Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

  Welcome   Community portal   Help desk
Upload help
  Village pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
 
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Village pumps for other languages:

বাংলা | Alemannisch | العربية | asturianu | авар | Boarisch | bosanski | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 |  | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | मराठी | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | suomi | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | Zazaki | +/−

Welcome to the Village pump

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

Please note


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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page


Search archives


 


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

  • RFC on Hosting files for 3D models. ()
Template: View • Discuss • Edit • Watch



Oldies[edit]

Creating a free and open source typeface[edit]

A proposed free and open source typeface.pdf

Hi, I know this isn’t the typical business of Commons, but I am currently designing a typeface and would like to release it as a free and open source font with help from the Commons community. I’ve written a rationale for this font project that you can read at File:A proposed free and open source typeface.pdf (use pdf reader; pdf may not display with Firefox pdf.js). Typefaces are resources much like the images and video that Commons currently produces, and expanding into font creation I believe is a logical expansion of its mission. Please take a moment to take a look at my proposal, and perhaps test my font which lives on GitHub!

It is critical that we do not ignore the importance of type in the development of libre ecosystems. Typography has always been a stubborn holdout in this regard, and to this day there remain few free high-quality comprehensive text typefaces. Free type is mainly concentrated in a handful of flagship “superfonts” that contain a staggering catalog of glyphs, but lack greatly in the quality of design and typographic styles and features seen in professional type. To my knowledge, there are currently just two great open source text families—Gentium, which is still incomplete, and Linux Libertine, in addition to a few corporate gifts such as Adobe Source Serif and Bitstream Charter. To help fill the gap, I present my own original type design and ask for the Wikimedia projects’ help in finishing and releasing my font to provide a quality free font choice…

