Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

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

Please note

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page

Search archives


The last town pump to be in use in Saint Helier, Jersey, until early 20th century [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss • Edit • Watch




This hast to change. If I wasn't a Wikipedian, and did the exact same work I was doing, I would - quite rightly - get my work categorised as my work, linking all my work together.

Commons does not allow searches that include uploader, and we had an outright policy for years saying that templates should be used that refer to the uploader.

It is insultuing and wrong that we, for some reason, think hard-working Wikipedians should be denied the credit we give to any other person, famous or not, just for not being a Wikipedian.

I would ask that this policy is changed, because I think that basic lack of respect for contributors is sufficient reason not to allow my work on Commons. I don't have to work for Commons, after all. I can stop.

I am tired of discovering months later that Category:Adam Cuerden's restorations has been set to hidden by someone in order to deny me credit, despite the huge message stating "Do not do this" Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Actualæly, we can keep this simple. I can use the following template for my files:

© The copyright holder of this file, Adam Cuerden, allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted.
Attribution: "Adam Cuerden". This may be given any way desired, however, on Wikimedia Commons, the file must appear in Category:Adam Cuerden's restorations, which may not be a hidden category.

Would that make everyone happy? That changing the status will be a copyvio? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: I don't think this non-copyright restriction makes much sense (it feels a bit too specific to me), but other than that, I do not have any issue with your category not being hidden (that is, being visible in the same font size as any other category). In the end, any other file hosting service (Flickr, DeviantArt, you name it) allows their regular visitors easy access to other works by the same user, which is something that we currently do not do. If I might suggest something, I think Category:Restorations by Adam Cuerden would be a bit better (and follow current Commons category naming policies) — and I suggest we leave the current category name as a redirect not to break links. How does that sound? odder (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

And, may I add that, when you have someone upset at the lack of basic respect, condescending messages about it is a terrible way to calm them down. Can someone please make it clear to Jean11 to never, ever talk to other users that way? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC) I'm sorry I'm so annoyed about this. But this shows a basic lack of respect for Commons' contributors, and I think that I am entitled to a basic level of respect. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: I also think that I am entitled to a basic level of respect. Speaking of which, remember when I volunteered two hours of my time to participate in Wikivoices #45, on the assumption that its audio file would be shared with the public. Then, you suppressed the release of that audio file to the public, saying that your bout with "headaches" prevented you from uploading the file to Wikipedia. So, while you're stomping your feet, demanding respect, why don't you go stomp your feet over to the mirror and look at yourself? - Thekohser (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
All such categories, which are not the 'creator' of the work depicted in the image is hidden. "Photographs by Flickr user X" is hidden, "Artworks by Artist Y" is not hidden. There's a fine difference of what should and should not be hidden, but there is a good reason too. People might be searching for "Artworks by X" and think of what they might find, however "photographs by Flickr user X" may be different photos of different thing a and no one will search for something like that sibce it isn't a qualifier for what might be in the image. Hope I'm making some sense. As for the 'I deserv this' and 'I deserv that', Wikimedia Commins is not a place you get things from or earn rewards, it's a place we store images. No more. No less. And no, you can't do an attribution thing like that, not applicable with Commons policies of acceptable licenses as well as I would think WMF might then take a position regarding PD-art in refards to restorations. Josve05a (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Restoration is usually much more work that taking pictures. We need to find a consensus satisfying for everybody. I don't have objections about Adam's positions: he is not claiming a copyright, just asking that credit is properly done. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
If Commons doesn't feel that its creators "deserve" credit in the way they desire, there is nothing forcing their users to continue contributing. But I think that that is a solution that satisfies nobody. But it's one I will do if Commons' official policy is to disrespect its users. Further, I live in the UK. I have a copyright, I just choose not to enforce it, because I think Commons is important. But no work is important enough to feel bad about yourself because the project values you so little they won't allow you even the most minimal credit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Although I've made my own user categories hidden, I don't seem to recall any policy which requires it. Unless we have such a policy, I fail to see why Adam cannot have his own categories non-hidden. I personally do not consider it an attribution issue (if the credit "Restored by Adam Cuerden" was removed, that would be a different story), but if Adam feels strongly about it, if there's no policy then there's no reason not to let him do as he pleases.
And yes, in the jurisdiction where Adam lives he can claim full copyright over the restorations (conversely, for works he didn't scan, the scanner could possibly claim copyright over the scan and derivative works). Just because Commons doesn't recognize his copyright doesn't mean he can't claim a copyright. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Have a look at the policy page that Adam linked in the header. We do have such a policy. --Sebari (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Have a look at the page that Adam linked in the header. That is a guideline. I said policy. Guidelines tend to have more wiggle room. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Non-hidden categories contain information about the subject of the file, not meta-information about the file. This is what hidden categories are for. And rightly so. Appropriate credit is given to authors field of the information template. You seem to be very angry about a non-issue/misunderstanding of categories. --Sebari (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Commons users are generally non-notable. Hence, user categories need to be hidden. --Leyo 00:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC) PS. The category should get rename to something like Category:Restorations by User:Adam Cuerden to make it clear to every reader that Adam is not a notable person, but a Commons user.
Touch my credit, or hide the category and Commons is never getting another restoration from me again. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
That is no basis for discussion, I'm afraid. --Leyo 01:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Seriouslyu? You're so determined to deny basic credit that you'd rather lose a user than give it? I think I've learned all I need to. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Well it might be a nice thing to allow users who have a prominent hand in creating the image (including people who put non-trivial effort into restoring the image, such as Adam) to have their own non-hidden user categories, and I certainly don't have any objections to allowing that, but it seems entirely unreasonable to require such as part of the license. Any license dictating such a specific type of attribution is non-free in my opinion, and should not be allowed [I suppose that point is a little muddled with the whole pd-art thing]. I also fail to see how we as a community have any moral imperative to organize media in any specific way. Ultimately the point of Wikimedia is that people can re-use, re-mix, etc your content in any way they see fit, including ways that you might not like, provided that people keep your name on it, which they have. To conclude, this should be a "what do we all feel like doing" type discussion, not a "you're being evil if you don't do X" discussion. Bawolff (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not asking for a giant splash page on each of my restorations. I'm simply asking fr a category so that people interested in my work can find more of it, something Commons otherwise makes very difficult. If simply wanting easy access for peoople to a collation of your work is too much for Commons, then why the hell should I keep contributing to somewhere that values me so little that <bold>this whole discussion is about how we need to keep people from finding out what other things I've worked on, because creators are meant to be anonymous and unseen on here? You want to deny me the right to provide users access to a list of things I've worked on from each image, in the least obtrusive way possible - a category link at the bottom of the page. If you're going to deny something that little, enough to show that users are actually respected, and niot seen as some tools for getting stuff, that need to know their place, and not adsk for credit, and maybe we should deny them the right to any credit at all, hmm? This is a matter of basic respect. And you are evil if you deny credit.<bold> Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This is what gets me about this situation. This is what you're willing to drive a ten-year contributor to Commons over: wanting a tiny credit at the bottom of the page. For that, you're willing to insult me, belittle me, and make it clear that my work isn't valued. I never expected it to end like this. This has gone way too far. It's clear that contributors aren't respected here, and it baffles me that asking for credit for work is what Commons would draw a hard line against.

