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
uploading
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


 

A village pump in Cork, Ireland [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


Oldies[edit]

Picture of the Year 2015 Results[edit]

The 2015 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Wikimedians,

The tenth Picture of the Year competition (2015) has ended and we are pleased to announce the results:

In both rounds, people voted for their favorite media files.

  • In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images.
  • In the second round, people voted for the 56 finalists (the R1 top 30 overall and top 2 in each category).


In the second round – the “three votes” was used – eligible users could vote for up to 3 finalists – each of these 3 votes counted equal.

There were 5822 people who voted in either round, and there were 1862 people who voted in both rounds.

  • In the first round, 3678 people cast over 175000 votes for all 1322 candidates.
  • In the second round, 4019 people cast 11570 votes for all 56 finalists.

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful media files and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 658 people voted for the winner, File:Pluto-01 Stern 03 Pluto Color TXT.jpg.
  2. In second place, 617 people voted for File:Nasir-al molk -1.jpg.
  3. In third place, 582 people voted for File:Heavens Above Her.jpg.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all voters for participating. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

"Smartphone haze" cleanup/maintenance tag[edit]

Most of us will be familiar with the "haze" that frequently ruins photos taken with smartphones. This is due to the lens glass being more exposed and prone to getting finger grease on it than was generally the case with traditional cameras.

(Typical example from a user who has too high a proportion of uploads exhibiting this problem. Actually, this example is worse, but was fixed in later revisions by myself.)

The {{blurry}} tag for me isn't really accurate. The cause is different, and the end result is different.

Does anyone else think it's a good idea to have a separate maintenance tag saying- in effect- "this photo was let down due to the photographer not bothering to clean off the camera lens"? Possibly phrased in a more diplomatic and neutral manner though... ;-)

One thing in favour is that this might help identify images whose fault can be fixed using a wide-radius unsharp mask (unlike a blurry image), which effectively increases local contrast- i.e. the exact counterpart to lens haze. OTOH, this logic might be taken by some end users to imply that as a "fixable" issue, we're endorsing it as being okay for people to upload lousy grease-smudged pictures, when it isn't really. (#)

(#) Why? First, because it takes someone else's time to fix something that could have been fixed in a couple of seconds by the photographer him/herself cleaning the lens beforehand. Secondly because the image is rubbish up till that point, and might not be worth the hassle of fixing (c.f. quality of this example again!). Thirdly because the processing (unavoidably) increases noise- or rather, makes it more prominent. And lastly, because such images are more likely to fall victim to overzealous in-camera NR reduction since the blurring makes the camera think there's less detail there than there is.

Ubcule (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point of the TO - and this is my reaction to it concerning one of the given examples: Commons:Deletion requests/File:'73 Chevrolet Caprice Convertible (Street Festival '16).jpg. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback; I'd actually started replying at the deletion request before I noticed you (the nominator) had already commented here! Ubcule (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:RKDimages versus Category:RKD - Netherlands Institute for Art History: A double ?[edit]

The RKD - Netherlands Institute for Art History is the owner of (amongst others) the online database called RKDimages. It seems here on Commons the two categories where created independently of each other. The category RKD - Netherlands Institute for Art History was created after several earlier (obsolete) names where redirected to it. I'm proposing to make Category:RKDimages a subsidiary of Category:RKD - Netherlands Institute for Art History. After that I'd like to create an institution template for RKD - Netherlands Institute for Art History. My posting this here is to find out if there are any objections. Something that I may have overlooked. --OSeveno (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

There also is a Category:Netherlands Institute for Art History and Institution:Netherlands Institute for Art History, which is not the correct name of the institute. It seems that someone thinks that the inclusion of RKD in the name is only for 'locals' of the Netherlands. On the English version of the website of RKD - Netherlands Institute for Art History they use the full name in English, including (the abbreviation) RKD. So, what to do here ? --OSeveno (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
If all the images in Commons come from their RKDimages database, then one category seems sufficient. If they come from more than one source within the organisation, then they could be organised as subcategories within a top-level category. --ghouston (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
It should be a source category named like "Images from Netherlands Institute for Art History" (that's the name used in the English Wikipedia.) A parent category like "Netherlands Institute for Art History" would be useful if there was something else to go in there, like a photo of their building. --ghouston (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes I have tried to puzzle these out before. I think there is a difference between "images in their dataset" and "images which are uploaded from their dataset". I myself am a heavy user of their dataset and will tack on a {{RKD|9999}} template to the file description. This template in my opinion incorrectly tacks on a category as if the image came from there, but I am just trying to offer the reader the documentation access. Jane023 (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

