Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
introduction
Help deskVillage pump
copyrightproposalstechnical
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


 

Water pump next to the church in the town center of Doel. Doel, Beveren, East Flanders, Belgium. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch

October 21[edit]

Wanted picture[edit]

I appreciate picture of the follwing-:

  • Tryggve Gran stamp
  • Svalbard-stamp
  • commeorative stamp Amundsen polar flight 1925
Brukar:nn:F.bendik
— Preceding unsigned comment added by F.bendik (talk • contribs) 11:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
You could be bold and add them yourself if you find a picture that is properly licensed. (Also replying so this section can be archived.) Abzeronow (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Why doesn't Wikimedia Commons have its own technical wishlist?[edit]

Why doesn't Wikimedia Commons have its own technical wish list akin to w:de:Wikipedia:Umfragen/Technische Wünsche 2017? Most technical wish lists are very Wikipedia-centric and will exclude most suggestions that mostly affect Wikimedia Commons on the virtue of their simply being way more Wikipedians than Commonists, I mean having a separate technical wish list would probably be best for Wikidata too, but it's just odd that technical wishes for Wikimedia Commons aren't taken that seriously, in fact most of our tools aren't even being actively maintained (almost all most-used tools are zombie tools, meanwhile even obscure things in a Wikipedia that only a user and a half use are maintained on a daily basis, why is the MediaWiki Upload Wizard still rubbish for importing files from Flickr? Or even Flickr2Commons doesn't seem to work as expected). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: there is meta:Community_Wishlist_Survey_2019/Multimedia_and_Commons … --El Grafo (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
not the same thing. note the lack on the list, of addressing the technical debt, and maintenance of tools which are breaking. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: What's wrong with the Flickr importing feature in UploadWizard? I just used it to import about 350 images from Flickr at once the other day. Seemed to work OK. Kaldari (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
user:kaldari see also Commons_talk:Abuse_filter/Archive_2018#Report_by_Slowking4_2 and User_talk:Slowking4/Archive_5#Warning and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T100062 . the opaque interaction with abuse filter, tends to send uploaders to flickr2commons. i've stopped using UW. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: Note though that the local project in dewiki has been abandoned in favour of the Community Wishlist. — Speravir – 19:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: For the record, UploadWizard was broken by an AbuseFilter created by Commons admins, not by anything the WMF did. It's been fixed now. Kaldari (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Combination of old postcard license and Flicker license[edit]

Le-Petit-Tournon, près Privas (34441867611).jpg

This file is obviously an old postcard. That it comes from Flicker is largely irrelevant. I have added the PD-France license and the postcard template. Should the Flicker license be kept? In most cases with old postcards, I keep the mention of 'private collection' and other supplementary information to keep the uploader happy. What is the advice?Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

There are other Privas images from Flicker:
  • Privas (Ardèche). - Le Pont du Petit Tournon et Village du Petit Tournon (34441867421).jpg
  • Privas (Ardèche). - Nouvelle Caisse d'Epargne (33729506714).jpg
  • Privas - Av. de la Gare et Ecole Normale de Garçons (33729506414).jpg
  • Privas - Avenue de la Gare - Ecole Normale (33729507454).jpg
  • Privas - Le Petit Tournon (33729508224).jpg
  • Privas - Rocher des Sorcières (33729505504).jpg

Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I finished checking the licences of the Category:Postcards of Ardèche.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Re: Help:Gadget-Stockphoto[edit]

It would be nice to have option to export to bibtex, in case I am using several images in my file to which I pasted several images from Commons, and the list of references would serve the attribution purposes. Where do I request such feature? What other export formats would you suggest? --Gryllida (chat) 03:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Gryllida in the sidebar on the left there is an entry “Cite this page” – apparently in Russian this is “
Цитировать страницу
” – it opens a special page where you can find the requested BibTeX entry. — Speravir – 01:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Normalize file extensions for new uploads[edit]

Suggestion: automatically normalize file extensions for new uploads. For example, ".JPG", ".Jpg", ".JPEG" and ".jpeg" all become ".jpg". For TIFF, ".TIF", ".tiff", ".TIFF" all become ".tif". (of all the TIFF files on Commons, 83.5% has the ".tif" extension)

A related proposal from enwiki can be found at w:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 74#Several changes to file naming.