I can't do volunteer work for a group that apparently views me as no better than their slave. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hidden categories are not usually "invisible". The are pretty much the same as regular categories but displayed on a separate line on the file page. It'd probably be better if they were named "metadata categories". --ghouston (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Adam, I really think you need to step back and calm down. In this thread and on a thread on you talk page, you are accusing people of various stuff that they neither said nor intended to say. And you are being very aggressive about it. Personally, your behaviour and confrontational manner in this thread makes me not even want to consider your arguments. --Sebari (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sebari, don't do this. It is patronising bullshit, doesn't have the effect you think it does. Commons needs to do better to recognise when its contributors are upset and handle that sensitively and wisely, rather than telling them to "calm down dear" or "be mellow". If the tone puts you off, then find something else to do. -- Colin (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree. An angry tone does not help in any way. Your unfriendly tone does not help either. If you cannot discuss in a civilized manner, I refuse to take you seriously. --Sebari (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
It would be one thing if this was a one time thing (Everyone gets angry sometimes), but almost every interaction I've had with Adam, he has been yelling and screaming. This is probably one of the milder interactions. Tolerating these sorts of tantrums creates quite a negative environment for everyone, and also sets a precedent where people become angry to get their voice heard. Then everyone is angry all the time. I think this is a bad thing. Bawolff (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ghouston: For reference, the display name can be changed by editing MediaWiki:Hidden-categories (Already, its called non-topical/index categories if the page you're looking at is a category) [See also related mediawiki:hiddencategories (For on the edit page), mediawiki:tog-showhiddencats (for preferences), and mediawiki:hidden-category-category (The tracking category, although changing that one can be disruptive as the change is propagated slowly)]. Bawolff (talk) 08:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are the creatives, who happen to be Commons users, denied a full category for their works? Whereas a painter who may not be notable can be categorised. So the test isn't that Commons users are not notable (as someone suggests) but a prejudice against "users" and a lack of respect (as Adam notes) for their value to the project. Someone who is merely "User:Colin" or "John from Flickr" is viewed as not a real artist. This is perhaps a hangover from the collective Wikipedia mindset that any work uploaded here is the work of a group of people (who derive their words from sources others have written) and who should be individually humble -- and not an identifiable person worthy of credit. Perhaps it is the snobbery one has that real artists paint or sculpt, but photography or photoshop creative skill is not "art". But images on Commons, by and large, are the result of one person. At the most two (such as Adam's restorations, or where someone processes someone else's raw files). The term "hidden category" appears to be a misnomer since it is visible even to logged-out users. Is it perhaps hidden from the search engine? I would support the idea of giving greater prominence to the creative person or people who produced our images, though the main category system. If there are consequences for how our search works, then we can deal with that. I do think that in general Commons does not appreciate content-creators enough. And, btw, if Adam wishes to be credited as "Adam Cuerden" then we should do that (rather than User:Adam Cuerdan) because he's a human being, not an account on a filesystem. -- Colin (talk) ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
The main reason we have hidden categories, is beacuse there might be a need to find an image somehow, that does not relate to what's being depicted in the file. A better word might have been metacategories, but before they were indeed hidden by default, since they had no relevance for a user lookng for an image based on a subject, which is what categories was made for in the first place.

Another thing, to force in attribution-ways to include a non-hidden category is definetly not ok, since at any time Wikimedia might disbandon the category-approach and start using Wikidata (please, sooner than later!), which mean that it would not be inline with the "free-use" that we require.

You may use {{Other fields}} to add another field for "restoration by...". Josve05a (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Using {{Other fields}} would get my approval. This could also not only mention the restorator's name, but also link to their user category. And it is more visible than a category. --Sebari (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
+1 --Leyo 13:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I have several thousand files, which I have been sorting into categories for years. Hidden categories are ONLY visible if you've changed a tickboc in your preferences at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. They are invisible to those logged out. I don't want a huge splashy link with graphic or anything, I just want a category, clearly linking together my work for those trying to find it. Your solution is to tell me to go over the several thousand files in my history, and manually check and edit every single one. It can't be automated, we'd need to exclude the non-restorations, and I've been editing 10 years. At the moment, I'm resigning myself to leave because this has been nothing but people attacking me. If "other fields" was a solution, I'd have used it, instead of listing the various authors, including myself, under author, stating what each did. Is your solution seriously for me to basically make something like {{Creator:Vincent van Gogh}}, and make my name far more prominent, so there's room to fit all the links in? Because that would be ridiculously tacky, and far, far more disruptive than a category.
Finally, you state that you have hidden categories to handle things not in the file. Of course, Category:Félix Nadar, say, contains 99% works that don't show Nadar, as do many non-hidden categories. Using a non-hidden category to credit the creator of a work is standard practice for everyone but Wikipedians, who are being treated as second-class citizens. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I haven't participated in many discussions on this site except, lately, in the Featured Pictures candidates threads, but for the life of me, I can't understand why it's so important to anyone not to have visible categories for different people who restored old pictures. It doesn't really matter whether these folks are famous outside of Commons; whoever doesn't want to use the category as a search term doesn't have to. Wikis are collaborative, but I think most restorations of old photos are not collaborative but done by a single person; is that not the case? So I don't understand the up side of refusing to permit these kinds of categories. Who's injured by allowing them? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden -- Over those ten years, I've observed that you often seem to have semi-strange finicky demands and certain tendencies to self-dramatization, so I'm not necessarily too impressed. AnonMoos (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

historical note: Hidden categories have been visible to anons (and defaulted to visible for logged in users) since July 9 2011 (See and phab:T24689). Bawolff (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The arguments against showing the category don't make any sense[edit]

Also, can I point out the bizareness of a solution being proposed that boils down to "Make the link to the category far more prominent, because it's fine to have a link to the category, just not a subtle one at the bottom of the page? Is there even any logic behind the arguments against me? Because here's what we have:
It would appear that the only actual argument being made by anyone for why categories of user works are hidden is that users of Commons are "non-notable", and thus should be treated as second-class citizens. However, even the most obscure photographer or artist can have a category here, there is no test for notability. Even not having a known name is not an obstacle to categorization. Category:Master of the Stauffenberg Altarpiece despite him having no other known works but the Stauffenberg Altarpiece, from what I can tell. Are you seriously saying that categorising him is categorically more valuable? The arguments are nonsense, they basically only work if you accept Wikipedians are second-class citizens, and I do not accept that view, I think we are either valued members of the project, or shouldn't be editing here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Next steps[edit]

If the history of the guideline Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy is reviewed, it can be seen that major changes, in fact most of the text, was added in the last 18 months without a formal process of proposal or canvassing to establish a community consensus. Much of the above discussion treats this guideline/essay as if it were a policy, it is not. Unfortunately the guideline itself reads as if it were a mandatory policy by re-enforcing the guidelines with statements about practices which "must" be used and making other things "forbidden".

Adam Cuerden's complaint in this context is a valid concern, and the guideline fails to give reasonable advice for a user who would like to see their collected works or projects easy to find, nor does it explain how image page credit templates, links to Commons project pages or even links to external project pages might help, if the evolving norm on Commons is to use hidden categories.

I propose two steps forward:

  1. Folks back off from changing attribution or categorization of Adam Cuerden's uploads until there is a solid consensus for the relatively recent changes to the misnamed Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy guideline. A breathing space of a couple of weeks or months will help discussion to move to the guideline talk page and for the next step to occur;
  2. Interested parties work collegiately with the aim of rewriting the guideline to make it more helpful (and in a less dictatorial tone). It may help to rename the document from "policy" to "guideline" or to separate parts of the document seen as having sufficient community consensus to become a policy, then to propose them as policy.

