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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page

Search archives


Thatched water pump at Aylsham, Norfolk [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss • Edit • Watch



Allow WebP upload[edit]

Moved to Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Allow WebP upload

June 29[edit]

Unsigned bot[edit]

Hi, On the English Wikipedia, there is User:SineBot, which adds signature when users don't sign. I think it would be useful to have this here. It could work on every page, or only on some selected pages where new users often forget to sign (Help desk, etc.). Opinions? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

discussions on commons are not very crowded, I see no risk of edit conflict, it never occured to me in the past. for the same reason it takes some times before someone sees a missing signature and corrects it. For these reasons, I think the bot would work just fine. Let's start with some selected pages if we need to test it.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Yann: See Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/04#Signature bot on Commons. There seems to be consensus for running a signing bot on Commons, but the problem is that no bot is available. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of this discussion. I contacted the owner of SineBot. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@Yann: He edited enwp yesterday, but I don't see any replies on his talk page. Should I consider writing one myself? Or other bot writers? Al lot of users from the archive has gone inactive or left commons :/ --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: That may be great. Yann (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Bots/Requests/YiFeiBot (24) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Having done a significant amount of {{unsigned}} edits on Commons noticeboards, I have to say that SineBot (or a clone) would definitely be welcome here, even if only on COM:UDR. Revent (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Wax Cylinders in the Public Domain?[edit]

Are these 100+ year old wax cylinder recordings in the public domain? They are labeled as being cc-by nc 2.5, but I think based on Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., that they are actually Public Domain. Does anyone have any guidance here? Victorgrigas (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

As a counter-example, looking through, I notice one recording of Bohumir Kryl. He died in 1961, so I would guess the recording copyright would not have expired until after 2031, unless there is some rationale otherwise. -- (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
except he appears to be published in the US with Edison w:Blue Amberol Records [1] , not Edison-Bell, so pma would not apply. Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
True, however I believe there is no evidence that all recorded performances by Blue Amberol were in the U.S. It would be worth doing a bit more research on the artists and how agreements were made for the recordings and their rights. -- (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
well, the w:Edison Records article says produced in ?New Jersey, the london label w: Edison Bell was separate. no london bell recordings on the list. what kind of evidence would you like to see? Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 04:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
What we need for this to be a mass upload project, would be an extended rationale for PD to be laid out for the record on, say, a batch upload project page at COM:BATCH. This would avoid DRs or uncertainty in the years to come, as well as being a place to cross-link to any DRs that do get raised against specific recordings. That a recording was produced on the Blue Amberol Recordings label, does not mean that there can never be any artist rights outside of the USA for all the various performers and composers, or that some recordings were themselves made outside of the USA. :-) -- (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
the blue amberol label is a strong indication of first publication in the US before 1923. shouldn't be too hard to find a history book confirming that. you would be hard pressed to find a blue amberol recording first published in Europe, given the difficulty in analog reproduction. they instead exported cylinders. here is the finding aid for the foreign releases of cylinders [2] - library are however saying "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.5" [3]. Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 04:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Sound copyrights in the US are a mess. Prior to 1972, there were no federal copyrights on recordings, and they were not brought under federal copyright; they are covered by state copyright, perpetually in all cases I'm familiar with, and will be until 2067, when federal law will sunset those laws. There were some cylinders given to the US Government and released as PD, but otherwise virtually all audio recordings are under copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
right m:Wikilegal/Copyright Status of Sound Recordings Fixed Prior to February 15 1972 Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 04:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
but had the archives not put NC on them, then good to go right? we would be relying on them. maybe an email is in order. Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Do you want to send that email? Also, I found this from boingboing about a record label that was digitizing old vinyl to sell and the legal complexities behind it. Victorgrigas (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, while reading that, it's interesting that the National Park Service has ownership of the Edison recordings! I think they should be reached out to for clarification. If the US government is a copyright holder of a work, does that make it PD? If not, can they be persuaded? Victorgrigas (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
We have a category of license templates related to audio. Please see Category:License tags for audio files. If the files fulfill conditions specified in those templates than they should be OK. --Jarekt (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

September 28[edit]

Batch uploader for inexperienced users: new tool project using Excel spreadsheets[edit]


Please take a look at this project by Yarl of a new tool for performing simple batch uploads - Batch uploader for small GLAM projects. This is meant as a tool for small-to-medium batch uploads by GLAM institutions, cultural centres and other parties who find the Upload Wizard too limited (it is not possible to provide adequate file descriptions, easily incorporate Artwork fields at the stage of upload...) and the GWT too complex. Please look at the proposal and feel free to comment. Thanks! --Marta Malina Moraczewska (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a very interesting project; I like especially the approach of gathering speadsheet-entered or -compiled data. I’m usually very sceptical, even suspicious, of such projects, but this one looks like a good thing: Well thought out and likely to improve the contents of Commons and the make the best of volonteers’ time. -- Tuválkin 23:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: we are waiting right now for community support and questions. If you like it or have some thoughts about it, feel free to leave a note on grant page. Cheers, Yarl 21:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

September 30[edit]

What to do with German Stamps?[edit]

We have several license templates related to German stamps:

and over 9 thousand files that use those templates. All of those templates are marked as "NOT in the public domain". We have Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review process which stalled about 3 years ago. We have m:Wikilegal/Copyright of Images in German Postage Stamps saying that "Copyright law is complex" and not much more.We also have plenty of discussions on the subject here, here or here. Is anybody still working on reviewing those files? and if not than what shall we do with all the files still left? A DR for 9k files seems a little drastic... --Jarekt (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I think that the stamps will have to be reviewed and nominated individually. Some of the {{PD-German Empire stamps}} files will qualify for {{PD-old-70}} because the stamp designer died long ago, some stamps reuse old artworks and some are {{PD-ineligible}}. I suggest keeping the templates for now until all stamps either have been deleted or retagged as something else. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Any stamp should be considered an official work on behalf of the state-owned post (BRD/DDR and earlier german post stamps). This changed in 1995 when it became a shareholder company so any stamp from 1995 or later should not be an official work. --Denniss (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review reveals that the 'official work' exception only applies to text but not to images, so it is irrelevant whether the post was part of a government or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
This court ruling is only applicacable to DPAG stamps, not to older stamps issued by Bundespost or older/other government agencies. --Denniss (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The court ruling is applicable to § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG, on which all of the templates are based: "the Landgericht Berlin decided that § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG only applies for literary works (Sprachwerke) and not for works of the visual arts (Werke der bildenden Kunst)" (quote from Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review). Furthermore, the ruling is also applicable to {{PD-GermanGov}}, which is also based on § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG. Since § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG only applies to literary works, none of the templates can be used for artworks. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