Kelvinsong talk 15:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This font looks really lovely texts are convenient to read in it - thus I hope I can read Wikipedia articles in that font one day - including mathematical formulae of course. \frac{-4 \pm \sqrt{6^2-4 \times ac}}{2a} -- Rillke(q?) 23:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I love it, except for the crossbar in the capital A, which is very distracting to me. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I’m not sure exactly what you mean. It's right where crossbars on A’s usually go. Is it too high? too low?—Kelvinsong talk 02:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The crossbar in the A also looks messed up to me (using MacOS X). Kaldari (talk) 06:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I checked the PDF in Windows and iOS and fail to see any glitch of the capital A. Maybe a screen cap from MacOS would explain the issue better. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
You can see my problem in this screenshot. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that in the small f: phab:F97280 - installed the otf font files under Windows. -- Rillke(q?) 11:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
That is very strange, I have never seen it do that! It usually happens when there is a contradicting intersection, but shouldn’t be happening there considering both contours are clockwise—Kelvinsong talk 22:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kaldari Rillke & User:TheDJ, I’ve fused the A crossbar and the f crossbar & pushed updated font files to github. Pls download & check to see if the problem is still there on ur computers—Kelvinsong talk 22:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah looks like expected now. Although not that eye-catching the "t" glyph is also affected; interestingly only with smaller font sizes: phab:F99875 -- Rillke(q?) 13:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@Rillke Pictogram voting keep.svg FixedKelvinsong talk 22:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm no font expert, but your font looks elegant and classy. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks sm!!—Kelvinsong talk 02:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kelvinsong: Sounds like a great idea. I'm going to let the WMF designers know about it in case they want to contribute. One thing to keep in mind: The SIL Open Font License (which is one of the most popular free font licenses) covers use and distribution of the font as a whole, not the individual glyphs. If you want to make sure that your font is completely free (both the software and the design elements), I would suggest using a CC0 or CC-BY license (or dual-licensing with both CC and SIL licenses). Kaldari (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@User:Kaldari idk I was going to use GPL font license to avoid the whole Charter parallel design mess—Kelvinsong talk 22:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kelvinsong: GPL+FE works too. Don't be afraid to multi-license though :) Kaldari (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
This is a very nice font and well-designed. I hope I'll see this on Wikimedia projects at some point, and maybe even elsewhere on the web. Definitely my favorite custom serif font for paragraph texts. --GeorgeBarnick (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Very interesting and good-looking to my uneducated eye, but I guess that's up to the real font experts to judge (would it be possible to get feedback from a professional?). Just out of curiosity: What's wrong with Computer Modern/BlueSky/Latin Modern? --El Grafo (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
"It is critical that we do not ignore the importance of type in the development of libre ecosystems." YES! We discussed a lot about this topic and I'm personally very happy to see that you have stepped in so decidedly. Besides, I have seen several of your works without knowing that they came from the same designer. Congratulations for your skills, and thank you very much for your contributions.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@User:Kaldari & @User:GeorgeBarnick thank you sm for saying that!! ☺️
@User:El Grafo I’m not sure yet. All the major type designers communities went into strange decline in the past year but I’ll send some samples out. && I don’t want to get into a rant but Computer/Latin Modern is jsut a dreadfully designed font. It was not even created by a human; it was made by a computer with only a rudimentary sense of curve aesthetics. The italics are half-decent but unstandard & so hard to read for long stretches. It is a decorative font at best, and is very illegible for body text. If you want a didone font; use Didot or New caledonia. It also gives off an impression of laziness on the part of the author, and a tone of dreary technicality on the content. The only thing it does well is it works well with TeX (I heard, since I don’t use TeX).
@Qgil-WMF Thanks sm!! & any hint if this is something WMF will be taking a lasting interest in?—Kelvinsong talk 22:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kelvinsong:, Vibhabamba is UX designer at the WMF, and I recommend you to follow up with her. She has posted some advice below already.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Kelvinsong—Font type square.svg
I read about Google's w:Noto fonts recently (Noto = "No tofu") - that already has 98 fonts completed. Is that (code, main site, Apache licence) something that would be compatible with our needs, and your (fantastic, as always) efforts? I hope we can avoid competing standards and mass-duplication of labour, as well as getting the largest possible global installation-base. It might be ideal to collaborate on this existing effort? Quiddity (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Quiddity you are confusing fonts with apps. Fonts are in a way software. But they are not built nor used in the same way apps are. If I went out and built a new open source word processor, you might be justified in asking me why I didn’t just contribute to LibreOffice (though if u ask me, LibreOffice is a mess, not as bad as GIMP but approaching). That’s bc you only ever need one open source word processor & it’s better to have one really good Libreoffice than two lesser rival apps that do the same thing. But fonts are not apps. For one I cannot contribute to an existing font project in a meaningful way. I do not know who designed Noto (it seems to be credited to one “Google”) but only that designer can make more Noto glyphs. I, with my typographical experience can offer suggestions and critiques on his (or her) typeface & fix bugs. But I cannot directly contribute to it. Only Noto’s designer can design Noto Serif.
More importantly, diversity is a pro in type design, not a con. There is no such thing as “duplication of labor” or redundancy in type design, only lost potential. This is an extremely big issue & I could write a whole article about it. but anyway—specific reasons why it makes sense to create a new font:
  • I don’t really like Noto Serif : This might be a bit subjective, but personally I am not a fan of its design (largely lifted from Droid serif). Droid serif is at perfunctory glance a more polished interpretation of the “computer type” families. In essence gluing serifs onto sans fonts. Sometimes that works, some people like that, but to me it makes a font that’s uncomfortable to read. Don’t get me wrong. Droid serif is not a bad font—in fact it’s better than the professional fonts some of my textbooks are set in—just not my taste. It’s not exactly a design I am enthusiastic to contribute to, uk? ofc that could just be my own typographer’s bias
  • I couldn’t contribute to if I wanted to : basically see what I said before. Only Noto’s designer can design Noto Serif. I have done such a thing before, contributing IPA glyphs & stuff to existing fonts. You can get a decent grip on what the original designer meant but it’s difficult & basically what I would truly call wasted energy. —Kelvinsong talk 23:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It wouldn’t be “our own” : Typefaces, even libre ones, have “owners”. Usually this is the company or organization that uses it the most. Google “owns” Roboto; Mozilla (w Google) “owns” Open Sans; Apple “owns” Helvetica, and big surprise, Google “owns” Droid/Noto. It’s a hard concept to put into words, but you get what I mean. Fira, Gentium, and Libertine don’t have this problem. You can just kind of smell it.
  • Noto isn’t really free : No typeface is (or should be) free as in gratis, but you could argue that Google’s superfonts aren’t even free as in speech. They’re more like legally-irrevocable gifts that we are allowed to use at Google’s grace. && Google has a poor track record with its treatment of the type design craft & I’m reluctant to give my labor to them. && see [1]
  • We still need new fonts : Even if Google was the most angelic company in the world; even if Noto was the best designed font in the history of the planet; even if its designer’s vision of the typeface was magically transferred to my heart, we would still need more choice in type. We’re starting to reach saturation with Linux distributions. Fonts still have a long way to go. Feel free to google “why we need new fonts”, because every type designer on the planet has been asked this question at some point, and some have written extensively on it.
I hope this makes sense I didn’t want to spend too long writing a long explanation of this topic—Kelvinsong talk 23:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kelvinsong: That helps immensely, thank you for the details. This proposed project is intriguing, and I wish it great success.
(Ramble: I adore the vast diversity of typefaces, and have spent many an hour browsing typography blogs/libraries/articles, and learning some of the nuances of the basics [Foundry:Family:Face:Font! But I still mix them up like a philistine, all too often >.< ], but most of my online font-usage-knowledge is still from circa '98-'02, when kottke's silkscreen was all the rage, hence I have somewhat outdated views particularly regarding embedded webfonts! Again, best of wishes for this proposal. I look forward to this elegant and accessible work of science and art. :) Quiddity (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@User:Quiddity Thanks!! && btw a foundry is the font publisher (usually a company or artist collective; sometimes an individual). Family & face are the same thing; Font can either mean the same as Family or refer to a single instance of a family.—Kelvinsong talk 13:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kelvinsong: Hi! While I am taking a look at your typeface, it would be a good idea for you to submit it to Typographica. I could help connect you with Stephen Coles. Is there an email address where I can reach you? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vibhabamba (talk • contribs) 08:03, 19 March 2015‎ (UTC)
@User:Vibhabamba Yes, thank you! I just sent you a message —Kelvinsong talk 00:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Section break[edit]

Fontside old style figures.svg

Fun update: I programmed into the font the ability to insert old style figures into your documents even if the app you’re working in doesn’t support opentype, a possible fix for bugs like [2] on the font side. It’s on github now. Encapsulate figures you want to display that way with <onum></onum> tags, and the font will switch number styles without touching the underlying text data. To prevent unexpected behavior it also encourages you to type the closing </onum> tag. I suppose this could be extended to small capitals and superscripts—Kelvinsong talk 23:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kelvinsong: @Rillke: FYI, with the appropriate install and a bit of CSS, it's perfectly possible to read Wikipedia with this right now (... and it looks quite nice). See this screenshot. Just add body { font-family: "SWIFTDAY3"; } to your common.css after installing. Personally, I detest the 'typography refresh' fonts... doing this doesn't keep the 'fallback' for things like Hangul or Korean text from working, though it ofc has no effect on the rendering of math. Now you need to make a sans display font for it so section headers aren't still ugly. :P Revent (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I am indeed using it here at Commons since March, 16 for content texts but keeping navigational elements in sans-serif - it works very well for that and when I switch to another project I am usually missing it. Time to add it to my global CSS comes soon. -- Rillke(q?) 09:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Aww thank you sm for saying that! @Revent & @Rillke! && @Revent wow your wikipedia text is quite small, and I am surprised at how well my font is holding up at that size! I just need someone to see how it looks on mac/windows bc I am designing on Linux rn too… BTW if ur using the font locally, make sure you are updating from the Github repository every now and then bc I am improving the font almost daily :) . && also I really should think up a real name for the font before everyone starts calling it “SWIFTDAY3” lol—Kelvinsong talk 01:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I'm using Windows XP (SP3) and I can't use any Swiftday fonts downloaded from github... Windows Font installation says your (Swiftday3) otf files are damaged. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.)