So you are adding the RKD template to images that have been obtained from elsewhere, but are for works listed in the RKDimages database? In that case, the category added by {{RKD}} could be something like "Art works recorded in RKDimages". --ghouston (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes exactly. See this one which I just uploaded: File:Willem van Haecht - Alexander the Great visits the studio of Apelles N08610-169-lr-1.jpg Jane023 (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, so what should it be, Category:Netherlands Institute for Art History, Category:RKD - Netherlands Institute for Art History or maybe Category:RKD-Netherlands Institute for Art History? They do like to call themselves RKD-Nederlands Instituut voor Kunstgeschiedenis, I'm not sure if that's their legal name or not. RKD is the abbreviation of their previous Dutch name, and it doesn't add much to the English translation. --ghouston (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

July 21[edit]

Spam or vandalism: Quickbooks[edit]

Hi,

There is a problem around Quickbooks A lot of new users uploading random pictures or pictures linked to Quickbooks with always a big description with phone numbers and repeated words.

By searching on Google a extract of the description, it seems that many wikis and user contents websites have been polluted by this flood.

Regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Reposted @ Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#Spam or vandalism: Quickbooks --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Looks to be the work of bots all done at the same time, you should be able to report the bots (listed below) and get the uploads removed. Offnfopt(talk) 23:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I've blocked all these and nuked the uploads, but there's more:

One proxy range I've found and rangeblocked: 104.200.128.0/19. This spammer is still creating accounts after that rangeblock, so more proxy ranges are involved. INeverCry 23:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Still going:

INeverCry 00:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

problem on image server (internal mediawiki error)[edit]

See for example : File:Flag of Germany.svg (file history is OK: we can see the images from the history up to end of 2015, but any image from 2016 onwards won't show, even if there was nothing changed since 2007 in the image itself, except the description page in May, but there was no issue since May for this image; so this looks like a problem in the description page incorrectly linked to the image thumbnail)

[V5JYMApAMFIAALoducMAAAAA] 2016-07-22 17:30:24: Erreur fatale de type « MWException »

Thumnail generator failure? Detected on another wiki where country flags are showing red links (going to upload a new image on the other local wiki) instead of the existing image from Commons. I suspect a storage issue (internal network filesystem). -- verdy_p (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

See the bug now reported in Phabricator. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T141132 -- verdy_p (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Note that this Flag image is used on lot of pages and many wikis (including outside Wikimedia projects). And notably on various homepages (see for example https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/ where it is used in the news panel). But the problem is effectively visible in Commons itself. verdy_p (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
For now I've restored the last 2015 version of the description page. Then I saw that I could see the content of the previous 2016 versions in diffs, but none of them render correctly (it is probably an issue in one module used by Template:Infobox flag, causing the MediaWiki page renderer to stop; I suspect some code bug with an infinite loop in Lua; in the last 2015 version it was using Template:Flag instead). verdy_p (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

July 23[edit]

Click-sensitive area around images in categories[edit]

Up until a couple of days ago, if I was on a category, to go to an image in that category, I clicked directly on the thumbnail, or directly on the image's name. In the last couple of days, this has changed; now clicking in a wide click-sensitive area anywhere near the thumbnail or its name results in being taken to the image.

This causes two serious problems:

  1. It is nearly impossible to highlight and copy the name of the image (to paste into a page elsewhere, etc.); trying to highlight the name results in the mouse pointer 'pushing' the name away without highlighting it, or else taking you to the image page, a time-waster waiting for the image to load.
  2. Using Cat-a-lot has become almost impossible, as there is virtually no place anywhere around the thumbnail which one can click to add the thumbnail to the Cat-a-lot set for recategorising, without sending you away from Cat-a-lot to the file. Sometimes there is a tiny strip below the bottom of the filename (where the file size is given) that can be used; sometimes not. If I have just successfully highlighted a large number of files for Cat-a-lot, and then just miss by a fraction of a millimetre, I get sent to the file and lose the entire set already highlighted, a total pain in the a***.

This happens now with two different computers I use, so it's a new fault in Commons, not in my computer. What's happened, and how can this problem be reversed, please?