In the old days, stamp illustrations were "defaced" which then made them usable in publications. At first the defacement was a wide white line through the stamp, but generally now is just a black line through the denomination of the stamp. Collect (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

That's because the postal services don't like forged stamps. It's a non-copyright restriction. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

A mass deletion request for several thousand stamps is exactly what could've happened in 2012. Opting for an individual review process was a compromise between deleting and keeping files. As you might imagine, reviewing copyright for German stamps was and is done by a limited number of users. Therefore few stamps were reviewed in the last three years and the larger portion of unreviewed stamps remain. The stamps were uploaded by individual users, all assigning public domain status based on §5 of German copyright law. In the past we've seen a number of batch uploads with third parties (usually cultural institutions) assessing a certain copyright status for their uploads as well. No individual copyright assessment is done in both cases. In the case of batch uploads user reviews and error report systems allowed to identify some files didn't meet our copyright policies (e.g. they are not yet in the public domain) and had to be deleted in the process. The German stamps are different in that no single third party vouches for their copyright assessment, but a number of individual users did when they initially uploaded these files. The question is if we want to treat German stamps different than any batch upload when it comes to copyright assessment of individual files. A mass deletion request would result in a lot of false positives and is neither reasonable nor productive. My impression was that we came to this conclusion in 2012 already and therefore didn't follow through with this idea. Individual deletion requests for several thousand files would create an immense backlog and will occupy a lot of users for a long time. Moreover I think it's unlikely that these individual requests would get the attention they require, unless someone has a couple of experts on German stamps and copyright hidden somewhere. I can understand the urge to do something about this pile of unreviewed files. A modus vivendi could be to nominate smaller batches for deletion at a time. Say a couple of dozen individual deletion requests simultaneously. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

OK so lets go through "individual review process". I nominated files that failed the review for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Stamps in Category:German stamps review delete. We should probably have occasional mass deletion requests, for small (50-100) batches of files, so the process continues because it will have a super significant effect on them. --Jarekt (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
You should probably keep one of these pages Commons talk:Stamps/Public domain or perhaps better under the German section of Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Germany updated on progress, actions to be taken or decisions. I only happened to stumble across this discussion. It might also be useful to tell the German wiki as there may be some experts there who can assist and a good place to start, before commencing any deletion process, might be at de:Portal Diskussion:Philatelie for starters because it will have significant effect on them in particular. Ww2censor (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I left a note at Commons:Forum and Commons_talk:WikiProject_Public_Domain/German_stamps_review. I did not think of other places. Please advertise this discussion, if you can think of other forums. --Jarekt (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I left notifications at some German, French, Russian and other philatelic wiki pages. I've been informed that tomorrow's French Signpost fr:Wikipédia:RAW/2015-10-09 will mention the issue. In the meantime the deletion nominations should perhaps be put on hold for a least 7–10 days until we possibly get some more input or help to deal with this. Ww2censor (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Ww2censor, thanks for your work. We do not have to resolve it right away but there has to be some ongoing process, so we can retire the 5 above templates in some foreseeable future. --Jarekt (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree totally with you. Some progress should be made. Perhaps starting with the newest issues, like the 21st century years in Category:Stamps of Germany by year which come to around 700 stamps, would seem the easiest to determine. Ww2censor (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

October 01[edit]

Why do 6% of all Commons images get uploaded with no text?[edit]

I have been making a fuss about finding that 0.3% of my uploads have been created with no text pages since the weekend, due to a apparent unknown WMF operational glitch (phabricator:T113878). However, on investigating the numbers more widely for how often images are uploaded to the project with no initial description, I was completely astonished to find over 1/20 images starts out with a blank page. The numbers have been hovering at 5% to 7% over the last two years:

Count of images uploaded with blank text pages since 2014
| Empty | Total  | Ratio | Date    |
| 16815 | 274167 | 6.13% | 2014-01 |
| 16724 | 280361 | 5.97% | 2014-02 |
| 23763 | 330847 | 7.18% | 2014-03 |
| 21041 | 347804 | 6.05% | 2014-04 |
| 31505 | 400109 | 7.87% | 2014-05 |
| 23422 | 330580 | 7.09% | 2014-06 |
| 26597 | 501389 | 5.30% | 2014-07 |
| 20937 | 461944 | 4.53% | 2014-08 |
| 31159 | 556161 | 5.60% | 2014-09 |
| 38821 | 502623 | 7.72% | 2014-10 |
| 19844 | 340082 | 5.84% | 2014-11 |
| 18789 | 347873 | 5.40% | 2014-12 |
| 15593 | 317435 | 4.91% | 2015-01 |
| 16583 | 326198 | 5.08% | 2015-02 |
| 24271 | 400304 | 6.06% | 2015-03 |
| 25536 | 373784 | 6.83% | 2015-04 |
| 31919 | 522749 | 6.11% | 2015-05 |
| 21764 | 430148 | 5.06% | 2015-06 |
| 25758 | 522582 | 4.93% | 2015-07 |
| 38971 | 589282 | 6.61% | 2015-08 |
| 47666 | 867802 | 5.49% | 2015-09 |

