Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

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

Please note


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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page


Search archives


 

Turkey Beypazarı district Hırkatepe Village pump. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


Oldies[edit]

May 09[edit]

India to ban unofficial maps of India with hefty fines (also outside of India)[edit]

See this article from the India Times: Showing PoK Or Arunachal Pradesh Outside India On A Map Might Earn You 1 Crore Rs. Fine And 7 Years In Jail Here a part of the text:

...the Centre is planning to soon bring the Geospatial Information Regulation Bill by which such tough provisions will be brought and any person or institution acquiring and disseminating any geospatial imagery or data of any part of India through space or aerial platforms will have to first seek permission and license from a government authority.

This could mean that online platforms like Google will have to apply for a license to run Google Maps or Google Earth in India. The government authority will run "sensitivity checks" on the imagery to protect India's security and sovereignty. Amada44  talk to me 19:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Holy cow! That's some freedom of expression gone by the river. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
@NaBUru38, Amada44, Matma Rex: You can find the details of the bill here. My reading of the draft bill tells me that any camera or smartphone that is GPS-enabled would be prohibited in India. Maybe somebody should point this out to the politicians.
PS - AS somebody who is thinking of visiting India early next year, my question is "Do they want to kill the tourist trade?" Martinvl (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
And we have many maps of India. Also many of which India would not aprove. What do we do with these? Amada44  talk to me 10:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Imho no action is needed, this is not a copyright restriction and Wikimedia Commons is not censored. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)to take mag
<This could mean that online platforms like Google will have to apply for a license to run Google Maps> sounds like we could run into problems too. But you a right, at the moment there is no action needed. Amada44  talk to me 19:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Commons isn't "run" or doing business in India, therefore I'd say we definitely won't run into legal trouble (users from India uploading such content might, just like users in many countries would by uploading content for use in hate speech). Similar to Commons:NCR#"House rules".    FDMS  4    19:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@Amada44: I agree with FDMS comment above. The google stuff is not relevant here. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@Martinvl: Why ping me? I have no idea what you expect me to do about this, sorry. I don't make India's legislation nor Commons' policies. :) Matma Rex (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

May 13[edit]

Mynewsdesk.com verdict[edit]

I'd like to revisit Commons:Village pump/Archive/2016/02#Huge problem with copyright on Mynewsdesk. As an active license reviewer, I've seen this site come up often, but I'll remind that license review is really an external license review (i.e., is the image available under the license it says it is) rather than a full DR-style copyright investigation about whether the uploader has the rights. To review the previous thread, Mynewsdesk.com is a site for marketers with a default upload license of cc-by-sa. On one hand, it's the job of the uploader to review what this means, and on the other, the site doesn't do an adequate job of warning uploaders that the default license allows commercial re-use. As a result, we get a ton of promo photos that the marketer does not own the copyright to relicense (being the marketer and not necessarily the copyright owner). I lean towards the recommendation that we should not accept files directly from the website while they default to cc-by-sa. I think it makes more sense to follow an item's source attribution and retrieve confirmation there. I find that I'm rarely able to find a cc-by-sa license at the origin site, hence my opinion in this discussion. At the very, very least, if we do not outright block the site, we need to have some sort of template to warn Commons users about how this site uses the license and what kind of discretion they should bring when doing their own license verification. See also Category:Mynewsdesk-related deletion requests. Pinging prior discussants: @Vätte, Revent, Josve05a, Denniss, Gunnex czar 15:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support As someone who is not deeply into DRs and license reviews, I have had the name mynewsdesk come up often enough to think that this makes sense. --Sebari (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I've had that template idea too. I've seen many photos uploaded to Commons from Mynewsdesk, that really should not be on Commons, and once upon a time, I myself uploaded some photos from Mynewsdesk because they were labeled with a CC-license. Those photos were later removed. -abbedabbtalk 16:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support per what Czar says. It is a problematic website that recurs often enough to warrant a more substantial policy/guidance. Green Giant (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Would it be useful to add an entry for Mynewsdesk on COM:Problematic sources or maybe even COM:Bad sources? --Gazebo (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support, but really they should all be deleted under the precautionary principal because their copyright status is unclear. I'll support this for now but MyNewsDesk has been a thorn for many years with several discussions, even this one back in 2012 when Axel Pettersson was making contact with them, but it appears he never made any progress. Back then several Sony images were deleted that were obvious copyright violations of obvious US copyright images. I think we should take a much stronger stance and delete them all unless they are verified as freely licenced, even those that have previously been nominated and kept. They should require an OTRS email but based on the many emails I sent to all the listed Sony reps back in 2012 and receiving no replies of any kind, we should become much stricter with this source. I estimate currently there are between 2800 and 3300 images from this source up from 125 four years ago. COM:Bad sources might be too strict right now but COM:Problematic sources would seem reasonable as not everything will carry a false licence. Ww2censor (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Revisiting my old mail thread with Mynewsdesk to see what happened with their promised change in January-February where they should alter the standard license and ask their costumers to go through previous uploads. Hoping for a fast reply from them. /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama in France[edit]