As a long term contributor to Commons, I recognize Adam Cuerden's work as widely valued, and apologize for the above discussion becoming a negative pile on, rather than the collegiate improvement everyone here hopes for. -- (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused, since my understanding is that hidden categories are visible by default, even for logged-out users, and that's how it works for me if I log out. You can only hide them by setting a preference (a preference that doesn't need to exist on Commons as far as I can see). I'd also say that such metadata categories should be "hidden" regardless of how notable the person is. --ghouston (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ghouston: Category:Étienne Carjat, Category:Carl Van Vechten, Category:Lithographs in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Category:Claude Monet - Should all these be hidden as well? Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Frankly this is a bad tangent. Commons has no accepted definition of who or what is notable or not and therefore "worthy" of a visible category. If people believe this is part of the guideline, then it needs to be rethought, discussed on the guideline talk page and expressed in a more measurable way. -- (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd say Category:Étienne Carjat is a topical category, while Category:Photographs by Étienne Carjat‎ is a metadata category and should be hidden. --ghouston (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
No. There is no reason this category should be hidden. Yann (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks , that's a good proposal. Yann (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. But let me just point out that the content of the guidelines hasn't changed recently, only some unfortunately worded "clarifications" have been added. --Sebari (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Sebari, thanks for the correction. A misreading of the guideline page history gave the impression that most of the text was more recently added. The suggestions for a better consensus still seem a sensible goal. -- (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Adam, part of your complaint seems to be that "hidden categories" are not visible to logged-out users. Please can you re-check this as I and several others believe it not to be so. Since they are all visible, the comes down to the prominence within the category listing, font size and perhaps how search handles it. It is therefore possible for anyone to locate your images by your category, though I can't confirm how search would compare. We could all do with some official documentation on community-agreed reasons for using main vs "hidden" categories since much of what I read above seems to be personal speculation stated as fact. I note that the example in the guideline "Category:Photos of London by User:Example" pretty much tells you all you need to know about how broken Commons categories system is. There is no way that "London" (subject location) and "User:Example" (author) should be combined in any healthy category system. So to some extent, an solution agreed here is trying to make the best of a pretty awful legacy architecture that we would do well to move on from. -- Colin (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: It does show (it didn't in the past, I believe) but I think they may be hidden in other ways. And if they don't, what on earth is the point of having the possibility of hidden categories on Commons?
As for the suggestions - Look, the rules were presumably written in order to allow frivolous User categories, like "Images that User:X likes" or such. And those should legitimately be hidden. However... Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I suspect if you are right that they were once hidden but no longer are, then the name is a legacy of that older feature. We could perhaps discuss a rename. But the guideline does explicitly discourage "frivolous user categories" like "User:Example's favourite pictures". We do have other hidden categories that mix users with quality/featured awards which probably are best regarded as of low importance to anyone outside of Commons. A problem is we only seem to have two kinds of categories and one of them is definitely considered the lower one: hence the offence taken when significant (co)author information is reduced to being a second class attribute. Why is "March 2012 in London" (which someone added to one of my pictures) of higher-class status than a category for the author of the work? If the "hidden category" is for internal-commons use tags, then who the author is (or did significant restoration work, for example) does not belong there -- the fact that the author may also be a Commons user rather than an already notable artist shouldn't matter to Commons. We shouldn't be judging whether a creator is worthy of recognition in our category system but instead value all our content creators equally. -- Colin (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The idea seems to be that topical categories are listed separately to prevent them disappearing into the mass of metadata and maintenance categories. Categories like "Category:Photographs taken on 2016-01-18 to me are pure metadata and should be hidden, but when you have Category:March 2012 in London it's mixing dates and location. Ideally I think we'd classify topics, locations, dates, etc., separately and have a user interface that made it easy to intersect them in different ways, but given we currently only have two category types to work with and a lot of intersection categories, it's going to be tricky and inconsistent. --ghouston (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Long term solution[edit]

The ultimate answer is to patch MediaWiki to allow more than two classes categories (i.e. default and "hidden") to be defined per wiki, and for these to be settable in the category. For example Commmons may want some or all of "topical categories" (e.g. Category:Plastic flamingos), "uploader categories" (e.g. Category:Restorations by Adam Cuerden), "creator categories" (e.g. Category:Photos by Chris McKenna, Category:Drawings by Claude Monet), "metadata categories" (e.g. Category:Featured pictures on Wikipedia, English supported by Wikimedia UK), "maintenance categories" (e.g. Category:Convert to SVG), "temporal categories" (e.g. Category:2016 videos), "geospatial categories" (e.g. Category:Northern Territory) and "temporal and geospatial categories" (e.g. Category:2009 in Portugal). I'm not a programmer and don't have the foggiest how to go about doing this. I have suggested something similar previously, in think in a Wiktionary context (e.g. Part of speech vs topical categories) but I can't find where I did that. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems overly complicated when we already have 'hidden' available via metadata query and can filter categories by template, parent category and several other qualities. -- (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
having a method to set the "relation type" of specific categories is an interesting middle ground between vanilla mediawiki categories and full on SemanticMediaWiki (imo). However it seems like wikidata is the current favourite future solution to this type of problem in the Wikimedia world. Bawolff (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd argue that restorations are more than mere uploads, unless the several hours or days (it varies) spent on them don't count. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Restorations are authorship, and authorship should be tracked by standard categories[edit]

Fae makes a good comment above, but I think this is actually a more fundamental issue. I'll admit, I was canvassed from Jimbo's page - but only made up my mind after looking at the examples he posted. There is enough work there that the restoration could be wrong; or its style could be different -- hence, it is authorship, even if it incorporates a large degree of previously published material. You can say that Adam Cuerden is a non-notable person, producing work we don't need - if you think so, then you should push to delete the images. But if you believe they are in fact beautiful efforts made to improve the encyclopedia, then you should admit that Cuerden is an author whose works we wish to curate. And it's just basic straightforward encyclopedic order to categorize works according to the author of those works.

I should add that my feeling is that this is the inevitable ugly end of censorship - certain people pushing to crack down on user "porn" galleries, to bully Seedfeeder out of public view etc. You poke one little hole in the balloon and in the end all the air leaks out, even from the far end; you push out a contributor you had no problem with just to stay consistent with policies you never needed to start. Wnt (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you're taking for granted that we should "categorize works according to the author of those works", and assuming everyone is fighting over whether Adam is an author - where really, everyone agrees that Adam is very talented and should get credit for his work. The part that's unclear is under what circumstances we should "categorize works according to the author of those works". Many (I would go so far as to say most) works on commons are not categorized according to their author unless their author is independently famous and currently, contributor specific categories are sorted with license categories rather than descriptive categories (Although the two groups of categories are right next to each other on the page, not like its super hidden). Maybe this should change. Maybe every work should be categorized by author. That is what needs to be discussed, not some strawman about if people think Adam does good work, which nobody disputes. Bawolff (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I thought it was even more trivial, whether Adam's category should be topical or non-topical. If you look in Category:Photographs by photographer, there are many entries for Flickr users who are not necessarily notable in the Wikipedia sense, and there's no particular reason not to treat Commons users equally. --ghouston (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
re Honestly, I thought that was an inadvertent omission when it happens. I mean, I'm no paragon ... half the time I forget to characterize an upload, get nagged by a bot, and/or stick one category on it to shut it up. So I tend to omit a few possible categories. But when someone does categorize by author, I think of that as being the way it's supposed to be. Wnt (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
One more who agrees with Wnt. (And also came after reading Jimbo's talk page!) The examples that Adam cites are sufficient changes that they are as much authorship as taking a photograph of a work of art is - the work of art is likely still recognizable, but you can take a good photo or a bad photo - and I don't see any reason to deny him a category of images that he modified this much. --GRuban (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"User" categories[edit]

My understanding about "hidden" categories is that it is displayed in smaller fonts under the sub head "Hidden categories". They are not hidden (now, at least). I've no hard feeling about how they should be; so no comments.

But I'm not a fan of Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy. It looks to me written to discourage users from too much self promotions. It is OK in that sense; but not OK if adding too much bureaucracy. I remember the failed Commons:User pages and the loss of one admin. Similarly, the "categories" and "templates" sub-heads also look to me written as some "failed attempts" to discourage some promotions.