Can anyone work out why so many uploads start out blank, and if there might be ways of decreasing this number, on the presumption that a significant proportion of these must create work for volunteers to repair them? I'm half expecting to discover that one of our popular upload tools does its uploads in a weirdly unexpected way. Thanks -- (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not good; thanks for digging it up, . Could these files (almost 1 million!) be tagged with a mantainance category, at least? Or is it so bad that there’s not even a filepage to add the category to?
(Which upload tool is causing this? My guess is it is one which was not developed by a volonteer…) -- Tuválkin 09:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll dig into it a little more, however keep in mind that just because a file gets uploaded with no text, does not mean it stays that way. The numbers above just state how the file was at first upload. It could be that a lot of these have image text pages created by their upload tool within seconds of the image having been uploaded, rather than at the same time. I think that when we transfer images cross-wiki this might happen, it's something to piece together... As for images with blank text pages longer term, they do get flagged by bot and will end up at Category:Media without a license or a similar maintenance category, probably within the first half day. -- (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh man, I don't think I considered this in my script. Description-page-less files like File:Stealth_Building-005.jpg was uploaded in May. And there's 28 more such files. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Ah, that paints the matter in merrier hues indeed. It’s still eminently fixable, though. -- Tuválkin 11:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Damn those bot-writers, break out the pitchforks and torches! :-) -- (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
btw, currently, there appears to only be 7 non-fixed images:
MariaDB [commonswiki_p]> select page_title from page where page_len = 0 and page_namespace=6\G
*************************** 1. row ***************************
page_title: Juvenile_Instructor_(1917)_(14770065071).jpg
*************************** 2. row ***************************
page_title: Cairanne_Coteaux_et_Fourchette_Pièce_de_boeuf_et_gratin_dauphinois.JPG
*************************** 3. row ***************************
page_title: The_story_of_Cairo_(1906)_(14781887512).jpg
*************************** 4. row ***************************
page_title: U_and_I_(1993)_(14581926457).jpg
*************************** 5. row ***************************
page_title: La_vie_hors_de_chez_soi_(comédie_de_notre_temps)_l'hiver,_le_printemps,_l'été,_l'automne;_études_au_crayon_et_à_la_plume_(1876)_(14742708586).jpg
*************************** 6. row ***************************
page_title: The_three_presidencies_of_India-_a_history_of_the_rise_and_progress_of_the_British_Indian_possessions,_from_the_earliest_records_to_the_present_time._With_an_account_of_their_government,_religion,_(14761483354).jpg
*************************** 7. row ***************************
page_title: Transactions_and_proceedings_and_report_of_the_Philosophical_Society_of_Adelaide,_South_Australia_(1911)_(14577883817).jpg

: how did you calculate your numbers above. Do you include images that were eventually deleted (probably significant if they're uploaded blank). Are you counting revdeleted initial revisions as "blank"? My calculation for September 2015 (admittedly not including things that were eventually deleted - tried select count(*) from revision inner join page on rev_page = page_id where rev_parent_id = 0 and rev_sha1 = 'phoiac9h4m842xq45sp7s6u21eteeq1' and rev_timestamp > '20150900000000' and page_namespace = 6;) only had 279 blank images (and 898692 total images = 0.03% blank) being uploaded that month, which is two orders of magnitude less than your count. Bawolff (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I used the image table and checked for img_description = "". This will just report pages that still exist, should include renamed files without worrying about redirect pages and will count pages that were later fixed but originally blank. I don't think it would count deletions, that would be the fa table.
BTW, checking for page len as zero is a bit pants, as there are bots that rush around slapping a category or template on those, quickly making them non zero. In fact I double check my fixes so that I count any (of my uploads) under 400 chrs as being equivalent to blank. -- (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
While many tools make img_description and the initial page text be the same, there are many that don't (UploadWizard being a prime example where img_description is almost always "Uploaded by UploadWizard"). Its entirely possible for img_description to be blank, and the page text to have text (e.g. File:Stadtparkhafen_(Hamburg-Winterhude).Treppe.22022.ajb.jpg). Your query would also come up with cases where someone did a re-upload with a blank summary.
If instead of using the sha1 for empty string, I use rev_len < 400 for initial revision of page in File namespace, I get 148,062 results for September. But I suspect that there are lots of legit image desc pages that come in under 400 bytes.
As for deletions - I don't really know an easy way to count those (due to limits on tool labs), but it would make the numbers more interesting. Bawolff (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the 400 chr limit, that's just true for my upload projects. I'd guesstimate that any image with a text page shorter than 80 chrs is 99% likely to be a bad page... prove me wrong. :-) With a bit of smart analysis I think something might pop out of this that would help our volunteers that enjoy maintaining blank pages. -- (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bawolff: Playing with the numbers makes Selenium user (talk · contribs) pop out as a mass uploader of mostly empty pages. Shouldn't this WMF official test account (along with any others) have either a bot name or use the now agreed WMF suffix used on role accounts (there is no specific named operator)? -- (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't even realize we were (still) doing selenium testing on the live site. Personally I'm not sure how much I like have tests that make actual writes on a live site, although I guess the bot isn't getting in anyone's way if it has gone so unnoticed. Maybe it would be nice if that bot deleted the images it made after its done uploading them. As for (WMF) prefix - I kind of feel like that is supposed to be for people who are doing things as part of their job, that doesn't seem to quite fit the definition of a testing bot. But it would be nice to clarify its role. Personally, I'd like the name Selenium user (WMF QA bot) (talk · contribs), and yeah there should be a contact person on the bots user page. Pinging @ZFilipin (WMF), MarkTraceur (WMF): in case they have any thoughts. Bawolff (talk)
As far as I know, we are not using Selenium user (talk · contribs) account any more, and we are not testing on production. Feel free to delete all those images. --ZFilipin (WMF) (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Looks like I was wrong. Selenium user (talk · contribs) still uploads files. I have asked at QA mailing list if anybody knows what is going on. --ZFilipin (WMF) (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
To fit rather better with past practice, see m:WMF Advanced Permissions, something like Selenium QA bot (WMF) might be more the thing. I'm vaguely thinking of others in the future using global regex searches for "official" accounts, or indeed to uncover redundant accounts to retire or to pop any special rights off. -- (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts on creating files with very short or minimal text pages[edit]

Just looking at page length to find patterns, I think that a search for underpinning issues would have to be more complex. The following list for uploaders of images with the shortest image text pages, probably tell us little apart from these accounts are doing more unusual things with image creation.

