 14:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Please don't. I have no confidence in your competence to do so correctly, rather than simply slating them, unchecked, for bulk deletion as you have done so far. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
If somebody else likes to do it: fine. If not I'll clean up the mess I created. --JuTa 16:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
As I understand, these files were licensed correctly some day as CC-BY-SA. Now they are flagged as to be deleted. Why? This is completely not understandable for the related user. --Alexrk2 (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
The intention was good (to stop further addition of files with an ambiguous license); but the way chosen was not. Please follow the procedure as Sven Manguard did earlier. Jee 16:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
hey, do we have a consensus to desysop the barn burner yet? if not, you should expect periodic drama, when he is bored with a backlog. no sign of being able to follow directions.
this comment - "This means 3000-6000 minutes for those 1500 images. Thats 50 to 100 hours or 20 to 60 days because I'm not working on commons 24*7. For the reason why I mark them as no license, see the section above here." - is particularly worth of a block.
i.e. "i cannot be bothered to curate images, so i will mass delete them with an automated tool." Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 18:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Just adding my voice to the ones above. This deletion process breaks the prime directive. We are trying to increase the quantity of freely licenced stuff. @JuTa: is wasting his.her time an mine and great editors like @Slowking4, Jkadavoor, Alexrk2, Andy Dingley:. I have images that are labelled "cc by sa" that are going to be deleted because they lack the version number...what??. Images are going to be deleted that have been hand reviewed by an admin because they can't rbe read by someone favourite tool. I have complained at the admins user page and been told that doing the work properly would take too long... what??? There images are fine, the license is OK .... crazy to delete them. I sometimes go on holiday for a fortnight - does everyone have to check their donations every week to see if they are considered too troublesome to check. This is crazy! JuTa needs to admit its a big mistake and remove the senseless threats to remove images that are legal. Victuallers (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@Victuallers: I fixed your uploads. They won't be deleted. Natuur12 (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion: We create a template {{cc-by-sa-old}}, which is a copy of {{cc-by-sa-1.0}} (which it currently points to), except that it also adds the files to a maintenance category. (Because we don't have enough backlog, yet.) A bot can then change all occurences of {{cc-by-sa}} to {{cc-by-sa-old}}. After that we can replace the text of the former to the text proposed by Josve05a. The idea was a good one, the execution had rather unfortunate side effects. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Created a proposed template and a proposed category: Category:Files tagged CC-by-sa-old. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Mayby somebody could then write bot to convert all inclusions for uploads before a certain date, e.g. before 1 January 2009, to reduce the number of files that need human attention? Jcb (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
i see you are returning to your failed proposal to have a bright date line. just curate them all. show me you can fix a license. is there any evidence you have fixed a single license or source? what would you call that but malpractice? i have fixed over 1000 images' metadata. if i can do it why can't you? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick remark: As {{cc-by-sa}} has been a redirect to {{cc-by-sa-1.0}} since June 2005, I assume that it can be assumed that people marking their uploads with {{cc-by-sa}} since 2005 were intending to release them under a CC-BY-SA 1.0 license. Only for uploads older than June 2005 (Commons exists since September 2004) we maybe need to raise the question whether they meant CC-BY-SA 1.0 or 2.0 (version 2.0 was released in May 2004). Gestumblindi (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, there is this case, where the file was marked with {{cc-by-sa}}, because it was marked with de:Template:Bild-CC-by-sa on German Wikipedia, which actually referred to CC-BY-SA 2.0. I think there will be more cases like this. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
What the heck is going on here in the oh so peaceful days around the new year? Generic licenses without version numbers are just as valid as those with a specific version. And contrary to some assumptions here and the faulty redirect, a generic license always points to the latest version. Therefore we need perpetual generic templates and they should include a soft link to the latest version. Anything else is destrutive bodering vandalism. --h-stt !? 12:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
As {{cc-by-sa}} has been a redirect to {{cc-by-sa-1.0}} for more than ten years, I think we have to assume that users uploading their files directly to Commons with {{cc-by-sa}} since 2005 were intending to release them under CC-BY-SA, version 1.0. So, if the redirect were changed to the recent version, we would have to manually change the license for existing uploads to CC-BY-SA 1.0, it seems to me, as we can't simply assume that the uploaders actually meant "any recent version". Gestumblindi (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment on Category:Media without a license: needs history check. I and User:Zhuyifei1999 created this category to catch cases when images which were properly licenses one day suddenly lost the license template. For couple years I was daily inspecting files in that category and about 80% of cases had their license restored and in 20% of cases some user removed clearly invalid license without starting DR discussions. For such files I usually added {{No license}} template in clear cases or began DR process in less clear cases. In the last year I was preoccupied with other tasks and was glad that other users picked up this task. I find batch processing of files in this category by User:JuTa quite irresponsible. Batch processing should be restricted to Category:New uploads without a license as files in Category:Media without a license: needs history check were meant to be hand processed and in majority of cases fixed on the spot. Maybe we need to clarify processing instructions. On the other hand, User:JuTa might be the only person performing this daily task and for that I am thankful. Fixing those files does not require Admin rights, so anybody can help out, and that would free admins to concentrate on other tasks where (hopefully) they can afford to spend a little more time on doing the job right. --Jarekt (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment if it is irresponsible, then do something about it. there is clearly no prospect of responsible behavior from that admin. i am not thankful: better a backlog, than mass deletions. irresponsible behavior, is not an impetus to do maintenance tasks. why would i want to free up an irresponsible admin to spread his disruption elsewhere? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge
Slowking4, I am not tracking User:JuTa edits, but of what I observed in the past (s)he was doing a good job. This is a first instance I recall of edits I do not agree with. --Jarekt (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
i see a lot of false notices - i.e. here User talk:Jonnie Nord. the problem with mass deletion, when it is 80/20, is that it is not reversible. there is no way to track or correct admin errors. you should think about building a team to curate tagged files. but the "deletion to maintain quality" is dysfunctional, and tends to undermine the credibility of commons. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Of corse I viewed the files in both cases. And in both cases there wasn't a valid license template at that time. --JuTa 01:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Is right that the File:Unity 5 logo.svg lacked a license at the moment of uploading (I forget to add it), but, why don't added the right license (PD-textlogo) instead? This is another history, but for this case, how you ensure that the files actually don't have a license? Please stop tagging files with {{No license since}}, these actions are not helpful in any way. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, there were similar logos deleted as above COM:TOO in a specific country. In those possibly borderline cases I dont set it myself, cause I would then the person the copyright could blame, that should do the uploader. The second question I dont understand. I ensure that the image has no license by looking at the file description page and history. I allready stopped the mass tagging a week ago, that was only during "one night. That was because another admin changed a prev. valid license template into an invalid and I ran into this "trap". And I will continue to mark images without a license as having no license. --JuTa 16:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