Coming to "categories", it talks about categories like "Category:Photos by User:Example"; but not about the parent category, "Category:User:Example". It seems we've a practice like creating Wikimedian's categories with the prefix "User:" (hidden) and others without it (not hidden too). And it seems the argument behind this separation is we (some of us) think Wikimedians are not notable (or not deserved to be notable). So my user category is Category:User:Jkadavoor whereas another photographer from Kerala is Category:N. A. Naseer. But we've exceptions too. See Category:Odder, Category:Patricio Lorente. I'm not saying me or Adam is "notable" as those Wikimedians; but it is a difficult to define matter, at least. And IMHO, better no separations as Commons has no "notability criteria". Jee 05:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are three different kinds of categories being discussed:
  • Categories describing who the subject is (e.g. Category:Odder)
  • Categories describing someone who had a significant hand in creating the work (Artist, photographer, restorer, etc)
  • Categories listing all the images a specific user uploaded.
Personally, I think the first two types should be normal categories, and the third should be a "hidden" category, regardless of however notable the subject of the category is (notability criteria seems like a way to have a large number of useless arguments). Bawolff (talk)
But usually a user/photographer/artist and his/her work categories have a parent-child relation (eg: Category:N. A. Naseer, Category:Photographs by N. A. Naseer). Does this relation reed to be removed or the child categories need to be hidden while keeping the parent active? Jee 07:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Bawolff, I misread your comment. So you think the "uploaded by" category only need to be hidden which is clearly a maintenance/meta category. That is a nice thought. Jee 02:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure why some people see the hidden categories in a small font. In my browser they are exactly the same size as the topical categories. In the screen shot above, they seem quite hard to read, which is undesirable. --ghouston (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Your browser = IE? Then try e.g. Firefox. --Leyo 11:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm using Firefox, but I found it: I've set the minimum font size to 12pt in the Firefox preferences. It makes everything readable on my display. --ghouston (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
In the link provided by Bawolff above, we can see the suggestion to reduce font size. It is one issue. The major issue is we treat Wikimedians and non-Wikimedians differently. I can understand the spacial consideration to "notable artists" who have wiki pages. But considering simple Flickr users above Wikimedians is not so good. So either both, user categories under wiki users and external photographers should be hidden or visible, uniformly. Jee 12:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Um, what? So Category:Odder refers to a user instead of the city? Now listed for discussion because of the confusing name: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/01/Category:Odder. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Commons should not be having these debates on the threat of a user leaving, if such a user wishes to leave they are free to do so, any decisions or discussions should only happen after such threats have been removed and are no longer part of the discussion, also sufficient time should be allowed to pass to ensure no knee-jerk decisions are made Oxyman (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I find any font smaller than 12pt is hard to read on my display. It affects menus in Commons too. I don't know if my setup is common enough for this to be a flaw in the Commons design. However I see no reason for the non-topical categories to be displayed in a smaller font, they are already separated from the topical categories.
I'm not sure if there really is a difference in how Wikimedians and Flickr users are treated. You'll also find Commons users under Photographs by photographer. I'm not sure even if the user categories guideline is relevant, since it only applies to user categories like "Category:Photos by User:Example", not metadata categories like "Category:Photos by Example", and since there's no notability requirement for Commons categories there's no problem with creating the latter as long as there's something in-scope for it to contain.
There are difficulties with categories for non-notable people. Everybody in the World can potentially create a user page, upload a selfie, and add the selfie to a self-named category. There are already many thousands of uploaders to Commons who could do that, and if it started to become popular it may be hard to find the notable people from all the non-notables with the same name. Or people just using the same name of somebody famous online, since we have no way to verify that the names of non-notable poeple are real, or any requirement to do so. At very least we have a disambiguation problem. --ghouston (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
We could subdivide the category to address this. Category:Photographs by photographer might have subcategories like Category:Photographs by photographer (professional photographers), Category:Photographs by photographer (Flickr contributors), Category:Photographs by photographer (Wikipedia contributors) etc. Wnt (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The first one may also be named Category:Photographs by photographer (notable photographers) or so, since some Flickr and Wiki(m/p)edia contributors are also professional (non-notable) photographers. --Leyo 01:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
It's already done that way too, in Category:Flickr streams. That has a couple of advantages: it handles files that aren't photos, and it sets up a separate namespace of Flickr user names. --ghouston (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for comment/User categories --Leyo 21:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Leyo: Looks like yet another senseless time-eating survey. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it has already proved to be quite useful, with alternative proposals developed that respect users' concerns. Certainly, some people have simply "voted" instead of commenting, even though it's a request for comment not a mandatory referendum, but a lot of people have added helpful suggestions. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
(EC) @Steinsplitter: Das kann ich nicht akzeptieren, sorry. Da versucht man einen Konsens zu finden, wie der teilweise existierende Wildwuchs etwas eingeschränkt werden könnte, und dann kommt so etwas Destruktives von dir. Ich bin echt enttäuscht. --Leyo 12:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed text[edit]

Users are welcome to create user-specific categories. These fall into two types, which have different rules:

User as creator of the content[edit]

The user has created the content, whether as photographer, restorationist, artist, diagram creator, 3D modeller, or any other type of work. These should generally be of the format "Category:Photos by User:Example" (or "Category:Photos by Example", if the user uses their real name). These should be categorised as per normal categories of this type, e.g. Category:Photographs by photographer, but also into Category:Images by Wikipedians or a subcategory thereof.

User is NOT the creator of the content[edit]

Other user categories, e.g. "Category:Uploads by User:Example" must be categorised only under the category User categories, and must be a hidden category. This should be done with only one supercategory by adding {{User category|username}} to the category page, which automatically hides the category. Subcategories may be placed in the user's supercategory using {{User category|cat=subcategory}}. Note that, even if the user has created some work, work they have not created must only appear in hidden categories, and these should not be part of the main category tree.

Categories shouldn't be created to collect files based on the opinion of any user (e.g. "User:Example's favourite pictures"). Annotation like this should only be done through gallery pages as described above.

All files must be accessible via regular categories and/or (main namespace) galleries, even if a creator category is used. User-specific categories and galleries, like license categories, do not "count" towards accessibility.

Notes: I'd suggest renaming {{User category}} to {{Hidden user category}}. It's misleading at the moment, given its main purpose is to hide the user category.

One thought: It may be that we should simply forbid user categories where the User is not the creator of the content. Can anyone give examples of categories that aren't related to content creation that we should encourage?

Any thoughts or improvements? Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read Commons talk:Requests for comment/User categories#Not hidden. --Leyo 19:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Longer-term solution[edit]

I just wanted to comment, separately, that the 'real' long term solution to all such issues is the eventual (hopefully) modification of MediaWiki to allow us to track file metadata (such as the authorship of a restoration, in this particular case) by a means other than a category system which I think most people realize is really bad for our purposes. That being said... the proposed licensing template is not acceptable, as it prominently states a 'license restriction' that is blatantly Commons-specific, and has nothing to do with the actual copyright status of the image itself. "I want this deleted as a copyvio because some random person removed category X" is a complete nonstarter, and that's the net effect of such a license. Categories, as they now exists, serve exactly one purpose.... to help users find the content they are looking for. The 'hidden' vs 'non-hidden' distinction, as it currently exists, is fairly meaningless... they are visible to essentially everyone. They only serve to (ambiguously) separate 'content' categories from 'meta' categories, and not in a particularly clear way. I don't think that the suggested category (Restorations by Adam Cuerden) is particularly useful, but that's more because categories, to be blunt, suck. Custom 'license' templates for images', that not only include the license but information about the creator, are a long-standing and well-accepted solution... they do not, however, include such 'license restrictions'. I can't imagine that a 'meaningful' parent category (um, Category:Images restored by Wikimedia Commons editors) that would serve any particularly useful purpose. A gallery of Adam's restorations, linked in the 'non-license' part of a custom 'license template' for his works, would not only serve the same purpose, but also be both 'more visible', and allow them to be displayed in at more meaningful way. @Bawolff: Indeed, wikidata. @Wnt: Most of the Flickr photographer categories should probably be 'meta' categories anyhow, as a person who cares would honestly be looking the the Flickr feed anyhow. They are basically just for maintenance.