Some statistics on current use (stats from July, includes redirects, current percentages may vary slightly. data provided as is):

Total jpg .jpg .JPG .Jpg .jPG .JPg .jpG .JpG .jPg
42453481 35229847 (83.0%) 7222882 (17.0%) 649 50 26 20 4 3
Total jpeg .jpeg .JPEG .Jpeg .JPeG .jPeG .JpEg .jpEg .jpeG
585411 576892 (98.5%) 7605 (1.3%) 891 (0.2%) 8 8 5 1 1
Total png .png .PNG .Png .pnG .pNG .pNg .PNg .PnG
2528817 2397286 (94.8%) 131488 (5.2%) 37 2 1 1 1 1
Total svg .svg .SVG .Svg .SVg .SvG
1377496 1376872 (100.0%) 618 4 1 1
Total tif .tif .TIF .Tif
1030310 1026794 (99.7%) 3515 (0.3%) 1
Total tiff .tiff .TIFF
199233 199213 (100.0%) 20

Any suggested adjustments before I create a proposal? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

No, but good suggestion. --oSeveno (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

File extensions should be all upper or al lower case. I don't support forcing to either way, but the mixed variants should be discouraged and the files should be renamed. --Krd 11:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Is there a widely adopted external standard to reference? -- (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The Library of Congress has some guidelines on digital file formats: TIFF, JPEG/Exif, SVG, PNG. I'm not sure what the JPEG standards organization recommends regarding the file extension (and I'm not about to pay ISO's fee to find out), but the TIFF standard (see Appendix B) recommends .tif, probably due to the 8.3 filename restriction of MS-DOS and older versions of Windows, since that document dates from 1992. clpo13(talk) 18:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Good proposal. To keep it simple I would suggest to enforce it only to new files and leave the old ones. Renaming those would just create a ton of work, lots of duplicates for no major benefit. And lower case would be my preference by far. Amada44  talk to me 18:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I also don't know what official standards say (I suspect also lower case), but lower case is easily the de facto standard for everything. Upper case would also not be aesthetically pleasing in any way, because it's the equivalent of SHOUTING. Existing files will be left alone by this proposal, only new uploads. They may be dealt with by another proposal - something for another day. @Amada44: there is a benefit to renaming older files as well. For example, I've seen a mixup in attribution where someone gave the filename File:Dedekind.jpg, but meant File:Dedekind.jpeg. For files without conflicts, moving or creating redirects will provide the benefit that scripts and bots can safely assume any JPEG has the .jpg extension. See {{tmlogo}} for an example where additional wikicode was needed to correct the case. But that's something for another day. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @OSeveno, Krd, , Clpo13, Donald Trung: @HyperGaruda, Amada44: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Normalize file extensions for new uploads. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I think jpg and JPG should be allowed, however jPg, Jpg, jPG ect should be corrected to upper or lower case but at the end of the day, is this really a major issue or just a minor one. Bidgee (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Bidgee: what is the advantage of allowing both jpg and JPG, other than allowing confusion by having completely different files for example.jpg and example.JPG? (which isn't exactly an advantage) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Please do not ping me, I will comment in my own time and not on demand. Some photo editing tools (typically those used by non-tech knowledgeable) will only save in capitals and I see no reason why jpg and JPG can go exist. Also some smart phones and digital cameras save photographs using capitals in the file type. While mix lower/upper case (e.g. JpG, Jpg) can be problematic. I have had programs in the past that look for jgp, jpeg, JPG and JPEG but was unable how to treat an odd mix of lower/upper case. Bidgee (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
A ping is not an order to respond. Please do ping me, I can't follow all the noticeboards all the time and may not even notice your reply otherwise. There's no problem if a user tries to upload image.JPG (or image.jPeG), but the extension would automatically be changed to jpg. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Just to note, moving a .tif file (with standard filemover tools) forcibly and unavoidably changes the extention to .tiff, for some ungodly reason. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

December 03[edit]

Commons:File types is out of date[edit]

Hi all

I've been trying to find information about the Data: namespace and what kind of files are allowed under different licenses (e.g tabular data and maps) but I can't find any information, even on Commons:File types, does someone know where I can find this?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

John, the data namespace is generally sparsely documented here. As far as I know only *.map and *.tab are allowed. See Commons:Data leading you consequentially to pages on Mediawiki.org: mw:Help:Map Data and mw:Help:Tabular Data. BTW ping @Yurik.
Yes, Commons:File types should be updated. — Speravir – 19:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Speravir:, I have just updated the page to with a bit more info about STL, but I don't really understand the data namespace so not sure what to say about it, I guess it needs its own section. John Cummings (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
John, I’ve moved some content into an own section and enhanced this with info from Mediawiki pages: Data files. Would be great if you’d take a look. BTW there is some contradiction in regards to licenses between MW pages and practice in Commons. In regarding 3D files: I had to alter info in Unsupported free file formats; I hope this is now correct, too. — Speravir – 02:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much @Speravir:, this is much better, note the licenses allowed for data on Wikidata are very likely to change soon (the CC0 restriction is based on a technical issue of no ability to credit the data), I'll keep an eye out and change the documentation when it does, here is some more information. John Cummings (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I’ve seen this, too. When this officially changes the edit mask has to be changed. — Speravir – 18:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-49[edit]

16:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Virginia Historical Highway Markers[edit]

I just received the following. This means that anyone can without trepidation use images of VA Historical Marker Hiway signs

Highway markers are not memorials. No copyright applies in regards to the contents of the signs and their view (and photos) from the public ROW .
What is the sign? We may be able to use it for our online marker database and search, if the photo is missing.
Randy
Randall Jones
Public Information Officer
Dept. of Historic Resources
(540) 578-3031
Follow DHR on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/VADHR/

Oldperson (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Oldperson: dumb question, what's ROW? I remember this was about File:Farrar's Island Marker K199.jpg. In that particular example, the photo itself was also not own work. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
"right of way" it is a call out to freedom of panaroma, which elides the concern about the text. see also Commons:Deletion requests/PAHMC; Commons:Deletion requests/File:FerryPlantationHouseVirginiaHistoricalMarker.jpg; but proceed with the com:OTRS permission about the virginia signs. virginia is not florida, and state officials do not understand the persnickety culture here. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@Slowking4, Alexis Jazz:Given the above, would it be permissible then to use the image that VADHR has on it's website, rather than my own, it is of much better quality. https://vcris.dhr.virginia.gov/HistoricMarkers/ alas, one must search, by name, for the historical marker. If so then how does one cite the permission when uploading. Please ping me if you replyOldperson (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
i would not bother, without a confirmed OTRS email. it will get deleted. and the DHR will need to get their photographers' permission. might be worth having an meetup, to wiki'splain commons' view of copyright. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

December 04[edit]

Interesting question about handling archival materials[edit]

I've been going through some roughly century-old photos uploaded from the University of Washington libraries. The short of it is: I'm finding a crazy number of errors in the descriptions, etc. I'd say that for Asahel Curtis's photos of Seattle, about one in five has at least one moderately serious error; for the most part, the Frank Nowell material is a bit better described.

I know we try to keep descriptions from institutional sources intact, so for the most part I'm just adding to the descriptions: for example, here. Each time I do something like this I write to them; occasionally they make a change, so I know my emails are being read, but for the most part they seem to be ignoring them, so their site remains wrong.