The bulk of files tagged {{cc-by-sa}} have been moved to {{cc-by-sa-old}} by SteinplitterBot. The remaining files with the former tag needs to be moved by hand, either to {{cc-by-sa-old}} or the correct tag (for example, {{cc-by-sa-1.0}}). Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

All transclusions in file pages have now been replaced. Only a few transclusions in user (talk) pages and links remain ([3]). If no one objects, I will restore Josve05a's version ([4]). Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Mass-rename tool issues[edit]

Is anyone else having problems using User:Legoktm's massrename.js tool? I'm trying to rename all 91 files in a category and it does a few then stops. If I start it again, in a new tab or even after restarting my browser (Firefox 50), it does nothing. I managed to get it going again after restarting my machine (Window 10), but this time it made eight changes then stopped again. Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

While I remember that massrename worked very well a few years ago I sadly couldn't get it to rename even a single file when I tried to use it at several occasions in the past months. A fix would be very much appreciated.    FDMS  4    19:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
If I remember well, I used this script few months ago to rename several tens of images in one category, and it worked well. Last night I tested it, two times: by one time on one image in one category:) and it worked, but this may be not enough to detect bugs, errors. Maybe there are some specific cases when the script does not work (e.g. long/complex file titles or category name, large categories, etc.)?
Anyway, there are some alternatives (generic scripts for all type of wiki pages):
  • en:User:Plastikspork/massmove.js - which is useful when is necessary only to add/remove some prefix to titles. (His version is available only for admins, here is one enabled for almost all user).
  • User:XXN/massrename.js - this works with two parallel pair lists of page titles (sources & targets).
These scripts probably are not so comfortable as Legoktm's script; they need to provide directly the list of page titles to work on (one can achieve these lists either with AWB, CatScan, DB query, or directly via API and then processing it with a text editor). --XXN, 14:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, XXN, FDMS: I've rewritten the tool a bit, the version from Legoktm has now also RegExp support (and using Commons libs) User:Perhelion/massrename.js. Be aware it is beta, so test it before. Cheers User: Perhelion 15:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


Screenshot made on 2017-01-10 15.45.13 of errors generated by User:Perhelion/massrename.js.

@Perhelion: Thank you. I've just tried that. After making just two changes, it threw the errors in the above screenshot. See also Ajax error reports. Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, Hedwig in Washington: Ok, next round for test, I've updated, thanks for the report. User: Perhelion 01:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
No change. Doesn't move one single file, that stinker. No error msg, tho. Tried Chrome and Firefox, both latest stable version. Here's a screenshot of the new input box using regex. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Screenshot of input box generated by User:Perhelion/massrename.js.
@Perhelion: The script is not even loading for me, now. Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hej, yes, sorry, I'm working on a better version this days. User: Perhelion 19:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

January 08[edit]


Can someone stop this shit? Block the person who uploads the shit on my name.

  18:33    Category:Santo Domingo Province‎‎ (238 bewerkingen) . . . . [Panoramio upload bot‎ (8×); Jos1950‎ (230×)]:

--Jos1950 (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure I can follow you. What is the problem? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Someone upload more than 250 flies with shit Panoramio pictures in Category:Santo Domingo Province I have moved them to Category:Controle DR (250 operations). . . --Jos1950 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC).
Would you mind not swearing repeatedly? Also, have you contacted the operator of that bot? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
FYI, user Jos1950 has nominated for deletion ~300 files > Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Controle DR. --XXN, 20:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but if you see the fliles nobody is happy. The bot operator is often pointed to the uncontrolled uploads, see User talk: Shizhao. Stop that bot, please ?? --Jos1950 (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The images were from two batches. I moved them to either Category:Houses in the Dominican Republic or Category:Ciudad Modelo Mirador Norte. - Takeaway (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Speedy kept and closed. @Jos1950: I consider this DR a hair below vandalism. A hair below because today is a day to stay mellow.
  • a) Most files are within project scope. Read about the project scope if you don't know what you are doing.
  • b) Tagging the same files 3 or 4 times makes processing difficult. I had to let a script run several times to remove the your SHIT, if I may borrow your wording.
You need to read about the project scope and you need to learn how to tag files properly. Further, you need to read about staying mellow. If I find you swearing here again or creating unwarranted mass deletion request I'll teach you how to stay mellow by blocking your account so you won't get agitated and damage this project. I hope that was clear enough? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: You don't get the point. It's vandalism to upload tons of files without sufficient description and without proper categorization (which is not the same like tagging). Commons loses it's usability for NORMAL PEOPLE if they get back a lot of bullshit when searching for photos.-- 12:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. RTFM. It is disruptive editing to mass-dr files that are clearly in scope. You're clearly not making mistakes. This will be rewarded with a nice 3 day break, now you can swear to your hearts content for 3 days. In case you get tired of insulting the project and its users, you might want to read as I suggested above. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: I'm wondering, is this IP the same person? The tone seems quite different from the "20:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)" edit above, but toollabs:whois seems to suggest that this might have been used as a proxy (hosting provider in Singapore). I don't think CUs will check this case due to privacy policy, but I believe the talk-page-disable on User:Jos1950 should be reconsidered. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Send someone to RTFM and ask for a treatment less disruptive is not a good polite practice --The Photographer 13:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with read the fine manual as far as I am concerned. You should take a peek at the mass DR before you hit me on the head. I don't stand here and listen to a user insulting others and provoking after warning. 2017 is the year to be mellow. He has time to be mellow now and read our manual. In between he can swear a little at himself in the mirror. But not here. I don't want to make time and take this user by the hand and show him the basics; the basics of Commons and the basy ics of acceptable behavior. I can't think of anyone here willing to do that. We are not babysitters, certain behaviors can and will be expected. Throwing a Mass-DR party is not one of those behaviors. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
all that drama for 250 files? we should build a team to curate the incoming Panoramio files. mass deletion is not a quality control process. there seems to be a lot of ownership of categories. there needs to be a lot more ownership of metadata cleanup. so no- i will not be helping this editor, or any other editor who adopts his practices. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 14:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I've personally dealt with a comparable number of Panoramio files that have come into Category:Seattle the last few weeks. It's been a bit frustrating, and not all of them are very good photos, but I've gotten them classified (with the exception of half a dozen or so where I've started a deletion process because they were probably copyvios: not outright theft of pictures, just photographs of copyrighted artworks). If there are more than you can cope with coming into Category:Santo Domingo Province, make a subcat like Category:Santo Domingo Province - Panoramio photos to be categorized. Crisis solved, no information lost, no need to delete potentially useful files. This sort of thing often happens on mass uploads, and this is a mass upload under a deadline, since Panoramio is being shut down. - Jmabel ! talk 16:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Maybe it is not the same IP, I got an new one-edit-account on my talkpage now. I suspect a meat puppet for canvassing. Cyberduck icon.png It looks like a duck to me --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I have a variable IP address, I am not a sock puppet. Jos1950

Hedwig in Washington, you're ready for a Sabbatical year. Why am I writing this here? Why do I think that?

I write this message further into Dutch, because then I can describe it better.

Antwoord op mijn eerste vraag.

Ik wil deze discussie niet op verschillende plaatsen voeren, omdat ik hier in het openbaar beschuldigd ben van diverse vandalistische handelingen, en zonder reden ben geblokeerd. Door de blokkade kon ik niet meer reageren en is de discussie verder uit de hand gelopen. Hierdoor was ik genoodzaakt een e-mail naar te schrijven.

Je schrijf enkele keren dat 2017 het jaar van Mellow is, maar in jouw tekst merk ik daar niets van. Het is grof als iemand, in het openbaar, op jouw manier wordt aangesproken en behandeld. Ik ken je niet, en volg je ook niet, want ik ben hier omdat ik het leuk en nodig vind om de category RD overzichtelijk te maken en te houden, en kan daarom jouw handelswijze niet accepteren.

Antwoord op mijn tweede vraag.

Het is abnormaal dat je iemand blokkeerd die het niet met je eens is. Dat is eigen rechter spelen en ondenkbaar in een democratische omgeving. En als je mijn woorden niet kunt accepteren moet je ze ook niet lenen en gebruiken.

Je bent in deze discusie acht keer gewezen op het feit dat je de verkeerde conclusie trekt of niet de juiste beslingen neemt, en nochtans sta je niet open voor argumenten. Daarbij gebruik je een agresieve schrijfstijl (niet mellow), en verwijs je naar een zwak argument om jouw standpunt te verdedigen (Duck) voor ongegrond bewijs dat ik een sokpop zou zijn.

Je hebt in deze discussie laten zien dat je volkomen ongeschikt bent om beslissingen te nemen op het niveau waarin jij hier functioneert.

Het lijkt mij onnodig om mijn acties voor massa deletion nog verder te verklaren. Zoals schreef "You don't get the point." en is dat ook op jouw talkpage uitgelegd, waarin je op dezelfde agresieve manier reageert.