@Adam Cuerden: I realize I'm late coming in here, and that your attitude seems to have changed somewhat, but.... if your approach is "this must be my way, or I quit" then the response of the community is going to eventually be "sorry to see you go." I'm not, at all, denigrating the value of your contributions, but wikis work by consensus. You, just like anyone else, deserve recognition for your contributions. If you are contributing for the sake of such recognition, you are destined for disappointment. I'm not saying that your suggested category is 'wrong'... though it's rather a hack for a crappy system (I think a gallery would be better). I'm saying, if it's 'your way or nothing', then you are probably better off avoiding the drama. You don't deserve the 'negative pile on' that Fae mentioned, but this was very much the wrong approach to take. I don't, personally, think letting you (or any other contributor) have a 'restorations by' category is inherently bad, but your approach here has been terribly confrontational. Revent (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

January 18[edit]

A minor improvement[edit]

It would be really great if the link found in the text "(must contain a valid copyright tag):" in the upload wizard was set to open it in a new page. As it is, clicking this link navigates away, and, depending on your browser, might ruin everything. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, indeed it should work that way. Filed as phab:T124425, should be easy to do. Matma Rex (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you; I've lost a lot of upcoming description pages by clicking this link accidentally. Nyttend (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz, Nyttend: I looked into it now and discovered that the link I was thinking of [1] already behaves this way. Please explain where exactly you encountered this problem. (Also, what browser/OS are you using?) Matma Rex (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking of slightly the wrong thing. I meant the link to Commons:Copyright tags, the link in (also add a license tag if those below do not apply) at Special:Upload. IE 11 in Windows 10. Nyttend (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Well, I don't even have that text anywhere on Special:Upload. (What I see: [2].) But some of the links do have this problem. That form is generated by something specific to Commons and probably somewhere in the MediaWiki namespace here. Is there anybody maintaining the on-wiki scripts who could be asked to look into this? I don't want to step on toes. Matma Rex (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Now I'm really confused. See File:Special Upload as Nyttend sees it.png; it's zoomed out because otherwise I can't get all the important stuff in the scene, although I've included an inset of the critical area at bottom right. I'm talking about the license tag link in the inset. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, the form I was seeing seems to come from the ImprovedUploadForm gadget, which you must have disabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. Those who have the gadget enabled can still see the basic form at Special:Upload?uploadformstyle=basic. The link is defined at MediaWiki:Fileuploadsummary. This is rendered by the MediaWiki software (and is not specific to Commons), but the default text doesn't have any links (MediaWiki:Fileuploadsummary/en) and so no one thought to implement opening links in a new window here. I filed phab:T125213 about this, but to be honest, it looks like a bit of a pain to implement. Matma Rex (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


I have issues with my Login on Commons. Everytime I try to login, I get a error warning "Login error - Wikimedia Commons uses cookies to log in users. You have cookies disabled. Please enable them and try again." Cookies are enabled. On all other Wikipedia sites I can login with username and password. I tried changing my browser (Firefox 43.0.4) and Safari 9.0.2, nothing happened. -- 21:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Are you saying that when you log in on a different WMF site, it doesn't implicitly log you in on Commons (under unified login)? - Jmabel ! talk 03:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I can confirm this was an issue for me earlier. I tried a second time and it worked. I just assume it was temporary headache due to the login upgrade. See also the threads at en:WP:VPT. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I can confirm that these last 10 h or so login has been messy. I got logged off a few times, and at a given moment I was logged in in Coomons (actively, with pageviews and edits going) while logged off in Meta. Looks like it’s better now. -- Tuválkin 08:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • +1 - Likely phab:T124453 --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • It’s going at it again, even though comparatively less glitchy today. -- Tuválkin 08:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

January 23[edit]

New feature “Watch changes in category membership”[edit]

Hi, coming with this week’s software changes, it will be possible to watch when a page is added to or removed from a category (T9148). The feature has been requested by the German Community and is part of the Top-wishes of the technical wishlist. The feature has been deployed to and German Wikipedia already and will become active on Commons on Thursday, Jan 28th between 4:00 and 5:00 pm UTC. It will also become available on all Wikipedias at the same time. The feature is configured as “opt-in”. It is switched off by default and needs to be switched on individually in the watchlist and recent changes preferences. You can find a detailed explanation of the feature here. If you have any questions or remarks about the feature or if you find a bug, please get in touch! Bugs can also be reported directly in Phabricator, just make sure that the project “TCB-Team” is added to the task. Cheers, Tobias Gritschacher (WMDE) (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for bringing this feature back. The "teaser" we got half a year ago showed me what a useful feature that was. --Sebari (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
You said "It is switched off by default and needs to be switched on individually in the watchlist and recent changes preferences." It is "switched on" spamming my watchlist. Jee 03:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm watching Category:CC-BY-SA-4.0; but I don't want it popup whenever a new file is added to it. How can I stop it? Jee 03:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Similarly. - Jmabel ! talk 07:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the "Hide categorization of pages" options in my recent changes and watchlist preference pages. Do I need to do something to get them to appear? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Please see . There is an option to hide the changes, and they are hidden by default. But as the feature has been rolled back on commons the option to hide the changes has been removed. Follow Commons:Village_pump#.E2.80.9CWatch_changes_in_category_membership.E2.80.9D_deployed for updates! ·addshore· talk to me! 09:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding PD-ineligible as a license option in UploadWizard[edit]

Hi, recently someone suggested that we add {{PD-ineligible}} as a license option in UploadWizard. I would have found that convenient myself a few times. Does this sound like a good idea to you? Matma Rex (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant idea! See Commons:Upload_Wizard_feedback/Archive/2014/10#Not_helpful for an example instance of a common case where the Upload Wizard is a [wild goose chase|signless maze|maze of twisty little passages, none alike|pick your-dystopian-analogy] for the uploader. A w:use case analysis description for a smart but naive first time user wanting to upload the example image would show the user of the current system likely traveling through a ridiculously large maze of a dozen false starts and dead ends. Anyone else? --Elvey (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Jebulon est d'accord; French-speaking user asking for something similar: CC-0 support.--Elvey (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
It looks like the Upload Wizard was recently changed? Now it offers a flexible option (new since when?):
      Another reason not mentioned above
           The license is described by the following wikitext (must contain a valid copyright tag):  [box to put a tag in ] [preview button]
One can insert {{CC-0}} or {{PD-ineligible}} there. This is good! And...
Unfortunately, "valid copyright tag" links to a page that lacks a ToC and leads to one of the long dead-end paths of the aforementioned maze - with the following mess of a statement:
Depending on what license you choose using the license selector, a so-called copyright tag is inserted into the resulting description page, such as {{cc-by-3.0}}.
It's a mess because it's unclear what a license selector is and the link provides no clarification whatsoever as to what a license selector is. --Elvey (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The custom license option was there all along. It appears to have been implemented in 2011. I thought you're aware of it. Matma Rex (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, this is not recent. As for Commons:Copyright tags, it does have a table of contents, and it provides a visual illustration of what is meant by "license selector" immediately to the right of where it is mentioned. The introduction is based on Commons:Upload rather than the Upload Wizard and could do with an update, though. LX (talk, contribs) 00:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm skeptical. The overlap between users who have a sufficient understanding of threshold of originality issues to be using this rationale and users who don't know how to use wiki markup to invoke a template is likely small. The current text of MediaWiki:Mwe-upwiz-license-pd-ineligible is "Too simple to be copyrighted". This type of option is a magnet for uploaders who don't understand copyright and cannot imagine that they aren't allowed to upload whatever they like to Commons. It's bad enough as it is – you can hardly get through a page of Category:PD ineligible without stumbling over multiple blatant copyright violations. Here's a very quickly gathered sample:
LX (talk, contribs) 00:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Magog the Ogre/PD ineligible is reasonable tool to detect such problems introduced recently. Sure, tools are nothing without people who use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EugeneZelenko (talk • contribs) 15:15, 27 January 2016‎ (UTC)
Thanks for that, Eugene! I wasn't aware of those galleries. As you say, they still need someone to patrol them, and for that to scale to more than one person, there would need to be a documented workflow and mechanisms for marking items/pages as reviewed. I don't see much in the way of inbound links documenting anything like that, so having those galleries is a good start, but not much more. And no matter how good our tools for cleaning up copyright violations are, I still think we should avoid giving undue exposure to options that significantly increase the likelihood of copyright violations being uploaded in the first place. LX (talk, contribs) 18:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
(The gallery above is shrinking due to deletions and delinking. For its original state, see Special:Permalink/185748350#Adding PD-ineligible as a license option in UploadWizard.) LX (talk, contribs) 19:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess we might not want it, then. It's still available as a "power-user" option by pasting the template into the custom license field, as it was pointed out above. I'll mark the task as declined, thanks for your comments. Matma Rex (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

January 26[edit]

Are people getting redirected to[edit]

Many of the pages on Commons are redirecting to The Village Pump only started working a few minutes ago, and the front page ( is still not working properly. What's up? grendel|khan 19:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Very annoying. I believe the same problem caused a drop-out for bot accounts too. -- (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Phab:T124804. Matiia (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, Matiia, that was a "silent" edit conflict. Rgds  TRN 3.svg • hugarheimur 19:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Note that reported that everything was functioning perfectly at the time. Perhaps the monitoring has a gap in it? grendel|khan 19:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