Thanks! MPF (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I’ve noticed the same exact issue, and front the same problems. -- Tuválkin 16:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
@MPF, Tuvalkin: Workaround:
  1. Press the ALT key while selecting with the mouse (I do not know, how it is with touch sensitive devices). The download dialogue comes nonetheless, though.
  2. For Cat-a-lot click on the file size display, this works fine here.
— Speravir_Talk – 21:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • It still is a pain in the ass for people who use cat-a-lot. There is now just so little real-estate to click on without accidentally leaving the category. - Takeaway (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
As someone who uses cat-a-lot a lot (pun intended), I think this should be fixed in the gadget. This was always a bit of a problem with it, since I tended to click on a link by accident and often "destroyed" the selection. I think the right way to go forward is that cat-a-lot either completely overrides the click action, or adds a large "checkmark" while it is open. --Sebari (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree; disabling left-click when Cat-a-lot is open would certainly be hugely helpful. I'd not want right-click disabled though, as it is sometimes useful to be able to 'open link in new tab' to take a detailed look at a single pic to check if it should be added to the group for recategorisation. - MPF (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Looks like this was an unforeseen consequence of gerrit:298020 (phab:T139766). This feature has been disabled here on Commons since the dawn of time with a gadget, so I tweaked it now to more precisely restore the previous behavior: [1]. That said, I agree with Sebari, this is really a problem with Cat-a-lot – it should prevent you from closing the page accidentally (like the editor does), and it should probably just take over the entire thumb+caption for selecting it (you could still view the image page by middle-clicking etc.). Matma Rex (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
"(you could still view the image page by middle-clicking etc.)" — I fear I don't know what you mean there! - MPF (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@MPF: If you click on any link on any website with the middle mouse button rather than the left one, the new page will be opened in a new browser tab (or window). (On some browsers, you can also left-click while keeping the Ctrl or Shift key pressed to achieve this.) This often works even if left-clicking does something else (e.g. in a search suggestions dropdown). Cat-a-lot could also be written to allow this behavior when you middle-click the image or the caption, while taking over left-click for its selection behavior. Matma Rex (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Matma Rex: Thanks! Never knew that - just tried it, and it works. Very useful :-) MPF (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The easiest, most straight-forward way to fix this in MediaWiki:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js is to move line 1010 ("e.preventDefault();") up right below line 994 ("$box.bind( 'click.catALot' ..."). This way you can click anywhere on the file name box and it will select the box. For some reason, clicking on the image will still open the image page. I am investigating this right now. --Sebari (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Rillke: as someone who has edited cat-a-lot a lot in the past. --Sebari (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Migration of the Serbs[edit]

Hello! I'm translating w:Migration of the Serbs to w:es:Migración de los serbios. However, the pictures of the painting are local in en.wiki, and w:File:Serbmigration.jpg (and others) will not be in the public domain in its home country until January 1, 2028 since its author died in 1957. Nonetheless, the images are a photograph or a work of applied art published before January 1, 1973, and according to {{PD-Serbia}} I could transfer the files to Commons. Am I right or the files should stay in its home wiki? Thanks, ·×ald·es 15:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess a painting isn't "a photograph or a work of applied art". --ghouston (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
i guess commons is not a place to be trusted to keep a work of art under country rules, when it is not 70 years yet. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Do we still delete files based on URAA copyright rules?[edit]

Do we still delete files based on URAA copyright rules? I am asking specifically for File:Anders Donner portrait by Eero Järnefelt.jpg which has a bit of a convoluted history: The current file is a low resolution version of a file which I originally uploaded but which was then deleted based on URAA rules. I then uploaded it locally to fi-wiki (fi:Tiedosto:Anders Donner portrait by Eero Järnefelt.JPG), and now a low res version has been uploaded to Commons by User:The Copper Miner. Do we delete the current one, keep the current one or restore the original? MKFI (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we delete based on the URAA rules. So, even a low resolution file should be deleted from Commons. But I think it may be kept on fiwiki as fair use (if they allow fair use). Ruslik (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

July 24[edit]

Cat-a-lot not working properly[edit]

Cat-a-lot is not working properly today - see screenshot for details. I don't want to have to visit every file to edit the category with HotCat as that would take an eternity. Anyone know how to sort it out, please? Thanks! MPF (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Addenum - I was able to use 'Copy' to add the files to the desired subcategories, but 'Remove from this category' doesn't work, so now the relevant files are overcat'ed ... MPF (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Cat is Category:Dicrurus macrocercus (museum specimens). Behavior confirmed, but I'm at a loss, too. --Achim (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
MPF, please have a try now. --Achim (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep, working now, thanks! What was changed, please? - MPF (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Achim55: . . . . except just had the same problem at Category:Dicrurus paradiseus (museum specimens); oddly this time, not uniformly, Cat-a-lot did move some (46 moved, so far) but not others (80 not moved, so far) - MPF (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
MPF, the problem are invisible control chars (LTR marks I think) at the end of the cat links on some file pages which I removed now. Just noticed that the problem is mentioned here. --Achim (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Achim55: Thanks! So how do I deal with this if I run into it again? - MPF (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Achim55: Also running into it at Category:Dicrurus hottentottus (museum specimens) - MPF (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

How do you search for images that are in both categories?[edit]

Hi all

I'm trying to find a way to search for Wiki Loves Earth 2016 entries that are from specific parks and reserves (and it's pub categories), is there a way I can search for images that appear in both categories and https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=&fulltext=Search&profile=advanced&withJS=MediaWiki:gadget-advanced-search.jsot see images that only appear in one of them? I won't be able to do it by file name because of the multiple languages.

