Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

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

Please note

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page

Search archives


People of Ngadisan (Java, Indonesia) are filling their cans at the village pump. The old well is defunct and replaced by a water tap. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss • Edit • Watch



Category - Warner Bros. Studio Tour London (The Making of Harry Potter)[edit]

Someone should look at the Category:Warner Bros. Studio Tour London (The Making of Harry Potter) and sub-categories. At least all images in Category:Warner Bros. Studio Tour London (creature effects) should be deleted.All creatures are creations of living artists. Traumrune (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

What about freedom of panorama? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
There's some 2D stuff there that wouldn't be covered. Others may be OK if it's a permanent display in premises open to the public, like the wax sculptures in Category:Madame Tussauds. --ghouston (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Everything in the exposition is copyrighted The materials incorporated within the Studio Tour including, without limitation, any sets, props, wardrobe, text, graphics, images, artwork, illustrations, photographs, animations, music, video, audio, audiovisual works, designs, logos, software and any other content (together, “Material”) are protected by copyrights, patents, trade secrets or other proprietary rights owned by us and/or our licensors and/or J. K. Rowling (“Intellectual Property Rights”). Some of the characters, logos or other images incorporated within the Studio Tour are also protected as registered or unregistered trademarks, trade names and/or service marks owned by us or J. K. Rowling (“Trademarks”). We respect the intellectual property rights of others and ask you to do the same. [1]. The terms seem clear to me: we can't keep the pictures.Traumrune (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama gives an exemption to copyright law for making photographs of sculptures and buildings. I'd say anything that could be considered a sculpture, or not copyrightable, would still be fine if the other conditions of FoP are met. I don't think we need to care about "patents, trade secrets or other proprietary rights". How could something on public display be a trade secret anyway? --ghouston (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Also "models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship" including 2D works of artistic craftmanship are included in FoP according to freedom of panorama. --ghouston (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I think Traumrune is right, at least according to my reading of 17 USC 104(b). The Wikimedia servers are in the United States and Warner Bros. would almost certainly be considered "a national or domiciliary of the United States", therefor I advise the deletion of those images not covered under FoP-US. Allen4names (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
From what one understands, trademark restrictions and "house rules" are not applicable to Commons. Copyright is applicable, though. The current policy on Commons is to allow (with possibly one exception as of now) photos of artistic works that are covered under foreign FOP even though US FOP does not extend to artwork. Such photos should be tagged with something like {{Licensed-FOP|{{FoP-UK}}{{Not-free-US-FOP}}|{{XXXX}}}} where {{XXXX}} is the license tag for the photo itself (see File:Minimundus117.jpg for example.) Photos of architectural works that were photographed outside the US can be tagged with something like {{Licensed-FOP|{{FoP-UK}}|{{XXXX}}}} where, once again, {{XXXX}} is the license tag for the photo itself.
Some of the images in Category:Warner Bros. Studio Tour London (The Making of Harry Potter) and its sub-categories may not qualify as usable even under UK FOP. In particular, it seems questionable as to whether the museum information cards and panels (such as File:The Making of Harry Potter 29-05-2012 (7173049717).jpg and File:The_Making_of_Harry_Potter_29-05-2012_(7385895614).jpg) are "works of artistic craftsmanship." --Gazebo (talk) 09:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. No time to dig into this now, but the majority of the images are of posters and other printed designs. FoP does not apply, and most are very obvious copyright infringements that should be speedily deleted. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

November 17[edit]


Hi all, I have a question related to spelling. For example in this file, the spelling (typo) section Original upload log states: auhtor, I was wondering if it is okay to correct the typo or if it should be left alone. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The original upload log shouldn't be changed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
And please do not make any notations like [sic] either! It is what it is, and needs to simply be a faithful copy. Delphi234 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Harassment consultation[edit]

Please help translate to your language

The Community Advocacy team the Wikimedia Foundation has opened a consultation on the topic of harassment on Meta. The consultation period is intended to run for one month from today, November 16, and end on December 17. Please share your thoughts there on harassment-related issues facing our communities and potential solutions. (Note: this consultation is not intended to evaluate specific cases of harassment, but rather to discuss the problem of harassment itself.)

Regards, Community Advocacy, Wikimedia Foundation
  • Hi, unsigned-above User:PEarley (WMF). Please consider the fact that very proeminently among the harass-related fears that assault the mind of Wikimedia project volonteers looms largest the possibility that they might be singled out by the WMF itself and be subjected to disproportionate pressure due simply to mere disagreements, risking loss of working tools and of control over project content, and risking even to be disappeared away with no chance of appeal. Oh, and learn some indenting, too, please, while you’re at it. Cheers! -- Tuválkin 16:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

November 18[edit]

Image editing tool on-wiki[edit]


The Multimedia team is entering a cycle of experimentation with a new project, namely, a tool to create derivative files from existing files and a set of changes, or to apply a set of changes to an existing file.

The way the prototype currently works is this:

  • User visits an image page
  • ...clicks on a link in the toolbox to go to Special:EditImage/(filename)
  • ...enters a destination filename (which can be the same as the source filename)
  • ...chooses an action (rotate, crop, rotate|crop, or crop|rotate)
  • ...inputs options for each action - degrees, color (for dead space created by rotation), x, y, width, height
  • ...submits form, image gets created at destination filename

We're considering a much nicer interface for this, including live previews. What I'd like to know is this:

  1. Do you think an image editor is a tool that Commons needs?
  2. Would you use a tool for creating derivative images from existing images on Commons?
  3. Would you use a tool for editing existing images on Commons?
  4. Would you use the rotation tool?
  5. Would you use the crop tool?
  6. What other operations do you perform on images frequently, that you would like this service to perform for you?

This project is not likely to show up on Commons anytime soon, we are simply playing with the idea. Also, one of the stated goals in some of the current documentation is allowing syntax like {{#file:Foobar.jpg|rotate|degrees=90}}, but that feature is not included in the extension yet, and likely will not be until we have finalized the features above.

Thanks in advance for your input. --MarkTraceur (WMF) (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The community likes to rotate the raw file. Rotating just the thumb is not helpful at all. See phabricator:T35186. I told that to the WMF Product manger as well a while ago... --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: I'm not sure what you mean - Special:EditImage does rotate the raw file. The {{#file}} syntax isn't finalized yet, and I'm not even sure how it will be implemented, but "the community" has a lot of opinions, and I certainly intend to work through all of them in order to come to a decision about that feature. --MarkTraceur (WMF) (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Sounds great. Thanks! --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I think such tool would be very useful. I think rotation operation done by 90/180/270 degrees and possibly mirror image (right-left flip) are operations which should be done on the original image without a need to create derivative image. I think separate process mimicking current work of User:Rotatebot, but done instantaneously is the optimal. For other rotations and cropping I think a tool you described would be very useful. Other operations could include white balance and some automatic color adjustment. However one messy issue I foresee, is the creation of proper metadata of the derivative image. I assume that none of the operations would require mentioning the person performing them as a "co-author" and a separate license for derivative work would not be necessary, so the metadata should mostly have different "source" field. However if the new image is uploaded under the name of the user who did the changes, than templates like {{own}}, {{self}} or {{PD-self}} might have to be replaced by other templates. The tool should also work for images using all major Infoboxes, not just {{Information}} template. Maybe we could copy the edit history of the original file to the new file (copy entries from revision table in the database) so we do not have to create the crazy Original upload log section in the image to properly attribute all the people that changed the file description. In the past Commons:derivativeFX tool was used for creating metadata for derivative works and this tool was creating a lot of nonsensical metadata we will be cleaning up for a long time. I would like to avoid that with the new tool. --Jarekt (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jarekt: I would greatly appreciate links to past efforts in marking files as derivatives. I don't think copying the upload log and edit log of an image into its derivative is a wise idea, since the attribution requirement is fulfilled by linking to the old file (which we will do from day 1, of course) - as long as it's clearly marked as a derivative, it should be fine (though, I am not a lawyer, so I will be sure to run the attribution requirements past a proper lawyer before that decision is finalized). Thanks for the links, I'll start going through them now... --MarkTraceur (WMF) (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Most "links to past efforts" can be found at User:Luxo page, However I am not sure you can the bot source code. --Jarekt (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Generally a good idea; I'm a little hesitant about making it easy to do a crop as a new version unless by original uploader (crop under a new file name is fine); at the very least we might want to limit access to such a feature. Even without a tool to make it easy, I've seen a lot of controversial crops lead to arguments. - Jmabel ! talk 21:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Confusion with illustrations of Drake's Great Expedition[edit]

Would someone be able to look at these two images (including the edit history) and work out what is best to do?

The 1589 date is when the illustrations were done. One of the versions should be kept (not sure which is best). The other one should be replaced with the Santiago attack illustration (or that can be uploaded again separately). Confusingly, this image is in the edit history of the first image above, see here. What probably also needs doing is for someone to check all the usages of these files, as one of the files was being used incorrectly on en-Wikipedia, and the same might be true on other wikis as well. I will try and do some of the checks, but I think some help will be needed to sort it out fully. Hope someone here can help. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I have now uploaded the correct version of the second file. The original version was uploaded from this site, which misdecribes it. For some reason, the thumbnail image in the file history section has not yet been updated.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 01:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. Pedantically, there is an error in your edit summary, but the right image is now there which is perfect. Annoyingly, there seems to be a cache or job queue issues somewhere, as when I refresh, the image is there correctly now, but the thumbnails (including the 300px one used in the article) aren't refreshed and show the old images. I know how to do a null edit to force a template update, but can't seem to find instructions anywhere on how to force a thumbnail refresh. OK, found Help:Purge, but the tricks there aren't working either. Carcharoth (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I realised almost immediately after I had completed the upload that I had mistakenly written Santiago, Hispaniola for what should have been Santo Domingo, Hispaniola. I have now managed to update the thumbnail by following the instructions on the Help:Purge page (thank you for pointing to it). The correct image now appears on all the Wikipedia pages that use the image, although you may need to reload the page to see the current version rather than an old one from your browser's cache.
There are actually higher resolution versions of these images available from the Library of Congress website, which I will upload shortly.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - The Boeing Company[edit]

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me.The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#The Boeing Company Thank you! Jalexander--WMF 23:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

November 19[edit]

Commons Facebook page[edit]

Hey dudes, who manages Facebook page? They seems just re-sharing WP posts, do you know who they are? Because in Commons:Social media, we don't have any information. The FB is not sharing community activities, as Photo Challenge, Featured pictures, Picture of the Year... -- RTA 06:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