I guess it does show that the team creating Category:Picture Upload by WarriorSoft-Team (8a jhon mario) need some advice on batch categorization (the majority of red cats are unlikely to ever be created), at some point we should probably think about whether information hiding within templates like File:Pauly-Wissowa III,1, 0155.jpg or File:趮-bigseal.svg is a good thing or not, for example they make it much harder to discover the images using the normal search engine. -- (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Users with more than 10 uploads in September 2015, with page length < 100
User Total
8a jhon mario (talk · contribs) 25
File Upload Bot (S8w4) (talk · contribs) 37
Fry1989 (talk · contribs) 13
Micheletb (talk · contribs) 54
Selenium user (talk · contribs) 131
Just a note - The normal search engine (Cirrus Search) works on the contents of pages after expanding templates. If I remember correctly, this was one of the major changes from the old lucene engine. So using templates in a way similar to File:趮-bigseal.svg doesn't negatively affect search results, and the uniformity of doing it that way, potentially makes it easier to extract metadata in the future. Bawolff (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, with the Ancient Chinese Character template "ACClicense" there is not much more to say once the model fields are filled, and even if necessary, there is a comment field for that. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining how the search works. It's much smarter than I expected, sounds "wikidata ready" :-). -- (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Wikimedia Commons Welcome marking new page creations as minor edits[edit]

I thought the ability to create new pages and at the same time classify your edit as "minor" has been disabled on MediaWiki, as there is no checkbox to do so. However, apparently the welcoming bot is able to create new pages and mark them as minor edits, which shouldn't be happening. Could someone please fix the welcoming bot to not do so? Gparyani (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any problems for welcoming bot to have creations as minor. Besides, it's a MediaWiki extension working on the servers, so what it can do is not limited to what checkboxes we can see or what api options there is. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
This was raised as an issue on enwiki, and it was even agreed on the Phabricator that new page creations should never be marked as minor edits. The Phabricator ticket raising this issue first covered all tickets, but the only fix that was ever released by WMF was the UI fix. (I do believe that an API fix was deployed later, to fix a related issue with a tool there on enwiki. I can't find the links at the moment, but trust me.) Gparyani (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The change for API not allowed to create pages on minor edit is [4]. Extensions are allowed to do what they want in terms of making edits and are not bound by requirements of the interfaces exposed to users (Which is the entire point of an extension). In this particular case, I think these page creations are legitimately minor, so this makes sense. However, if community doesn't want them to be minor, it can request that the config option $wgNewUserMinorEdit be changed (Just like any other config option). Bawolff (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Marking them as minor (which only really affects watchlists and recent changes patrolling) seems harmless, TBH. The 'welcoming' behavior is rather strictly defined. Revent (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking for a tool for finding files in a category on commons without descriptions in specific languages[edit]

Hi all

Is there a tool available to find files in a category on Commons that do not include a description in a certain language? It would be very helpful indeed if the user could also input another language they can also speak to help them translate.


John Cummings (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You could use catscan2 and check for template inclusion. For example[6]=1&templates_no=en&ext_image_data=1&file_usage_data=1&doit=1 shows all files in Category:Ships which do not include {{en}} and are thus missing english translations. Obviously this depends on that the file description uses language templates. MKFI (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi MKFI, thanks very much, this is really helpful, all files will have a specific UNESCO template so this will work great. It would be very helpful to have a way of filtering by which languages are present as well but this is more than enough to get started.
Thanks again
John Cummings (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
John, check the included templates field in catscan2 for filtering already present languages. You can filter them by including language templates in "has all these templates" field. The following will find all files which have german descriptions present but do not have english descriptions:[6]=1&templates_yes=de&templates_no=en&ext_image_data=1&file_usage_data=1&doit=1. You can enter multiple templates to filter several languages. MKFI (talk) 10:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi MKFI, wonderful, thanks very much. John Cummings (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

enforcing proper category names using AbuseFilter?[edit]

Generally category names should be in English (though there may be exceptions), but new users aren't always aware to this policy and may categorize new files using local names. In some cases, where the local name is using non-latin alphabet (Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese etc), it can be easily detected automatically using AbuseFilter. I'm suggesting to use AbuseFilter to detect such assignment to categories with non English names, and show the user notice (which is OK to ignore) before saving such edit. Eran (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This ain't an extension of en:WP, but something for the whole Wikiverse. If you said "latin letters" it would perhaps be OK, but I even don't think that would be OK, or should the alphabet be restricted to 52 letters + 10 numbers and be plain ASCII? How about at least proper names with all diacritics, not just the dumbed down english versions? --Sänger (talk) 10:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Such filter shouldn't prevent users from associating pages to categories with non alphanumeric character, but just politely remind them it is unusual and the convention is to use English names and not local names in categories. The whitelisted characters may be defined using some query (example quarry:query/5585), or based on community consensus. Eran (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
See my comments at AN regarding this proposal. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Would this apply only to defining categories, or would it also apply to categories that haven't been defined? There are many redlinked categories that are not in English or even in Latin letters.
  • A consideration that came up in another conversation concerns names of things: books, buildings, government agencies, and others. One can try to translate these, but that translated text is not the actual name. With books, the best we can do might be to transliterate, but it has been argued that most people looking for a book written in a certain language will search for the title in that language, not in English. With buildings, some are best known in the English-speaking world by their foreign names (the Taj Mahal, for example) and others are not (for example, the Eiffel Tower) -- how do we decide whether to translate? Do we created redirected categories for them? And then we have categories like Category:Hôtel du 2 avenue Vélasquez, which is basically just the address of the building and not its name at all (at least as far as I can tell).
Just some food for thought. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This would apply to categories that haven't been defined - when someone upload or edit an image description and adds new category that match such filter. A possible filter could be:
    added_lines rlike "\[\[Category:[^a-zA-Z0-9]" and !(old_wikitext rlike "\[\[Category:[^a-zA-Z0-9]") 
    (the whitelist characters can be defined differently) In such way that once there is a good reason for exception and the file already linked to such category, the filter will not match anymore on that page.
  • Sometimes there may be good reasons for using local names and in those cases it should be fine to not translate - we shouldn't decide ahead whether to translate - this should be kept as a per case consideration. However when there is a clear and known name in English - this should be the preferred choice. The notice for the user when this filter match an edit should explain this. Eran (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

NewsBank logo - Public domain as pretty basic ?[edit]

Logo of company NewsBank.

Can this logo be uploaded locally here to Commons under {{PD-ineligible}} ?