Sometimes they appear to be so far off that I don't know what to do: even the title is almost certainly radically mistaken. A great example is File:Japan Building, Alaska Yukon Pacific Exposition, Seattle, September 1909 (AYP 431).jpeg: I'm almost certain this is not only not the Japan Building, it's not the Alaska-Yukon-Pacific-Exposition, and it's not even Seattle! The "Hall of the Doges" is presumably the one in the Davenport Hotel in Spokane. I wrote to them over two weeks ago; no acknowledgement of my email, no change to their description. What do we do with something like this, where it came from an institution, but even the title is almost certainly wrong? - Jmabel ! talk 01:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It is a sad reality that in many developed countries we have seen museum and fine arts as an easy target for Governments* to reduce investment and defer or cancel creative projects. Our uploads have continued longer than some institutions have existed, so our projects must be able to stand on their own, so if metadata is wrong, or source links vanish, these may well be issues we have to solve without help from the source institution.
Informing the museum or archive that their records appear incorrect is always a good thing to do, but the reality is that the institution may have no staff budget to reply to public queries of this type, or even to fix existing catalogue errors in the short term. Keep in mind that having a list of bugs and errors will help the institution with future improvement project funding, it may even help future Commons volunteers come up with helpful maintenance projects or get their own funding for improvements.
If the changes is not controversial, I suggest just changing everything that is wrong and leaving a note somewhere in the description that the source link or catalogue page appears incorrect. If the source goes offline, the original text/metadata will be in the old page revisions. Even better is to keep a Commons category where all these buggy images can be added, so future volunteers or employees of the institute can easily find problematic images again.
As an example, the British Museum were interested in my list of bugs on User:Fæ/Project list/PAS, and we had a very positive meeting discussing them and my approach to batch uploading from the Finds database back in 2016.
* See how well I did there, not mentioning Trump. -- (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the UW Libraries particularly lack budget, I just think they probably initially handed this project to a student intern or maybe someone just past that, who was clearly out of his/her depth. They responded to my first half dozen corrections and occasionally to one since where it was a matter of near-illiteracy, but clearly they just haven't been making this a priority.
You say "If the changes [are] not controversial…" but can it ever be uncontroversial for me to say "I know this topic better than the person who was assigned by the leading research library in the state to handle it, and I'm saying he/she was dead wrong"? On a misspelling, maybe, because it is so easy to demonstrate who is right, but on a misidentification like this? - Jmabel ! talk 17:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
** The egregious Mr. Trump has virtually nothing to do with the budget of Washington state, which is determined by our state legislature and governor. Jmabel ! talk 17:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
you might try a m:Cascadia Wikimedians meetup for some metadata correction. we do that all the time. start with a to do list or maintenance category. normally the GLAM is happy to host us (we are free, and will buy lunch). there is also wiki art depiction explorer [6] Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
In fact, we (Cascadia Wikimedians) discussed this at our meeting last night. But my question here, and the reason I'm bringing it to the Village Pump, is the question of to what extent it is OK to correct (on Commons) content from a GLAM if the GLAM itself doesn't make the correction when requested. How sacrosanct are the descriptions that come from a GLAM? - Jmabel ! talk 00:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any reason we shouldn't correct obvious errors for the benefit of readers and reusers, no matter what the source. The original description can always be kept with a notice like {{Inaccurate description}}. clpo13(talk) 00:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
i tend to bracket archival descriptions, with a sic. you can show the original description, with your corrected description. "GLAM itself doesn't make the correction", most GLAMs do not find error correcting as easy as a wiki; they have a hard enough time with generation. that's why it is important to build partnerships. see also [7] Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if the University of Washington archives are any more prone to errors than any other archive, but anecdotally I've also run into an error with this image and this image from the Freswater and Marine Image Bank, which had their information swapped (they have consecutive accession numbers, so it was probably a simple inversion error). Any biology student would be able to tell a horseshoe crab from an isopod, so I just uploaded the correct image to match the correct description, rather than do complex moving/renaming. --Animalparty (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure this is something simple....[edit]

File:Betty_Friedan_1960.png is showing up much, much lighter than its corresponding JPEG. Is this a colour space issue? I'm pretty sure I used to know how to fix this... Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: is probably a greyscale png. In articles, use the jpg file. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: @Alexis Jazz: I purged the page, looks fine now. -Amada44  talk to me 18:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Permissible Uploads[edit]

Other than photo's you take yourself, items from which you obtain a permission,or something from an old manuscript or book. What is permissible to upload. Upload wizard says everything on the internet is copyrighted. Yet WP has tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of images on their paes, and I find it hard to believe that all of those were taken by the article creator, or that they went out and had the organization or person sign a permission slip. I ain't buying that bridge in Brooklyn. For instance, the pictures of Elvis Presley. Copyright free? Permission given by Sun Records? Or all of those images of John F Kennedy? Or those images on Anime? And that is just a sample. Are they all copyright free, and did the owners provide permission slips? Oldperson (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

En.wiki has different rules than Commons. They can allow Fair Use, while Commons doesn't. If you have specific examples on Commons of files you think are unfree, please give an example of a file. Abzeronow (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
[[reply to}Abzeronow]] I just checked en.wiki. I see no difference because when you try to paste an image you get this: "I attest that I own the copyright on this file, and agree to irrevocably release this file to Wikimedia Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license, and I agree to the Terms of Use.", Same rules as the commons. As regards an example try every image on AnimeOldperson (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
That's the wrong uploader then. There is an uploader to just locally upload to English Wikipedia. Also checked Anime category. A few of the fan arts look like COM:DW but I cannot tell if it is an original character or a fan art of an existing character from an anime. Abzeronow (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Each file has a description page with authorship and licensing information, or an explanation for why it is in the public domain. If you see a suspicious image on Wikipedia, you can click the image, then "More details" to view this description. If the rationale doesn't make sense, you can nominate it for deletion. The most common copyright violations are claimed to be the uploader's "own work". Guanaco (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Guanaco: I just read Commons:Hirtle chartIt covers reproduction of the whole object (book, record) but I believe that the fair use doctrine will permit the reproduction of a portion, just as a page or illustration, so long as credit is given to the source. And I don't mean snagging it off the internet, I mean using a scanner or other device to obtain an image.Am I wrong?Oldperson (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