I saw that earlier this year the French National Assembly approved a new law on the freedom of panorama, allowing the use of images of buildings if they're on public streets, and for non-lucrative purposes (such as Wiki Commons). But just today I've had several images of a French museum (The Musee de Quai Branly) deleted from Commons as a violation of the freedom of panorama law. Does anyone know the current status of this law, if it is now in effect, and when (or if) Wikipedia policy is going to reflect that change? Many thanks for your guidance. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Non-commercial clauses are not compatible with Commons. Storkk (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
More clearly: it's not that we'd be in any legal trouble for hosting such images, it's just that we choose as a policy not to host images with such a restriction. - Jmabel ! talk 00:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, even if it's now permitted by French law, it's not allowed by Wiki Commons to put up pictures of public buildings (the Musee Quai Branly, the Louvre Pyramid, the new museum in the Bois de Boulogne, the new symphony hall, etc., if the architects have not been dead for seventy years? I wrote the article on architecture in Paris, and that means I can't put up pictures of any buildings constructed since World War II. I don't see the logic of that. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
See COM:Licensing/Justifications... Essentially, using files with non-commercial licenses in your article, nobody could use your article on a website supported by advertising, or charge a fee for a CD/paper copy, or do any number of other things. Storkk (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your explanation, but you can understand how this interpretation of the law makes it impossible for editors like me to write to an article about contemporary architecture in France. Wikipedia France lobbied hard to have the law changed, the law was changed, but now Wikicommons refuses to accept the change because the law didn't do everything originally asked. I hope that Commons can modify its policy so that images of buildings in France can be be used, with the restriction that they cannot be used for commercial purposes, in accordance with French law. . SiefkinDR (talk) 10:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
There was a campaign against the non-commercial restriction too, but it wasn't successful. [1]. --ghouston (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
It's unlikely that the Commons policy will change. I think it may be imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation. What you can do is write the article without illustrations, or write instead about the architecture of a country with more friendly laws. --ghouston (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Also you can investigate if the wiki where you want to write the article would allow uploading images, since they can have different rules. --ghouston (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Note that this strict policy on Commons does not apply to French or English Wikipedais that have more relaxed rules (e.g. for organization logos) and so they allow a limited use on a "scoped" page directly about the subject.
So you may still upload these images on French Wikipedia (may be they'll be imported too in English Wikipedia to to its allowed "fair use" for direct citations).
This will still cause problems when using the Wikipedia articles on other commercial sites, so these images must be properly tagged so that they can be automatically filtered out on those commercial sites (replaced by some blank image of the same size if these sites want to preserve the layout).
But Commons is not about making focused articles but just about storing collections of images. However Commons can properly store and display the licence requirements.
I see very little incentive for commercial sites to use directly images from Commons without the proper link or info panel for the attributions and licence (I think this is illegal even if the images are "free" for use). However these sites need a correct way to autodetect images that would not satisfy the NC restriction (including US "fair use" images). Those commercial sites could be (e.g.) social networks pages for users around the world (Facebook/Twitter/Google+ need a way to automatically reject these images if they accept images from external links, even if they have a strong policy that their users should obey).
For now the restriction just means that images are too much frequently (and needlessly) imported in several Wikipedias instead, wasting space when they would be better managed in one place on Commons with the correct licencing tags, and then easily reused on all Wikipedias that accept these images (those wikipedias can also autodetect these tags, if they don't accept the NC restriction and they don't have enough local admins to manage the flow of images: Automatically those Wikipedias would replace the image with an null image showing the non-free restriction, without having to check if these pages are directly related to the topic; the other wikipedias with enough active admins could place those images on hold in a tracking list to allow them to be displayed in specific pages). We would also allow better cooperation between Wikipedias accepting those images.
Commons itself would not display these images by default for searches, or would list them in specific ranges of categories, possibly even in a specific namespace (such as "Restricted file:", and "Restricted media:"). and these same namespaces could also be used on Wikipedia instead of feeding the standard collection of files (no need to create new categories for restricted images they would be listed separately and only for extended searches or by clickin a button to show also the restricted files).
Image galleries could also autodetect these images (according to their namespace) to force the rendering of a minimal banner about them with a link to the restriction. That banner should be always present, and the description page should probably include a short text line showing the "copyright line". When rendering those files as images embedded in pages, it would not be possible to override the link to the description page showing copyright statements and attributions. That short text line would also be rendered on top of all restricted images if their thumbnail size is large enough (this could be reducted to a single "copyright" character if needed to fit), except tiny icons (e.g. less than 40x40px). Such addition of visible text would be performed directly by the thumbnail renderer on the image server, without using custom HTML (standard HTML anchar tags would still be needed for activating the link to the attribution page).
Note also that many image formats are also internally some metatags specifically designed to include such attributions or restrictions of use: these can be decoded without even having to fill it the description page with Wikitext (those infos would be displayed directly on the description page, in a specific table: author, date of creation, copyright line, link to licencing terms), and sometimes these are even encoded in a standard RDF format r similar (for some media types we can support on Commons: e.g. JPEG/MPEG formats for image/audio/video/subtitles..., PNG, OGG, PDF, MSoffice/LibreOffice formats, OpenType fonts...).
verdy_p (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia accepts photos of copyrighted architectural works that were photographed in countries where there is no freedom of panorama (such as France.) For such photos, there is the {{FoP-USonly}} copyright tag. From what one understands, such photos are not subject to the English Wikipedia's non-free content criteria because the US has FOP for architectural works. Also, unlike Commons, the English Wikipedia operates under US law only.
According to the information in COM:FOP#France, it appears that the French Wikipedia has an exception where photos of copyrighted architectural works are allowed, but with many more restrictions than the English Wikipedia's policy on FOP and architectural works. (Some of the restrictions seem to be similar to the English Wikipedia non-free content criteria, such as not using more photos than necessary and only using a photo where it is directly relevant to an article's content.) --Gazebo (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Does it actually mean that there is no way anymore to let France establish a full FoP some day? I'm asking this because I had also signed that petition still linked to on Christian Ferrer's userpage, and I of course don't know how was the further process... --A.Savin 15:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