Ik was gefrustreerd zoals ook anderen gefrustreerd raken van dat soort Panoramio uploads (lees hierboven), maar jij bent niet mellow wat je van anderen wel eist.

De spiegel hangt bij jouw. -- 19:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You insult people and the project and I am ready for a break? If it wouldn't be so sad it would be funny. You've admitted it yourself, you're using variable IPs. Just as I said, either variable IP and/or meat puppet use = DUCK. Not a weak argument but right on the money. BTW: Good luck with the email to wiki, I doubt I'll ever hear anything of it. Now you are breaking the rules again. Posting here using an IP is another reason to block or extend the current block, it is called block evasion. Regardless of whether you have been frustrated or any other the reason, behavior like the one you that got you blocked is not acceptable. This is not an aggressive behavior by me, but caused your own behavior. Don't confuse cause with effect. I don't know you either, and this is not a block out of animosity but because you broke the rules of this community. It seems democracy for you is you do what you want and we have to accept it. That's not how it works. Feel free to call a de-sysop procedure AFTER your block is expired if you think I am unfit to be a sysop. In the meantime stay away from editing on Commons, it will only get your main account permanently blocked. You can request deletions for single files if you like AFTER the block expires. You can do whatever the community guidelines allow you to do. In the meantime stay away from editing on Commons, it will only get your main account permanently blocked. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
It is obvious. You refuse to listen. -- 21:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
well that is news to me, that admins do not listen on commons. but you should put down the "i'm right and you're wrong" - it is a bad argument, even if true. you put on a maintenance category, so let's build a team to triage all this Panoramio junk. deletion is not always the answer. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

IP identified himself. I blocked user indef due to IP-socking. Further socks shall be handled with usual procedure for socking. I also removed the talk page-block, so they could add {{unblock}}. If the user shall ever abuse that right, feel free to readd that. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

you are wasting your time. you realize we have banned users nominating files for deletion as ip's? need to talk down "climbing the Reichstag" not block. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

January 09[edit]

Structured data on Commons Funding[edit]

Hi all, the WMF and WMDE just announced funding for work on Structured data on Commons via a grant from the en:Sloan Foundation. You can find the announcement at the Wikimedia blog. More information about the grant is at Commons:Structured data/Sloan Grant. If you have questions, please join us at the Structured Data on Commons talk page, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

A $3 million grant to be spent on Commons is impressive. I look forward to seeing it making real differences for this project. It'll be interesting to see how this is going to be measured and reported on. BTW, this means that proportionately $190,000 should be spent on files I've uploaded. :-) -- (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
This is indeed good news. Structured data is a huge chance for Commons if it is implemented the right way. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes!! Or better: WOW!!! Seems we are doing something right! , you have to subtract the deleted files and you get paid in shells only :-P! Thanks dear Sloan-Foundation! Thank you very much! Here's a link to the page on the Sloan website: [5] --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Well... If this Wikidata Commons will be developed with people not familiar with commons (which is likely...) then i am highly concerned about the outcome... There is absolutely a team of experienced commons people needed which is supervising the project and which can be contacted for questions. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: The grant allows us to hire two community-focused roles, whose jobs are to communicate with and help facilitate feedback from the Commons community and its broader contributor/reusers base within the Wikimedia Community (GLAMs, WLM, other Wikimedia contributors who rely on Commons for hosting free media). We also plan to spend time and resources researching different existing Commons workflows. We will definitely be soliciting feedback and conversations about community needs on a regular basis, and if you would like to be involved, make sure you are watching Commons talk:Structured data and, I see that you are already on the newsletter distribution list. Looking forward to continuing to work with you, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
i nominate user:Jane023 and user:Multichill. i.e. this has some expert commons help. (but then you have your names) go stroopwafels. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Move cat usage etc.[edit]

Template:Move cat doesn't document usage of its parameters. User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands shows at least 2 different usage examples:

  1. {{move cat|Nice, Palais de Nice|Palais de Nice|The first word "Nice" is unnecessary. ~~~~}}
  2. {{move cat|Old cat name|New cat name|3=Explanation|user=Your username}}

The 1st one results in a warning ("Username of requester missing (user parameter)"), and the 2nd one doesn't display the username (at least for me). Perhaps, something should be fixed. --Djadjko (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes, that is poorly documented in the template. Beyond the first two parameters (Old cat name, New cat name) I would strongly recommend explicit user=, reason= rather than anything positional. It is documented better at User:CommonsDelinker/commands/front. - Jmabel ! talk 00:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I've now done a minimal clarification at Template:Move cat/doc, which is transcluded into Template:Move cat. If you have further improvements to suggest, feel free to state them here. - Jmabel ! talk 00:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Fiddled around with the doc. One can now copy the template a little easier. Double click on entry (i.e. reason) highlights the text, just write over and done. Saves some time and reduces errors while changing the default to whatever you want. --Hedwig in Washington 18:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: if I understand it correctly, it wants just a plain username, not a formatted signature provided by four tildes... (Is there a shorcut for users to insert their plain username?) --Djadjko (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
What's wrong with using the shortcuts (signature)? You can double click the tildes and type your username by hand if you like, it's just more work. ;-)--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Just from a technical viewpoint, you need to use correct shortcuts. I don't know how the "user" parameter is used afterwards; if just a plain username (e. g., "User123") wanted, then something actually produced by 4 tildes (e. g., "[[User:User123|User123]] ([[User talk:User123|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)") could simply not work correctly. --Djadjko (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