And hey dudes, who is in charge of attribution for the posted images on Facebook? By a short look there, I didn't see a single correctly attributed image according to our licences. Hence all (or most) pictures posted on this facebook page are blatant licence violations. At least in the texts to each image I would expect the attribution of the author and the link to the Creative Commons licence and a link to the Commons page. Take this example: Somebody even made a derivative, which obviously is also not attributed. --Wuselig (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I guess you mean this page. The facebook Wikipedia page is confirmed by Facebook to be an "authentic page", but the Commons page could be anybody. --ghouston (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, we know who added Facebook to the list on Commons:Social media, but that may not help. Storkk (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Page owners are listed as Jens Liebenau and Ricky Setiawan. --ghouston (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Because all use of pictures with free licenses (except CC0, PD) are Copyvio, why we no use as default a Template as User:Ralf Roletschek/NoFacebook? --Ralf Roleček 13:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Ralf raises a serious concern about using share-alike CC/FAL/etc licensed-images on Facebook -- the terms of those licences are incompatible with Facebook's terms, which are essentially a rights-grab. Anyone posting images to Facebook is required to offer Facebook a licence for those images (to basically do what they want with them). Such a licence is not compatible with any existing free content licence that has share-alike terms. So unless you own the works yourself, you can't grant that licence. It would be possible to post CC BY images that are not SA, provided the post includes the appropriate attribution, as well as CC0/PD images. Can we inform the owners of this discussion? -- Colin (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  1. Can't we encourage them to link (which is unproblematic) rather than copy to FB? - Jmabel ! talk 18:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. FB can't legally acquire rights to the images simply because they are uploaded by someone who is not the copyright holder. - Jmabel ! talk 18:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
That's true, but it doesn't mean it won't cause problems to allow the practice to continue, because Facebook is unlikely to realise that the uploader is not the copyright holder if it does somehow decide to use the images. Diliff (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
You can't post cc-by images to Facebook either. You can only post images to Facebook if you can grant Facebook a licence to use the image without attribution, if I remember correctly.
A user who posts a cc-by-sa image very clearly violates Facebook's terms of use (and thus risks being sued by Facebook), but it can be debated whether the cc-by-sa licence itself is violated if you provide proper attribution in the Facebook post. Note that Facebook's terms of use require you to grant Facebook a worldwide licence, so you can't depend on copyright expiration unless the copyright has expired in all countries in the entire world, and you can also not depend on exemptions from copyright protection (such as fair use or FOP) unless the exemption exists in all countries in the entire world. It is obvious that Facebook isn't enforcing its own terms of use. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's a CC-BY-SA example: [2]. Take it up with whoever is running the official Facebook Wikipedia page I guess. --ghouston (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

eerr, you changed the topic, and no, we can post images under CC-By-Sa there, we need to link to file page here, and that's it. This license incomparability myth appeared when FB tried to owned the photos of their clients a time back ago. Now it's kind of obscure:"you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content"... and they talk about open source in apps, no restrictions to free licenses... Moreover, they don't have any power to exchange the license previously published, we need to talk with the Wikipedia guys to ask them to attach a link on their publications.

I'll try to talk directly to those owners, peace! -- RTA 17:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes to Watchlist pages[edit]

Watchlists have been changed so that rather than one click on a link being needed to hide minor edits, or hide bots etc. users must select from checkboxes and then press a go button. This is a terrible change, meaning that what was one easy action, now becomes two, more fiddly, different types of action. Note that this change has been implemented on Commons, but I don't see it on the English Wikipedia at the time of writing.

Where is the best place to complain so that WMF development might notice? Thanks -- (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • WMF might as well be called "WTF". While we as a community discuss changes ad infinitum before making them, they feel free to just mess things up. I would try Meta though. Mediawiki is for defining what the software can do, but each wiki gets customized and I would guess the watchlist is a customization rather than true for all wikis. WMF though, does not really participate much in MW, to my knowledge. It is a common confusion between WM and MW - they are as different as night and day. One is us, the other is for everyone. I see the button at the bottom right of the page on the left still goes to WMF instead of to WM (Meta). Perhaps part of the confusion is caused by calling WM Meta-Wiki, thus creating two MWs, instead of calling it Wiki-Meta. Delphi234 (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Ha. I wish that Wikimedia was just one out of the many different interests that develop mediawiki. Alas, MediaWiki development is pretty dominated by WMF. [However that's irrelavent to the issue at hand - without meaning to be dismisive to the people complaining, from wherd im sitting, the change seems reasonable enough. It could have just as easily come from someone not associated with wmf]Bawolff (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This feature appears to be tracked at phabricator:T50615. It was rolled out in mediawikiwiki:MediaWiki_1.27/wmf.7, which was deployed to Commons on Wednesday, 18 November 2015 and is scheduled to be deployed to en.wp on Thursday, 19 November 2015. —RP88 (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I have asked for this to be reversed on the phabricator discussion. -- (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
xkcd: Workflow. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I have so many occasions to link that page! But in this case, without irony: this is just the wrong direction to go. - Jmabel ! talk 00:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Workaround for anyone really bothered by this (Put in Special:MyPage/common.js):

$( function() { $( '#mw-watchlist-options input[name^=hide]' ).click( function() { $( '#mw-watchlist-form' ).submit() } ) } );

And then, the checkboxes on watchlist (only watchlist, not rc), will autosubmit the form when clicked. Bawolff (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

How bizarre that we have to create work-arounds for unplanned WMF "improvements" that would fail user testing, were any user testing actually done. -- (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Phab:T50615 has been created, though basically it's the same as reverting Phab:T50615 and doing something else. I confess I still do not understand the case for implementing any change. -- (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

November 20[edit]

Rename image[edit]

Could someone please rename this image? It is confusing because it is named "Cavalier perspective", but shows "Cabinet perspective". Thanks! SharkD  Talk  06:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure? From reading the relevant sections of en:Oblique projection I would expect a cabinet-perspective drawing to be more foreshortened. At any rate I don‘t think there’s any obvious error deserving of a move. Perhaps you could leave a query on the file’s Talk page.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I will do that. SharkD  Talk  23:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thumbnails not updating[edit]

I've just updated File:2014 ebola virus epidemic in West Africa simplified.svg, and the changes don't seem to have rippled through to the rendered images yet, even after several minutes have passed. I've checked to make sure this isn't a browser cache issue at my end. -- The Anome (talk) 11:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. The 500 px version just seems to have rippled through, but the rest are as yet unaltered. Could this be a very long backlog on some render queue, or a cache invalidation problem within the WMF cluster? -- The Anome (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm having problems myself. I uploaded a new version of File:Parisattacks.png about an hour ago and pages throughout Wikimedia are still displaying the old version in thumbnails. Manually purging, cache-clearing, and hard-refreshing have not helped the issue. -- Veggies (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

My changes still haven't gone through, either. Are there any WMF people watching this page? Can you help us? -- The Anome (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The issue is already tracked in Phabricator. --Magnus (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

SVG-to-PNG convertor text[edit]

Up until at least 20 June of this year, the PNGs created were accurate and the text generated and located correctly, but as of 3 July [4] the PNG convertor really badly trashes the text of the PNG images created from some of the SVGs created by Template:SVG Chart. This template is used by quite a few images, many of which are updated monthly or annually. Up until June, these updates were fine, but now they can be completely unreadable. See for example Top Five US Wind States.svg and US Monthly Wind Generated Electricity.svg A work around was done for US unemployment rate under President Obama.svg by converting text to a path but this does not work for files that use switch. The SVG is valid, as confirmed by this tool. Could someone please at least open a Phabricator tag or bug report for this issue so that it does not continue to be ignored? Delphi234 (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The time is very interesting, I give this back to phab:T36947. User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 14:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Contributor removed a whole slew of deletion requests from Commons:Deletion requests/2015/11/20[edit]

Have a look at this diff where the contributor removed a whole slew of deletion requests from Commons:Deletion requests/2015/11/20. Should this be reverted? It would seem that they were hoping to delete the deletion request for their own uploads this way, judging by what they did here . - Takeaway (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Reverted, user warned. Yann (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


Dear Commons community,

I would like to bring up two points.

Is Template:Kopimi a free content license?
In my opinion: no, it is not. A while back, I rewrote a paragraph about Kopimi on the English Wikipedia, see:ån#Kopimi. I've read several sources and saw no evidence that Kopimi is a copyright license. After finding out that Commons had its own Kopimi template, I added a notification to let people know that if they use Kopimi, they should also use an actual license. I was reverted by User:Jarekt and discussed the issue with him on his talk page (see here), which let to the creation of this topic.

Are there files which use only Kopimi, without anything else?
Yes there are, but not a lot. Jarekt provided me with this link, which produces 59 results.

Piratebay conference pictures: (UPDATE! All the Tpb files below have been fixed.)

The site where the above images came from is A text on that site reads: "Free to use for everyone. Both for press and blog." And: "Images are completely free to use. CC licence." The author didn't care to specify which CC license he meant, but it's obvious that he wanted the pictures to be distributed freely. I suggest tagging them with {{Copyrighted free use}}.


Piratbyrån and Kopimi logos:

"Allt material på Piratbyrån är befriat från copyright." (source) Translation: "All material on Piratbyrån is free of copyright." {{PD-author}}?


Pirate Bay images:

The Pirate Bay is an anti-copyright website so I can't imagine they will mind those images being up here. They never explicitly stated their images are free of copyright, however. Shall we apply {{Copyrighted free use}}?


Other images, unrelated to the Pirate Bay or Piratbyran:

I guess we have to contact the uploaders and/or the creators of the above files to ask them which license they would like. I don't think these files should be deleted, because if someone tags their pictures with Kopimi, it is reasonable to assume that they want their content to be free. Still, in the long term, it would be good if these files get an actual license. As for those OTSR tickets, I can't see them, so someone with access should review those.