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably yes, as {{pd-text}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, uploaded locally as File:Newsbanklogo.png. -- Cirt (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Illustration guidelines[edit]

Could someone kindly direct me to a page with guidelines for original artwork/illustrations? Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure there is really a set of guidelines beyond COM:SCOPE, but if you have any specific questions, feel free to ask. - Jmabel ! talk 09:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to easily track use of your uploads?[edit]

Just wondering - I know that on Wikipedia you get notified when a page you've created has been linked to from another page. Is there something similar on here to let you know when an image you've uploaded has been used in another Wiki? Apologies if this has been asked before, I did a few searches but didn't have much luck due to lots of hits for "tracking images" etc... Mabalu (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

There used to be WikiSense, but if you access that website now there is a message stating "The WikiSense project has been discontinued. It was based on a very old version of MediaWiki, and very much entangled with the Toolserver environment. A migration of the old code seems unpractical, and a complete rewrite of all tools would take a lot of effort. Please check on the ToolLabs overview page if an alternative tool exists for your need. If you would like a WikiSense tool to be re-created, try the Community Wishlist process (or the Technische Wunschliste on the German Wikipedia)." I don't know if there is a replacement tool yet. — Cheers, JackLee talk 12:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
See also GLAMorous. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Having echo notifications for this type of thing was waiting on cross-wiki echo notifications (mw:Requests_for_comment/Cross-wiki_notifications). I believe that's being worked on now, and that the multimedia team will work on echo notification for file usage sometime after that's done. See phab:T77154. Bawolff (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Try Commons:MyGallery. If you click on the red question mark it will be replaced with the number of usages. BethNaught (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
If you just want a single image, see also Special:GlobalUsage. Bawolff (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
If you maintain a personal category for your uploads, then the 'Global Usage Badges' gadget (it's in the preferences) will give you the same 'red question marks' as using MyGallery.. it will add them to all categories and gallery pages, though. Revent (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, guys! The Commons:MyGallery link does more or less what I was looking for, it's useful to see which images are being used and where, especialy if they've been found and used by other users. Mabalu (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Spires is a subcategory of roofs[edit]

Hi, I am new here on Commons, but I am wondering is it normal, that this image is in the category of category:Roofs? The-city-not-present (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing at this, I´ve put it into Category:The Bugaboos. Sadly, many category pages at Commons lack descriptions to define what belongs in the cat, so such mistakes are common. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

October 04[edit]

Project Apollo Archive on Flickr[edit]

About 10.000 photos of Apollo 17 mission is uploaded to Flickr: under CC0 (public domain) licence. --Rlevente (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Those 10.000 photos are of the Apollo missions 8 to 17 Clin0x010C ~talk~ 22:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Public Domain Mark isn't {{cc-pd}} or {{cc-0}}, please use {{PD-USGov-NASA}} to tag these images. Thanks --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Public Domain Mark is {{Flickr-public domain mark}}, but according to Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#New_NASA_moon_stuff_on_Flickr, not all the images are from the NASA. Thibaut120094 (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Evangelical Cathedral, Sibiu[edit]

I found a number of pictures representing the Evangelical Cathedral in Sibiu (Romania) which had a wrong name - Biserica evanghelica din Turnisor and a wrong monument code (12065). I changed the code in the description (12078) and moved the pictures in the right category, but they should also be renamed accordingly. And maybe I did not find all of them... pls check! Hkoala (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Just look at the two churches: Category:Biserica evanghelică din Turnişor and Category:Evangelical Cathedral, Sibiu - they are obviously different! --Hkoala (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


Is it OK to use Snipping Tools to snip part of a picture on the Internet, and upload the snip onto Wikimedia Commons? --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

In general no. --Magnus (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of older license version[edit]

@SilkTork: Is this correct? I always have tried to make it clear when I previously granted an older license version elsewhere, but I can certainly stop doing that. - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Third party interjecting... while you as the copyright holder are perfectly able to grant permission to use a work under multiple licenses, just showing a single license instead of both isn't technically 'wrong' (you did license it under the 3.0 version as well). Since the crop is 'technically' a derivative work (though a non-creative one that creates no new copyright), and the 2.0 license allows licensing of derivatives under later versions of the same license, I don't think it's really an issue to only show the later version of the license on the file page. At the same time, I personally would not have done so (I would have kept both, if I was making the crop). To more address what I think you were asking, though, as the copyright holder you are in no way required to indicate all licenses under which you have released a work when uploading it, you just need to indicate an 'allowable' one when you upload it here. All Creative Commons licenses are 'nonexclusive', and don't prohibit multi-licensing. Revent (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
In the few situations in which I've uploaded a derivative work of a dual CCBYSA30/GFDL work (example), I've always marked my upload as CCBYSA30 only (the GFDL being such a burden to use properly), so I don't see anything wrong with distributing this DW under only one license. Since this clearly isn't a case of someone attempting to revoke the free license or trying to get us to delete it for lack of a license, I don't see a problem with un-marking it with CCBYSA20. Nyttend (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't really even looking to that aspect that he also cropped the photo: I was more looking to the original, underlying work, which is licensed under cc-by-sa-2.0 on Flickr. I gather you are saying that when I copy my own works over from Flickr, there is no reason to indicate cc-by-sa-2.0 if I am also offering cc-by-sa-3.0. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, though with your 'own works' the license on Flickr is rather moot anyhow, since you can just 're-release' your own works on Commons under any acceptable license. Revent (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the change as 1) only the original author may change a license and 2) the version 2 license is still valid even if a version 3 license of the same type is also in use. --Denniss (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

File renaming[edit]

@Marcus Cyron: @Донор:: Renamed on the basis of criterion 2, how on earth is File:Griffith Observatory 03.jpg considered a "meaningless" filename? (Not that I want it switched back, but people should not rename files just because the name is not perfectly to their taste.) - Jmabel ! talk 17:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I must confess, I did not lokked at the cause here, because it was a set of files and the others were nominated because of the series criterien. That made sense for me. I think, the requester only used the false number as he wrote the request. Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
False number? It was one of a numbered series of photos of the same subject, a perfectly common practice. - Jmabel ! talk 02:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
iMO, at least, the 'default' should be to not rename files, unless there is a specific compelling reason, instead of renaming them on request. As long as the existing name is 'valid', leave it alone. 'Series' of numbered images with missing members are not uncommon... since the numbered 'order' of images is usually irrelevant, IMO there is no real reason to rename files purely on that basis. Leaving them along (filename integrity) should be the default setting. Revent (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Revent: my view exactly. I usually won't even rename for misspellings unless they are in proper nouns. - Jmabel ! talk 17:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Voting for determining featured pictures[edit]