@Kelvinsong: I'll give it a try on the iMac tomorrow, and give you another screenie of how it looks there. Revent (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

SC type square.svg

Another update—I added small capitals to the regular style of the font. Those without opentype apps can access them with “<sc></sc>” they’re on github now!—Kelvinsong talk 02:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Windows 7 screen shot

@Kelvinsong:: I realized that I should download the zip instead of "downloading" each file individually from your GitHub folder (never heard of this site) which doesn't work. But now I look at Swiftday3 in Windows Notepad and Wordpad, the same evenodd fill glitch (the previously reported capital A) pops up below 74 px font size. Regular: 4, 6, 8, 9, e, g, x, z (< all lower case); italic: 4, 6, 8, 9, A, H (<all capitals), f, t, x (< all lower case). All these glyphs appear normal at 75 px and onwards. When I make a sample SVG and load it in Firefox, the threshold of the evenodd fill glitch appears below 100 px. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That’s cos of overlapping contours in multistroke letters like X. released fonts should not have these overlaps but I keep them there because they are required for editing. Not sure how to fix that rn bc fontforge doesn’t have a good way to fuse strokes before export to otf—Kelvinsong talk 14:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Sameboat - 同舟 I relegated the overlaps to background layers please download and test again :) —Kelvinsong talk 21:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@ User:Kelvinsong: Regular "8" is still glitchy. Also all English glyphs clump together weirdly... -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Sameboat - 同舟 Strange. Looks like Windows is misinterpreting kerning pairs or something. U tried it with ur system language set to English? It is a latin font after all && maybe ur computer is trying to typset vertically or something—Kelvinsong talk 20:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
&& also I fixed the 8—Kelvinsong talk 21:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
There is no such issue with other English fonts like Arial and Times. And the options below is "western characters" which is the usual value for Latin glyphs. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@Sameboat - 同舟 I think I fixed it try again w the newest commit <3 —Kelvinsong talk 14:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@ User:Kelvinsong: Thanks. It works, but the line-height bugs me which is much smaller with other (English) fonts. In my Win7 screenshot, there is no empty line between the alphabets and numbers. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@Sameboat - 同舟 The big line spacing is because of a large square root glyph (like √ but BIGGER) that lives in the font; it’s compensated for in the linux & mac font by the HHEAD field which cancels out the giant radical but I forgot to do the same for the windows font. I fixed it but for some reason Github is down rn :// —Kelvinsong talk 18:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Okayy it’s up now—Kelvinsong talk 19:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@ User:Kelvinsong: Looks good now :) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 22:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Yay! font’s getting closer to release now :) —Kelvinsong talk 02:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:Kelvinsong: I love old-style figures and want to use it in any given chance (visible if you have installed Swiftday or Adobe Garamond Pro:  which are the equivalences of figures of Georgia: 0123456789). My issue is assigning them to Japanese kana is uninviting for open usage because other participants without the said font(s) will only see tofu. I would rather have a variant of Swiftday so the old-style figures use the usual figure code points. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: After little online search, I found that the onum can be called out in this manner in Wiki and SVG: <span style="font-family:Swiftday3,Adobe Garamond Pro,serif;font-variant:small-caps">0123456789</span>(0123456789). Sadly, "font-variant" attribute seemingly isn't supported by librsvg. So even if Wikimedia has Swiftday3 installed on the server, the old-style figures aren't gonna be used for rendering SVG into PNG without typing the corresponding Japanese kana. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Sameboat - 同舟 It’s not assigned to Japanese kana; they live in the Private use area, the same place Adobe puts their old style numerals and small caps and swashes, etc. If those code points display Japanese kana then a font you have installed is invading that bloc with kana that shouldn’t be there. && yes u can invoke old style numerals with font-feature-settings or font-variant, or a million other hacks but those rarely work consistently which is why I included in the font portable compositors that let you type “<onum>123</onum>” and “<sc>abc</sc>” to get old style numerals and small caps.
PS svg text should always be rendered through an outlined “display” layer—unless they radically improve the renderer, I recommend text-to-paths with the text itself in an invisible text layer—Kelvinsong talk 22:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if there is similar mechanism of SVG which allows you to highlight-select the text-to-path object like actually selecting the raw text in PDF. But even so, I would normally not convert text to path in my SVG files due to file size it bloats. Not even the font style could justify this practice in my book. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Sameboat - 同舟 You cannot highlight in SVG at all? && letting the text be as SVG text might work for very simple files but rendering problems increase with file complexity—displaying outlines is the only safe way—Kelvinsong talk 00:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@User:Kelvinsong: I mean I don't know how exactly this can be done in SVG. A simple code example will be appreciated. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
File:West Antarctic ice sheet.svg has something like that—Kelvinsong talk 23:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

March 16[edit]

Commons talk:We miss you#Should the people doing the missing be listed for each entry?[edit]