January 11[edit]

.xls files from Wikipedia moved to Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Hello. I have a problem about the following files:

These files are licensed by free copyright, but they uses .xls filetype. Now the rule of Wikimedia projects cannot allow .xls to upload or transfer. I have a question: can we transfer these files to Wikimedia Commons, keep these files in Wikipedia, or delete immediately? Thanks! This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 07:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I looked onto zh:File:Yearpage01.xls and it looks like year page template. Why it's needed at all? Why such template could not be made in wiki-text or Lua? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
We certainly cannot transfer them to Commons. I don't know whether the policies of the various Wikipedias involved may allow these on those particular Wikipedias, but clearly they have not technically disallowed them. Issues of what to do with them on the particular Wikipedias need to be taken up on particular Wikipedias. - Jmabel ! talk 15:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Traditionally (as has been discussed in the archives of Commons talk:File types and elsewhere), Commons has been for media in a fixed visual, audio, or audio-visual form, and not really for abstract data which can be validly rendered in many different ways. That's why spreadsheet files and word processor files were not allowed to be uploaded. Of course .xls is also a non-free file format... AnonMoos (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

So, in WMF's policy, the non-free filetype should be extincted? This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 01:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
It's very old files and not sure that it's still be used. Maybe it's not be allowed to upload on Commons, but it's also not sure that it can be stored on anywhere, whether Commons not local wiki. --Cwek (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Something tells me the recent addition of tabular data may be the solution. Pinging @Yurik: --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Zhuyifei1999, thanks, I would suggest to look at the work @TheDJ: did at the hackathon - he created an importer/exporter from .csv and .xls files into a dataset as a gadget. --Yurik (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The flow of event means the probable creator of that file needs to speak up... What does the importer/exporter work at on excel files so their licences change from copyright to some more free forms of licences. Regarding the question by Taiwania Justo, has a kind of consensus already reached for this issue? Stretching the reply by Cwek, my question as a reply is how dataset, that used to be represented in .xls or excel files, is uploaded onto Wikimania Foundation sites? Stretching this whole issue further, attending wikimania gives the attendants insiders information that can be handy -- there is a benefit of attending Wikimania. Is that hackathon mentioned above by Yurik presented at Wikimania? :) -- Ktsquare (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

you mean the creator from 13 years ago? User:Shizhao. i'm sure they are happy where they are- they have the "do not transfer tag" for a reason. why don't you just save as csv file and upload? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 21:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean when you say they are happy where they are. Without asking at least User:Shizhao, how do you know if they are happy where they are. The discussions on this thread is talking albeit good ideas. Do you talkers and users who chipped in ideas want truth or talking? -- Ktsquare (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
That is what you see in history. I did contribute to that project of doing articles on years, decades and that user was also a contributor 13 years ago. Which I think it was unfair to me because somehow history of contribution is lost in the works. Off the top of my head, at least I looked at the content of that .xls file -- Ktsquare (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think a proper way to deal with those .xls files is to convert them into other formats. Like PDF or .ods. --TechyanTalk) 06:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

New Excel and CSV import and export userscript[edit]

Hi all, This week I created a script that makes it very simple to import or export a CSV or Excel file into a tabular data set. When enabled it presents two export buttons at the bottom of a page like Data:Sandbox/ and adds a "File selector" on it's edit page. I encourage you all to try it out and maybe we can turn it into a Gadget. For something purely javascript, it's working surprisingly well and it takes care of most of the data that I have been able to throw at it. If you have a file or dataset that is problematic, do let me know on my talk page and when I get around to it (and you are welcome to further evolve the script if you want to). —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 00:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @TheDJ: Using externally hosted javascript (eg. cloudflare) is usually frowned upon due to a potential to leak IP addresses to a third party without user's consent. Would you mind using toollabs:cdnjs instead? For labs we have a few tickets addressing this, but I'm pretty sure the same applies to gadgets as well. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @TheDJ: But still a question, some files have the marco. this factor should be solved. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 13:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

January 12[edit]

Translation administrators gaining noratelimit permission[edit]

Translation administrators who are not also administrators have reported hitting the rate limit when moving pages as part of the translation system. It is proposed to add the noratelimit flag to the translation administrator user group. Comments concerning this change are invited. Nick (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  • +1 makes sense, there are thousands of pages to maintain here. Nemo 17:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
maybe you need to rethink the rate limit. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 17:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I didn't know that there is such a problem… --jdx Re: 09:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Problems with Template:PD-South Korea. Also, how to deal with anonymous works by Korean artists?[edit]

I am trying to finish my guide to Korean copyright at User:Piotrus/KoreaCopyright, but it is stalled as keep asking for clarification of some issues on template's talk but nobody is answering, for months. So I am taking this here. There are two main problem. First, is that the Template:PD-South Korea contains unsourced claim ('This applies to copyrighted works of which authors died before 1 January 1963'). It is unclear what 'this' refers to, nor how the year 1963 was arrived at. See Template_talk:PD-South_Korea#Where_do_the_dates_1976_and_1963_come_from.3F. Also, can anyone help with the question on how to deal with anonymous works published in Korea? In a discussion last year User:-revi promised to talk to a Korean lawyer, but seems we still don't have any answer from that lawyer; in the meantime a friend of mine found a vague guideline that suggests one has to file a petition with the Korean ministry before any reuse of any anonymous work is allowed? (I cite relevant text in my guide linked in the opening). PS. Also ping users who participated in last discussion: User:Clindberg, User:HappyMidnight --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Generating Hierarchy of Dependencies Associated with a Wikipedia Page[edit]

Dear Wikipedia,

I love your site, but I think you can make it easier to use by enabling people to instantly print not only the page they've decided to focus on, but also all other Wikipedia pages that depend upon it (directly OR indirectly).