Thanks very much

--John Cummings (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

If you need to include subcats, use FastCCI. If you dont want subcats, you can use incategory:cat_name in the search box. Bawolff (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Bawolff, one question, when I use incategory:cat_name how do I add multiple categories? Do I use a space between them or a + or something? Thanks --John Cummings (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
you separate by a space and repeat the incategory (e.g. incategory:cat1 incategory:cat2 you can also seperate with a pipe if you want to do or queries. See mw:help:CirrusSearch for full details. There is also a gadget called advance search that adds a gui for this https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=&fulltext=Search&profile=advanced&withJS=MediaWiki:gadget-advanced-search.js Bawolff (talk)
Thanks very much Bawolff, I think that Fast CCI is working best for me, my only issue I have is that I want to add all the images that come up in the search results for being in the two categories to a third category Images from Wiki Loves Earth Biosphere Reserves 2016‎, but HotCat doesn't work with it, any ideas? I have about 200 searches to do, I've done around 30 so far and had well over 500 images to manually add to categories. Thanks again, --John Cummings (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
You can also use the list compare function of AWB to compare the contents of 2 categories as well. Reguyla (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Cat a lot maybe. /me doesn't know. Bawolff (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Reguyla, so if I had two categories and wanted to add a third category to all the images that appeared in both, this would be possible with AWB? I don't just want to find them, I want to add a third category. Thanks again, --John Cummings (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit-war[edit]

Threatens an edit war in the Dominican Republic. If I reorganizing files a user makes changes in his uploaded files and categories undone.

What can I do? --Jos1950 (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Who threatens an edit war? BD2412 T 18:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Als je de bedoeling niet kent en niet wilt afwachten wat het resultaat is moet je je mont houden. Dit soort opmerkingen snijd geen hout. --Jos1950 (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Als je de reden ervoor niet kent, kan je beter ook ophouden. Trouwens, zou je je niet een beetje netter gedragen? - Takeaway (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
If you do not know the purpose and do not want to wait and see what the result is you have to keep your mont. This kind remarks cut no ice.
I'm guessing that if you had been a more polite person, you might have written something like "I am busy recategorising media and I am in the middle of a process". Still failing to see where overcat might feature in the example I gave? And ermmm... "mont"? Is that very modern spelling? - Takeaway (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I had a brief look at User:Jos1950s edits and the user seems to be recategorising large amounts of media pertaining to the Dominican Republic. Most edits seem okay, some have problems with COM:OVERCAT and some newly created categories are not correctly categorised. Perhaps best to just let Commons run its course where other users correct what needs to be corrected when they come across any problems/mistakes. - Takeaway (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Dat ik zo reageer is het resultaat van de reactie op mijn vraag aan tm en de onwililigheid om daarover van gedachten te wisselen. Verder in "Beach in de DR" staan/stonden al enkele staden met een vermelding, waardoor ik dat in de hele DR wilde doorvoeren en ook met bruggen en religie enz. Overal de zelfde indeling, wat is daar fout aan? --Jos1950 (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
According to User:Tm, you, Jos1950, have removed crucial categories from media which, for instance, indicate locations and dates. As neither of you actually give any examples, it is very difficult to see who is right and who is wrong. As for your reply that you are allowed to do what you want with the media because it has been released on Wikimedia, this is not a good reply at all because it doesn't give you the right to incorrectly categorise media as User:Tm states that you are doing. I must say that during my brief look at your edits, I noticed a certain sloppiness. Even in the few edits that I had looked at, I saw that you have forgotten to correctly categorise newly created categories such as you did here, and you have added COM:OVERCAT to other files as I have already touched upon here above. If User:Tm is correct in that you have removed information from media (and removing crucial categories is removing information), then you are indeed not doing your job well. Perhaps you could slow down a bit? - Takeaway (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I did not have a chance to finish it because tm turned back everything. Also, I can not imagine that I have deleted data, because I did not change the files. As far as I know the history remembers everything. And I was just trying to give cat's a more clear indication time as you can see in e.g. Category:Operation Power Pack (review the history).
I also found it excessive that all black/white images were placed in more than one category and just wanted a reference to the original cat in "cat black and white images". It is not OVERCAT but OVER-INFORMATION. It is not alone a cat for tm. Of the US there are already 2 from tm with different data and there are more categories of black and white images of the DR (look at my latest additions). Should there be than a "cat black and white pictures 2" come up with another all images and 3 and 4?
I read COM:OVERCAT and know I do not put everything right straight away, but there is much work to do to find everything and to clear the DR. Every time a little and in between I improve the and my mistakes. --Jos1950 (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, once you know what images you are interested in "the history remembers everything", but once you have removed relevant categories it's hard to find which images might be of concern. About the only way to find them is to go through all of the files that have been hit by the editor in question.
May I suggest that if you are having major disagreements here that you confine yourselves to some well-defined, relatively small group of photos (e.g. maybe some one city where there are 100 or so photos of that city and see if you can come to some consensus about handling those, rather than ranging over the materials from an entire country? That would probably surface the issues and allow discussion & ultimately consensus without too much disruption along the way. And/or you might do well to create a temporary category marked with {{To check category header}} and __HIDDENCAT__ and add it to all of the images you are working on to make it easy to identify and review them. - Jmabel ! talk 15:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
A good suggestion. In User: Jos1950 I've a part for control and in the DR is a "cat Unidentified locations in the DR". I will expand it with a relevant category for newly found and to (re)post images or categories, so I not disturb directly. --Jos1950 (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