  • It seems, since the 3 may, the law was passed by the Senate from no FoP to FoP with no commercial reuse. The petition is still open and I just asked to Wikimedia France if they left open because there is still a chance of evolution. I wait for an answer... Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, this is very helpful. It's nearly impossible now to write about French architecture since World War II under the current rules. Pictures of the Pompidou Center and other landmarks are not allowed. The only pictures available now are these that a few architects have very kindly either put on WIkimedia themselves or allowed to be used, An article on architecture without pictures is like an article on Rembrandt without any illustrations. The best solution, I think, would be to allow uploading of images of French buildings to Commons with the notice given that these images cannot be used for lucrative purposes. Bravo to Wikipedia France for moving this through the National Assembly and Senate even in incomplete form. I hope their good work can be put to use. SiefkinDR (UTC)
As already stated, there is really no possibility on Commons to host "non-commercial only" images; but maybe there is a way to upload them on French and/or English Wikipedia under a more restrictive license. You may want to ask the local Village Pump resp. the community of French/English WP for advice. --A.Savin 14:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
For photos of buildings in countries where there is only non-commercial FOP or basically no FOP (such as France) but where the photo itself is freely licensed (i.e. CC BY-SA), it is possible to upload such photos to the English Wikipedia. For example, there is this photo of the Museum of European and Mediterranean Civilisations (MuCEM) in Marseille, France. More information about the English WP policy is available at the page for the {{FoP-USonly}} copyright tag. For the French Wikipedia, some of the information under COM:FOP#France which talks about a local exception on the French WP may be useful. --Gazebo (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