I'll looking for people who are interested in having a discussion about the format of the Commons:We miss you page. If anyone is interested, please join in. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm personally wondering about the inclusion criteria, because I saw someone add Penyulap the other day, and I don't think anyone missed them. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
That someone was me, and another user endorsed the entry via "thanks". I think that we should work out what the page should display before we work on the inclusion criteria for new entries. Abd suggested that entries should be seconded. I like that idea, but that's a discussion for another time. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The page is untenable if it is necessary to establish consensus for inclusion. Hence "we miss you" could simply be interpreted to mean that more than one user misses the person, thus "we," and the first one as shown by an addition to the page, and the second, or more, as shown by listing additional users. If one person nominates, anyone may revert that, but then if another brings it back in, it should be accepted. Unless socking is shown, of course! The same person might have been seen as a PITA by nearly everyone else, might be blocked, banned, or excommunicated. Michael is correct that inclusion standards should be established, so that disruption is not caused by dispute over who is missed and who is not. The page should not become a debate. We can see a hint of this above, where clearly one person misses, and it was asserted as unlikely that anyone would miss that user. Obviously false, already known as such if anyone is paying attention. I don't know Pennylap from a HoleInTheWall, and don't need to. Let's keep it simple. --Abd (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

March 20[edit]

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.    FDMS  4    14:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Problems uploading photographs from SpaceX which are available under a Wikipedia compatible licence[edit]

Hi all

I'm trying to upload images from SpaceX which are available on their official Flickr account under a WIkipedia compatible licence. The images were uploaded to Commons but then deleted (see discussion here), I then opened an undeletion request which has been refused and was told that the images would need to be uploaded again, however my attempts at uploading them are not working. Flickr2Commons doesn't work, it rejects uploading the files because they have previously been deleted, I have also tried the Commons Upload Wizard but it has rejected them because they have previously been deleted. Please can someone tell me how I can upload them? Bare in mind there are over 100.

Thanks very much

Mrjohncummings (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest anyone tempted read up on Russavia's case first. I was recently falsely accused of being Russavia's meatpuppet, so I would not touch these with a barge pole. The images are being used as a political beach-ball where established Commons policies, such as the deletion policies, appear to be ignored in order to prove a point. -- (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
It appears that User:Huntster manually restored all 105 images of Category:Photographs by SpaceX by uploading them one by one - without using any "wizards" because apparently some control freaks in charge decided it would be good policy to prohibit people from re-uploading photos automatically if they've been deleted. Huntster's work is commendable, but at the rate things are going it sounds like we may need a new upload wizard - one written in Python to be easily run on users' PCs, intentionally designed not to be detectable as a bot, and distributed offsite. The existing architecture simply doesn't take into account that a file may be deleted not because it is a bad thing to have, but out of administrative pique. Wnt (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

March 22[edit]

Buddhist art from/of Tibet[edit]

Hi, I'd like some input about these categories, and their subcategories. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Buddhist art of Tibet contains Category:Thangka from Tibet, but there is also Category:Mandala thangka from Tibet‎. All these seem not very logical... Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

In art categories of Italy we have this system, that for works of art that were created or found in Italy and are still located there we use "Category:Art in Italy"; for works of art that were created or found in Italy but now are preserved elsewhere we use "Category:Art from Italy" instead. The mother-cat is "Category:Art of Italy" that contains the two cats in / from, and then all other cats that have not a more accurate positioning (e.g. Coins, Artists, Italy in art, Music, Literature, etc.). I don't know if for Tibet there is a similar need to distinguish Tibetan art inside the country and Tibetan art located in other countries of the world (museums, collections, etc.). --DenghiùComm (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I would like to have more opinions here. Personally I think it doesn't matter much where is located the work of art. This is a secondary criteria, compared with content, style, age, etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps for a little county / country like Tibet (or other little countries) it doesn't really made sense. But for countries that produced a lot of art (like China, Egypt, Greece, Italy, etc.) it is absolutely necessary. Why to say "from Egypt" when it is 'in Egypt? Or why to say "in Egypt" if it is in the United States or in France? To apply this scheme (in / from) shows also how some countries were looted of their art over the centuries. This is my opinion. --DenghiùComm (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

MUTYALAPALEM-UPDATED FILE UPLOAD PROBLEMS -REG[edit]

DEAR SIR,

I UPLOADED A BROCHURE ABOUT MUTYALAPALEM VILLEAGE. AFTER THAT I DELETED THE SAME AND TRYING TO UPLOAD UPDATE FILE. BUT I AM UNABLE TO UPLOAD UPADTED FILE... REQUEST YOUR HELP TO UPLOAD THE NEW FILE.....

REGARDS A SWAMY NAIDU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naidu.a2014 (talk • contribs) 2015-03-23T03:44:10‎ (UTC)

Locate the key that looks like this
or like this
and press it once until the little light turns off.
  1. Please stop SCREAMING in our eyes.
  2. You didn't delete anything. Only administrators can delete content, and you're not an administrator.
  3. As noted on File:MUTYALAPALEM.pdf and File:Mutyalapalem 2 side brochure.pdf, they were deleted as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/File:MUTYALAPALEM.pdf and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mutyalapalem 2 side brochure.pdf.
  4. You should not recreate previously deleted content. If you can explain how this content fits within Commons' project scope, you can request undeletion.
LX (talk, contribs) 18:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
User:LX: I find this kind of snide response to be unwarranted. Caps Lock is not literal screaming; it doesn't damage your ears. I have no idea what kind of equipment the OP has. Are there old phones out there that can access Internet but can't do lowercase, or do it with too much trouble? Myself, I remember the days of the APPLE ][, so I can handle uppercase. Trust me, you can get used to it with just a little effort. Wnt (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Naidu.a2014: You can access your contributions by the "contributions" tab that should be at the top of the page by your username (at least for me... it can vary depending on settings, I think). In your case this is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Naidu.a2014 . You can click on each of the files you uploaded. Just under the section titled "File History" you can click on a link to "Upload a new version of this file". If you have further trouble let us know. Wnt (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
You may call my response snide if you like, but at least I addressed the actual question. The question was about a deleted brochure. That won't be listed in Special:Contributions/Naidu.a2014, but in Special:Log/Naidu.a2014, and you can't "Upload a new version of this file" for files that have been deleted. LX (talk, contribs) 07:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
User:LX: Alright, that's a good point! Wnt (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