July 25[edit]

Why are those files in Category:Files with no machine-readable license[edit]

Files File:Fichtenrüsselkäfer (Hylobius abietis).jpg and File:Maria Vassilakou.jpg are in Category:Files with no machine-readable license, but do have valid license. How should we remove them? --Jarekt (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

They use non-standard permission templates. Ruslik (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I do not see it. I rewrote File:Fichtenrüsselkäfer (Hylobius abietis).jpg a bit so it transcludes Template:Attribution directly. Many other files use that standard license template and are not in Category:Files with no machine-readable license. File:Maria Vassilakou.jpg transcludes Template:GFDL, which is a recognized standard license template. I wonder if this file's issues are related to <div style="clear:both" /> tag Template:Pressefotos Die Gruenen and the file were using. --Jarekt (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
your custom Template:Attribution despite the verbiage does not include a license. you might want to fix that before someone nominates for deletion, like copyheart. your Template:Pressefotos Die Gruenen incorporates Template:GFDL which does include a machine readable license, but it is not carrying over. maybe you should put the original template:cc-by-sa-4.0 which is not equivalent, depending on your otrs. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 17:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I do not know Slowking4. Template:Attribution is a standard license template it has <span class="licensetpl_short" style="display:none;">Attribution</span> marking which AFAIK is enough to be recognized by mediawiki software as a license. 162k files use only that license, like File:Lachduif.jpg, and they do not end up in Category:Files with no machine-readable license. OTRS for File:Maria Vassilakou.jpg only says GFDL, and that template is also used on 4M files, some of them as the only license, and those other files do not end up in Category:Files with no machine-readable license. So what is different for those 2 files, and those are the only unexplained 2 files in that category. --Jarekt (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I "fixed" File:Maria Vassilakou.jpg by doing some cosmetic changes to Template:Pressefotos Die Gruenen. It still makes no sense. --Jarekt (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
File:Fichtenrüsselkäfer (Hylobius abietis).jpg is also fixed after rewriting some non-license templates used by the file. --Jarekt (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-30[edit]

19:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

July 26[edit]

Problems with e-mail[edit]

For a while now I have been having trouble with the e-mail user function on here. Normally, I would send e-mails and check the box for receiving a copy of my e-mails. On the English Wikipedia I have never had any problems with receiving copies of my sent e-mails. Since my e-mail access was revoked on there I have been using this site and Meta to send e-mails. Early on I would just have spotty instances where sometimes a copy would not get through and in other instances it would come through much later then when I sent it. As early as the middle of June I have not even been able to receive copies of any e-mails I send out with exactly one exception. Though I have kept records of the sent e-mails, they are not coming into my inbox or my junk mail. By all indications copies of my sent e-mails are just not being received. People still receive my e-mails through the e-mail user function and I still receive their e-mails through it, so it is only affecting copies of my sent e-mails. Given this has only been happening since I started using Commons and Meta for e-mail, I am wondering if this could be some issue with the e-mail user function on these sites. Have there been any others experiencing this issue?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably the DMARC policy of a freemail provider (if you use a freemail provider)? See phab:T130723, phab:T134886, phab:T136468, phab:T137337... --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Those all seem to involve complete inability to send or receive e-mails through the e-mail user function, but that isn't my problem. People have responded to my e-mails using the e-mail user function so it seems to specifically affect copies of my e-mails. Just now I attempted to e-mail myself using e-mail user, but I didn't receive it. Could there be an issue specifically affecting my ability to e-mail myself using e-mail user? That is essentially what it means when you have a copy of your e-mails sent.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
If you are comfortable with making this public: Do you have an email address configured that is a freemailer service, like Yahoo or something similar? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Could I just e-mail you so you can check if it is related to my e-mail service?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
@AKlapper (WMF): By all indications I can send others e-mails through e-mail user and receive them from others through the same service, the issue is just with receiving my own e-mails as far as I know. So, there would be no issue with me e-mailing you through e-mail user to see if it is something specifically affecting me or my e-mail service. Is that alright? Rather not mention publicly what kind of e-mail service I use.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what would be the difference between emailing me and emailing other people.... What's more interesting though is to know whether you use an email address that is a freemailer service or not. :) --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Tower or gate[edit]