May 18[edit]

Sad news[edit]

Hi everybody,

For those who know this excellent macro-photographer and very good friend, Please notice that our fellow Jee's wife passed away two days ago, monday morning in Kerala, India, due to disease. She was 35 years old.--Jebulon (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I express my condolences to Jeevan Jose and entire family. I think, Jose might be encouraged by her for the excellent photographs. May her soul rest in peace. -- Biswarup Ganguly (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
+1--Jarekt (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

May 19[edit]

aziz saadi[edit]

je suis voudrai ecrere dan wikipedia et fait des photo —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 105.148.138.136 (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hired talent excells at categorization[edit]

Anyone to ruminate on this one edit, perpetrated (on a Featured image, no less) by someone whose username ends with "_(WMF)"? -- Tuválkin 00:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

BBC connection[edit]

JAFAspinall.png

Does he have any connection with the BBC as the category would suggest? And what is name of this ship? (His name is on the poster)Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Sir John Audley Frederick Aspinall, so others don't also have to click through to find out.
  • And I think the only connection to the BBC is that the image came from their site. - Jmabel ! talk 14:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Facebook like thumb.png[edit]

Not sure what to do about this: File:Facebook like thumb.png has been the subject of three deletion requests, in October 2011, March 2012 and June 2012, all back when the image was a simple 16×15 pixel icon. In October 2012 the image was "improved" to a massive 2,000×1,713 pixel image by UserːLMFAO, with shading and a cuff button, retaining the same "The thumb graphic from the Facebook "like" button." description. It's unclear whether this was drawn freehand, or lifted from a higher-resolution corner of Facebook.

Should this be redescribed, renamed (if it's not the Facebook icon any more), reverted, or something else? --McGeddon (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The 2000px is a rendered raster of File:Botón Me gusta.svg... -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Which still raises the same question: File:Botón Me gusta.svg is described as "The thumb graphic from the Facebook "like" button.", authored by User:Enoc vt and it "may be protected as a trademark in some jurisdictions". Is it an actual Facebook graphic or just a representation of one? --McGeddon (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

WMF staff who do not understand licensing[edit]