First concrete bridge and Budapest metro line 1[edit]

Budapešť 0104.jpg
depicts a footbridge over an metro line. My guide told me this was the first bridge build with concrete in the world. This metroline construction was finished in 1896. Could a date be found for the bridge. On the en:Line 1 (Budapest Metro) I could not find any mention of the new aligment (straither line and underground) by the renovation in the 1970s?Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I also uploaded an excursion with the old metro car: File:Museum metro line 1 Budapest 01.JPG to File:Museum metro line 1 Budapest 04.JPG.Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Smiley.toerist It appears as though the Alvord Lake Bridge predates it by a few years, and that does not include Roman viaducts and infrastructure in that equation, as they also were made from concrete. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

March 25[edit]

File:Cholula_Hot_Sauce.jpg[edit]

Are personal photos taken of commercial products located on shelves in grocery stores OK to upload to Commons? I checked the archives and find quite a few threads about Coke bottles/cans which say that the images are OK because the logo is no longer copyrighted and because of the simple design of the bottle/can. COM:PACKAGING, however, seems to say that if the packaging of the product contains a printed design then it cannot be uploaded to Commons. Would that reasoning be applicable to this picture of these hot sauce bottles? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Unless the picture of the woman is in the public domain (e.g. it's very old), File:Cholula_Hot_Sauce.jpg is derivative work of a copyrighted work, and we should not have this image on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 04:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jmabel. What do you think is the best course of action. Tag it for speedy deletion per "Apparent copyright violation" or nominate it for deletion per COM:DR? -Marchjuly (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Either. No big deal which. - Jmabel ! talk 16:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Here's another photo which has been uploaded but does not seem to satisfy the criteria of COM:PACKAGING - Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The Sriracha one is almost entirely text and simple shapes. The two tiny peppers on that are probably a small enough portion of the image to be de minimis. - Jmabel ! talk 04:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Understood. This image then does satisfy the exceptions of "COM:PACKAGING". Thanks for clarifying. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Files from the San Diego Museum of Art to be checked[edit]

Hi, Experts in Japanese and Chinese art needed. ;o) Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Type of metal?[edit]

10 Ariary 1999 mint side.jpg

Is my guess that this is a cupronickel coin correct?Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coins_of_Madagascar says it's stainless steel. If so, it's led a very hard life to get that banged up. Revent (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
There are very few coins in circulation so the few in use get a lot of use even with such a marginal value because people are very poor. As a tourist you get spend millions of Arials on consumptions, fees and souvenirs, but practicaly nothing in hard currency terms. This is in lots of banknotes wich everybody folds in bundels of ten. Only on the last days did I see any coins.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Are there any other Septagonal coins? I had to create a new category.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist: en:Fifty pence (British coin). Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
OK:But these UK cannot be uploaded on the Commons.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

March 27[edit]

Ingrown trees[edit]

Ingrown tree close to Budafok kocsiszin tram depot (1).JPG
I encountered this unusual tree + pole combination in Budapest. (also File:Ingrown tree close to Budafok kocsiszin tram depot (2).JPG and File:Ingrown tree close to Budafok kocsiszin tram depot (3).JPG. Can the tree species be determined?Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Not from that image; we'd need to see leaves and, ideally, flowers and/or fruit. Then try Category:Unidentified trees in Hungary. Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
On reflection, the green bark suggests a dogwood, Cornus species. Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
No need for leaves etc. (though that would certainly make it easier). If you can make some good close-ups of the buds, someone with access to the right literature could probably identify it quite easily. From what I can see, it looks like it might have differently shaped buds for flowers and sprouts, which would fit the Cornus theory. --El Grafo (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


Category suggestions, please[edit]

How to categorise
ESP-25c1938.jpg

Suggestions, please, on a set of categories for images like those shown here. Something like:

and the same for black backgrounds, then a set of subcategoies, like, Coins on..., Buttons on..., etc.

I want to exclude images of objects on white tablecloths, etc. Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

How about discs for the first? It already contains all kinds of coins among others, therefore it doesn't help for your second example, but maybe you could create a new sub-category of discsI missed your point background, sorry. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons talk:We miss you#Should the people doing the missing be listed for each entry.3F 2[edit]

We have more or less finished discussing the structure and format of the page and have now moved onto discussing principles regarding how new entries will be handled, including their removal. We haven't created a solid proposal yet. We're still throwing around ideas and discussing them, and I like to hear from others. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Review request [derivative work?][edit]

Hi. I'd like to request if you could assist me in determining if the following images are considered as derivative works?

If yes, i can then proceed with the deletion. Thanks. Ali Fazal (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Most of these are fine to be on Commons per {{PD-text}} and COM:FOP. Josve05a (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

March 28[edit]

Possibility? Viewing images in sub-categories at the same time as viewing parent categories[edit]

In a discussion on EN an editor argued that one should be able to "make an option to view all the images of a category and all its sub-categories at one time." - To expand on that I can see how it can be difficult to view every single one of the subcategories at the same time, but one can pick and choose by "expanding" or "collapsing" the subcategories.

Is there a system being developed that is like this?