RC link. The direct link Special:RecentChanges is leading to the WMF wiki. Discussion at German Wikipedia: de:Bildereinbindung spinnt?, de:SUL-Login spinnt auch und wieder, de:Commons ist weg!. Also Login Wiki and Meta were/are affected. --Bjarlin (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for the problems caused. I can explain the issue with the status page. That is handled by an outside resource which provides us very little flexibility on what to show. For this particular problem, wasn't failing, but redirecting to the wrong page, something that that control panel cannot detect. For this reason, we are obsoleting that page. The Operations team was aware of the problem immediately and started working on a fix immediately, that was complex as it had issues with the varnish caches needing purging. The total outage time was of a bit less than one hour. We are now gathering information of *why* it happened and present a report to all of you. Regarding the status issue, we have created the issue on the side. (please note this is not an official message) JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for keeping us informed. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • User:JCrespo (WMF), can you (officially or otherwise) expand about the «outside resource» you mentioned? -- Tuválkin 00:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    • It appears the status site is ran by (, they even link back to us). I don't know any more details than that (I just noticed that has a "Powered by" link to them, currently hidden). Sounds reasonable to me, as this hopefully means the page stays up in the face of otherwise catastrophic disruption. It was unaffected in this case, for example, while most other things under * were broken (although it wasn't very useful). Matma Rex (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for finding it out, Matma Rex. A glimpse at is enough to ruin your day if you’re allergic to bovine manure. But even if it were even remotely likable, why this? Why can’t the WMF set up a fall-back site in case of failiure of all else? And how much does this cost? -- Tuválkin 07:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    • @Tuvalkin: I imagine it costs peanuts compared to the cost of man-hours and equipment necessary to set up a truly independent status page of our own, that would be able to track the disruption of our services without being disrupted itself even when everything else is down. As for why CA, from some scarce documentation I found it would appear that we had that set up back when it was called Watchmouse, a likable startup with a cute logo acquired by CA a couple years ago. ;) Matma Rex (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks again, Matma Rex: It makes sense. (And you’re so right about Watchmouse!) -- Tuválkin 06:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Pre-production starts for Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons tutorial videos[edit]

We are excited that pre-production has started for a series of motivational and educational videos that will introduce Wikipedia and some of its sister projects to new contributors.

Over the past several years, many videos have been produced to train new contributors. This series will feature VisualEditor and the new citation tool called Citoid. Additionally, the series will include an introduction to the Wikimedia Commons repository of freely-licensed media.

The video series and associated materials will help students and instructors who participate in the Wikipedia Education Program. The series is also designed to assist the professional staff and volunteers of galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAMs) with understanding how their content gains exposure on Wikimedia sites, and how to document or upload their content for direct viewing on Wikipedia and its sister projects.

The video content will be available in segments that can be viewed, translated, or updated individually.

There are currently volunteer translators for Arabic, Armenian, Czech, German, Greek, Odia, and Spanish. Additional volunteers with high proficiency translation skills are welcome to sign up on the talk page.

We are currently seeking feedback on the outline for the scripts, as well as suggestions for an attractive name for the series. Please leave any comments on this talk page!



Series director and screenwriter


This series is funded by an individual engagement grant from the Wikimedia Foundation. A big thanks to the community, the IEG Committee, and WMF for their support.


  • User:Pine, why the <font size=3> thingy?, why the formulaic intro «We are excited that»? Do you think your message is somehow more important than anything else on VP and therefore needs a bigger text body size? And who is "we"?, since you signed individually? Are you trying to worsen even more the impression that some of us already have about the WMF and other percieved powers that loom above the common user? -- Tuválkin 23:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    I took the liberty of returning the original post to normal font size. There's no need to raise one's voice like this. LX (talk, contribs) 19:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, why so much spamming in favor of VE and Citoid? (Which, thankfully, are not mentioned nor shown in the linked movie) If these tools are so great and “intuitive” why is it necessary to promote them like this? -- Tuválkin 23:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • First, I'm not a WMF employee. Second, I am disappointed in your assumptions of bad faith. When you are less angry, please ping me again and I will talk with you. --Pine 23:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the contentless reply, confirming the worst impressions I already had. You still have to explain (not just to me, but to us all) why did you chose to plug this here with a bigger font and why did you use snakeoil salesman language quirks. That’s unrelated to my putative anger and bad will. (Also, comment reply threading — you should try it.) -- Tuválkin 00:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Tuvalkin:, very little of the existing or proposed video content is targeted at existing users on Wikimedia projects. This is outreach stuff. This is a project from Cascadia Wikimedians. Yes, we got a grant from WMF. That doesn't make this particularly a WMF project, except insofar as all of the Wikimedia stuff is a WMF project. - Jmabel ! talk 00:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jmabel: (When you’re not the WMF and you manage to post something on VP sounding like the WMF, well, that’s not so good, now, is it?) Assuming that your explanation about this being an outreach initiative (and ditto about threading) why is that an explanation about the focus to VE and Citoid given in the OP? (Besides, the OP is not outreach in itself, as posted here and presumably in other such venues: VP watchers are mostly power users, not at all the target of any outreach campaign.) -- Tuválkin 00:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Tuvalkin: Right, but plenty of people here participate in the Wikipedia Education Program, do outreach to GLAMs, and are involved in doing translation work. - Jmabel ! talk 03:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I get why the video was posted here and it’s indeed the best place to attract translators and in general let others know about it. Why mention VE and Citoid in the blurn about a video that doesn’t mention VE and Citoid is what I could not fathom. (And still acnnot think of any good reason for that, although I can think of a few bad ones.) -- Tuválkin 05:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Meh, so much hate and anger. I'm glad that this is fianally on it's way. Good for you guys, I hope it will be a good and useful project you're working on. ow for the rest of you, calm down, back away and stop being such hate-spewing mouths that all you do is complain. Everything that can help new users etc. is good, and this is definetly good. Josve05a (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks like you don’t know what hate is (tip: questioning one’s typography options and doubting that VE is a good thing for WMF projects is not hate), but then again you also don’t know what "all you do is complain" is (tip: some of us here indeed only show up where there’s conflict and turmoil, but I’m not one of them — Special:Contributions is a handy way to see who does mostly what). -- Tuválkin 05:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Pine: First, as said above, VE is still crap, although its getting better so pushing that to new users who can edit plain old text just as easy with the click of a button. Everyone knows how to use Microsoft Word, they can figure out this too. It's really not that hard. I think the idea of the video promotions is sound, but unless the WMF and the communities start doing something about the abusiveness and hostile workplace environment on the English Wikipedia by some of the admins and the Arbcom that's driving off editors, it won't matter. Not everyone goes to the English Wikipedia I grant you, but that wiki is central to all the others whether we like it or not. It draws more people, has more edits and gets more hits than pretty much everything else combined.
Recruiting and retention go hand in hand. If you recruit someone to a shitty environment not only will they leave, they tell all their friends and family about how horrible the experience was. So, tricking people into editing a toxic environment with flashy videos might get a few people to do a couple edits, but before long they are going to see first hand what the atmosphere is like and they'll be gone. So my advice is to fix the toxicity that no one wants to do anything about as you are recruiting, if not before you recruit new editors, otherwise your just wasting time. Reguyla (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Reguyla I share your concern about inviting new users into a potentially hostile environment. I think that PEarley (WMF) is working on that issue. I'll ask him to comment here about the ongoing efforts to understand and improve the situation regarding civility. Also, when designing the video series, I am including information about how new users can handle conflicts with other users. --Pine 23:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
That would be great, I would love to hear what they are doing. I can help you to understand the problem somewhat simply. The tone of the project is set by its leaders; in this case, the admins and functionaries. So when those admins and functionaries treat others like trash, tell them to fuck off, lie, manipulate policy, violate policy completely, etc., that sets the tone for the entire project. I'm not going to pretend to be unbiased. My situation has left a very bitter taste in my mouth and I have seen first hand just how badly the culture and editing environment has degraded and that has, accordingly, jaded my view somewhat.
Currently there is zero oversight over the admins and functionaries of ENWP. The entire system is designed to favor the admins (one example is the so called Super Mario Effect) and at the core of the problem on ENWP is the Arbcom. Everyone knows that its impossible to desysop an admin outside the Arbcom process (although the rules say the community could ban one, effectively requiring them to be desysopped, but its never happened) and they are basically incompetent at the task so "tell it to Arbcom" has turned into a joke.
If you want to effect change, create an oversight mechanism that holds admins accountable when they screw up, it won't take but a couple times and the the rest will fall in line. I admit some will leave and so will some editors. That's inevitable with change, but the majority of the ones we want to keep, the ones that believe in the project, will stay. Then you will see less admins headhunting and creating problems to make names for themselves, there will be less lying, less manipulating of policy and less assholery in general.
It will take some time, but eventually editors will come back, new ones will join and stay and the projects as a whole will be far better off than they are today. As it is, the community doesn't trust the WMF or the admins, the admins don't trust the community or the WMF, the WMF doesn't trust or seem to care about either the community nor the admins. So at some point, this dynamic needs to be changed, the WMF needs to step up and take charge, the problematic admins need to be dealt with and the rest need to start acting like the leaders of the project they are. A top down approach is the only way its going to be fixed and frankly that may include eliminating or replacing the Arbcom with an effective and unbiased group made up of both editors and WMF employees (probably). Reguyla (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
There has been some talk historically of a global "arbcom" type body. There's a lot of difficulties there, not least having enough members with diverse language skills to deal with situations coming from our smaller communities. We'll be running a more focused consult on Meta in a few weeks, moving from the "brainstorming" phase to the "actual improvements" phase. It would be good to see some discussion on governance, and what can be improved. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I think that will be very interesting to see and it probably doesn't come as much of a suprise that I would love to have some input into that process if I am not blocked on meta before hand to prevent it. My biggest concern and something I think would be a major improvement, would be for a well defined chain of command so to speak that goes all the way from the reader/editor all the way up to god (for the purpose of this, god would be the board via the ombudsman). I doubt that this new body would replace the English Wikipedia Arbcom or several others, but it would be beneficial to have an unbiased review/appellate process. For example, IMO, the ENWP Arbcom if it still exists would be the highest authority on ENWP, then it would fall to the Global committee and finally the ombudsman should be allowed to present the case to the Board itself. That, IMO, should be the final step and if it made it that high, which most probably wouldn't, then WMF legal should review the case as well. This should be especially true of things like global bans. I also think that whenever a decision is made by an individual wiki Arbcom based on secret evidence, that the WMF legal folks should at least be given a courtesy copy of the evidence and the result. They wouldn't have to act on it, but they should be aware of people being railroaded on projects. Its becoming commonplace for the ENWP arbcom to function in secret offline and I think it would be very enlightening to the WMF folks to see just how underhanded and manipulated things are in the projects if they aren't already aware, (I have it on good authority that there are regular discussions about silly things that happen on wiki). IMO a complete overhaul of the current judicial system for lack of a better term needs to be done, starting from the highest level (some of those changes are already occurring) and I would also suggest that this new global Arbcom body not be an optional entity. Reguyla (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • All that said this is a good video, and “pitches the sale” (and sorry for my own instance of snakeoil salesman speech) in what I think is more or less the right way. Not perfect, but still like a thousand times better than anything I could come up with. -- Tuválkin 05:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