I recently nominated a number of Wikipedia screenshots uploaded by a WMF staffer for deletion (DR). In response, JKatz (WMF) told me: You are correct that Nirzar and I were not aware that attribution requirements applied to screenshots of Wikipedia for use in discussing Wikipedia. Facepalm (yellow).svg This isn't a one-off: see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by KHammerstein (WMF). On the other hand, many WMF staff do use the proper attribution and license templates. Thoughts? Has this issue come up before? BethNaught (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This comment from Maggie Dennis is relevant. BethNaught (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi BethNaught. I looked into this a bit the other day. I see a bunch of failures on Commons' part. Looking at File:Link 2.png, for example:
  • it was uploaded in October 2014 and only now is anyone noticing and saying something;
  • the upload appropriately includes description text and licensing info (great!), but is still wrong because it's missing source information; and
  • the file name ("Link 2.png") should not have been allowed as it's much too generic (same with "Media-01.png" and others).
There are people, inside and outside of the Wikimedia Foundation, who regularly screw up uploading to Commons. Perhaps we should revisit making uploading to Commons less error-prone. I think focusing on a specific organization misses the larger point: it isn't "WMF staff who do not understand licensing", it's "most users who try to upload to Commons do not understand licensing". :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Your comments are all on point; my point was that the WMF should train their staff about licensing. Maggie Dennis says they are supposed to but the training process is not always well delivered. I was wondering if there had been issues on Commons previously about this. Given you have not mentioned any such, I will presume that no significant issues have heretofore come to wide attention.
As to making uploading to Commons less error-prone, I would welcome any ideas, but it's a well-known fact that many (most?) people don't read instructions and just try to upload the image as quickly as possible. You know this, I am sure. As far as I can think, the only option to ensure all Commons contributors understand essential licensing issues would be to force people to take a test, but that's not going to happen. BethNaught (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
It goes deeper: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DannyH (WMF). BethNaught (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
BethNaught, you made your point, nominating more files would be a bit too pointy. It would be better if you correct the files like Courcelles did. Multichill (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Oops.
But seriously, it's not my bloody job to fix what messes WMF staff have made. Neither is it yours, nor Courcelles'. I am aware of what Courcelles has done so far and I am both grateful and somewhat incredulous. Quite frankly, I will not take kindly to being told to fix the failures of the WMF, an organisation which promotes free knowledge, to abide by the basic attribution rights of the software and content contributors who make what it does possible. Besides, I just spent an hour looking for the problems. The time to fix them will be orders of magnitude more. Just no. BethNaught (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I too have been very frustrated by this issue in the past. However, I just got an email on my work account about how its important to properly license things when you upload to commons, so I believe that WMF is taking this issue seriously. Bawolff (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
You're right, BethNaught, it's not your bloody job to clean up after WMF staff. I can confirm that WMF has often done a poor job teaching staff how to attribute the content they upload to Commons, and (following Bawolff) that the Foundation is taking this issue seriously now that you have brought it to the right peoples' attention. Would it be possible to catalogue all the staff-uploaded images that are not correctly attributed in a single location, to help WMF coordinate our curation efforts? I realize that this is not your job either, so even suggestions on how to go about this are welcome and appreciated :) Thank you for bringing this up, and I humbly request your patience, on behalf of my WMF colleagues. This issue is being addressed and will be resolved. Best, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
@Jmorgan (WMF): Thank you for your response. I am glad to see that the problem is being taken seriously. I've had a think about this. The problem is that there's no way to know automatically whether an image (or video) has been correctly attributed and tagged. Even when a file is tagged with {{Wikimedia-screenshot}} it is not always correct: for example, this image is a screenshot of a Labs tool under the ISC license, not CC-BY-SA, GPL or GFDL, and the author is not attributed, so the {{Wikimedia-screenshot}} tag is not correct. Hence the important thing, in my opinion, is to find all the potentially affected files and put them in a tracking category (it can be a hidden category, no need for badges of shame). Since uploaded screenshots and user testing videos (also a problem) are not always categorised in Category:Wikimedia screenshots, I would suggest:
  1. Do a database query for all files uploaded by WMF staff accounts (better also include their personal accounts; for example, KHammerstein (WMF) also uploaded problematic work-related screenshots as Kaitymh, and of course the enforced separation of staff and volunteer accounts is still a relatively recent phenomenon)
  2. Use a tool like Cat-a-lot to easily remove files which are not screenshots or user testing videos, e.g. staff-produced graphs, slides for presentations, or event photographs
  3. Get someone who fully understands the issues (thinking staff, but Courcelles has contributed to fixing some files I already sent to DR) to go through the remaining files and check/fix them
Unfortuately I can't think of a more efficient way to ensure that all staff-uploaded files are in compliance. (I'll post again if I have a flash of inspiration.) The problem is that there will probably be thousands of potentially affected files. That said, if an organised and proper clean-up effort is underway, I'm sure we (and I) can all forbear, as a (ladies' and) gentlemen's agreement, from flooding DR and forcing the clean-up to happen faster than the WMF can cope with.
Care will have to be taken in one respect: once a list of files to be checked has been generated, files uploaded after that time will need to continue to be verified until sufficient training has been provided to all staff. So new uploads of screenshots etc. should be put in the tracking category unless they are by a person who has been shown to be competent in attributing and licensing the screenshots.
BethNaught (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
@BethNaught:. Would a query like this work? This one is only for the past 30 days (it's slightly easier to identify uploads using the recentchanges table), but I could probably retrieve historical data going back years as well. This query can be re-run on a regular basis, for spot-checking purposes. It would be more difficult to systematically identify files uploaded by staff using their volunteer accounts, as I'm not aware of any central index of Staff --> Volunteer accounts.
I could also generate sub-lists that show 1) staff uploads that have the {{Wikimedia-screenshot}} template, ones that don't, ones that are and are not categorized in Category:Wikimedia screenshots... any combination of those characteristics. Let me know what would be most helpful as a first pass, and I'll get started on it. Re: user testing videos, I've uploaded several in the past year (since I joined the design research team). Can you take a look at one of these and let me know what I need to add/change to bring it into compliance with Commons policies? I'll document that information on the Design Research portal on MediaWiki, so that we follow the practice going forward. When it comes to older videos (many of which are in Category:User_testing), I'm less sure of their provenance. I know the erstwhile Growth team contributed some, as did the Flow team (now Collaboration), IIRC. Some may actually go back as far as the Usability Initiative in 2010. I'm happy to help curate these too, so please let me know where to start! Thank you for your help, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@Jmorgan (WMF): I extended your query a bit. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