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Such a system could be problematic if for instance there is a loop in the category tree. I don't know of such an item, but it is possible to create lists of images in categories and subcategories using AWB or catscan. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there are some loops, but it wouldn't be that hard for the JavaScript to check for loops (and for two or more paths down to the same subcat) and fail to open any category twice on the same page. - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is working on it, but I think that having categories returns results in BFS order would be both feasible (mostly. Worst case of hundreds of empty sub-categories would perhaps have to be excluded), and give results more in tune with expectations than the current system of only the current category. Bawolff (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
FastCCI can make a list of images from subcategories. --ghouston (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Link within langauge text and Valenciennes region[edit]

I try to add the map link [7] but this doesnt work while in Category:Trams in the Valenciennes region the link works. I am proposing the create the Category (Buses in the Valenciennes region). The Tranvilles public transport network is much wider than Valenciennes city. Unfortunatly there is no wel defined area. The department Nord is to large and the Arrondissement de Valenciennes is to small, as there are some communities served wich are outside the arrondisement. We dont do much with the arrondissement in the Commons anyway.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed with 1= for the 1st and only parameter, your external link contained a critical = in its ?name=value query part. The same trick also often helps with {{tlx|template|param1|3=foo=bar}} etc. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

30,000 New York crime scenes[edit]

I hope someone is looking into this. [8] Jim.henderson (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Amazing pictures, but I am not sure about the copyright. These were presumably never published, so are still probably under copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I hope you don't mean the ones from the 1920s-1930s. The photo of the 1935 New York book-burning is indeed disturbing... I hope we can do better than that. Wnt (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Have these been published before? Who are the authors? In the US, anonymous hurts us almost invariably, life+70 versus 120 years, but I suspect the NYPD has the names of the authors. If we assume they are anonymous and this is the first publication, then those before 2014 - 120 = 1894 are public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Now hold on a minute! This is absurd. To begin with, they're crime scene photos. That means (a) it probably wouldn't fly to tell a court you don't know who, where, when the picture came from, and (b) it would probably be taken askance if the photographer said hold on, this is my photo, you have to pay a copyright fee if you want to use this in the trial. I would suggest this is a "work for hire", and the image therefore was copyrighted by the police department from the beginning, but if not they know who held it. Also, we know that the police department felt comfortable publishing the digitized photos, which either means that they are Outrageous Pirates or else they were not taking material copyrighted by unknown authors. Also, I would assume that these have been published in court proceedings, which is what they were taken for - doesn't that count for something? Wnt (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I think some of these could fall under {{PD-NYCGov}} Yann (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Splendid. So, nevermind dates and previous publication, as these are works for hire with all rights released by the employer / owner, right? Jim.henderson (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it is probably not so simple. Terms and Conditions from the NYPD clearly say that all documents are not automatically in the public domain. BTW did he get a fine for parking in the wrong place? ;oD Yann (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah. Too bad, though the terms link is not linking for me. And wow, I bicycle up Sterling Place a dozen times most years. At least that link works. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

March 29[edit]

Help, please, re categorizing North America, South America, the Americas[edit]

I noticed that North America and South America had disappeared from many continent categories, and "the Americas" had appeared as a continent in their place. Templates were also changed to follow this method. My understanding is that North and South America are continents, and "the Americas", if anything, is a region (similar to Eurasia). After doing some work to change some of this back, I noticed that a lot of these changes seemed to have been made by the same user, User:Verdy p. I left a message here on his/her talk page, asking that he/she not make such changes. The user left a lengthy reply. Not all the reply is clear, such as the talk about axes (plural of axis, not axe), but I believe the upshot is that he/she disagrees, sees a great need to continue, and plans to do more.

So I'd appreciate input/clarification from the community as to which is right. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

English is not my native languages so excuse if I use "axis" as a plural.
And I have said thgat only a few major topics need to reconciliate other axis than just North/South (there are at least 4 major regions in the Americas, plus 2 with Nature topics and sometimes they need cross-references, but not below the political level of countries and dependencies). And this is NOT for a lot of topics.
Also the term "continent" taken strictly is geological (and geologically, Americas are not divided exactly like in political, natural, historical, and cultural topics). It's impossible to decide just one North/South division for every topic.
I have not removed any one of the North/South categories they are still all there even if there are a few others using also Latin and Caribbean.
Also don't make false assumptions: the Caribbean is NOT just in North America (I've seen false categorisations such as sorting files about Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago, and the Guianas (sometimes also Colombia) besing sorted incorrectly "North America". This is even more important for historical and natural topics. verdy_p (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
First, "axes" can be the plural of either "axe" or "axis": I was clarifying which I meant. I wasn't saying that you spelled it wrong. What isn't clear to me is what you mean by "axis". I think you are probably not using it the way we would normally use it.
You are right that "the Caribbean" is not just North America, if you're talking about the region. However, the islands and nations in the Caribbean (as opposed to those on the edge of it) are categorized here as part of North America. That includes Trinidad and Tobago, even though it's very close to mainland South America. Sometimes we have to agree to categorize some things a certain way, even if it's arguable. That is why I mentioned that I know there are systems where "the Americas" is considered a continent. It's just that, in the Wikimedia projects I work on, North and South America are considered the continents.
I know that you didn't remove the North America/South America categories. You put them under "the Americas". However, they also need to be under continents.
You should have noticed that I have North/South categories as direct members of continents. This is not a critical problem. Though we still have lots of medias that cannot be sorted that way (nature, culture, people, history and all related politics topics touching these domains).
Even if you like it or not, there already existed categories for Caribbean and Latin America. But sorting them as direct children of North and South repectively is wrong and we get many files incorrectly categorized due to this confusion, or already sorted only in Caribbean or in Latin America that cannot be reached by looking them first by country and their history/nature/people/culture subtopics. All I wanted to do was to do standard cross-categorization so that all of them are precisely categoprized geographically instead of remaining in "limbos" (far way in parent or children topics, for another American cultural or natural subregion unrelated to the North/South division). verdy_p (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Not everything needs to have separate categories under the Americas. There are some things that make sense to group there, such as some geographical things and certain nature categories. "The Americas" is a region, just like Eurasia, and not that much different from a hemisphere. We don't have so many categories for those, and we don't need so many for the Americas. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe Auntof6 is entirely correct here. And, similarly, we do not want to turn Europe + Asia into Eurasia just because the boundary is unclear in several places. Please, Verdry p, do not continue farther in this direction except in the unlikely event that you can develop a consensus to do this. This is not a situation in which to be unilaterally "bold". Take it to COM:CFD or such if you want to try to develop such a consensus. - Jmabel ! talk 17:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Auntof6 "Americans" (funny), better, people from United Estates of America, "study" Geographic like "USA and the rest", in reflection of that, Central America do not exist and South America is a different continent. America is the continent for many geographers, and South/North and Central Americas plus Caribbean islands are the subcontinent.
This is not Eurasia, this is what people outside USA study...
Again America, not Americas...
But I will not go further than this, this is a cultural issue way bigger than a simple category. -- RTA 06:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I realize that there are other ways of defining continents. en:Continent#Number of continents describes several methods. The issue is that Wikimedia Commons chose one method that everyone needs to follow, and that method uses the 7 continents that are shown at Category:Continents. That doesn't mean other methods are wrong, just that they aren't the method used here. Other things that are sometimes considered continents include the Americas, Eurasia, and Afro-Eurasia. Here on Commons, those are considered regions (intercontinental regions, to be exact), not continents.
The area that consists of North America and South America combined can be called either America or the Americas. Calling it America can be confusing because the United States is sometimes called "America" as well. Because of that, the Americas is clearer.
There are few categories that are meaningful at the continent level, even fewer if we start categorizing by something even bigger than the continents that we use now. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Classifying hot steel transport[edit]