  1. How you get it (scanning, off the Internet) is completely irrelevant.
  2. Fair use, in this sense, is not allowed on Commons.
  3. While the portion of a work you use is a factor in fair use (in places where it is allowed) it is not the only factor. This is mostly a matter of case law rather than statute law. In the various WMF projects, it is also a matter of the projects' various policies. All WMF projects have rules that are stricter than simply "what is legal". For example, en-wiki allows some non-free photographic portraits of deceased people, but not of living people, even though the fair use case is the same in a legal sense. - Jmabel ! talk 20:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
the elvis photo is public domain, not renewed File:Elvis Presley promoting Jailhouse Rock.jpg (welcome to US copyright rules), with a fair use album cover w:File:Elvis Presley LPM-1254 Album Cover.jpg; John F Kennedy photos are public domain, work of the US government File:John F. Kennedy, White House photo portrait, looking up.jpg. nothing extraordinary at all. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

flight Zagreb-Stuttgart[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Flight_Zagreb_(Croatia)-Stuttgart_(Germany) Hello!

For the wikimedia members from Slovenia, AUstria and South Germany:

I recently uploaded pics from my flight. I would like to aks if you could Identify more accurately locations and add desciptions. yes, they have gps coordinates but they are not sometimes very accurate. also the videos:

thanks!

Quahadi Añtó 16:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Not all pictures are worth uploading. The first 5 during takeoff are not very interesting, because they are more or less groundlevel pictures. There are buildings but is from a long distance and not very scharp. Airplane pictures can be interesting when they are top down and reveal the pattern of streets and structures wich you cant see from groundlevel.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Advice needed please[edit]

Someone has contacted me with this request:
Hello, I have a client who supplied the hydraulic cylinder within the Hatfield House Sculpture. I have just put a case study live on the website that included one of your images for the purpose of sharing this with you to confirm that you are happy with the attribution. We also intend to share the case study on Facebook and Twitter and use the same attribution. Please could you confirm that you are happy for us to proceed on this basis?
I assume he means this one: [8]. Everything seems fine for it to go on a web site, in fact I'm pleased, but my query is this: what about them adding it their Facebook and Twitter pages ? I know that we are not allowed to take pics from these sites as their licencing terms are not compatable. However, what is the situation spun the other way round. The contact says the post will add an attribution, but does this cut it. Does giving permission for our CC-BY-SA 4.0 pics to go on Facebook and Twitter invalidate our licence on Wikimedia and elsewhere, even with added attribution and link to CC, (perhaps making it public domain or owned by Facebook and Twitter ?). Be grateful for insight on this. Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

  • No it does not make the original license invalid.
  • If the upload to Facebook rather than link, they are violating Facebook's terms of service, which say that you should upload images only if you own the copyright or it is in the public domain. (Of course, Facebook users violate this pretty much all the time.) In theory, the uploader just gave Facebook unlimited rights to the photo by uploading it there, but of course those rights weren't theirs to give, so it has no legal meaning.
  • I don't know about Twitter... - Jmabel ! talk 04:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification. If they do credit and/or link me on Facebook then that is all to my advantage, and to their possible detriment. Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 09:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

December 05[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream[edit]

Can please someone explain to me as to how is it possible to Yann to speedy delete 600/700 images without a single evidence of copyright violation, that all before deletion request is opened. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream being opened Yann showed zero evidence of copyright violations and only showed links of photographers that either had zero photos published or to photographers that had different styles.

As i´ve shown this images were properly licensed and all were taken by the same photographer (except an old family photo and a single image that displayed a nikon camera and 3 images of that displayed sony cameras). But the fact that 4 images ir around 1200/1300 is not proof of systematic copyright violations.

After showing irrefutable evidence that all images were taken by the same photographer and that same photographer was the one that licensed this images, and being supported by all the commented in that deletion request that the files should be kept. Besides that in this edit even @BevinKacon, the one that asked Yann to delete this images, thinks that the images in this DR should be kept and the ones deleted by Yann should be undeleted (BevinKacon, please correct me if i´am wrong).

Well, after almost half year, knowing that this image would be kept and the others undeleted, today JCB, as some times happen, didn't read the DR, and closed te dr as "deleted: per nomination - uploader has given convincing arguments why files from this Flickr stream cannot be trusted". Yann was not an uploader of a single of this images, i´am was a uploader of a great part of this images, if not the majority.

What i get from this? Proofs serve of nothing in DR´s, the fact that all users that commented think that this images should have been kept also are zero, the body of irrefutable evidence value zero. That is valued is some random links and hearsay, as shown by the fact of the deletion of 601 images today and 600/700 in July. Time of volunteers wasted, just because some users think TL:DR but delete and zero proofs are enough to delete 1200/1300 images. And then some wonder why some many people dont contribute at all to Commons, when the show is run the users that make this kind of primary mistakes and still insist in pushing it further.