Bern trolleybus 12 door poort in 2014.jpg
Is the bus passing a gate under one of Bern´s towers or is it a passage not undeer a tower. A have several pictures of trams passing this gate. I am surprised that there are no pictures of trams passing gates in Bern.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
It is the tower Käfigturm (Category:Käfigturm) at the street Marktgasse. The street sign can be seen at the left in the picture. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Could someone check out the date of File:Bern01.jpg? The original upload website is not available. I suggest renaming the file to something more meaningfull.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Interesting, it was originally 25062012 and somehow got interpreted as 2506-12-20 instead of 25-06-2012. --ghouston (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Featured pictures (manipolations)[edit]

Caused by Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Liège-Guillemins Station, Calatrava.jpg/2 I mean we have to consider how to solve such problems. I propose that we allow certain manipolations such as a single mirroring in Featured pictures , if it is mentioned in the description of the file. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Well to be fair, all photos are manipulated in one fashion or another. Cameras have built-in digital processing to improve the quality of images. Camera lenses also change the look of a photo, which can include focusing on a close subject while blurring the background. Filters can also be attached to camera lenses to further modify the results of a photo. Panoramic images are usually stitched together which is another form of photo manipulation. Adjusting brightness/contrast, color levels is photo manipulation. It is also common for photos to be taken in raw format and further processed by a image editor before getting the final result. So the question isn't if photo manipulation is allowed, it is. (pulling this number from my arse) but 90% of the photos wouldn't be allowed if we were only allowed to upload images that were the exact view of our eyes sight. I myself don't have a problem with it as long as in more dramatic cases like this it is in the description, so as not to trying to pass something off as something it is not. Offnfopt(talk) 21:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
In addition, it's (perhaps disturbingly) routine for nominees as FPC to have all manner of things cloned out, so that we sometimes get a view that couldn't actually be seen (for example, one without electric wires). I think that as long as the manipulation is accurately described, it should be left to the aesthetics of the judges to decide whether to feature the photos or not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright[edit]

Does anyone know if the site http://www.laromanabayahibenews.com is public domain? I can not find it. It involves image Santuario-Mamiferos-Marinos-Banco-de-la-Plata-Navidad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jos1950 (talk • contribs)

  • Under the Berne Convention, pretty much everything is copyrighted be default at time of creation, so I cannot think of any reason to imagine this would be in the public domain. Why do you think it would be? - Jmabel ! talk 22:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I could not find anything there, so I asked here. Did find an email address, go ask it there. Thanks. --Jos1950 (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

July 27[edit]

Danisch building[edit]

Overdekte overweg in Aarhus.jpg
There is a big new building in the harbour of Aarhus. What is the official name? Borgerservice Aarhus or Dokk1 as mentioned in some places and in the picture. So there is the correct subcategory in Category:Buildings in Århus.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
The building is named Dokk1 (sometimes spelled DOKK1): "Dokk1 houses the Aarhus Main Library, the municipal public services department, theater scenes, businesses and a large automated underground parking facility." Borgerservice is the Danish word for municipal public services department. And yes, there is indeed a railway running through the building. It will be converted into a tramway next year with a stop at Dokk1. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Designating copyright info on logo that I created and gave to a non-profit organization[edit]

I created a logo for a non-profit about a year ago, and gave it to them. Now I want to upload it for a new wiki page on the non-profit. I presume and wish for licensing to be "fair use" but am not sure how to answer the wizard question to label everything correctly. --and feel no need to designate myself as creator. Comments? Illuminer2 (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair Use probably isn't the word you're looking for - it refers to material that is copyrighted but being used for some "fair" purpose like education. It sounds like you're trying to release your image as public domain. If that's true and you don't care about keeping any of your rights as the creator of the image, use the {{CC-Zero}} license. You should still identify yourself as the creator so we know you have the right to declare that the file is under that license. BMacZero (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I do mean "fair use," as, for example, is the case with the logo for Doctors without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières). Is that logo not designed correctly? I gave the copyright to the organization, and now feel like I am reporting on their material, as is included in "fair use" described in /www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html. I got held up by wanting to keep the ownership with the organization, not me; and when I got to the "are you the creator" question, anticipated that the answer could lead to confusion with the next set of questions I would be asked. BTW: this is my first image upload on Wikipedia, ever. Illuminer2 (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see. In that case you'll have to upload the image to English Wikipedia directly (as the Doctors Without Borders logo has been). Wikimedia Commons does not allow fair use images. I don't know how their upload wizard works but hopefully it will make sense. BMacZero (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I'll go to it. Illuminer2 (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
@Illuminer2: FYI: en:Wikipedia:Non-free content should contain all the information you need for that. --El Grafo (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