Cast iron cars entering the furnaces (276617775).jpg
I cant seem to find an adapted category for this kind of rail transport.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I tried a few categories, none particularly relevant. It is incomplete, but sooner or later it will be improved. -- Tuválkin 19:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
So create one. They're obscure (but notable) so we probably don't have one as yet. I think they're generally called "torpedo ladles". The ones shaped like buckets are generally different as they're "slag ladles" for waste.
BTW, it's unusual, but they have at times been used for long distances along main lines. [9] Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Already here at Category:Torpedo wagons Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Cabaret vs. Vaudeville vs. Music hall[edit]

Hi, I am surprised that there is no en:Category:Music hall performers or en:Category:Vaudeville performers or en:Category:Cabaret performers here. But what is the right name for artist like Mistinguett? Thanks for your input. Yann (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Categories can be created here just like they are created on Wikipedia. If we are missing a useful categorization by profession, please feel free to add it. BD2412 T 19:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
But what is the right name? Yann (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
en-wiki already has her in en:Category:Cabaret singers, which seems to me to be on the mark. - Jmabel ! talk 16:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The point here is that these artists are more than singers. Most of them are also dancers. So I think that the word "performers" includes both, but we don't have that category here. On the English WP, it seems that artists from UK are in the Music hall category, while artists from the US are in the Vaudeville one. Now where should put French artists? ;o) Regards, Yann (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Derivative work?[edit]

What's the extend of the definition of "derivative work"? If a painter paints a picture after a (copyrighted) picture, does the painter need permission of the original copyright holder? Case in point: File:Jack Sels by Jules Grandgagnage.jpg is painting by a Wikimedia resident painter (the source link doesn't work for me; ymmv). But the real source of the image seems to be a Jack Sels record from 1961. Whaledad (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Brief answer, yes. If a work was inspired by, or based upon, some other work, then it is a derivative work. I suggest reading en:Derivative work, which is a not bad explanation. A derivative work cannot be 'more freely licensed' than the work it is based upon, and must give attribution to the original. Revent (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
As a further note, I'm strongly tempted to DR the work you linked on that basis, and would probably support deletion if it was well-reasoned... I didn't look at the copyright status of the original, but it seems to be an obvious DW, and should be attributed thus. Revent (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Formally, "A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”." 17 U.S.C. § 101 Revent (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

March 30[edit]

Request for help regarding an oversight issue & the Wikimedia Foundation[edit]

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.    FDMS  4    14:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

March 31[edit]

Unifying emojis filenames[edit]

Hi! There are four different sets of emojis uploaded on Commons, each with its own naming scheme. I believe it would be good to rename them all so that the names are consistent across the different sets (and futures freely licensed sets that will appear one day!).

Here’s an instance of how the four styles of the smiling face emoji are named today:

U+263A Emoji u263a.svg Twemoji 263a.svg Emojione 263A.svg PEO-white smiling face.svg

And here are some proposed new names using the system Emoji <Name of the set> <uppercase Unicode number>.svg:

U+263A Emoji Noto 263A.svg Emoji Twitter 263A.svg Emoji One 263A.svg Emoji Phantom 263A.svg

More about this on Talk:Emoji.

How can this happen? Are there tools for massive renaming following some pattern, or should a bot be programmed for this? What’s your advice for situations like this?

(Beyond the archiving peace of mind reason for this, one of the practical use of uniform names for these is making templates displaying emojis in any style with a Unicode number variable.)