False positives, were also provided but probably need no action:


Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Smartse, creator of the aforementioned File:Breeding transgenesis cisgenesis.svg, has been notified on en.wp. - Manifestation (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Also notified User:Ariel Provost at French WP and User:Kinee123 right here at Commons. That's all for the recently active users. The remaining users should be e-mailed. - Manifestation (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Manifestation: Thanks for the note. I've added a CC licence as well. Not sure how I ever found the template to start with back in the distant past of 2009! Smartse (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
He thanks Smartse! I've struck through the entry. Cheers! Manifestation (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@Manifestation: Hi,
You omit at least 2 important points. First that this was already discussed in 2009, and that the community decided that this license is indeed OK. Second, you don't mention why this would not be a valid license. This should be established before doing anything else. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Yann. Yes, I've read that discussion. It had no consensus. The Kopimi template was created on 24 October 2007 and the original author explicitly stated that it was not a license. On 22 February 2009, another user came by and basically turned it into a license, complete with PD icon (letter C with a line struck through it). That icon was later taken out and the wording was changed, but a lot of people still think it's a license. No one has given a definitive answer to this. So what is it? The truth is: Kopimi is *not* a license. It's a symbol, representing certain ideas. See here:ån#Kopimi . Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Manifestation, I agree that {{Kopimi}} should not be a license, but since 22 February 2009 it is a license and it was used by uploaders who thought it was a license. All those files will need to be relicensed or deleted before we can convert it back to "symbol, representing certain ideas" template. I liked your plan of action above and will try to help. --Jarekt (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
May be we should just tagg all the remaining files with {{Copyrighted free use}} since that is clearly the intend of the template. --Jarekt (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jarekt, much obliged. I agree with your statement about Copyrighted free use. - Manifestation (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
PS: I didn't knew God contributed to Commons?? :-) Manifestation (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Attribution "God" was the requested attribution by the copyright holder. I believe they can pick any attribution they want. --Jarekt (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Problems with exif / metadata?[edit]

Hi! Is Commons experiencing a technical issue regarding exif / metadata? I am just wondering about:

All 4 examples (there are more) are coming from uploads by Sonia Sevilla (talk · contributions · Number of edits)... Gunnex (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sonia Sevilla: Can you explain this? Because there are a lot of times in the past we have had to remove images you uploaded as your own work that turned out not to be your own work. - Jmabel ! talk 21:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Christian! Thx for the check. I already tagged this file before via [7]. See also above (link to user talk: "Nokia 6630"). Gunnex (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

November 21[edit]

special pages[edit]

Hi, I just wonder why some special pages like Special:WantedCategories doesn't get updated since about 3 weeks now. Before it got updated about twice a week. regards. --JuTa 00:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It happened also in the past, not sure why. For now you can try User:YiFeiBot/WantedCategories --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Search link[edit]

The template that does not have a documentation, does not work correctly. The name space in insource:/\| *description *= *description/i for instance is not being considered. --Leyo 13:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

According to the comments inside the template you should search in 6th namespace using following structure: ns6=1. Parameter ns is also for following structure: ns=all and its purpose is clear I think. But yeah, documentation would be really helpful in this case. --Dvorapa (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
That does not work either, see insource:/\| *description *= *description/i. --Leyo 14:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
You misunderstood me, let me explain it better. According to the comments in code, basically there are two options (for namespace 6 and 7):
  1. {{Search link|insource:/regex/i|ns=ns6=1&ns7=1}}: insource:/regex/i
  2. {{Search link|insource:/regex/i||ns6|ns7}}: insource:/regex/i
Still not clear? --Dvorapa (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Got it, thanks.
What about importing en:Template:Search link/doc to Template:Search link/doc? --Leyo 16:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I tried it but I didn't read it thoroughly, so there could be some issues. --Dvorapa (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Just a note for readers: My second try above now yields a different result due to your update. --Leyo 17:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


Please replace "{{zh|由上傳者拍攝。}} {{en|Captured by uploader.}} {{th|ภาพนี้ถ่ายโดยผู้อัพโหลด}}" with "{{own}}" in these files using "AWB".Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

(I thought of doing this for you with VFC but it only works for 200 filepages at a time, and your Category:Files by Tevaprapas is way bigger than that. Looks like work for a bot indeed!) -- Tuválkin 16:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy Vanishing[edit]

How do I go about requesting a Courtesy Vanishing? I would like to have my contributions removed from the site. --WPPilot (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

If by "have my contributions removed from the site" you mean to revoke the licenses you've already given on your images and have the images removed, you can't do that. CC licenses are irrevocable. As for a courtesy vanishing, see en:Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing. As I understand it, we do it pretty much the same way on Commons, though someone may know some differences I am unfamiliar with. - Jmabel ! talk 23:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Because?? -- RTA 10:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Normally this is only possible for good reason (uploads made by a minor who now regrets it, possible future harassment material, mistakes of identity...). I have seen this done by email negotiation, which means that the reasons can be discussed in private without drawing unwanted attention in public; in that case accounts were renamed to something anonymous by a steward and links and names on images changed. If the images uploaded were the problem, then these can be deleted as a courtesy, however if the images are well established and there are a significant number (say, thousands) then the problem is that mass deletion will draw a lot of attention and possible public analysis and discussion. Even widely used and correctly licensed images have been quietly deleted in the past, with alternatives then used on Wikipedia articles, based on OTRS discussions where someone had confidential reasons to request a reasonable courtesy deletion.
Where there are potential issues of identification or unwanted outing, I suggest any specific discussion happens via email rather than on-wiki. Thanks -- (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
"If the images uploaded were the problem, then these can be deleted as a courtesy" Not at all, this is for short time uploads, normally by mistake.
And we need to remember the purpose of Wikimedia Movement, just because discontent at some volunteers you would remove open valuable resources...
This "courtesy" should be discussed "inside" the community, not by person at OTRS, not by a Stewart.
We don't have the obligation to hide the files, we could as a courtesy, however, in this case, this "courtesy" would affect tremendously this community, and the little that I read, the problem is with a WP volunteer... -- RTA 15:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I donated my photos under the condition that my attribution be correct. I had no idea that would be used maliciously upon me. I do not want to continue to expose myself to the type of public ridicule the user is subjecting me to and I simply put do not want my name associated with this site in any way, shape or form. What is more important, how my donations effect the community or how there being used to slander me and my real life work efforts? The unwanted outing started with the problem editors first edit and continues on a daily basis. I want out! Who do I e mail to get this started????? --WPPilot (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
WPPilot, I'm sorry, but it's unclear what, in terms of action from us, you actually want. If someone is slandering you, probably nothing we do in terms of your account will get them to stop slandering. We can't erase all history and make it as if you never contributed here. Is there some Commons administrator whom you trust enough to explain what is going on so that there is some chance of working out a remedy or at least an amelioration? Because it is pretty much impossible to tell from what is above what the problem actually is, other than that you believe someone has mistreated you. - Jmabel ! talk 16:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I just want out. I do not want my name associated with this website in any way shape or form. --WPPilot (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


I have reached out to Ellin Beltz via e mail and explained the situation.--WPPilot (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

How the deletion of hundreds of images will affect a community based on images? You are removing goods for humanity that you previously opened.
And this affects our work.
Of course the posture of some volunteers, in the example how they handle the last deletion that made you mad, affects more our work.
However you have to remember that you are not doing this work for them. Moreover, that WP it's not Wikimedia Commons.
-- RTA 13:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Greetings: I got emails from WPPilot explaining how the situation at en:wiki is affecting his work and life. First let me say that I am grateful and thankful to WPPilot for the amazing images he has donated to Commons. I realize he's had situations with other editors and admins over the time here - but truthfully so have we all.
As best as I can see, there is a effort/project in en:wiki to remove "close paraphrasing" or "quotation" from thousands of articles. At some point in the past (long time ago) WPPilot was reprimanded for this and he apologized instantly. At present, a user who is working on that "quotation" problem, has gone around and tagged most of the articles WPPilot contributed to as possibly containing copyrighted material. The problem comes in that the claims of copyright violation affect his professional situation and income because those viewing the situation who are not wiki volunteers do not see that the tags are for words and not images. The images on these tagged pages are WPPilot's and to an unfamiliar user can look like an attack on WPPilot's pictures, not some words in the text. The tags do not appear to be personally aimed, however, that almost all the articles WPPilot has ever worked on have been tagged. I ran a spot check on articles I've worked on and I didn't find any of these copyright checking tags. So it is possible that the en:wiki admin just ran down WPP's contributions list and tagged all the pages to which he contributed. Perhaps in that en:wiki project this is customary. The end result however, is one very upset contributor to Commons - and for good reason.
I can totally understand WPPilot's frustration with the wiki system. I'd like to ask for discussion on the topic here to see what we at Commons might be able to do to keep WPPilot part of our Common's family. Would a mass-renaming of files help? What else can we actually do? I will be Away From Keys for much of today and tomorrow; please let the discussion run for at least two days without archiving! Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The EN Admin actually was able to find fault with ever page it encountered, as opposed to the prior editors whom in the early aspects of the review for the most part found none. I have granted a license to Wikipedia that my photos be used under one condition, that my name is provided as a credit on it if used. That is the ONLY way I would consider DONATING valuable professional photos to a site, for free. I DO NOT in any way allow anyone to use them with out proper attribution, and regretfully, I no longer want my name involved with this project as the EN Admin whom is clearly gaming the system with this attack, I am done.
Any normal human can see this is deliberate and has been done in a manner that is disparaging and designed to cause me as much harm and humiliation as possible, not one of the editors that address the :list: on EN did anything CLOSE to what this nut case has done going so far as to simply make things up to support the elimination of my EN contributions and make me look like a fucking fool to the people I do business with on a daily basis. I do not want my name involved with Wikipedia or Wikicommons in any way shape or form and I have NO INTENTIONS of donating my photos unless proper attribution is provided. End of story. --WPPilot (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I am Diannaa and I am the person who worked on WPPilot's CCI case on First let me say, WPPilot, that I'm sorry events on Wikipedia are having an impact on your off-wiki life. The following material is adapted from my remarks on my user talk page here at the Commons: When working on CCI cases, we typically start at the bottom of the page. That's for two reasons. First, a script has organized the material so that the articles most likely to have copyright violations appear at the top of the page, and those least likely to contain violations are at the bottom. Most of us prefer to start at the bottom, because the work initially goes quickly and many articles can be cleared in the first few days. The second reason for starting at the bottom is because the material there is simpler, and it gives me a feel for your own writing style and level of competence with the language so that the more complex material at the top can more readily be assessed as to whether you wrote it or copied it from somewhere. The sections at the bottom cover small edits such as 187-byte additions which may be the addition of a citation or a photograph. On your investigation, the bottom three sections (which were worked on by other investigators) were clear of violations, and as we work our way up the page, there's more complex material, larger edits, and more violations in each group. That's why I found more violations than the other people who worked on the case: the smaller edits had for the most part already been checked. This is the same for every case. Compare (for example) the case en:Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Norden1990. The bottom sections are almost completely clean, and the top section has eight so far out of the group of twenty, with five articles remaining to be checked.