NVIDIA logos[edit]

We have bunch of NVIDIA logos: [9][10][11] [12][13] (last two with faked license). Seems like it;s not "simple geometry forms" so it's copyright violation. 109.172.98.69 16:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio ?[edit]

Bonjour, je voudrais utiliser le fichier File:Milovan Rajevac en Algerie.jpg sur Wikipédia, mais je ne suis pas sûr qu'il est libre de droit. Pouvez-vous vous assurez ?

Merci — Sincerely Issimo 15 22:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Can't be 100% sure, but best I can tell it is copyvio. The exact image can be found here and the image itself just appears to be a screen cap of a network media broadcast that was cropped which would account for the low quality. Offnfopt(talk) 22:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. — Sincerely Issimo 15 08:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

July 28[edit]

Need help in the "copy to commons" category of Arabic wikipedia[edit]

We want to import by bot around 5,143 pictures to commons. They are available in this category. The problem is that we no longer have picture-specialist in Arabic wikipedia to evaluate if they are really free. There is a lot of pictures coming from internet and are copyright. I have deleted a lot but I think that you may have a better view. Is it possible to take a look at the category, and why not identify those that are not free.--Helmoony (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Stèle du monument funéraire.JPG[edit]

Why have removed this photo I made it myself ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maneck (talk • contribs) 02:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC) Pourquoi avoir supprimé cette photo que j'ai faite moi même ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maneck (talk • contribs) 02:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Do we have a category for this?[edit]

Zeealgen in de Baltische zee 2.jpg
and
Zeealgen in de Baltische zee 1.jpg
Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Category:Marine algae of Denmark? - Takeaway (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Mobile edits and uploads, continued[edit]

This is a continuation of Commons:Village pump/Archive/2016/04#Mobile edits and uploads.

We are still seeing a very large number of useless edits, copyright violations, and uploads without any source, authorship or licensing information whatsoever from mobile editors.

In the previous discussion, User:El Grafo and 2607:FB90:428:7D21:DCD9:5DDF:8F58:C2 claimed that uploads from mobile web browsers were disabled in 2014, but I can confirm (and so can anyone willing to follow a link) that https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard is very much alive and accepting uploads. I just uploaded File:Town crier Alan Myatt announces the birth of Princess Charlotte of Cambridge.jpg with a completely empty file description using that interface and received zero warnings that I was doing anything wrong (apart from the rather subtle inclusion of the text "add a license tag in the permission field above, or this file will be deleted" in the pre-selected licensing option).

So of course User:Jdlrobson's speculations about rogue apps using APIs were not the answer to this "mystery". Of course it's much simpler than that. Of course it's our own damn main interface for uploading that, when visited from a mobile device, practically encourages the user to create useless file descriptions. There you have it. LX (talk, contribs) 13:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