January 27[edit]

Are there tools to help people find places on other Wikimedia projects for content in a category on Wikimedia Commons[edit]


I'm looking for a tool to help people find places on other Wikimedia projects for content in a category on Wikimedia Commons. My specific example is that UNESCO have uploaded 750 images of World Heritage Sites to Commons and I would like to provide an easy way for contributors to see where the images could be used e.g which World Heritage Site Wikipedia articles in a specific language don't have an image but have a category on Commons related to it.


John Cummings (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

There isn't much that I know about. We have millions of uncategorized, poorly categorized, and undescribed pictures. Many very good pictures are uploaded by automation and come only with a somewhat descriptive filename or a source category, if that much. Seekers of good pictures on a topic seldom find them. As it happens, the pictures in question are in Category:Media files produced by UNESCO needing additional categorisation, and also have a somewhat descriptive filename. This is better than most.
One of my routines is to step through a source cat that is rich in images on a subject on which I have some knowledge but which lack a subject cat. I examine each picture to determine the subjects, categorize it, and do a search in en for articles on those subjects. I insert the picture if I find such a home for it, and add the commonscat template where appropriate. It's a slow process and I don't expect the automated uploaders to attempt it. I do expect them to make a properly categorized source cat, as in the case of these UNESCO photos. Without that, the picture will remain among the millions of lost pictures, or at least remain lost to me and other curators using similar methods. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Search might help in some cases to get a tighter, country specific subset. e.g. [3] (cirrus search has a lot of fancy options in the meantime). But be careful, not everything is true even from competent external organizations. E.g. File:Historic Centre of Vienna-114402.jpg was put to non-existing Category:Historic Centre of Vienna (also opposed to the existing Category:Historic centre of Vienna), although the real thing is far away from the historic center (1 error on a sample of 3 images). IMHO proper categorization of such images is the best you can do to improve usage over multiple Wikimedia sites. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks @Herzi Pinki: and @Jim.henderson:, I've created a tool idea on IdeaLab, hopefully someone will be interested in making it. Please do add to it if you think it could use any additions or changes John Cummings (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

“Watch changes in category membership” deployed[edit]

The CatWatch feature was just deployed to Commons. Tobias Gritschacher (WMDE) (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tobias Gritschacher (WMDE), see my "complaint" in the above discussion. Jee 07:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The feature was deactivated on Commons by WMF later again because of phabricator:T125147. We're on it and trying to fix the problem and get the feature enabled again as soon as possible. Tobias Gritschacher (WMDE) (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow, Thanks. I wondered why there were no more spam top of my watch list. Jee 10:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
It looks like the ticket for the issue (the reason it was reverted) is ·addshore· talk to me! 11:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi all! The feature has now been deployed again! ·addshore· talk to me! 00:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

January 29[edit]

Contributing as a company[edit]

I recently talked to a friend of mine who heads a construction company and found out they have a lot of high-quality professional photos of en:Riga and other Latvian cities that they would be happy to contribute them to Wiki projects by uploading to Commons. Now I hold a DVD full of pics and my question is, how do I go about it? What should I indicate when uploading to avoid someone from deleting them by accident because "they look professional and probably weren't made by you because an average wikimedian does not own a helicopter to take aerial pics". I appreciate any suggestions. --SSneg (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Please see COM:OTRS for the permission we need (the copyright owners need to specify how they want these licensed, and we need to hear it from them in an email). They can specify that you will be uploading on their behalf, and you can tag your uploads for now with {{OTRS pending}}. Eventually you'll have an OTRS ticket number. - Jmabel ! talk 17:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Also keep in mind that there is no freedom of panorama in Latvia, so photographs of current buildings might be problematic. --rimshottalk 00:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyright text on the picture[edit]


What are the good practice when a picture contains a text copyright on it? (example)

  1. Is it acceptable on Commons?
  2. Should I/we remove the copyright?

Thank you in advance for your input

--Scoopfinder(d) 12:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It is permitted but very much not wanted or encouraged. The best solution is to ask the photographer to supply a version without the watermark or text. They can use EXIF data to record their details, and the page-description page can further indicate the copyright/owner situation. Even better ask them to join Commons and upload themselves. Removing copyright notices on other people's images by cropping has been discussed (someone may find a link, or try searching the archive) but IIRC there was no clear legal advice that this is always safe to do. The usual consult a lawyer if in any doubt / don't trust random people on the internet rules apply. What is clear is that anyone uploading a cropped version takes on that legal risk themselves. -- Colin (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't see where the problem is, since the picture is published with the derivative permission. Removing the copyright by cropping or overwriting the pixels is creating a new derivative and can't be subject to any legal claim. --Scoopfinder(d) 12:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
No need to ask if you already know the answer. BTW, you can see the general opinion at Commons:Watermarks#Legal_issues_with_the_removal_of_watermarks. Jee 13:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
See the proposed guideline Commons:Watermarks (which doesn't seem like maturing into a real guideline any time soon). It's the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act you have to fear. Remember that one cannot rationalise the law (though plenty internet discussions are full of amateurs trying), the law is what it is and if you are in any doubt don't upload. I wouldn't. It is always best to respect the creative artist who's work you wish to use, and simply ask them nicely. If they won't remove it, that's a pretty big warning sign they might be upset if you do. -- Colin (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Perfect, thank you both for the links that is what I was looking (and asking) for. @Jkadavoor: Sorry for asking for a second opinion when I am unsure... --Scoopfinder(d) 15:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