Regarding the templates, there's two that are used (en:template:cclean and en:template:CCI), and they are both recommended, but many people omit placing them on the talk page. Template:CCI is recommended to be placed on the talk page when content is removed presumptively, ie, when it's a pretty obvious copy vio but the source document cannot be found. The templates are not meant as badges of shame but rather are placed there to help prevent unwary editors from re-adding the content to the page. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Intent and outcome are different things. Do you have any suggestions of how to change the way this works so that the templates are not badges of shame that can drive away contributors? A best practice limit before having a detailed discussion with the contributor could be a way forward. -- (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Fæ, I don't understand your second sentence. As to suggestions for what to do, upon re-reading the instructions, I see that adding the pointer to the case page is optional, so I will go back right now and remove it from the templates I added to article talk pages for WPPilot's case. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment My observation: I remember the frustrated discussions happened when some of WPPilot's uploads faced DRs earlier. I had handled some OTRS tickets too. Everything ended as fine and calm later. My understanding from that case is that WPP responds very aggressively when something happens, making the situation out of control. I don't know what happened now; but what I understood from his EN talk is not so good. Anyway what already had happened is over. It will be wise to stay calm and negotiate with the Arbcom as far as possible. It will be nice if the block will be removed.
In Commons, the languages herea and here are not so good. Please be calm here too.
It may be possible to remove every instances of the "real name" from his files here. But the use of it in file name and in description make it difficult. He can ask Odder or any other COM:OVs for any practical possibilities. Jee 06:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Ohh sure, stay calm why you look for a new job, What great advice, your a regular brain surgeon... I no longer want to be involved on anything to do with Wikianything..... --WPPilot (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Jee, "I remember the frustrated...", "In Commons...", this type of comment will just add fuel for nothing. We are trying to solve a issue, not extend it... And we are people, we have frustrations, angry, ..., suggestions to suppress this feelings are ridiculous. (Thank you)
Moving on!
"before having a detailed discussion with the contributor could be a way forward."
Hooray!!! We should discuss with the volunteer, to understand his points, and whys, not start a series of accusations, transparency should be all moments "we are initiating one task to remove CopyVio and our name appeared, could you see what's going on?" < this would avoid all this mountain of poop created. -- RTA 12:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
RTA, what "issue" we are trying to resolve here? Its all happened at EN where we've no control over it. He can't comment there as he had already blocked with a very strong reason (Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked: legal threat on talk page, threatening emails). It is not our job to evaluate the merit of that block here; not our practice to allow discussions on such things here. I already explained him the point of contacts if he want to remove his names from files. (Nothing more I need to add; just pinging Jameslwoodward who closed last DR.) Jee 14:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The issue is removing tons of images for courtesy, as result of WP aggressive manners. And again, "Its all... emails)." it's totally unnecessary. -- RTA 15:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"aggressive manners" that's amusing. I in detail explained via e mail the exact cause and effect this has had, and she seems to fully understand. I am not going to address the block, one that I think is really silly, never the less, I have every right to protect myself, as should everyone from harm that was/is caused from the honorable donation of valuable work. That is playing the system. No good deed goes unpunished. --WPPilot (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

November 22[edit]


Hello! Listening several audio files in Commons is exhausting. You need to click on "play" button one after another. That is why I launched this tool: a wikiradio. It is not really a radio streaming, but a synchronized (with UTC time) set of tracks, so all listeners hear the same snippet at the same time, simulating a radio.

Some ideas for channels include the spoken Wikipedia audios, music by genre and topics like ambient audio. But we can do it better. Hourly, a signal is heard to warn about o'clock hours, like a real radio :p. Even better we could add a "You are listening wikiradio, the free radio" spoken message every half hour, and other stuff.

Finally, the main channel could use music to fill the gaps of a daily radio programming based on Wikimania conferences, wiki podcasts, etc. So, what do you think? Your help is welcome, picking new tracks for any channel or suggesting your ideas. Thanks. (Code is here) --emijrp (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I like it! Face-smile.svg -- Tuválkin 16:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Ideed, very nice. I wonder how do you select files to play? Regards, Yann (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
They are added to the tracks-*.js files, as an array. Example for English channel. The format is: track name, track file, md5, length in seconds. I am not sure if you prefer to send suggestions to GitHub (pull&request) or create a coordination page here in Commons. emijrp (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Images to upscale (recommendation)[edit]

I saw people to enlarge original images depiction, with the reasoning for good thumbnail display in 400px (or lower). I mean there should be an recommendation or comment on COM:USOPUser: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  15:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

At the 1st glance, it looks like a terrible, terrible thing to do. -- Tuválkin 16:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleting thousands of Flickr images over faulty PD marking[edit]

Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images was open in April and stuff was discussed therein (mea culpa: I didn't even noticed it); as the result of that discussion/analysis, thousands of admittedly good files from Flickr are now under Deletion Request discussion and risk dully deletion within a week. I think this is the wrong way to deal with the matter and feel that leaving scattered {{vk}}s in a few of those DRs (as in here, here, and here) is not the best way to stop it.

I appeal to Revent and Josve05a and whoever is doing this to stop now — withdraw those Deletion Requests, mark all affected files with a suitable hidden category, and lead (or allow others to lead) an effort to check each case and, when appropriate, contact those Flickr creators and suggest they change their licensing to something we can use. Of course such effort should not be done under the Damocles’ sword of imminent deletions, not in a matter like this where there’s no external pressure one Commons to have these mislicensed files removed. It will take many hours of our work, but will have a net positive result, more satisfying (for me at least) than playing lawyer and deleting files over minutiæ

-- Tuválkin 16:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion nominations in question as of right now (20:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)):

-- Tuválkin 20:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: If we are aware that there is a copyright issue, or a potential copyright issue, with an image, then it needs to be marked in a way that is 'visible' to potential reusers while the issue is discussed, not just flagged with some hidden category so that people can continue to not notice for the next six months. The odds that some admin is going to close these as deleted as soon as they time out, unless a clear consensus has been established (which would presumably include an indication that they were not going to be relicensed) is minimal, but 'opening the discussion' about the specific files, after the discussion of the issue itself had been pending for months, was appropriate. The issue of making 'legally binding statements' with regard to licenses in the name of authors who did not themselves agree to those statements is not a trivial concern, and I'm sorry, but "I wasn't paying attention" isn't really a reason to deal with the matter in some other way that people will not notice. Revent (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Or be more productive by mailing (via Flickr) the users of the files in question? or we could just waste time going back and forth over what to do. Bidgee (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
By using the same logic, we should contact architects in FoP-cases. We can't wait around for someone to contact the authors. Josve05a (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
More directed at those who think the RfDs should be withdrawn. Bidgee (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
And may I ask you users who are relicensing from Flickrs (inapropriate) PD Mark 1.0 to cc0 to cease and desist. The do not have the same legal text or meaning, and the author has not explicitly agreed to those terms, nor allowed others to relicense rhem how they want. Josve05a (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Josve05a: Hopefully that wasn't referring to the 30-or-so I changed... they were ones where the tag on Flickr had itself been changed from the PD Mark to CC-0 since the image was uploaded... if someone is indeed marking images as CC-0 when the author did not agree to that license, they need to stop, now, and revert themselves before they end up at AN/U for fraudulently licensing images. Revent (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: Not it wasn't you, it was Leoboudv on at least 4-5 DRs I noticed and reverted. Josve05a (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just noticed Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#59_image_DR. Josve05a (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I think there is a mixed up of two issues here. 1. In the case of African Union Mission to Somalia, these are probably by several photographers, and we don't know if they agree with releasing the copyright of their images. So the DR is justified. 2. In cases of individual photographers, I don't see any issue. This PD Mark 1.0 is in practice equivalent to releasing their images into the public domain. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Yann: No, it explicitly is not. Please read the PDM FAQ. Attaching the "PD Mark" to a work has absolutely no legal effect. It is not a license, or a release of an author's work to the public domain. Revent (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
“The tools also differ in terms of their effect when applied to a work. CC0 is legally operative in the sense that when it is applied, it changes the copyright status of the work, effectively relinquishing all copyright and related or neighboring rights worldwide. PDM is not legally operative in any respect – it is intended to function as a label, marking a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions worldwide.”
Although the usage of PDM on Flickr by image authors is probably a very poor choice, I don't agree that it means nothing in general. PDM in the case of a very new work means that the person considers the work out of copyright ab origine, or what we'd call PD-ineligible. A declaration on the threshold of originality, when made by the work author, does carry some weight. As for what constitutes a contract or not, we certainly must point people towards CC0, stressing how «CC0 is legally operative», but PDM is hardly worse than PD-Self templates (some of them do include a language resembling that of a waiver, but none of them is a verified or tested legal tool for the purpose). Nemo 10:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: You can interpret that a creator who applied the PDM to their own work intended to freely license it, or release it to the public domain, but they simply have not in fact done so. The PRP, and the licensing policy, do not let us assume the copyright owners intent. License grants must be explicit. {{PD-self}}, and other such templates, actually include the statement that the creator is either granting a license in the work, or releasing it to the public domain. The PDM does not... if you actually read it, it is simply not a license, and Creative Commons makes a point of stating that their FAQ, repeatedly and at length. If the Commons community wants to modify the site policies to allow us to keep such works (and WMF Legal would let us, which I seriously doubt) that would be different, but as it stands COM:L specifically requires material to be explicitly freely licensed. The PDM clearly does not meet that criteria. Revent (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • One question. Do many flickr users (who don't use cc-by or cc-by sa) use this Flickr cc0 license on flickr as this person actually did? Sadly, most people see a cc-pd license and use it since they think they are licensing their images freely. If it was a person like me, I would not use cc0 and consider either cc-pd or cc-by or cc-by-sa....only because I never heard of this cc0 license. Thank You and this informative discussion. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: indicates that over 400,000 images have been licensed as CC-0.. it's not as common as the others, but people do use it, yes. Revent (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Thank you Revent for that statistic table from flickr. The use of the PD tag for images outnumbers cc-zero by 3:1 on flickr which is a problem for its use on Commons. As I said, it would have been better if flickr had just created a cc-zero template but now they have created this problem and it will likely grow as many uploaders upload images with the cc-pd license sadly. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: Indeed. Please don't think I like the idea of deleting things that were placed under the PD Mark... I really do not, I think it rather sucks, and I hope that we can get enough awareness of this that Commons editors will ask people to relicense such works on a regular basis. The simple fact, though, is that even under US law it's highly debatable is it is truly possible to 'release a work to the public domain'.... we, really, need that fallback clause. Even CC-0 doesn't actually 'release a work into the PD', and does not even attempt to do so, if you read it.... it is a 'dedication' of a work to the public domain by explicitly and irrevocably waiving all rights in the work. Even a work under CC-0 is still technically copyrighted... it's only 'effectively' in the the PD because the copyright owner has made an irrevocable promise to not enforce their copyright.
I am, however, highly disturbed to discover that people, including multiple license reviewers, have been marking works as under the CC-0 when the creator has not agreed to that specific license. This is something that absolutely must stop, it is completely and totally wrong, no less so than claiming an ARR work is under CC-BY. Revent (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Revent: I won't be marking anymore any {{cc-pd}} images on flickr and changing the license to {{cc0}}. Someone on Commons suggested this apparently simple solution sometime ago and I just followed that idea...because it seemed logical. The problem one faces now is that there will be many more cc-pd images on flickr because some good intentioned flickr account users naively think this license means they are putting their images into the public domain when they are not. I guess flickr did not consult a lawyer when they created the cc-pd license sadly. Thanks for all your help. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
{@Leoboudv: Flickr does indicate, a few different places, that the PDM is for marking things that are 'already' in the public domain, but it is indeed quite unfortunate that they don't make it clear on the actual license selection page. I think it is quite reasonable to hold off on actually deleting these (other than the particular cases where images have been specifically changed to incompatible terms on Flickr since they were uploaded here) until people have had a chance to try to get them relicensed, or until enough time has passed after them being flagged that it's clear it's not going to happen. I don't think this is a case of 'bad faith' on anyones part, really, but it's not something that we can just ignore. Revent (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question: Does anyone asked the Flickr users to use CC-0 instead of PD-mark (specially Revent and Josve05a? I think that is a good idea to register any contact to Flickr users (and their affected files) instead of forcing their deletion. If the Flickr user does not change the license in a reasonable ammount of time (two weeks at least) after contacting they, the affected files may be nominated for deletion... but them should be analized case by case instead of making mass DRs. --Amitie 10g (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
An important consideration: Category:Flickr_public_domain_images_needing_specific_licenses contains old files where PD-mark does not actually apply; these files should be tagged with {{PD-art}} or {{PD-scan}} with the correspondient PD-old tag, and removing from that category. --Amitie 10g (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g: Please, please, fix as many as possible... the {{Flickr-public domain mark}} template actually asks you to, if you notice. It doesn't say 'these are copyvios', it says they need a specific license. I have not, personally, contacted anyone on Flickr (and am not going to, as I do not use that website because of privacy concerns), but I don't intend to start deleting anything out of that category unless it becomes blatantly clear that both 1) it's not PD, and 2) it's not going to be changed to a compatible license, because we have tried and failed. I know some people seem to hate the idea of DRs, but I do think they are going to be the most reasonable way to deal with these, though, at least in the cases where there are 'sets' of images from a single account... there is no reason that a DR can not sit open for a prolonged period until the situation becomes clear, and the images do need to be marked, in the meantime, as having a problematic copyright status. For images that are not, actually, already PD for an identifiable reason, and need to be changed on Flickr, a DR page is probably going to be the most 'efficient' way to both get any discussion about images from a particular Flickr account in one place, and to let someone fix them as a group with VFC if the issue is fixed.
The images I personally have added to that category are this point at are specifically only ones where a Commons contributor overrode the FlickrReviewer bot, after it failed an image for being PD-Mark, and marked them as CC-0 when the account on Flickr had not, and has not since, indicated that license. I've also 'fixed' quite a few... I'm really not just trying to delete stuff. Some of the images ending up there, though, would be new uploads added to it by the bot itself. Revent (talk) 09:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Dear Revent, I just hope that the flickr images needing human review category doesn't get so backlogged by this cc-pd images problem that legitimately licensed photos like this file which I have not marked don't get lost in this category. I think this file was forgotten...and no one has marked it for 15 hours since it is stuck in this category Maybe Revent can create a new category as an Adminitrator or contact User:Zhuyifei1999 to create a separate category for cc-pd images? Anther solution is to redirect them to different place. The present situation is not good. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I think exactly the same. We need also move these files away from Category:Flickr images needing human review. Should be correct to remove {{User:FlickreviewR/reviewed-error}} and add {{Flickrreview}} when the Flickr user updated the license? --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