(enter a bunch of nsfw caps-locked 4-letter-words here) I'm actually pretty pissed off right now, and believe me: that's a rare thing to happen. Not only was the old problem not fixed as promised: The same thing is happening all over again right now with cross-wiki uploads (phab:T120867). --El Grafo (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I just randomly clicked on two of the recent mobile uploads without even looking at the file names and what did I get? Exactly: A useless, unused selfie and a penis. On the bright side: numbers of uploads per day through this channel are pretty low, so it seems that whatever they did back then to "disable" mobile web uploads kind of works for most of the people. --El Grafo (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
To use some actual numbers: I counted 205 upload entries from 21 July to 27 July. If that's representative, that's roughly 890 files per month or 10,700 per year, and my previous investigation (only based on one day's data, but my impression is that it's pretty representative) showed that 88% of the uploads were junk. So that's 9000+ junk files being piled on per year by this interface, which we don't need. If anything at all has been done, it must have been limited to removal of some incoming links to the upload page, but there are of course thousands of ways for people to end up there anyway. LX (talk, contribs) 20:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@LX, El Grafo: I'm afraid you're misunderstanding what's happening here. UploadWizard is not enabled on mobile, despite my efforts to do so; you're seeing the fallback form (identical to Special:Upload, but without Commons' customizations) used when UploadWizard can't be shown. Normally only users of obsolete browsers see it, but due to the hacky way the mobile site disables a lot of stuff mobile users get the same thing.
Mobile users can obviously upload files, if they really want to, by navigating to Special:Upload on the mobile site (which works just fine, and shows all the usual warnings and customizations) or by switching to the desktop site (desktop UploadWizard works just fine on mobile devices).
If you want to prevent users from uploading files with no description, create an abuse filter that would block it. I have recently spent a great deal of time making this possible (action='upload' in AbuseFilter now provides the usual variables for page text, edit summary, etc.). Abuse filters work identically on mobile and desktop.
This is really entirely unrelated to both the old mobile upload fiasco and the new cross-wiki upload fiasco (which, let it be known, I consider a huge failure of our development processes).
I just fixed MediaWiki:Uploadwizard-summary to include identical warnings on Special:UploadWizard with UploadWizard disabled as the ones shown normally on Special:Upload: [14]. I hope this quenches your rage at me and Jon Robson, entirely undeserved by us in this case. Matma Rex (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Matma Rex: Thanks for clearing that up. An Ent was roused yesterday, and he made hasty conclusions – sorry about that. So maybe that fallback mode should be changed to something more useful? mobile Special:Upload at least has a blank {{information}}. Something like Special:Upload&uselang=ownwork would probably be even better. Or can it just be re-directed to the non-mobile UploadWizard? Or maybe actually enable UploadWizard on mobile? (As far as I remember, that mobile upload thingy that was disabled had extremely dumbed-down functionality and was not comparable with the normal UploadWizard – correct?) I hope we can somehow avoid creating abuse filters (but nevertheless a big thanks to Matma Rex for making that possible!). --El Grafo (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Matma Rex: Not sure what you think I've misunderstood, or why you think I'm enraged at you or Jon Robson. Back in April, I noticed that edits tagged as mobile edit and mobile web edit were overwhelmingly useless. Focusing on uploads, several users expressed the belief that uploads from mobile platforms have been disabled. Others speculated that the uploads may be made using third party apps or scripts via the API, and asked me to replicate the workflow to prove otherwise. I've now done that.
These uploads are not made using third party apps or scripts. They are coming from Special:UploadWizard, our standard page for uploads with a lot of links pointing its way. Yes, I realise that what's rendered is not the Upload Wizard, but that's not the point. I don't particularly care what the useless upload feature that's enabled is called, what falls back to what, or whether the mobile site is hacky. I don't care if mobile users go to the desktop site to upload (because those interfaces do perform some basic form validation).
The point is simply this: There is an easily accessible interface for uploads (for example, type in "Upload" in the search field at the top, end up at Commons:Upload and follow the advice to "try the Upload Wizard") that practically encourages users to upload files with empty and otherwise obviously inadequate file descriptions without warnings, and that's unacceptable in 2016.
The added instructions are a step in the right direction, but until there's basic validation of the form, I'd really just like to see this gaping hole plugged, through an abuse filter, as I suggested in April, or any other means necessary. If there are possibilities available that weren't there last time we discussed this, that's great. LX (talk, contribs) 09:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any benefit in adding a wall of text. If MobileFrontend needs to destroy the UploadWizard interface, https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard should redirect to https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UploadWizard&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop so that the user has a functioning upload form. It's not acceptable to throw the user back in 2005. --Nemo 13:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC) P.s.: As far as I know, adding $wgMFNoMobilePages[] = 'Special:UploadWizard'; somewhere in the UploadWizard code or in the Wikimedia configuration should stop MobileFrontent from breaking the links to UploadWizard.

Wikidata (structured data) on Commons[edit]

FYI: Commons talk:Structured_data#It.27s_alive.21 --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

July 29[edit]

Category:Cleopatra (1963 trailer screenshots)[edit]

How ut happened, that plenty of screen-shots appeared on Commons? Is it film in public domain? --Алый Король (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Read the information in the permissions section for this file, it explains the situation and links to pages that go into further detail. Offnfopt(talk) 06:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Getty Images sued for selling and claiming copyright for public domain photos[edit]

I don't know if this type of post is allowed, if not then delete it. Just thought some might find interest in this news post regarding Getty Images. Offnfopt(talk) 08:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Jep, read that on Petapixel yesterday. We have quite a bunch of her pictures at Category:Photographs by Carol M. Highsmith.
RE: "is it allowed to post this here?": If there is one place for stuff like this on Commons, it's probably the Village Pump. But technically, it's off-topic here: "This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons". Actually, one thing I'm missing at Commons is something like de:Wikipedia:Café – a place where you can sit back, relax and chat about stuff like this. Imho, a community needs a place to socialize. --El Grafo (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

LoC images without any template[edit]

May you please help me cleaning up the LoC uploads of User:Trialsanderrors (Uploads)?