If there is still some decency in Commons, please comment in Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Files_from_Lies_Thru_a_Lens_Flickr_stream, where all the evidence is abridged from the original DR. Tm (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  • We actually did learn what matters:
“Please note that in the five months this DR was open, not a single administrator has stated that these files could be kept.”
Not proof, not arguments, not what regular users think, not what the original spotter (BevinKacon) thinks, not what the uploader thinks (Tm), not what license reviewers think (Tm, Tuvalkin, Gone Postal) and most certainly not the opinion of mere extended uploaders+rollbackers like myself and Incnis Mrsi.
Oh no.
Administrators.
Their opinion is what matters. The rest of us can go home. Jcb tried to retract his statement later, but seemingly forgot mid-sentence what he was saying and didn't really take it back. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
not a surprise. since we have admins who will sock, or block uploaders, in order to delete files. since they are always right, they have nothing to take back. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
"…we have admins who will sock…": is that an accusation against someone in particular, or just a random aspersion? - Jmabel ! talk 04:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
surprised you would not know about User:INeverCry. and no systemic change to avoid such admin misbehavior in the future. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
You didn't say "we have had admins who will sock…". You said "…we have admins who will sock…". That is a statement that some current admin is guilty of this conduct. But you don't indicate any individual against whom you have such an accusation, so this effectively counts a blanket aspersion against an entire class of people including myself, and I resent it. I don't complain when you bring forward actual complaints about the conduct of individuals, but vague accusations like this do nothing but create a negative atmosphere. - Jmabel ! talk 17:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Slowking4 and Jmabel, some administrators had, have and will have an history of abuse of tools for whatever reason. From memory, there are 2+1 ex-administrators blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry, but i´ve also fail to see the relevance of sockpuppetry it in this particular case. Tm (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge October Results[edit]

Pink: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
Image Lichtersonntag Bocholt.jpg Pig in the french alps (2).jpg Pink library.jpg
Title Glass sphere in front of a pink tree Pig in the French Alps Pink bookshelf
Author Tetzemann Ibex73 Sally V
Score 14 13 12
Balconies: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
Image Balconies in Podolsk.jpg Celebration Reflection Balcony 807.jpg Balconies Cruise Ship Southampton 2016.jpg
Title Balconies, Podolsk, Russia Celebration X Reflection cruise ship balconies. Balconies of a cruise ship in
Author DILIN Gillfoto Kyriondaniel
Score 16 14 12

Congratulations to Tetzemann, Ibex73, Sally V, DILIN, Gillfoto and Kyriondaniel. -- Jarekt (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Unusual question[edit]

Sorry for poor English, this is not my native tongue.

Hi to all.

I read (of course not all) Commons guidelines,FAQs, etc but failed to find something relevant to this question. I'm newbie to Commons so maybe this type of issue was answered somewhere.

Accidentally I found image that show (of course if description is not a fiction/weird joke) uploader self-harm cuts.

[- may be mildly gruesome for some people]

My questions is: Did should (and how?) average user reacts to this kind of media? Not only in policy but also ethical aspects? Many social platforms if I'm not wrong have some guidelines how user should react to this and similar categories of content (anyone can easy imagine more drastic examples).

Of course, someone can say that image don't seems to violate any guidelines. It can have even use on some projects. It is why simply I don't nominated it for deletion. But for some people this (and similar) type of images is at least improper.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otsaim (talk • contribs) 14:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

--Otsaim (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Otsaim: You are welcome to denounce self-harm as I do or report it to emergency@wikimedia.org, but photos of it as an encyclopedic subject may remain here.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Figured I'd provide an unbroken link to that image for anyone who wants to see it: File:Self-injury_cuts_and_scars_on_forearm.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd say that is about as innocuous an image of its subject as we are likely to get: not at all sensational. Entirely appropriate. - Jmabel ! talk 17:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

December 06[edit]

Splitting a building in half...[edit]

St Marks Episcopal Church, Harvard Ave between Spring St and Seneca St, Seattle (CURTIS 169).jpeg

Can anyone think of an appropriate category for the rather remarkable construction project shown here: splitting a building in two and moving part of it as a means of expanding it? - Jmabel ! talk 08:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I've added Category:Building jacking, which doesn't cover the splitting, but the moving. --rimshottalk 22:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

New Wikimedia password policy and requirements[edit]

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

use a commons file that I modified[edit]

I downloaded a graphics file from Commons and modified it in AI for use in another article.