So at Commons, consensus is not needed for featured pictures unlike when it is needed for featured articles at Wikipedia because articles and pictures are entirely different? 22:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

October 05[edit]

Adding Wikidata ID to Template:Creator possible[edit]

Hey all. I've been looking at maintenance categories and I noticed that Category:Creator template possible is pretty large. I have a bot from some batch uploading work that creates Creator templates from Wikidata entries. I'm think about modifying Template:Creator possible to allow a user to specify a Wikidata ID when they add that template. Pages tagged this way would appear in a different category, and a bot could go through that category and automatically create those templates from Wikidata. Any thoughts or objections about this? BMacZero (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

A slightly related question: does anyone know if we're going to get support for linking Creators directly to Wikidata any time soon? That would be a much better system, but I feel like that feature is not a high priority. BMacZero (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that would be much better. The "arbitrary access" feature needed for this has already been deployed on several other wikis – does anybody know the status of this regarding Commons? Last thing I remember was "it's coming soon". --El Grafo (talk) 10:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, "it's coming soon" was the last I heard about it too. I think it is a great idea to replace Template:Creator possible with creator templates written based on wikidata. Wikidata have d:Template:Creator/wrapper which can create very good Creator template based on wikidata. See d:User:Jarekt/a. The output is not ideal yet but probably can be fixed. It would also be great to come up with some way of adding those new creator templates to the home categories and files. --Jarekt (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Ha, I wish I'd known about that before I wrote all the code to generate those Creators. I also think it's a good idea to have a bot tackle Category:Author matching Creator template, Creator template not used‎ and its siblings. I think a most of those categories could probably be cleared out automatically by looking for the matching Creator template in the file's parent categories. BMacZero (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Years ago I had some python code to do exactly that, but do not remember what happen to it. --Jarekt (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I dealt with quite a few of the Category:Author matching Creator template, Creator template not used‎ files a while back, just using VFC. It's a task that is quite suited for a bot... tens of thousands of simple edits needed. The same really applies to categories such as Category:Artwork template with implicit creator‎ and Category:Book template with implicit creator, though they are much smaller. Revent (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm building the new template at User:BMacZero/Sandbox. Let me know if you have any feedback (haven't done much template-writing before). BMacZero (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Went ahead and pushed the changes to {{Creator possible}}. BMacZero (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

50000+ probably empty galleries[edit]

Here is a list of probably empty galleries, which may meet COM:CSD#GA1. Note false positives exist.--GZWDer (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I clicked a random link and ended up at Gérard serée, which had nine images until they were all deleted as copyvios. I wonder if the same is true of many other empty galleries? Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I created Military units of Warsaw Uprising which is a page without any images. Such pages might have other useful content. --Jarekt (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
That looks like it would fall under GA1 speedy, but obviously it would be unhelpful; let me ask at the CSD talk page about making an exception for navigational pages like this one. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't the category be sufficient? It doesn't seem to me that this page serves a Commons purpose. It certainly isn't a gallery. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:PD-old-100 and US copyrights[edit]

What US license should be used for PD-old-100 files?

Lately I was working on unifying language of PD-old templates. We have ~25 of them and originally they all used almost the same English phrase, which was then translated independently into other languages. Two years ago I created Template:PD-old-text which is used to provide a single license phrase (""This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus xxxx years or less..."") translated to as many languages as possible (Please verify or add you language) and used in many templates. As User:RP88 pointed out, the problem arouse with template:PD-old-100, since the old template used phrase ""This work is in the public domain in the United States, and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years or less"" which also claims that the work is PD in the US (without saying why), and the new template does not.