What's wrong with ArchiverBot here? It looks like bot didn't made any archivations here on Commons for more than 5 days. But on its user page there is a statement, that it works with daily frequency. --Dvorapa (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Now working. --Dvorapa (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status of works by Jordanian government/Royal Hashemite Court?[edit]

Is works by the royal court public domain? And does that answer change if the works are posted on Instagram? Their official page has interesting works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magedq (talk • contribs)

  • Very few governments have laws making their works public domain. I'm not aware of any such law in Jordan; do you have any reason to believe there is such a law? Nor can I think of any reason that posting on Instagram would affect the copyright status of anything. Is there some reason you think it would? - Jmabel ! talk 23:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah thanks. I just assumed most governments works are made public domain, but maybe being posted to a private company would change that. Magedq (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi at all. The very useful list User:Fæ/Userlist doesen't work since a month. No updates. Is there a technical problem? Thank you very much and best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You can see at the top of that page the (slightly difficult to see) remark "A WMF deletion of a critical database table has broken the report. I'll amend the programme within a few weeks, real life commitments creating a backlog. Fæ (Discussão) 11:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)". Hope it helps. Tm (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry... I had overlooked it ... Thanks anyway. --DenghiùComm (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

November 23[edit]

Paying for portrait drawings for articles[edit]

Do you think WMF would put up a teeny amount of the millions we have toward paying for some portrait drawings for articles?

Please see:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It's easier for us "photograph" this articles Anna, :), and no, paid contribution is a bad idea. -- RTA 14:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't be unprecedented (See for example: meta:Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project). Whether or not WMF would do it I think depends on how likely it would be that it would overlap with what volunteers are doing. If it looks like this won't overlap with the sort of things volunteers do, you might have a chance. It sort of sounds like it would fit in with meta:Grants:PEG, and sometimes individual chapters have grant programs too. The Grant people at WMF are generally very friendly, I'd recommend talking it over with them and seeing what they think. Bawolff (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Bawolff!!!! You've pointed me in the right direction. I was at the WMF site and couldn't even find a village pump. Many thanks! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi RTA. Thank you for the feedback. We are talking, of course, about high-traffic articles where no photograph has been found for a long time. And I disagree. Paid contributions can sometimes be a good idea. There are exceptions to rules. After all, we are not talking about some COI pharmaceutical public relations person is trying to whitewash an article. We are talking about paying some starving artists for a few drawings. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Anna, I work for a long time with volunteers, I can affirm to you that paid contribution in a volunteer environment could seriously damage the community, I'm in short time to find papers, but a quick look here: it will summarize practically all the arguments, researches...
And we are a Movement based in collaborative work...
Moreover, we have another ways to acquire photos of most of them, Kim Jong-un gonna be difficult, but not impossible.
Just a concern, it is very probable that illustrations will be a derivative work, copyright violations I see in a future... -- RTA 20:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi RTA. I'm afraid I cannot access Youtube from here in China.
Your concern about derivatives is valid. Whether artists could make a drawing based on other images without it being a derivative, remains to be seen.
Anyway, about funding, I am still trying to find artists to do free works by looking for users who use their real name as their username. They could be helpful in posting at Facebook and Flickr artist groups providing the link to the Donated artwork project page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

(See also: the recently archived related discussion at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2015/11#Donated portraits.) -- Asclepias (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

[8] [9] try one of those.
I like the idea, but change the focus, maybe it's interesting for the illustrators just know some of them, and this we can fund. -- RTA 12:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi RTA. Thank you for the videos. I remember it from somewhere.
I am not clear on what you mean by "...I like the idea, but change the focus...". I am sorry. Could you explain further? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Anna Frodesiak. I commissioned an artist to make a portrait of Jashodaben Narendrabhai Modi because I wanted an illustration and I thought a drawing was the best way to get one. I wrote about why I wanted this.

I understand why others would want to do this. I do not think either the Wikimedia Foundation or the Wikimedia community would support community funding going directly to content creators for the purpose of making content. However, I do think that it would be interesting if someone applied for a grant at meta:Grants:Start to do something like fund an art collective to present Wikimedia projects to its members, and call for contributions. Other fundable projects might be organizing a contest for contributions, funding a community center to host Wikipedia art creation events, or otherwise making a social community activity out of the call for drawn art.

At en:DeviantArt and other online art communities there is little understanding of Wikimedia community values like copyright licensing or free culture. There probably also would be grants to fund anyone doing outreach or creating social infrastructure to invite online art communities to consider contributing to Wikimedia projects. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the good feedback, Bluerasberry. I feel very alone working on this at Wikipedia. A few editors have kindly helped put it together, but that has diminished. Do you think, if I moved it to commons, it could be developed here? Would others join in and help work on some sort of grant for prizes? I think, as soon as some money were on the table, it could get some results. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Relevant links[edit]

English Wikipedia Arbcom elections[edit]

Link: en:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015

The Arbcom elections open for voting today, closing on 6th December. The criteria to be eligible to vote is minimal, with only 150 mainspace edits on the English Wikipedia needed (see the link above).

Arbcom have influenced Wikimedia Commons in the past, amongst other things expressing their views on Commons policies and running private investigations into Commons contributions, without involving or consulting the Admin/Bureaucrat community here.

Does anyone have thoughts on the best candidates to vote for in terms of supporting the Wikimedia Commons mission? Perhaps one of the candidates would like to say something here, on the Commons Village pump, about their enthusiasm for Wikimedia Commons?