To alleviate any confusion, let me elaborate upon my problem statement.

Say that you have a set of Wikipedia articles. I’d like a feature that returns the complete hierarchy of dependencies that generates this set, starting from completely independent articles and progressing towards entries within the set of articles that I care about.

Here is a simple example of what I mean. Say that I’d like to implement this functionality for the following set of articles: A, B, and C. Assume further that article A depends upon articles F and G. Assume further that article B depends upon articles F and H. Assume further that article C depends upon article I. Assume further that article F depends upon article J. Assume further that article G depends upon article K. Assume further that all articles I haven’t described in greater detail are completely independent. That is, they don’t depend upon any other articles within Wikipedia.

In this situation, I would like this functionality to generate the following output, tracking the hierarchy of dependencies from completely independent to each member within the set of articles that I executed this function on: article A: J -> F -> A K -> G -> A

article B: J -> F -> B H -> B

article C: I -> C

The above was a VERY SIMPLE example, but I hope you understood it. If possible, I would also like this functionality to apply to an arbitrarily long sequence of articles (eg: A -> B -> C -> D -> E -> F -> G . . .).

Thanks for your attention, and all the best!

- Mitch —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Mitch. You are probably asking this in the wrong forum. You have found discussion forum for en:Wikimedia Commons project. Your question would be better asked at en:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or at discussion forum for en:Wikidata project. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, I suspect in most cases you'd end up printing out the whole of Wikipedia, or at least a big subset of it. --ghouston (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Virtually every Wikipedia page, if you repeatedly click on just the first Wikipedia article link, will eventually get you to w:Philosophy. Eyeballing w:Philosophy says that you'd get a huge subset of Wikipedia; it'd be interesting to see just how large, but even a rough eyeball says you've hit most of philosophy, history and math in a few links.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

January 13[edit]

AutoHotkey for Windows[edit]

AutoHotkey (AHK) is a free, open utility for Windows, that automates actions such as typing a particular string; or opening a programme or website. We've started to compile some example scripts for using it with Wikipedia and sister projects, at en:Wikipedia:AutoHotkey. If you have any AHK scripts that are useful when working on Commons, please share them there, or in a comment here. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Suppression image[edit]

Could a French-speaking experienced user take a look at {{Suppression image}}? It looks fishy. -- Tuválkin Tuvalkin 06:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Well, the English that is there now is an accurate, if grammatically challenged, version of the French that was originally there. The content seems kind of useless, although the template is transcluded into a lot of pages. It looks like a bad version of {{superseded}} that fails to indicate what is the superseding image. - Jmabel ! talk 16:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
redir to {{tl|superseded}? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd have no problem with that, but lacking the parameters that say what superseded it, the places where it is already used are of limited value at best. I think a first step is to add a maintenance category to all of these indicating that we'd like an argument added to indicate what they were superseded by, then we can do the redirect. - Jmabel ! talk 17:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Barbie dolls[edit]

Hello.It's a good suggestion that we add these files:

  1. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Barbie dolls
  2. File:Mother doll 1.jpg and File:Mother doll 2.jpg
  3. these deletion requests

to Category:Undelete in 2030 (1959+71).is not it?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Why 1959 + 71? The American Barbies will run through 1959 + 95 at least, and the copyrights on anything but the earliest will be arguably longer.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes:If when can they undeleted?in 2054?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Potrace at wmflabs[edit]

Hi guys, I just forked javascript potrace (tool for tracing a bitmap) and put it on wmflabs for anyone to use. This was inspired by the amount of commons images marked with SVG template.

I am thinking I might try to extend/improve the code of the tool but I would like to hear from you if the community is interested in such a thing at all. I dont want to spend time on it if you think that the preferable way for people to vectorize images will be using other tools that are already available, such as inkscape etc.