May 22[edit]

What License?[edit]

Hello I want to upload a photo of a school but I do not know what license I should use for that because under the photo said Image Credit: Contributed Photo can you help me to find a license for this picture? First photo in this blog --Qian Nivan (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

  • There is no indication that photo is free-licensed, and no reason to think it would be in the public domain. Therefore, there is no reason to think it would be OK to upload to Commons, unless you could (through the website) find out who the photographer is and get that person's permission (via COM:OTRS) to upload it. - Jmabel ! talk 16:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

What License #2?[edit]

Hi, I have upload file:Toulouse cassini 1815.tif, what licence applied ? Map is PD, but there is an OSM overlay. --Rulhe (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion request[edit]

I nominated my file for deletion, but the request was denied. Does Wikimedia have the rights to own my file after i upload it? Does Wikimedia have the rights to keep it even if i am the author and i want it to be deleted? - Avatar9n (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The CC-licence is irrevocable. --Magnus (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Convenience link: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mosin-nagant ecomare.JPG. And, as Magnus said, "I no longer want it to be shared" is not a valid reason for deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 16:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikimedia doesn't own your file, but you granted Wikimedia (and anyone else) a permanent license to use it, and cannot simply revoke that. - Jmabel ! talk 00:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Avatar9n Poké95 12:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Can i change the licences of my files? If so, is there a licence which prohibits others from having a copy of it (or from sharing it)? I know those who already have it can keep it. - Avatar9n (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

As two other editors have told you, you cannot revoke the license you have granted for the file once it has been unloaded. You cannot control or prevent anyone from using it (including downloading and redistributing it themselves) within the limits of that license. You can cease distributing it yourself, or only continue distributing it under some other commercial or restrictive license. But again, you explicitly made an non-revokable license when you uploaded it. DMacks (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Avatar9n Poké95 11:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious: Commons is a repository of media available to be freely used. If you don't want material freely used, don't put it here. The least free licenses we accept are things like CC-By-SA, which require attribution and which require that any derivatives must also be similarly licensed. - Jmabel ! talk 13:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

May 23[edit]

Categories for people by year[edit]