Thank you, ~ nicolas (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

April 01[edit]

Flickr now offers Public Domain and CC0 designations[edit]

Since its first release on Flickr last month, this public domain 1900s photo of a Hualapai Indian school is the most popular image in the experimental mirror, having enjoyed 3,150 views by the public. This compares to a couple of hundred views in 15 months on Commons. At the current time, it is not reused on any other Wikimedia projects.

and its not an April Fools joke as it is from March 30th: http://blog.flickr.net/en/2015/03/30/flickr-now-offers-public-domain-and-cc0-designations/ The SpaceX images for example have been released as Public Domain on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacexphotos/ . Amada44  talk to me 10:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

As part of my on-going Commons→Flickr mirroring experiment, I am in the process of swapping the previous best default of CC-BY over to Public Domain, using the Flickr API (70,000 images compared to SpaceX's 105). You can search any flickrstream for Public Domain images, though the Flickr website does not make this obvious. The Organizr feature has yet to make license a filtering criteria, so batch license changes to 3,000+ images are hard to sort out (Organizr appears to consistently fail) unless you can set up a special tool or programme to do it for you, or spend your time changing licenses manually in screen-sized batches.
If you want to search for PD images, try editing the URL for this search (the Flickr drop-down says "Any License" but ignore it as misleading):
The new licenses are set up within Flickr as:
The license id is what the Flickr API relies on. -- (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Very nice. An additional trick is to use "https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Wikimedia&license=4,5,7,8,9,10" to maximize the number of freely licensed or license free returns, where "4" is CC Attribution, "5" is CC Attribution ShareAlike, "7" is no known copyright restrictions, "8" is United States government work, and as above, "9" is CC0 and "10" is Public Domain. In Firefox, I have this set as a search shortcut in bookmarks using "https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=%s&license=4,5,7,8,9,10", so I can type "flickr search term" and get results. Huntster (t @ c) 14:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I now find myself questioning my sanity - I could have sworn Flickr already had a PD option? Anyway, whatever - this announcement means a lot of our documentation now needs updating - start at COM:EIC#Flickr and work your way from there. Our tools also need to be updated - it appears Flinfo allows you to upload these images, but they are subsequently failing the automated Flickrreview [11]. Also, Flickr2Commons doesn't recognise them for the purposes of batch uploading, but you can upload them singly, presumably because it utilises Flickrinfo (which of course will also fail Flickreview). I've left a note at Commons:WikiProject Flickr#Current issues. I'm wondering if a banner noting the change at the top of Commons:Flickr files might also be in order, for the time being? Ultra7 (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Be bold and stick a notice on it. Until the tools or wizards are updated, it looks like a point of confusion for many uploaders who rely on them. -- (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Will do. Ultra7 (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The PD issue might be more complicated than out of date software - the Flickreview failed because it interpreted the Public Domain Mark 1.0 license used by the Flickr author as Copyright-Only Dedication or Public Domain Certification. It's not clear to me if that's a software error, or if it is meant to work that way. Does Commons support Public Domain Mark 1.0 or not? I'm not seeing which particular PD tag (except perhaps a pro-forma Template:PD-because) that fits that license. I'm assuming there's no similar issue for CC, since we already have Template:Cc-zero. Ultra7 (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I've dropped a note for Zhuyifei1999, operator of the FlickrReiview bot. Ultra7 (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Good move, these sorts of template changes need careful thinking through to get right. -- (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Ammanudi Telugu magazine regarding.[edit]

Ammanudi is a monthly magazine published from Tenali, Andhra Pradesh. The editor of the magazine has agreed to release the magazine under CC-BY-SA license and to host it on commons. A unicode version of the magazine will be available on Telugu Wikisource as well.

The magazine editor will provide me with the pdf version a little later to the print edition (a lapse of 1 month)

The meta data page of magazine (Page 3) will contain CC-BY-SA 4.0 license mentioned.

Now, I have few doubts about this. The editor has the copyright for all the contents - articles, poems, stories (authored by various writers). The agreeement remains with the editor for all the authors. Should these be also part of the OTRS permissions mail?

How should I have OTRS team approve of these magazines, should a permission letter be sent for every issue, or a single document would do?

Given the fact that the editor is not well versed with using computer, and is comfortable with paper work than email conversations, what could be done from my side to ensure flawlessness in the process. Also, the magazine carries some advertisements which may not be part of the CC-BY-SA license, should I remove such pages?

For archives of the same magazine, that do not carry the CC-BY-SA license implicitly, will it be best to host all magazines on another website with CC-BY-SA license?

Please help. --రహ్మానుద్దీన్ (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Linking from categories to en:WP?[edit]

Should text and interwiki links be added to the text of a Commons category page so as to link to en:WP?

NB - I'm not discussing the sidebar here, but links that will appear in the page body. In addition to the sidebar link.

It's my practice to add these, manually edited, of something between a sentence and a paragraph in length. Potentially several links, the primary one bolded. I'm aware there's a {{Mainw}} template but I never use this as it's a bit simplistic.

In rare cases, when there's no primary topic WP article to link to and the WP category is more meaningful (typically for collections of "Foos of Bar"), then I might instead link to the relevant WP category.

Is this wrong? Why?

If these links already exist, should they be removed?

Your thoughts please Andy Dingley (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You already know my opinion so I'm not going to !comment here, but I would like to remind you that there is a huge difference between Commonscat–WPcat and Commonscat–article links, largely but not only caused by the (IMO strange) way Wikidata treats Commonscats.    FDMS  4    21:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
This isn't about Wikidata. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
You are right though, this is about your repeated removal of such a link [12] [13] [14] as a "Commons-wide standard". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with FDMS4, these links are redundant.--Oursana (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you say why?
Also there are many things where "I wouldn't bother to do that myself", but it's still some distance before "These should be removed as harmful". I can understand FDMS4's view that in their opinion they're unnecessary, but to edit-war and remove them three times, when another editor thinks they are worth having? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

April 02[edit]