What is the procedure to upload it back to WM Commons? How do I identify the source? I assume there is not a copyright issue as I changed a file that was on it. BrucePL (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

  • @BrucePL: Pretty simple if you want to offer an equivalent license to the original image; a lot trickier if you don't. So let's presume you do. The main thing is to connect them with {{Derivative versions}} and {{Derived from}}. If the original image wasn't a self-upload I've seen some people state the original source as their new source, others state the Commons image. I think either is clear and acceptable. (You might want to hold on a day or so to see if someone has a different understanding of this than I do.) - Jmabel ! talk 23:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I don't see how to use the derivative notices using the Upload Wizard. I have not uploaded an image using source editing either. Where do I learn? Thanks. BrucePL (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@BrucePL: If the Upload Wizard is what is comfortable for you, just upload with the Upload Wizard, get as much as you can right (especially the license), then edit to add the rest, just like you'd edit on any other wiki page. - Jmabel ! talk 23:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

December 07[edit]

Structured Data on Commons Newsletter - Fall 2018 edition[edit]

Welcome to the newsletter for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons! You can update your subscription to the newsletter. Do inform others who you think will want to be involved in the project!

Community updates
Things to do / input and feedback requests

Current:

Since the last newsletter:

Presentations / Press / Events
Partners and allies
  • The info portal on Structured Commons now includes a section on GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums).
  • We are currently planning the first GLAM pilot projects that will use structured data on Wikimedia Commons. One project has already started: the Swedish Heritage Board researches and develops a prototype tool to provide improved metadata (translations, data additions...) from Wikimedia Commons back to the source institution. Read the project brief.
  • The documentation for batch uploads of files to Wikimedia Commons will be improved in 2019, as part of preparing for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons. To prepare, the GLAM team at the Wikimedia Foundation wants to understand better which types of documentation you already use, and how you like to learn new GLAM-Wiki skills and knowledge. Fill in a short survey to provide input!
Stay up to date!

-- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery - 17:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

December 08[edit]

Undue influence of en.Wikipedia[edit]

Look here, please – an en.Wikipedian came and declared: “there is a sock puppet of certain our contributor, and the sock uploaded copyvio”, citing some en.Wikipedia edit. No explicit proof of copyvio was presented, and now only sysops can check whether was it copyvio because one Commons sysop deleted the file early applying a perverse interpretation of Commons:CSD #G7. Moreover, evidence of purported sock puppetry was rather weak. But yet another Commons sysop—and also an en.Wikipedian—blocked both accounts and now fails to respond to criticism. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

You know, it is highly suspicious if one account uploads a file at 06:38 and then another inserts it into a Wikipedia page at 06:42. That is a 4 minute time difference! The accounts seem to be at least related. --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
It was a copyvio. Clear and unambiguous. --Majora (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Can Majora add the link then? Not here, but onto Commons:Deletion requests/File:Air_conditioner_compressor_inside.jpg currently making impression that a random Commons sysop doesn’t understand policy enough to make deletions for any case but simplest. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Fine. Will you please stop posting this to every board now? --Majora (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Unless my “forum shopping” there wouldn’t be Majora’s notice at the delreq. Whereas without this notice (and accordingly to findings of a CheckUser) there would be no reason for Akajones12 (talkcontribsblock logfilter log) to stay blocked at all. Admit, at the end, that I was right where two Commons sysops—who blindly relied on en.Wikipedian allegations—were not. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
yeah, not a surprise that the vindictive summary process is infecting projects, other than english. should not expect much accountability from people who are always right. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

December 09[edit]

Test passed. How to delete?[edit]

How do I delte this edit of mine from page history. I think the test is taking too much room on Wikimedia Commons server for a single page.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold (talk • contribs) 04:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to put link to that edit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Sandbox&oldid=330739007 . Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

You can't. No one can. Even admins can't actually delete something from the server. "Deletion" to us is actually just hiding edits from the vast majority of people. In any case, the storage space on the server is fine. The Foundation has plenty of space to work with. --Majora (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
@Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: your test (without compression) takes up slightly less space than File:Cat Briciola with pretty and different colour of eyes.jpg. So the Commons server will be fine. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

December 10[edit]

It is now possible to undo edits using the mobile editing interface[edit]

This was copied from the Technical Village Pump as more people watch this village pump and this new feature probably deserves more eyes than a few watchers of a nascent sub-pump.

It is now possible to undo edits if you use the mobile editing interface, “User:FR30799386” has enabled this and the result here on Wikimedia Commons is as the images above demonstrate you can add an edit summary and the undo will automatically reload the page.