I noticed several of this kind of category being created recently (for example, Category:Felicia Day by year and Category:Wil Wheaton by year). (I didn't check them all, but those two were both created by User:IagoQnsi.) It seems to me that this type of category isn't needed for everyone. I think they're most useful when there is a fairly large number of photos of the person for each of several years (see, for example, Category:Bill Clinton by year), and even then not every photo of the person needs to be in a subcategory of these. If there aren't that many, these categories just make it harder to find general photos. I think several of the recent ones don't have that many, and I'd discourage creating these just because we can. Comments? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I certainly wouldn't consider such as scheme on anyone for whom we had less than 50 photos; conversely at about 500 photos, this becomes almost compulsory. I believe the examples given are in between, so I'm neutral on these. - Jmabel ! talk 14:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks, User:Jmabel. I was looking for input on both the recent ones and in these in general, so your input is still helpful. For you, would it matter how many files were in the subcategories? For example, what if among 50 images, 40 of them were for one year and the rest were each for separate years? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
      • It would probably be really useful to have an easy way to spot the few that were from another time, and these categories would help. For example, consider Category:Mariide, still small enough to eyeball, no reason to break it down. Imagine if we had a ton of photos from this year; it might be very useful to easily spot that one other photo we have of her is from 40 years ago. Though if there were a bunch of them each from one different year, as in your example, it wouldn't work so well. But consider Category:Solstice Cyclists (content of subcats a bit NSFW, just happened to come to mind; NSFW won't arise if you don't click through to the subcats). It seems to me that it's as useful to be able to spot the years for which we have only one or two photos as to see that there is one for which we have 483. - Jmabel ! talk 22:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Hey Auntof6, thanks for the comment. I agree that breaking down into yearly categories doesn't make sense for small categories, and to that end, I've reverted a couple of instances where I did that that seem silly in hindsight. For Wil Wheaton and especially for Felicia Day, however, I think there are enough photos to justify needing to break into categories. I think the solution to make it easier to find general photos is to make excellent galleries for these people. To that end, I plan to work on the Wil Wheaton and Felicia Day galleries some time today or tomorrow. Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @IagoQnsi: Good idea, this is a case where some hand-curation would help a lot. - Jmabel ! talk 22:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Why not categorise by decade? This might be a good solution for middling-sized categories... Mabalu (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • In case there is need for more support, I also don't think it makes sense to sub-categorize people by year unless there is a large mass of photos. In general, I think all categories should be sub-categorized by decade before they are sub-categorized by year. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Spanish speaking linguistic map[edit]

Hello! For a couple of days,, I have a discussion on this linguistic map Hablantes nativos de español en Europa. I would like to have a neutral point of view on this disagreement. What is the best source map to use and also what are the colors of the legend (neutrality) has to be used ? So If you want to give us your opinion on the subject, you're welcome. Smiley.svg Thank you --Zorion (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I've written some remarks on the linked talk page, which is probably where this discussion should stay. - Jmabel ! talk 22:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-21[edit]

18:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

May 24[edit]

May 25[edit]

Template:Information consistent?[edit]

My question is, is it okay to replace all parameters there by default to lowercase (like here and uppercase on the other hand here)? As mentioned under Capitalization silliness, there is a completely inconsistency in this issue. Was there any discussion to made a recommendation to this? If not I would get one. The uppercase (with mixed lowercase "other_versions") parameter seems mainly from the old (actual exist) UploadForm. The other main point is the inconsistency with the Upload Wizard, which uses consistent lowercase. What do you mean? mentionable User: Perhelion 18:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  • As far as I know, it is case-insensitive. The discussion you are pointing to is from 8 years ago. Have you run across situations where case matters in this template? - Jmabel ! talk 19:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • As it is indicated in the template documentation Template:Information allows arguments with upper or lower case and with either spaces or underscored in 2 word arguments. The format used by Upload Wizard should be the preferred one but we do not want people or bots "correcting" this "issue" unless they are fixing some other issues. --Jarekt (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

May 26[edit]

May 27[edit]

Category:farm teams[edit]

I know it is difficult to gear a multilingual platform, and I am not an expert in the field but I think that this discussion with User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken needs more input. Here is the thread: User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken#Farm_teams

I created the cat as a reorganization of d:Q31532, this item clearly relates to a concept that is present in all sports. I was looking for some nice pictures for the local pages, therefore I though it was a good thing to provide every user a good selection creating a specific cat here.