Thanks -- (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Link to a single page of PDF[edit]

Hi village pump, for PDFs there is a preview of certain pages, e. g. Is there a generic link to download a certain page of a PDF in full resolution? --Arnd (talk) 09:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Here you are [10]. Yann (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Yann, i am looking for a generic way to create a link based on some filename and the page number. I already found Special:Redirect allowing to link to the raw PDF based on its name. However, there seems to be no possibility concerning this jpg thumbnails. Single pages of PDFs as PDF seem not to exist in general. --Arnd (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
You're right, its harder to get the url generically for files with options other then width/height. Your options are:
Other things you might be interested in:
I'm not sure what you mean by full resolution. PDFs are a different format then the jpg thumbnails, so there's always a conversion. Some pdfs (Although not your example) include vector graphics, which are of infinite resolution, so to speak. Hope that helps.
Bawolff (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes it helps, thanks Bawolff. --Arnd (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia Deutschland urge Reiss Engelhorn Museum to reconsider suit over public domain works of art[edit]

Wikimedia Blog reports on some litigation relating to images held on Commons: [11] --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The blog speaks about generalities, but no real information about what the suit says. Commons provides a warning, too timid perhaps, to the effect that such images are probably not freely usable in Germany. Does anyone know what the Museum is complaining about exactly? Is it that some of the pages on Commons were missing the PD-Art tag? Is it that the warning is not prominent enough or that its wording is misleading? Is it that the help page omits to mention some countries where the images are not free? Is it another National Portrait type of complaint (from 2009, how did that end, btw)? Or is the Museum saying that the law of Germany should rule what people do in the United States? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
They say that the files in question are photographs taken by their photographers and that the photographs, even though they show public domain paintings, are of sufficient originality to enjoy copyright protection. And that they own the rights to those photographs. Which of course is completely contrary to our PD-Art concept. I'm not sure where they are actually suing. --Rosenzweig τ 20:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. My question was not clear. I get that they say they own rights to the photographs. Which may be "contrary" to the way the WMF would wish the laws to evolve, but it is not "contrary" to what Commons does. Commons never said that the Museum doesn't own the rights on the photographs in Germany. So, what I don't get is what, if anything, they are saying that the WMF, or Commons, or individual users, may be doing wrong, or what they are asking the WMF to do and by what rationale. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not clear what is actually the subject of the suit. From earlier press reports like this one (in German) I guess that the museum and the city of Mannheim, which is behind the museum, want the files in question deleted from Commons. They apparently want to control how the photos of "their" paintings are used, forbidding some kinds of commercial use and charging reproduction fees for others. --Rosenzweig τ 05:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I suppose the paintings are included in Category:Collections of the Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen. Yann (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The blog speaks of 17 images. I guess probably some of those in Category:Paintings in the Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Someone has now grouped the files in Category:Images subject to Reiss Engelhorn Museum lawsuit. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Some of us (at least on :de) actually (sort of) welcome the suit as an opportunity to get a real court ruling about the fundamental question whether reproductions of 2D works which are clearly in the PD due to age, are also in the PD. --Túrelio (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Yep, so far all we had was "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation". Now we might get some real world answers, at least for Germany. --El Grafo (talk) 11:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I also am happy about this. I would love to see a statement from Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen and look forward to the clarification that this discussion will bring. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Censorship and Moral panic on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bikini car wash at Twin Peaks, Round Rock[edit]

Please would someone see this Deletion Request in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bikini car wash at Twin Peaks, Round Rock. Not happy in deleting 25 images in scope, claiming them to be "poor quality near duplicates" and there was none duplicate or low quality, then Yann then deletes in an out process, around 100 more images.

This images are clearly in scope, and the rationale given to deletion "This is an embarrassment to Commons. This is a category for collecting pictures of scantily-clad women at car wash sponsored by a "breastaraunt" in Texas. I propose that not only the category, but all 190+ images in it be deleted. From what I can tell, these were all downloaded from Flickr and re-uploaded here because... because... oh because boobies and butts and they are all wet and stuff. The entire category is outside of the project scope." is stupid and short shited and an insult to Commons, its users and its work, by someone with a problem with the subject of this images and not its scope or lack of it. This files must be undeleted. Tm (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"Censorship and Moral panick"? Wow! Why don't you also claim that the atomic bomb has fallen down on you? Yann (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Moral Panick and Censorship. After your deletion of an Moral panic driven deletion request, you nominated more 100 images and deleted them 5 minutes after your nomination (instead of the minimum of 7 days) so this is censorship of images and of a discussion about the merits of your new deletion. Why dont you answer in a adult way and explaining your last actions, unlike the ";oD" you made in your closure or your last and out of topic response about atomic weapons.
About scope, and just limiting to the Wikipedia articles, some example of articles where this images are in scope:
and Commons categories:
Category:Women with navel piercings wearing bikinis Category:White bikinisCategory:2010s bikinis Category:Ford F-Series Super Duty Category:Ford F-Series (2009) Category:Bandeau Category:Group photographs of women wearing bikinis Category:2010s bikinis Category:Pink and white bikinis Category:White bikinis Category:Blue and white bikinis Category:Purple bikinis Category:Polka dot bikinis Category:Women wearing baseball caps and bikinis Category:Female armpits Category:White and yellow bikinis Category:Dotted bikinis Category:Women with bracelets wearing bikinis Category:Standing women seen from behind Category:Standing women wearing bikinis Category:Ford F-250 Super Duty Category:Black and pink bikinis Category:Women with sunglasses wearing bikinis Category:Women wearing bikinis and sandals Category:Women wearing flip-flops Category:Dotted bikinis Category:People in showers Category:Tanga (clothing) Category:People in contact with water Category:Turquoise bikinis Category:2010s bikinis Category:Women smiling while standing Category:Women wearing bikinis and headgear Category:Brown bikinisCategory:Males with baseball caps
And this is just for the first 25 images!!! What was on the other ones?
Also this images arent as you claim "poor quality near duplicates" as there was none low quality or duplicate (point two duplicate as an example, if you can). They are of good resolution, definition, colors, focus and composition, so instead of claiming this images to be junk, give concrete examples. Tm (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Tm: Accusing me of "Censorship and Moral panic"? You would better say that this is a conspiracy by the NSA, that I am an undercover agent of the CIA, or working for Al-Quida, etc. (or all that together, conspiracy theories are much more useful if you mix up everything). Seriously, you are just making yourself ridiculous. You confuse "sharing all knowledge" with "sharing all Flickr junk". These are different objectives. The DR is for all images in the category, yet I didn't delete them all. Keeping around 20 images seems reasonable, so we could still delete 2/3 of the remaining images without prejudice. Your message has failed from the very start with such a header. Anyway, thanks for the entertainment, that was the joke of the year! Yann (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
An admin who mass adds files to a DR and has strong opinions, should not then close the DR 8 minutes later. I agree, this was out of process and appears to be a misuse of admin rights from the timeline. -- (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Just to note: the nominator clearly said they would have added all 190 to the nomination if they could figure out how, so to claim the admin added them is misleading. And frankly everybody has "strong opinions" on such images so that's not relevant either. We need to be able to discuss this issue without (a) unhelpful and inaccurate comments (b) the use of emotive terms like censorship and moral panic. I'm with the guy who said that most of those using the C word on Wiki don't have the first clue. And Yann has a point: just because someone's wank collection on Flickr has a free licence doesn't mean we should upload it here. -- Colin (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
These look to have been mostly low-value images in terms of Commons' goals. That said, inclusion in categories like Category:Female armpits is hardly an argument in favor of keeping them, it's more an argument for getting rid of categories that are probably of more use to fetishists than for any educational purpose. Nothing against fetishes, it's just not the goal of this project.
Still, adding a bunch of images to a deletion proposal minutes before closing it seems like bad process. - Jmabel ! talk 00:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree, the way Yann handled this was pretty bad, in particular adding all those new images to the DR just to delete them immediately. I'd further say that the DR was not ready for closure, as there had been comments earlier that day. I especially don't understand why Yann decided to stop where they did - some of the originally requested images are still bluelinks. Why those? -mattbuck (Talk) 07:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
(Tangent so going small) Cultural images have educational value, this may include 'fetish' images to illustrate a tricky part of sexual cultures in different countries, including the evolution of sexual cultures over the decades. The example of the female armpit category as a fetish category is a poor one; having uploaded many historical images of women with their arms raised through to medical images of body parts, there are good academic educational reasons for a category such as this. Whether hundreds of glamour shots of women in bikinis adds any special value is a separate question. -- (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
This (the deletion, not Tm’s complaint) has not one redeeming aspect, and is so wrong on so many levels that I’m truely speechless. -- Tuválkin 00:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I think ten best images would be sufficient to illustrate en:Bikini barista, en:Breastaurant, en:Twin Peaks (restaurant chain), en:Car_wash#Bikini car wash or en:Bikini if we are lacking images for those articles. 190 images might be an overkill. --Jarekt (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
We're not here to editorialise other projects, and to say "oh, X images are enough for anyone". That line of reasoning is specious. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Matt, if these images had been uploaded to Flickr with "All rights reserved", would you write to the photographer to ask for them to be released with a free licence? Now of course, most of us couldn't be bothered to do that unless the images were special and had high educational value. But if your response to that question is to accidentally snort your tea out of your nose, and the word "ludicrous" comes to mind, then one has to wonder why so many people are so upset at their loss. We have to be able to make curatorial decisions and doing so is neither censorship nor is it editorialising other projects. We aren't some great hoover sucking up any old image that has a free licence and is in-focus. Deciding to reject a bunch of what everyone seems to agree are "low value" images, should not cause this much upset. There does come a point where a collection of images changes from being illustrative of a subject and having educational value to simply being the manifestation of sexist attitudes of a mostly young male community with no self-restraint. That these images are included in many categories is more an example of the objectification of women by Commons users, than it is of them having any particular educational value.-- Colin (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Colin, please note I did not say anything about these particular images, I was merely noting that the "X pictures is enough" argument doesn't hold water. I'm not against the deletion of these images (note further I did not vk at the DR), just saying the way it was done was problematic. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Further, while I would not ask someone on flickr to release these freely had they been ARR, I also would not write to someone on flickr asking them to release photos of the Eiffel Tower. On both counts we have lots, but that doesn't mean I think we need to start deleting what we do have. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
My point isn't that we should delete images we have lots of, but that it is curious that anyone should care so much about these images that nobody would dream of trying to acquire for the project. Generally, I've found your comments in these discussions to be among the most reasonable (if rather defensive) compared to the game-play we can see elsewhere. I don't have a solution. It's clearly not "5 bikinis are enough" as you say, but nobody is really suggesting that either. Somehow Commons needs to be able to make curatorial decisions without descending to a frat boy level of permissiveness that raises real questions about sexism and objectification. Does anyone write to complain to Getty that because they don't have 200 low quality photos of women in bikinis at one car wash then they are clearly being censored or subject to moral panic, or that they are editorialising their customers? Somehow they manage to curate their collection of images without this nonsense. That someone has objectified women into dozens of categories shouldn't become a reason to keep rather than a behaviour that is concerning. What some bloke in America chooses to do with his DSLR isn't really my concern, but why should the fact that he applied a free licence to a couple of hundred images mean that an educational media resource is compelled to hoover them all up? Why is there such an outrage when someone suggests we could well do without that? The idea of a specific policy limiting the number of images in any category is a nonstarter. I'm not a believe that we are robots who must be programmed by policy on everything. But can't the community and admins use their judgement, on a case-by-case basis, to discuss and decided that on balance, selecting a handful of images (say) is best. After all, selecting our best images for upload is what you and I (as photographers) do all the time. -- Colin (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Though Mattbuck has politely replied, the snorting comment against him is personal and inflammatory, please strike it as it can only derail discussion into focusing on contributors and put off participants from expressing their views.
Marginalizing uploaders as being sexist young males objectifying women, and colouring this discussion so that anyone disagreeing with you is seen as supporting hateful things, is unhelpful and inflammatory, you can prove no such thing about the motivations of the uploaders or those that are against this type of mass deletion. Saying that "everyone agrees" with your viewpoint when most of us never saw the DR before it closed, and the images have been deleted is polarizing and unhelpful.
I have never objectified women in my life, I have never had any sexual desire to see a woman in a bikini, yet I disagree with your viewpoint here. -- (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