To summarise, do you think it is worth developing the tool? --Wesalius (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Cool. It looks like a client-only javascript, right? Why not host it here as a userscript or a gadget? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
It looks like it has the potential of being very useful, but since the output is only black and white, its current usefulness is probably very niche. If it could accurately handle colours, I'd probably be using it all the time for astronomical graphics. Huntster (t @ c) 08:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata Commons[edit]

FYI: Wikimedia Foundation receives $3 million grant from Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to make freely licensed images accessible and reusable across the web. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

It has been posted here. With only 3 comments :-/ . If implemented right this will be an amazing change! Amada44  talk to me 13:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
yes, i hear user:Astinson (WMF) is organizing. (see above Commons:Village_pump#Structured_data_on_Commons_Funding) i'm sure there will be plenty of cleanup after their bots run. in the meantime, check out User:Multichill/Same image without Wikidata or User talk:Multichill/Same image without Wikidata. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the grant will be a good thing if done right, unfortunately I have not been impressed by the WMF's usage of previous grants on the purposes they were intended for. Astinson is a good guy though so my hope is he will be able to keep it straight with the WMF. Reguyla (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

January 15[edit]

Licensing issues[edit]

I would like to know if a source can design its own license other than Creative Commons or other free ones. Can we use its contents in commons? If the answer's yes, what terms should it include enabling us use the picture in Commons. Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 15:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Different versions of an image[edit]

If a source uses Creative Commons phrase, e.g. "all Content by this web page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License," beneath its pages, does it affect the original versions of those images? I mean, if a file is licensed under CC, does the free license include higher resolution versions which are not available on that website? --Mhhossein talk 17:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  • This has been argued several times. There is a decent case to be made on both sides. My own view is that it does not. The reductio ad absurdum of this is to imagine a reduction of a work of art to, say, 4x4 pixels that accurately reflect the average color of each of its 16 similarly mapped areas. Certainly no one would say that if an artist released rights to such a 4x4 color field based on one of his or her paintings, then the painting was automatically similarly released. - Jmabel ! talk 17:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Jmabel. Do you mean that there's no consensus on that? How does Wikimedia Commons treat this issue? --Mhhossein talk 18:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Speaking only for myself, and with the caveat that I am not a lawyer. I would say that there is no solid consensus here for what the rules should be, but that there is certainly no solid consensus that anyone is on good legal ground to upload the higher-res image, and that if you did so and were sued, you would have no reasonable expectation that WMF would give you any support, so I personally would recommend strongly against doing such a thing. - Jmabel ! talk 18:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pinging user:Clindberg for more discussions, of course if he feels like to. --Mhhossein talk 18:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This depends on weather the original images are in public domain or not. If the original images had fallen into the public domain, the notice on the website with claim "all Content by this web page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License," does affect the original versions of those images regardless of the quality. If the original images are not in public domain, it's unreasonable to assume that they are in PD simply because a low resolution version were freely released under a CC license. This remind me of a controversial case involving the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation in 2009 in which User:Dcoetzee (banned by WMF) uploaded over 3000 high-resolution images here from the British National Portrait Gallery's database of images. Dcoetzee received a legal threat from NPG as a result. I don't know if his banned was connected to the issue. Wikicology (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • i doubt that was the reason. Dcoetzee took a maximalist position position with respect to PD, leading to the PD-art, which is his spirit. contrary to the caution above. i trust his actions respected the TOU here as at NPG, leading to the hot water.
  • that being said, i would upload the lower resolution. need to play nice with institutions, and show the traffic we bring to them, to change their minds about the higher resolution. long game. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If a license is given, it is only the copyrightable expression given out there which is licensed. If another "version" of the file has additional expression, then no, that additional expression is not licensed. So if someone licenses a crop of their painting, that does not give you any rights over the rest of the painting. The difficulty comes from the nature of "expression" in photographs -- it may be that a lower resolution photo contains all of the expression present in the higher-resolution version. If that is the case, then legally all of the expression was licensed in the low-res version. I don't think there have been any legal test cases on this matter, and it could be yet another area where countries have differences. For myself, I am not at all comfortable using alternate, non-licensed versions. The nature of paintings vs photographs make them completely separate questions, and it's possible that even if normally low-res photos do have all the expression, a photo of a separately copyrightable object (like a sculpture) may be different again -- a sculptor's permission on a low-res photo may well not apply to a high-res version of the photo, if that exposes more of the sculpture's expression. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

"Women's association football players from Norway"[edit]

I was adding a person to the category Association football players from Norway and happened to notice that men are categorised underneath this category and in a category tree directly underneath this category while women have a pretty much mirrored category tree underneath this category in Category:Women's association football players from Norway and prefixed with Women's. I did a quick check underneath a couple of other countries too and the same seems to be the case there. This kind of special treatment of women seems like a really bad idea and I know we have received some flack over this before in other cases. Either get rid of the category tree prefixed Women's or put men in a similar tree. Don't treat men as the general case and women as a special case. TommyG (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Was pointed in the direction of Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/01/Category:Association football players by country. TommyG (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

January 16[edit]

Mountain running pictogram[edit]

Hi, I can not find any suitable mountain running pictogram. Can someone make this? Thanks. Ssu (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hack tool to guess photographer possition[edit]

Hi, there is Jeffrey's Image Metadata Viewer (url removed), which from metada guesses photographer possition. Is here someone, who would be able create and keep tool on commons, which would ease to set categories to more images in time? Like we can work with files in PerformBatchTask by Rilke.--Juandev (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-03[edit]

23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

January 17[edit]

Inquire about "Male Lion and Cub Chitwa South Africa Luca Galuzzi 2004"[edit]

Hello.I see that File:Male Lion and Cub Chitwa South Africa Luca Galuzzi 2004 edit1.jpg is identical to File:Male Lion and Cub Chitwa South Africa Luca Galuzzi 2004.JPGIs it possible to avoid repetition?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