If any of y'all want to have this feature for yourself then please follow the instructions from W:EN:User:FR30799386/undo by copying
mw.loader.load('https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:FR30799386/undo.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
, clicking on this link, and then pasting the code. WARNING ⚠: As of writing this this code is still beta software, so each and every revert should be checked after saving. In case there is a bug, its creator requests its users to report it to w:en:User talk:FR30799386. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Olimpíada de Filosofía[edit]

Desde el año 1997 contamos con la presencia de alumnos participantes, coordinadores, filósofos de reconocimiento internacional, profesores y funcionarios. Con el apoyo del Ministerio de Educación de la Nación, en los primeros años luego la Facultad de Filosofía (UBA), ya en el 2008 Secretaria de Extensión (UBA) y estos últimos años Secretaria de Educación Media.

http://olimfilo.com.ar/historia.htm
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio Lobosco (talk • contribs) 14:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-50[edit]

17:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Uncategorized and unidentified categories[edit]

I was told by Auntof6 during this discussion on Turelio's talk page that there have been a few inconclusive debates so far regarding categories which are named "Uncategorized images of <subject>" and "Unidentified images of <subject>".

I suggest having these "uncategorized images of...." categories because:
1. Having main categories that are "clean" (showing only/mainly subcategories) encourages uploaders to actually categorise their uploads into more correct subcategories themselves instead of just piling them onto the multitudes of files that are already there in the main category.
2. Uncategorized images can then also be found via the category system so people who enjoy categorizing media can get to them easier. (See Category:Media needing categories by subject)
3. Having vast amounts of uncategorized media in main categories can bring problems for computers that are slow or create long waits for people who have slow internet connections
4. Having many uncategorized images in the main category can be confusing for new users when they try to search for media via the category system as it can be unclear if the media is in a subcategory or in the main category, or even in both
5. Uploaders who place media into main categories tend to be newbies, placing their uploads in (too many) main categories. The files are often also over-categorized or just incorrectly categorized, i.e. in the wrong category.

I also suggest keeping the "unidentified" categories as these, for me at least, are there for files which can not be identified due to not enough information being provided by the uploader. One can then only hope that someone comes along who actually knows the subject when they see the image, and can then categorise it.

I have noticed that Taterian has placed {{Empty category}} templates into a few "uncategorized images of ..." categories which results in the following text being shown on the category page: "Administrators: Please do not delete this category even if it is empty. This category may be empty occasionally or even most of the time." I can only assume that user Taterian agrees with having these categories. I also noticed that Allforrous has helped in streamlining these "uncategorized..." categories.

The fact that these "uncategorized images of...." categories haven't been formalised, sometimes results in some users taking offence for reasons only known to them and just empty these categories out by shoving the media back into the main category (or even worse by shoving them into an "unidentified" category) so they can put the now emptied "uncategorized" category up for deletion.

Thanks for reading the above and I hope that this time the community can come up with a clear consensus. - Takeaway (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You misquoted me. I said discussions, not debates. I also didn't say that those previous discussions were inconclusive. On the contrary: I said "the consensus was to leave uncategorized or unidentified things in a main category". --Auntof6 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
While I agree that there is a consensus to keep things that are simply awaiting precise categorization in the main category, there is no such consensus about thing that have been examined and cannot be identified. See, for example Category:Unidentified locations in Seattle, Washington. The presence of such a category is certainly in accord with consensus. - Jmabel ! talk 00:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
That's a good point: thanks for pointing out the distinction. How can we enforce such use? Maybe change the naming to "unidentifiable" instead of "uncategorized" or "unidentified"? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
We have a similar situation that should perhaps be handled the same as these: certain categories whose names start with "Other". There are at least four CFDs for these: you can see them at:
Note that some "Other" categories were eliminated already. Not all categories specifying other should be included, but some seem to be along the same lines as this discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Categories like "Uncategorized images of <subject>" and "Unidentified images of <subject>" seem like logical contradictions, since images in the first category are categorized to some extent, and images in the second are identified to some extent. --ghouston (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • That's true. I suspect those mean that all we know about them is that they depict <subject>, but they aren't categorized by any of the other things that <subject> is usually categorized by. I've also seen some categories with names like "<Foo> to be categorized by country". That's probably more accurate, but if we go that route we're likely to have .ultiple such categories on individual images. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm surprised there is not a clear consensus for Unidentified subjects categories because Category:Unidentified subjects is linked to from the main page, it must be among the most prominent categories on this site. Oxyman (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

December 11[edit]