@Jarekt: The only guideline we have that would support limiting the number of images is Nudity, which does not apply to these examples. If you want to create a meaningful consensus supporting deletion of all "non-best" photographs of women who are not fully covered (or however you wish to phrase the criteria), then you may want to try writing up a proposal so that we can vote on it. -- (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This case reminds me of Commons:Deletion requests/Out of scope images by Joymaster where uploader uploaded dozens of photographs like File:Kobieta w pończochach - 009.JPG. We kept few but deleted the rest as out of scope. I do think COM:SCOPE is broad enough to limit upload of large amounts of similar photographs of any subject. --Jarekt (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Although Commons:Nudity may not directly apply here (I didn't see any of them before the deletion), it can be a good reference policy for handling "low quality, borderline scope" images. BTW, I don't want to waste my time for the cry of this OP who is mostly rude to anybody have a different POV. He didn't even spend some time to properly maintain his talk page. It is overflowing; may be a deliberate attempt to prevent people from healthy discussions with him. He even reverted me when I "helped" him earlier. Reminds the "Wolf! Wolf!" story. Jee 12:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
My two cents,
Here in Brazil we do not have this type of activity, and even USA invading more and more, probably that we will not have this activities here (especially with this horrible bikinis, yuck!).
Wanting or not, this is a manifestation of cultural event in USA, it's easy to find, and shows some aspects of USA (I'm not judging here).
So, yes, this have a educational purpose.
Imagine that I cover Carnival here in Brazil, or Bailes Funk. This will show some aspects of Brazil, and have a lot of sexuality on those. You would say that this don't have any educational value?
See the article baile funk, ow yes, it do not exist because of prude and elitist view of WP-pt, but okay see the redirect: w:Funk carioca, nothing similar to those images on the Google Images, the article is not representative of the reality. And probably some of you never saw a baile funk, and don't have any idea of it.
Now, if it was any other event in USA (except Mardi Gras), you would made a massive deletion?... Think about that.
Another point, and we cannot say "this is enough images of this subject", who we gonna say that?
We some penis and vulvas photos, none is featured, and this are two of most searched topics across wikis, and still, we have a warning saying that we have enough... Vaginas, we have... almost none, even people confusing vulva and vagina, the vaginal channel, showing all the rings, mucosa..., we have 1,5 image... and yet, we have a warning saying that we have enough...
See ya! -- RTA 13:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • This is what is wrong with Commons. This, right here. There is clearly no educational purpose to having nearly 200 images of one car wash fundraiser. If it were men wearing normal clothes I think we all know there would probably be no images, or just a few, sufficient to document the event. I point this out and am accused of body shaming and misoginy, and now a censorship and a moral panic. Even better, the obsessive over-categorization of images of women in bikinis is now presented as evidence that these pictures are all within the scope of Commons because someoe bothered to come up with dozens of useless intersections of random things such as "women wearing bikinis and bracelets". This is the sort of nonsense that makes one despair of ever fixing this community and having it operate on a sane basis. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree, and in particular I don't see any female users to provide some kind of balance/sanity. But you've got to laugh rather than despair. I know this particular subject is contentious but I do wonder if there is something broken about Commons when it comes to hoovering up other people's images in general. It seems the normal curatorial restraint one might, as a photographer, demonstrate wrt uploading only the good quality, representative selection of images one takes doesn't apply when one can bot-upload a whole Flickr Album. There's a detachment that comes from not having taken and chosen each individual image. A detachment that, for example, doesn't demonstrate to the world that you spent the weekend photographing young women with a telephoto lens vs just running Flickr2Commons on someone else's album. And a detachment in the deletion discussions when the photographer isn't actually a User who might engage with the process. I see this detachment at Featured Picture Candidates too, where images that aren't taken by Commons users are handled differently and not optimally. One possible solution is for us to make more effort to get those people on Flickr who upload with free licences to join Commons and upload their own work. And Flickr2Commons should be more restricted on who can use it and encourage those using it to try to show some restraint: just because someone dumped their memory card straight up to Flickr doesn't mean you have to slurp it all here. Or even have a moratorium on Flickr2Commons altogether to force us to grow the community rather than simply freeload off of other websites. -- Colin (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Beeblebrox thinks this is what’s wrong in Commons. Well, one of the things that is wrong with Commons is English Wikipedia boffins wanting to treat this multilingual, independent project as their backyard: When they find out that English is used here as a mere tool of opportunity and therefore their wp:en clout is meaningless, they get all hurt and everything is a good excuse to try and rock the boat. Accusing Commons of hosting porn is a good way to create panic, and it “works” every time. Well, it doesn’t because it is not true, but the claim is repeated again and again because it never fails to attract a fair amount of transient drama from the hysterical and the malicious. Intelligent people will browse Commons 30 million images and will find, for each and every risqué pose, dozens and dozens of assorted maps, of photos of planes and trains, and of 19th cent. linedraw illustrations about beekping… (Really, try it!)
Objectification of women, misoginy, gender stereotyping, sexual oppression — that’s what wrong, but not with Commons: That’s what wrong with the world. And Commons does document that: We document bikini carwashes just like we document way worse cases of said abuse against women. Tarnishing users for applying to bikini carwash scenes (or indeed to any depiction of the female body) the very same level of detail we apply to, say, photos of tramway cars or of clock faces, is itself problematic and could even be accused of what it’s being used to accuse others of.
On the other hand, there are authentic cases of women objectification in Commons — most not in the mere existence of “titilating” photos in our repository, nor in the “obsessive” way they may be categorized, but in the wording of their filenames and descriptions. As an example, I challenge the irate complainers above to try and make this category a safe space: Not by erasing from Commons what may be a vitally important promo portfolio for this model, nor reducing its visibility in searches and its presence in the topical category tree of Commons, but by suggesting non-creepy filenames for her photos. Who’s game?
-- Tuválkin 23:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the personal attacks. Don't worry, I never expected anything but exactly this, and I am not going to try and fix this broken, nonsensical website anymore. Enjoy your massive collection of useless crap. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Even crap may have educational value here, I uploaded a lot of it when helping with sanitation uploads. I'm sure you thought so when you uploaded File:Snowpoop.JPG. Feel free to come back when feel you can be more productive and collegiate, rather than describing this project as "their screwed up community" when writing on other projects. Thanks -- (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Just a comment about the "Phillips Model" images, that you pointed out. Those filenames were not the creations of Commons editors, they are the names given to the images by the photographer. Even if we were to change the actual filenames that they are under, the terms of the CC don't let us change the 'title' that an artistic work is attributed under, and those were obviously deliberate. The photographer objectified her (with her obvious consent), not 'Commons'. Revent (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, all of you calm down. Except Christian Ferrer, who may need some help. Please don't accuse people of being enwp stooges or virulent anti-feminists or reincarnations of Stalin just because some people think we had too many photos of a bikini carwash.
Commons is here to document the world, or at least the more educational aspects of it. That does include bikini car washes. I have no problem whatsoever with Beeblebrox or Colin arguing that that category was too big and could stand to have some deleted. That is a position worthy of respect because they know how people would react. Beeblebrox stated their case, albeit not in an entirely mellow manner, and was promptly called an "embarrassment to Commons", a "misogynist" and a "religious zealot". That is not tolerable, and I urge Tm to strike those remarks and apologise.
Sexualised images bring out the worst in Commons - not because they are inherently bad themselves, but because they're divisive. Please, everyone calm down (except you, Christian). This can be debated without making personal attacks. Think about what you've said, how you've addressed others, and then think about whether this is behaviour you'd accept from a newcomer to Commons; or what a newcomer would think if they read our admins going at each other in such a manner.
Now, if we may return to the main subject. I'm not really that fussed about the images, we still have 90, that's fine. However, Yann's actions should not be acceptable - as a closing admin they arbitrarily added roughly 100 images to the DR being closed on grounds other than copyright, and where the discussion was still ongoing. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Please Matt, have a look at the history. Beeblebrox raised a DR that asked for "all 190+ images [to] be deleted". You asked a few hours later why the DR only listed 30 rather than the full 190. Beeblebrox replied a few hours later "My first time using the batch nomination tool, and apparently I goofed it up. I'm not sure how to budle the remaining 150 or so into this now.". The DR was closed six days later, so plenty time for discussion should anyone want it. The discussion was clearly not "ongoing" unless you count the conversation Tm was having with himself -- it takes more than one editor to have a discussion and there had been no other voices since the 19th -- four days of nothing. A reasonable admin response to being told a new user had problems with the tools but clearly meant to include all 190 images would be to help them add the remainder. The text of the nomination clearly stated the full category of 190 images was up for discussion: "I propose that not only the category, but all 190+ images in it be deleted.". How is there any confusion as to the scope of the DR? Like you say, this is a divisive subject, so we really don't need anyone making specious complaints about out-of-process closure combined with the many ad-hominem attacks above against both the nominator and the admin who closed it. Really, Matt, I expect this kind of mischaracterization of the facts from some others but you're description is well off the mark. I strongly suggest you retract those allegations and close the topic. -- Colin (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
On the other points raised, I think there's need for a discussion the problems of lack of accountability that comes from amateur images hosted elsewhere and bulk uploaded via bot. I've no problem with the sort of bulk upload we see of professional image resources (whether on Flickr or elsewhere) but we do seem to have a problem with bulk upload of amateur images, whether lack of attention to copyright or lack of any curatorial consideration as to the educational merits of each image. Admins and the community need to be free to apply that curatorial judgement retrospectively if needed, without ridiculous suggestions that we need some policy saying "only nn of xx in any category". As for the self-examination you ask, I ask that we do consider there are no female voices here, and how that shifts the discussion and permits a mindset that would not otherwise exist. And for deletion reviews, I suggest we consider the "censorship" word to be a kind of Godwin's law: one has to use better arguments than that. -- Colin (talk)
I understand Mattbuck's argument. All files need to be tagged with the DR notice; then only people watching those images will get an opportunity to respond. This is more important for "in use" images in our sister projects as people have a habit to watch images when they add them to articles. But here I hope they are not used inwiki and believed to be only in borderline scope and no chance for to get used in future too. So not a "terrible mistake" from Yann's side. I can show many examples when admins delete files which are mentioned in deletion discussions while deleting the main files. (In my case, I usually copy paste the DR warnings in files I add later too; but not all people are following it.) Jee 09:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Well then all the more criticism applies to Matt, as an experienced DR admin, for being told about the problem by the nominator yet doing nothing about the malformed DR for six days and using the resulting sub-optimal consequence as a weapon in an argument. And the claim that the discussion was "ongoing" is simply false. Really, it is quite obvious that some people want to make capital from minor irrelevancies in order to stir up a contentious topic, or because they dislike the outcome or have some motive to publicly scorn the admin. Which is shameful. -- Colin (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. I'll not blame Matt alone; but it is "their" usual tactics to bully the admins and scream "censorship" when a single file related to nudity is "touched". :) Jee 13:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Let's explore the data, okay?
  • All images deleted for car washing represented 0.00064% of images at Commons;
  • Events as "Rail trains events" also have around 190 images... none was deleted, and we have tons of trains... One very specific, Wikimania press conference, it's not the whole conference and 170 files, none in risk to be deleted;
Analysing the "importation without criteria"
Some one here entered at the Flickr used to upload those images??
I did, one of the albums have 680 free photos of car washing, another one have 795 free photos! And the uploaded brought 115 pictures, so I'm pretty sure that was not the case of abusive use of the bot...
So the number of images are not the real problem here... Let's see the arguments used:
  • The argument used to nominate was "entire category is outside of the project scope." "This is an embarrassment to Commons."
  • And the deletion argument was "Deleted: as per nominator's rationale"
Yann stamped that this is a shame to Commons, and this outside the scope, both are not true. [ad hominem] Beeblebrox is not able to say what's shameful or not on this community
Let's try the nominator...
  • I have to vent some things, he is just coming here to delete thinks that in his mind should be not here, as this (a ridiculous one), this,..., see a normal here?[/ad hominem]
  • Now lets search bikini car wash on WP-EN Bikini car wash, oh! Direct to Car wash, barely no information, and... no photo!
On this context most of the Tm complains about "moral panic", is valuable.
  • Yann entered in his game, and ignored the Tm allegations, that was poorly constructed, but makes sense.
One more thing, we do not erase this images from our system, we keep them, but we hide them from the public, I can't see a reason for that, they are mostly good quality images, can be used in several opportunities, and we are a free community! How/Who you say that we have enough churches, enough trains,... that we can't make pictures of women exploitation... that we can't register a cultural manifestation...
This was a attack on the liberty of the community, and opened a precedent for future massive deletions, we can't ignore that.
-- RTA 15:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