So the question is how to fix it? We could add standard "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States." warning asking people to add US license, but what is the US license tags for files like "Mona Lisa"? Majority of them where either published and should use {{PD-1923}} or unpublished and we should use {{PD-US-unpublished}}, but the definition of publication is quite uncleared to me when applied to old artworks which are majority of {{PD-old-100}}. Any ideas about the best course of action? --Jarekt (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, your recent change to the text of {{PD-old-100}} changed it from a "PD in US + PD in source country" to just a "PD in source country" tag. For reasons related to the "PD-old" tag on en.WP, PD-old-100 has been a "both" tag since its creation, despite this not being entirely consistent with the other PD-old-X tags or the details of U.S. copyright law. I think the general idea was "this is really old, it's almost certainly {{PD-US}} due to expiration or failure to comply with copyright formalities". In my option, we should either change the wording back to the original wording and simply embrace the ambiguity, or, if it is going to remain in its new "source country" form, it should definitely have a warning asking people to add a US license just like {{PD-old-80}}, {{PD-old-75}}, etc. all do. I lean towards the latter, i.e. adding a note asking for a U.S. tag just like all of the other PD-old-X tags, particularly if we acknowledge that there are hundreds of thousands of files on Commons with a PD-old-100 (or a related tag like {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}}) and the lack of a specific U.S. tag for these PD-old-100 files, while not preferred, isn't in of itself reason for deletion. By the way, with regards to the Mona Lisa, it is definitely {{PD-old-100-1923}}, it is easy to find examples of pre-1923 publication. For example, a photographic reproduction of Mona Lisa appears in the February, 1914 issue of "The Century" in the article "The Two 'Mona Lisas'" by Walter Littlefield. —RP88 (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
One problem is that {{PD-old-100}} does not automatically imply {{PD-US}} as posthumously published works may be copyrighted in the United States even if the author died more than 100 years ago. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
You are, of course, correct, I think it is well established that merely because an author has been dead for 100 years is not enough to guarantee a work is PD in the U.S. (a famous example being John Adams' letter to Nathan Webb), it's just very likely. This is why I called the old text inconsistent with U.S. copyright law and keeping the old text would necessarily require us to "embrace the ambigutity". This is also why I lean towards keeping Jarekts new text with a note asking for a U.S. tag just like all of the other PD-old-X tags, so long as we all agree that this won't, in of itself, be sufficient reason for the 100,000+ files with just a PD-old-100 tag to suddenly be eligible for deletion. Basically I think the intention behind the old "PD-old-100" tag was a strange mix of "this work is PD in the U.S. (but I won't tell you why)" as well as "PD in all p.m.a+100 or less countries."; I don't think the original PD-old-100 text ever intended to suggest the U.S. was one of the "p.m.a+100 or less countries". —RP88 (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
My problem is with how to pick US license for PD-old-100 artworks, and let's work with Mona Lisa as an example. I am positive that the painting itself is PD in the US, but why? So I look at Commons:Hirtle chart and I have to decide if Mona Lisa was published according to US definition. It seems like if work was displayed "at a place open to the public", like Louvre than it was "published", but also other definitions of the word might apply. According to en:Mona Lisa the painting was on display in Louvre since 1797, so we can change {{PD-old-100}} to {{PD-old-100-1923}}. My guess is that is the process we would be asking to apply to other PD-old-100 artworks. We probably should create some help page about it with some examples, as a lot of it is quite counter intuitive. --Jarekt (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The definition of publication you link to is from the 1976 Copyright Act; under that act (i.e. after January 1, 1978) the public display of a work of art is not publication. See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US for both pre-1978 and post-1978 rules for picking the correct U.S. copyright tag for public art. —RP88 (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
RP88, thanks for straitening me out. I got lost in double negatives of sprawling definition. So Commons:Publication#United_States says that just displaying artwork "at a place open to the public" is NOT a publication. However since I am still thinking about en:Mona Lisa any trying to justify {{PD-1923}}, I can use pre-1978 definition of publication which included display at museum, and that is why Mona Lisa is in public domain in the US. If there is some flaw her can someone say why is she in PD in US? --Jarekt (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the 1976 Act didn't un-publish works that had previously met the definition of publication; if an artwork were publicly exhibited before 1978-01-01, it counts as published. Meanwhile, works not published before 2003-01-01 are PD-US if the author died before 1945, so even if we apply the current definition of publication, she's been in the public domain for quite a while now. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyright transfer agreements[edit]

For the last several days, I've been helping a musician who desires to upload images from his own website; he's just sent OTRS an email confirming his identity as the owner of the website, although it's not yet been confirmed by an OTRS volunteer. This being done, we should accept anything from his website (after all, we accept anything by photographer Jerry Avenaim uploaded by User:Jerry Avenaim, since the user's identity as the photographer has been authenticated). He says that he owns the rights to a group of photos that depict him, and I'm waiting to hear back from him as to whether they're works for hire (the musician has a bunch of employees) or whether they're ordinary professional images by some studio. If it's the latter, and if he says that they signed a formal transfer agreement, what process do we follow? Do we accept such a statement on its face (just as we accept a statement that others were works for hire, since authentication proves that he's the owner of the company), or do we ask for some sort of additional evidence/proof? Of course, this all assumes that the OTRS authentication checks out; if not, of course they need to be trashed. All the images in question appear at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mlaucke, if you want more information. Nyttend (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

October 06[edit]

What is the copyright status of ?[edit]

What is the copyright status of ?

Example link =

More info here: -- Wikipedia-l is just simply described as "Wikipedia mailing list".

I'm not seeing any particular notice about licensing -- or copyright.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably just the same as any other mailing list or newsgroup: kind of wobbly. Per law (but which country's laws do apply?) all rights usually belong to the author, but in most cases noone really cares? --El Grafo (talk)
The interface (not the individual posts), if its complicated enough to warrant copyright (which seems doubtful), would probably be copyright the people who made the software - GNU mailman (GPL). Some (not all) of the individual listinfo pages use a custom template which I think is CC-By 3.0. Bawolff (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like not a certain enough answer to upload screenshots to Wikimedia Commons then? -- Cirt (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, depending on what is shown in the screenshots, it might be below COM:TOO and qualify for something like {{PD-text}}. Maybe just upload an example and immediately file a DR for it to find out? --El Grafo (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

How to categorize these things?[edit]

Hi There are these objects: c:File:Bomb container in Moscow subway June 2012.jpg at every station of Moscow Metro. If a bomb or smth suspicious-looking is found in the Metro, it will be put in this bunker to get blown up. So it's used for safety, agaist terrorism for example. What is a category tree will be suitable for it? I did't find anything. //Stolbovsky (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I added Category:Explosive ordnance disposal, similar to File:Bomb barrel (2864043610).jpg. —RP88 (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


Lviv trein 2004 10.jpg

Am I correct in seeing this as a generator to charge the batteries of the coaches. This way the coach doesnt depend on an electric supply from the locomotive.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

No way to really tell from this, but it looks more like it's hydraulic to me (note the drain plug just to the right of the pulley). Revent (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


Old postcard from Zhovkva.jpg
I suspect this is written in Polish and I see a posible date of 14-7-1904. At this time Poland didnt exist yet and this is probably the Russian part.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Saying that «Poland didn’t exist yet» in 1904 is a distraction as needlessly inflammafory as it is irrelevant for the subject: This is in the Region of Lviv (back then Lwów), and we usually classify / categorize geographical items into countries according to current boundaries, so I added a few cats under the Ukraine tree. (The printed text of the postcard is indeed Polish, and I’m almost sure the handwrittent text is too.) -- Tuválkin 00:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The historic boundaries are often respected as is in the case of Category:Königsberg/Category:Kaliningrad. (also Austria-Hungary) In 1904 Lviv was part of the Russian empire, but this contained a lot of non-Russian people and regions. I cannot make out if Lviv was part of autonomous Congres-Poland (File:Karte kongresspolen.png or
old map
) or Ukraine. The language map of 1880 File:Polish language1880.png places Lviv on the border. So on balance in 1904 Lviv was on the Ukraine side of Russia, but I would like to see more precise maps. I suspect the USSR reactivated the old Poland-Congres borders.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Lviv, Lwów, Lvov, Lemberg (all of those names refer to the same city) was in Austrian Galitzia in 1904. B25es (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