If you look on some dictionaries the Englsih term is mainly (but not specifically) for baseball in US and Canada, but in other languages that concept is to all the sports. So I think that in a multilingual platform that redirect is not correct. You decide.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I live in China so I don't have access to google and i can't sample the web very well but here is some examples where the word is used outside baseball in the English language here, here, here. I hope it helps.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The expression "farm team" is a distinctly American one, i.e. a team where players are "grown" for the big leagues, and in that context used only in regard to baseball. There are no "farm teams" in American football, NBA basketball, NHL hockey or MLS soccer. College football teams are not "farm teams". The myriad hockey leagues in Canada are not - at least to my knowledge - composed of "farm teams". As far as I know, "farm team" originated as a baseball term, and remains as such. Players on farm teams are professionals, as they are paid, but are not at the top of their profession: they are either just starting out, or are in-between. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
use with basketball. Also keep in mind that when i came back to the cat I wanted to add translation in other languages, where it is clear it is not just about baseball. here an example in German for hockey.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, you certainly do seem correct that the expression is used outside of baseball. On the other hand, what purpose exactly does a category "Farm teams" serve? On the other hand, what purpose exactly does a category "Farm teams" serve, unless it is broken down by sport and country? And a reference would be required for everything put into the category, to be certain that in that sport in that country the expression "Farm team" is used. Seems like a lot of hassle for very little profit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Of course it will be broken down by sport and country, but first you create the cat, than you create the subcats. I go step by step, just in case there are issues (and I was right, I guess). Also, this is a multilingual platform, there are languages where the expression (or the "equivalent" translation) is used for one sport and not another one is which is not very common. it would be the first time someone use extensive references to set up a commons cat (also please show me how you are supposed put a reference required for everything put into the category here on commons, I am really curious). I do see a lot of complication but mainly because you kinda want it, not because it improves commons. A lot of hassle for very little profit is for sure imposing a limited view that contradicts the general structure of the item and the content of the local articles instead of just accept a natural evolution of the categories. Still, if I wanted an image of a farm team or related to a farm team in the broader sense which is more perceived probably outside the majority of US anglophones, I would look for it through the category here on commons. There is really nothing more than that. that's why I was here in the first place. And I did what I do in these cases, I create the cat if it is not there and I was going to improve it. It mainly needs good sense: I cannot even imagine more sources than the one already here.
BTW, I am practical. I am not an expert in sport and if it takes so much time to fix something wrong (your redirect), i cannot image what would require to do things right :D. I am still quite confused, so there is no point in spending so much energy for a cat like dozens of other ones when i can simply do those. Someone else will fix the redirect.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Geotagging: Open street map- overlays and right click[edit]

We support Open Street Map- there is a cross over between volunteering on WP and OSM- so it should be our tool of choice for geotagging. I help a lot of very talented newbies who have limited computer skills- so my direction of travel is that technically we should strive to make common tasks easy, so our new volunteers can immediately start to contribute.

An OSM of Leicester courtesy of the WMflabs. This is a wonderful tool- but it lacks one facility, that I hope someone will add- when you right click the menu lacks the Where am I? link to give you a geotag.

It I select an image, and go to the file description and click on the lat/long link (not the Open street map link) then select Open street map- I get This Open Streen Map without the helpful roundels but with the Where am I? tool.

Yes I had noticed that one was a php file on our server and the second is an index file in a directory on there server but the task is to add a few geotags not do a http appreciatioin course.

There are many things we could do to improve this.

  • improve the wording- View this and other nearby images on: OpenStreetMap is too similar to the link on the Geohack page which is OpenStreetMap. Then again, if you are on the Geohack page- there could be an adjacent link to map with roundels
  • Modify the map with roundels to allow a What links here overlay in the same way that we already have the zoom bar. This is my preferred option.
  • On that page, when you hover over the roundel, a thumbnail appears- clicking on the thumbnail links to the commons file. This thumbnail could have a caption with a geotag link that called the other Open Streen Map

I am sure this is harder to describe than it is to do. Or, possibly it is so important that it has already been done but not adequately documented.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)