They're not identical. Look at the file sizes. The first one is an edit of the second one (hence the filename). According to the file description, it has had noise reduction applied to it. LX (talk, contribs) 08:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Discussed on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Male Lion and Cub Chitwa South Africa Luca Galuzzi 2004 edit1.jpg where it claims "noise reduced"... AnonMoos (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

URL to diff[edit]

Please can someone import the very useful en:Template:URL to diff from en.Wikipedia (or from Wikidata)? Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You probably meant en:Template:URL to diff? Ruslik (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes; fixed; thank you. Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I copied the files and adjusted the domain for Commons. The Lua module seems to work but I'm not sure about the template. --ghouston (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

January 18[edit]

Authorship of a modified public domain file-- who gets to claim it?[edit]

Hello, Pump! I have been having a discussion with User:Kevjonesin regarding the meaning of "authorship" on a public domain image which has had annotations added to it (the image is here: File:Opened scallop shell (with arrows).png). I had a look around Commons and could find no clear guidelines with regard to a situation like this-- I am interpreting the existing policy one way, and Kev is interpreting them an entirely different way that may also be perfectly legitimate (see his talk page for our discussion). I would like to A.) invite others to have a look at the situation and help us come to an agreement on what the correct outcome is, and B.) find out where the policy information exists that would have prevented this confusion (or does it exist?). Any assistance would be appreciated! Thank you! KDS4444 (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest folks start with a comparison ...
Here is the image uploaded by YuryKirienko to File:Opened_scallop_shell.jpg:
... to be compared with an image Kevjonesin uploaded to File:Opened_scallop_shell_(with_arrows).png:
... and then, if interested in further context, explore in detail the Wikipedia talkpage thread which KDS4444 linked above.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I made an attempt in the file page. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. ;) Jee 13:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Which I do like! The next question is, is that the correct answer? And is there a "correct" answer? KDS4444 (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
See my comments here and the links I mentioned there. (Here the source is CC0; so credit to source is not a must. But we can prefer it; CC too prefer it even for CC0 licensed works.) Jee 06:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
CC0 means you don't have to name the author when reusing the image. Still, it would be decent when you do name the author. I would say by adding some arrows and some letters to an image, it does not represent change significant enough, to be able to claim new authorship. The change should represent significant artistic and creative change, not just a brief explanation added to the original image. Respect (towards others) is at the basis of freedom. Feeling free to do something, shouldn't mean you can take liberties when walking a perhaps more gray area, where things don't appear 100 percent clear at first. When in doubt, do he most respectful thing. Besides this, the quality of the changes made to the original work are not of a very good quality in my opinion. Consider using a (freeware) vector image manipulation software like Inkscape to draw arrows. It would produce much better looking arrows. Just my thoughts on this subject. --oSeveno (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree -- there's no 'legal requirement that you mention the name of the author of a PD image that you've modified, and I don't think there's any strict Commons policy requirement to do so, but it's considered good etiquette to do this when uploading such modified PD images to Commons. AnonMoos (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Language selector[edit]

Hi. I've played with it few times but I still could not get language selector (drop down list box for select currently used language of text of file description page) working for my image. Could you please fix it for me for this file? I just want language selector like on this page. Then I fix all files in series myself. Thanks. Artem.komisarenko (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The second file shows the language selector because it transcludes Template:Picture_of_week_on_the_Czech_Wikipedia, which is translated. Ruslik (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks very much. Artem.komisarenko (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

January 19[edit]

Should I revise my categorizing practices ?[edit]

I encountered someone removing a number of the categories which I had added to an image I uploaded: -Category:1822 births; -Category:1900 deaths; -Category:Painters from the Netherlands; -Category:People of The Hague. It conserns the image File:Lambertus Hardenberg (1822-1900).png The categories I had added where correct in the sense, that the facts they represent are factually true. So, is there a reason why those categories shouldn't have been applied to this image ? Which Commons policy/cies is/are a factor in this case ? --oSeveno (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@OSeveno: The file in question is already in the Category:Lambertus Hardenberg, which is in the categories you mentioned above. Therefore, the categories are redundant on the image itself. See COM:OVERCAT for details. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Srittau: My mistake, I missed that this new category was created. Thanks! --oSeveno (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 16:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Russavia flickr spam[edit]

May we delete Category:Photographs by Melv L - MACASR (check needed), which are 73 fully uncategorized files uploaded by Russavia's most recent sockpuppet?--Moritz Rodach (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

No, the photographs are good quality and well within scope. They look pretty easy to categorize if you want to fix that issue.
As for the WMF's action in locking the account, this was noted as "Globally banned user", nothing was said about whom. Please do not speculate on things that the WMF has made no statement about.
By the way, I can see you are using a temporary sock, but just to make it clear to WMF legal, I have no idea who you are, nor have I been on IRC talking to anyone before responding. So no reason for the WMF to ban me for writing this, despite their past threats and ridiculous bad faith presumptions. -- (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

New Facebook group to encourage photographers to add their photos to Commons[edit]

Hi all

I've created the Wikipedia Photography Club Facebook group to try to engage some of the 100s of Facebook photography groups who have 1000s of members with amazing photos. I would appreciate it if you would join the group so that potential contributors can ask questions. I decided to call it Wikipedia Photography club instead of using the word Commons because it is much more recognisable to people not in the community.


--John Cummings (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

January 20[edit]