بار گذاری عکس[edit]

با سلام من ابتدا توی ویکی انبار یه سری عکس آپلود کردم.حالا وقتی که به جدول ایامی استان مورد نظرم میرم -نمی تونم عکس اونجا آپلود کنم.سوال اینجاست که الان عکس ها واسه مسابقه شرکت داده میشه یا باید ابتدا عکس ها رو حذف کنم و از نو آپلود کنم.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Babakgorgin (talk • contribs) 23:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I noticed you're typing in a different language, please use English or go to the Persian Village Pump: Commons:قهوه‌خانه. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 00:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@Skyllfully: a lot of pages like that are pretty inactive; we generally allow people to post in any language here, but of course we can't promise someone will be able to help them. - Jmabel ! talk 02:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

October 07[edit]

Incorrect info in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets[edit]

In Special:Preferences under the gadgets tab, for the gadget CropTool, it states, "A tool for cropping images (currently only jpegs) at Wikimedia Commons..." but CropTool now supports .png and .jpg .gif files, as well (reference, see notice at top of page). This needs to be changed, as it could be detracting for some. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 00:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Edited strikeouts. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 00:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Adding ", as well". —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 00:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done: Special:Diff/174739595. Thibaut120094 (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

need coordinates fix[edit]

While browsing the Bahamas near the location of the SS El Faro sinking, I ran across the photo File:Solfarata fumarolas putana volcano.jpg. Its coordinates are wrong: N should be S (and otherwise it's correct). I have no idea how to go about fixing it; there's no Talk page for the item or for the owner. If someone knows how to fix it, please do.

Thanks.--Paleolith (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: link to diff. Please use the template {{edit request}} accordingly on talk pages next time. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 03:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the day 7th October[edit]

Anyone here to fix a typo on that protected picture? What's the "middle edge"? Surely it's supposed to mean "ages"! -- 10:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@ Fixed on both the POTD page and the file page. Thanks. Revent (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Seasons by hemisphere[edit]

I just noticed these categories/templates:

Could all these be homogenized, and then used in a homogenous way in the relevant subcats? (Pinging @Alan Liefting:, @Verdy p:, @AnRo0002:.) -- Tuválkin 15:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

October 08[edit]

Cannot type space[edit]


for the recent several month I cannot type "space" when writing in Commons. Sometimes refresh, helps but it is prety annoying. Tested in both FF and Chrome. Do you obscure such problems also?--Juandev (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Something like that happens to me: apparently it is caused by the use of the Category Slideshow gadget, and affects only HTML form entry boxes, not other kind of typing. It does go away once the page is refreshed; this has been happening in several versions of Firefox during the last couple years. -- Tuválkin 10:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this vandalism or correct edit?[edit]

File:Jair Meneguelli 2007.jpg was modified yesterday by IP with no previous edits. I can not tell if this was vandalism or correct edit. --Jarekt (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Upload:17:51, 20. Jun. 2008, New date: 2. März 2015. Vandalismus. -- 12:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@Jarekt: I have reverted - the image was taken by Roosewelt Pinheiro/ABr as can be seen here... Storkk (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Smiley.svg Thank you all. --Jarekt (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

October 09[edit]

Restitution of File:Flag of Guarico State.svg[edit]

Please, some bureaucrat or an user with sufficient permissions, can restore the File:Flag of Guarico State.svg ? it was deleted on Commons by lack of references, but this is not true, because it was drawn by the user Unukalhai according to the Guarico symbols act (see pages 6 and 7). I was going to tell this to the user that deleted it, but this person has withdrawn from Commons. Thank you.--Shadowxfox (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 21:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Increasing amount of difficulties at Commons Wikimedia[edit]

For a while now I am having problems with GIMP-made PNG images not rendering properly on Commons Wikimedia. Because of this I have already abandoned PNG altogether on Commons Wikipedia, since I found out that this issue is valued at very low importance by the people that should fix this. So no transparency in images. Now today I discover that when I download blanc SVG maps of the world, posted on Commons Wikimedia, which I wanted to use for creating a map for use on Wikipedia, they won't open in Inkscape. None of them. Does anyone have an idea what's going on here ? --OSeveno (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

They also won't open in Firefox, after being downloaded. --OSeveno (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Which file caused the problems? ireas (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Haven't found one that didn't. For example: File:A large blank world map with oceans marked in blue planisferio en blanco.svg, File:BlankMap-Equirectangular.svg, File:World98+.svg, File:Blank world map with subnational borders, without Antartica.svg, File:BlankMap-World Default Edition.svg. --OSeveno (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I just tried the first couple in Inkscape (v0.48.2 / Mac OS 10.6.8), no problems.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
All those look ok to me in Firefox (Win7). -mattbuck (Talk) 22:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is the typical error Firefox returns:
XML parsing error: improperly formed
Location: file: /// C: /Users/oseveno/Desktop/ColoredBlankMap-World-10E.svg
Line number 1, column 6: image / svg + xml / * * Below are Cascading Style Sheet (CSS) definitions in
----- ^
Inkscape simply states it can not load the file. --OSeveno (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

October 10[edit]

Requesting of authors information on photo donations[edit]

Hi. Recently I uploaded a serie of donated photos of the mexican flautist. @Jcb: requested me the information of the authors of each photo perhaps the materials was donated trough e-mail using a template of donation under CC-BY-SA 4.0 by the artist trough his communication agency. Franco is the owner of the photos, that was ordered and paid by him. Now the images was deleted. In other case I received after Wikimania 2015 189 photos donated by the Mexico City Police (contained in Category:Images donated by Secretaría de Seguridad Pública del Distrito Federal) and Jcb is asking me again the author's information of the photos. The Mexico City Police have photographers who are paid staff doing his work and the own donator expressed trough a scanned document (received by the OTRS team) expressing the donation to Creative Commons as other donation of contents managed by other fellow GLAM wikimedians around the world. I don't know if other content donation managed by OTRS team received the same requirements of info than me in similar donations (AFAIK not) but this is very annoying for me, specially for the amount of time invested in get this materials in the real world. I'm a long time wikimedian and president of my chapter so I have other content donations pending from other sources but this lack of good faith can't support in our work opening more closed collections. Thanks, --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)