November 24[edit]

The Caption Challenge[edit]

I thought this might be a source of amusement for some people - Commons:Silly things, has a caption challange. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Tesla captions[edit]

I'm inclined to nominate File:Nikola Tesla in laboratorul sau din Colorado Springs.jpg (and possibly File:Tesla colorado adjusted.jpg and File:Tesla colorado.jpg) for deletion, or at least universal replacement, as pretty much just scaled down copies of File:Nikola Tesla, with his equipment Wellcome M0014782.jpg as the difference is pretty much only the lack of Tesla's note, but the quality and resolution is terrible on the ones besides the Wellcome image. However, the captions are all different. Anyone see anything left out of the Wellcome copy's caption? Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, You could always copy additional information on talk page. I agree with you that the duplicates aren't useful. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Upload a flickr users' entire catalog[edit]

TL;DR: how do I get an entire flickr users' corpus onto commons, with as much metadata as possible?

The National Library of New Zealand as announced a flickr commons feed at and I would like to get them into commons. There is a commited team of New Zealand editors on who can be notified once these are available (and also for any tidy up that might need doing). Stuartyeates (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Check Category:Photographs by National Library NZ on The Commons. I'll let this run, if it's going wonky let me know on my user page. BTW, only images with a longest side greater than 1,000 pixels and that do not already exist on Commons will be uploaded. -- (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
cheers, . Stuartyeates (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
As I'm not at the keyboard much today, the upload may fall over and remain on hold if the connection to the Flickr API drops out; I'll just re-kick the process when I'm back after dark.
NZ volunteers should probably prioritize categorization and adjusting the date parameter. The date seems obvious for many files as it has been included in the Flickr title or in the Flickr description. Unfortunately it is not a fixed format, and the original date is not used in the Flickr metadata, so the file modified date is being used based on the EXIF data (this is not the same as the Flickr upload date, which is also imported). It could be that VFC could be a useful tool to mass improve these.
So far something like 80% of files are being uploaded. The 20%-ish may be down to image size, so if you want those which are <1000px in size to be uploaded, let me know and I'll do a second sweep. Thanks -- (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

November 25[edit]


Could someone look at the history for this file and do what needs to be done. /Hangsna (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done The file was at File:KorporalStahlgrün.PNG for over a year, and then at File:Korporal Apfelgrün.png for over five years. @Centenier: The file moves were correct, but you don't delete a redirect from a long existing filename. It breaks incoming external links to the image, including uses through "Instant Commons". In any case, removing all content (even if it is just a redirect) from a page, and then nominating for speedy as an 'empty page', is rather misleading. Revent (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
However, the name “Stahlgrün” is simply wrong and has been replaced by correct “Apfelgrün”! Whaterver is the sense of an wrong filename? -- Centenier (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Centenier: If someone linked to that image from somewhere other than a Wikimedia project in 2009, and 'didn't care' about what color we call the file (just what it 'is') they would be rather displeased to find that we had broken their usage six years down the line. A 'redirect' is not the same as a 'filename', it's just a way for someone to find the image itself. Revent (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
It does care about what color the file shows, but the color ist needed to identify the Austro-Hungarina Infantry-Regiments. A Regiment with a collar in Stahlgrün (Steelgreen) is simply anonther one as such one with a color in Apfelgrün (Applegreen). -- Centenier (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Centenier: I think you are missing my point. Changing a 'misleading name' to the 'correct name' is a perfectly valid reason for renaming a file. BUT, if "Bob's History Blog" (as a random made up example) linked to that image, under the old incorrect name, back in 2009, then that external reuser is going to still want to be able to find the image at the new name. We have no control over incoming links from outside of Wikimedia, we cannot fix them, so we should not break them by deleting long-standing redirects. We have no way to know if someone is linking to the image under the old name. Revent (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Just to make sure I'm as clear as possible... 'changing' the redirect, as you did at File:KorporalStahlgrün.PNG after I undeleted it, is also fine... the old redirect is still in the history, and so a non-admin can figure out where the file that 'was' at that name went. There is just no reason to effectively 'hide' that File:Korporal der k.u.k. Infanterie.png was originally at that incorrect name, through deletion, and doing so is unhelpful to anyone who can't see deleted pages. Revent (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Walking War Robots[edit]

I'd posted this elsewhere but hadn't received a reply and I'm sort of worried about this. Long story short, someone created a draft article for an app game. They uploaded a lot of images from the game itself to WC under the rationale that it was their own work. I'm not entirely familiar with copyright for games, but I've always been under the impression that images taken from a game (screenshots, artwork, etc) were copyrighted to the game developers/publishers. The uploader (Pixonic) has created several of these, including in game images like maps. I'm not sure if they're the game developer or not - there is a game developer by this name (meaning that the username is a violation of guidelines if it's them or not), but I'm not entirely sure that they're aware of what's entailed by them uploading images to WC under the fair use rationale.

Should these remain on here? Is the fair use rationale applicable in this scenario? Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

  • This actually grows a little more complicated. Per the comment here on WP, this doesn't seem to be the game company itself. This makes it more likely that I might unblock them for promotion on Wikipedia, but this poses a huge legal issue for the images on here since this means that they don't hold the copyrights. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi, I deleted the whole lot as copyvios. The files could be undeleted if a permission for a free license is provided to COM:OTRS by the company. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Your input requested on the proposed #FreeBassel banner campaign[edit]

This is a message regarding the proposed 2015 Free Bassel banner. Translations are available.

Hi everyone,

This is to inform all Wikimedia contributors that a straw poll seeking your involvement has just been started on Meta-Wiki.

As some of your might be aware, a small group of Wikimedia volunteers have proposed a banner campaign informing Wikipedia readers about the urgent situation of our fellow Wikipedian, open source software developer and Creative Commons activist, Bassel Khartabil. An exemplary banner and an explanatory page have now been prepared, and translated into about half a dozen languages by volunteer translators.

We are seeking your involvement to decide if the global Wikimedia community approves starting a banner campaign asking Wikipedia readers to call on the Syrian government to release Bassel from prison. We understand that a campaign like this would be unprecedented in Wikipedia's history, which is why we're seeking the widest possible consensus among the community.

Given Bassel's urgent situation and the resulting tight schedule, we ask everyone to get involved with the poll and the discussion to the widest possible extent, and to promote it among your communities as soon as possible.

(Apologies for writing in English; please kindly translate this message into your own language.)

Thank you for your participation!

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 21:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help

November 26[edit]

Copyright doubt[edit]

Hello everybody! This Flickr account belongs to a Brazilian photographer who, naively or not, has published most of his work under a libre license (CC-BY). Some of his photos seem to me to be useful to this project, but some of them are actually advertisements for copyrighted products. What to do in such cases? Can it be uploaded to Commons? How to deal with a product advertisement whose artist who created it had published it under a CC-BY license? Regards, Sturm (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

See COM:PACKAGING. This photographer should not have released rights over something he doesn’t own. The fact that Flickr doesn’t verify this kind of problems doesn’t mean we should not. As for the photos that we can use, you might want to check Commons:Batch uploading and/or Commons:Flickr2Commons. -- Tuválkin 01:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Some photos, like these two, might be cropped, keeping all their useability without COM:PACKAGING issues. -- Tuválkin 01:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention. Actually, I was looking properly in the cases that he release some "non finalized" material, with no text or logos added. See, for example, 01, 02, 03, 04 and specially 05. What do you think about these cases? Sturm (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
And talking about the Commons:Flickr2Commons, I am the one who is writing the "Tips" section! :D Sturm (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)