January 30[edit]

Coat of Arms of Pakistan[edit]

As I think, State Emblem of Pakistan is not in official color and it also needs some changing in its current version. Community is highly encouraged to take part in discussion so that coat of arms can be turned into its original form. All are requested to check the color of coat of arms. Here are some references about official color and official form:

  1. Official Interior Ministry Website
  2. Official Defense Ministry Website
  3. Coat of Arms at Latest Passport

Firstly, official color is not #014102 (Dark Green). Rather it is #00611c (Light Green or Parrot-like). Secondly, version of the file that was uploaded on 09:34, 12 August 2014 by Baba66 is superior but it also needs changing in it's color.
Vector graphing experts are requested to review it again and make correction in file. Thanks! Wárrãich šÁhiß talk

European parliament images[edit]

Good day to you all,

I have been looking for some former EU-parliament members (for example, Charles de Gaulle, and found some on the institution website. From my reading of the copyright policy, I gather that it is compatible with CC-BY-SA. (As a general rule, the reuse (reproduction or use) of textual data and multimedia items [...], is authorised, for personal use or for further non-commercial or commercial dissemination, provided that the entire item is reproduced and the source is acknowledged. [...] Any partial reproduction of data or multimedia items from this website must also cite the URL link of the complete item or the web page from which it was sourced.)

However, since the pictures are not on Commons yet, I figured there were a reason. In the archives I found a 5 years old conversation, but is seems the terms have changed since. I tought I'd better ask before doing anything stupid. So here I am.

Thanks for your help, Defunes43 (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • The problem is "provided that the entire item is reproduced". Doesn't allow derivatives. - Jmabel ! talk 17:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
    • The following sentence says: " Any partial reproduction of data ...". So, derivatives are allowed in the end? Ruslik (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Irrespective of whether their terms are free and compatible with the licensing requirements of Wikimedia Commons, the phrase "compatible with CC-BY-SA" doesn't really make any sense. A work is covered by the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license if and only if the copyright holder explicitly mentions that license (or another license that in turn specifically mentions it). LX (talk, contribs) 21:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, my question was poorly formulated. Given these elements, entire item OK, derivatives OK, do you believe that I can upload these photos here? Defunes43 (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

January 31[edit]


@บริษัท การบินไทย จำกัด: I realize Russavia was banned by the WMF, but it still seems odd to see [4] removal of categories indicating that he uploaded certain files. Is this something that has been agreed upon or something unilateral? - Jmabel ! talk 06:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Jmabel "* Uploaded by russavia" is being removed because it is leading to incorrect attribution by external users. My user categories are being removed, largely because the various categories are leading to multiple double up maintenance. But the uploader will always be found in the comments section of the file description page. Files placed into Category:Aviation files (check needed) are being gone through by myself (as well as others) and that can be deleted. I would prefer that my categories are non-existent in order for me to leave Commons when that time comes. Cheers, บริษัท การบินไทย จำกัด (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • It is the norm (now but not always) to avoid having uploader attribution on the image page separate from the upload history, though it remains controversial to retrospectively mass change these without uploader agreement. With regard to user categories, these should be left as the uploader set them unless they cause a specific issue, and if the uploader wishes to change user categories and has not the wherewithal or access to do so, then it is normal to see their requests being taken up by other editors. If you were concerned that this might be a case of damnatio memoriae, it is not. -- (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Might not be damnatio memoriae (either by intent or result), but sure looks like Streisand effect… -- Tuválkin 11:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • To make things worse, some of the latest round of edits may actually be incorrect. For instance File:Slapton Sands (6238844090).jpg‎ is neither an aviation file, nor is a category check really needed.
I think we as Commons should take over this task Russavia is attempting to do. He wants it gone, he provides sensible reasons above (which are to our benefit), and it also saves us (and WMF) work chasing our own tails with the latest batch of sockpuppets.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Nilfanion, et al. Sure, there are some files like that which are "incorrect". This is due to them being uploaded from Flickr via Jeffrey Pardoen's account -- he's mainly an aviation photographer so they were uploaded into my "aviation" category. Never fear, I'm going through the category to get rid of those as a priority, leaving only aviation files in that check needed category. Golaner (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Russavia, you are not welcome here. Leave, go away, depart this place, never come back. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • What’s your reasons to say so, User:Mattbuck? -- Tuválkin 15:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Who decided the block of Russavia, the Community or the WMF? I still disagree his block until I know the reasons. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Who is secret, why is secret, what the evidence is remains secret. There is no appeal possible, there is no scrutiny of the evidence. Not even Russavia has been told the answers to these questions, probably for fear of the WMF being exposed in some way, so you certainly will not be told. You just have to "trust" the WMF, with no credible system of governance, because they demand to be trusted. -- (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Tuvalkin, Russavia was once an admin in good standing, and was an upstanding member of the community. Since he was globally banned by the WMF he has become a troll. Amitie 10g, the initial ban was by the WMF, for undisclosed reasons, but, we assume, because he pissed off Jimbo over the Pricasso incident. I disagree with the initial global block, but given Russavia's extensive socking and other troll-like behaviour in the meantime, I have no compunction against enforcing the ban. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I would be delighted to see a community ban to replace the secret WMF office lock, with the confidence that it meets policies agreed by consensus. This gives the possibility of periodic appeal and review. Banned for life, without the opportunity to examine the evidence or challenge it, well it's no surprise that Russavia has since misbehaved. -- (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
While Russavia used to be a good admin at Wikimedia Commons until he got globally banned, he has started trolling long before he was blocked, especially at the English Wikipedia. I have seen sufficient of his behaviour from before the global ban to fully support that ban. Jcb (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Mattbuck: Russavia may not be welcome by you, but the majority of the community is fine with him. So blanket statements saying they are unwanted are not helpful nor beneficial to this project. If Russavia had not been globally banned for dubious reasons by the WMF, he would still be a positive contributor. Just like if I hadn't been banned on ENWP by people who violated and manipulated policy I would be editing there. This is the negative side to banning positive contributors indefinitely for abusive, meaningless, self serving or policy violating reasons. You end up in situations where a person who would be a constructive member of the community turns into a vandal, troll, sockpuppet, etc. Because frankly, at that point and especially with a global ban, they really don't have anything to lose. Some people wanted him banned, well now they got what they wanted and now they have to live with the consequences including a loss of edits to the project and drama from an editor who would otherwise be a positive contributor. Russavia had his flaws but he literally did more for this project than all of the people who wanted him banned combined. Literally everyone knows that the reason Russavia was banned by the community was because of pressure from Jimbo over the Pricasso painting. Of course the WMF won't admit that because its stupid, but that's what it boils down too. So frankly, as long as he is editing positively and making improvements, I don't care how many edits he does or how many accounts he creates to do it. Because the purpose of these projects is the accrue knowledge, not to ban everyone we don't like. Reguyla (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The WMF said that Russavia was not blocked because of the Pricasso issue (although that would be a valid reason IMHO). I am fine with removing categories as shown above by Jmabel. But I am not fine with him trolling on the VP or various DRs. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Reguyla, I'm not going to undo legitimate DRs just because they were created by a banned user, but if I see a Russavia sock (this thread has had about five in the 15 hours it's been open) I will block it. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
First, I do not believe the WMF for a second when they say that. Partly because they refuse to say why it is, that being the case, they almost certainly would also say what it isn't for the same reasons. The pricasso thing was almost certainly a major part of their decision even if there were others as well. If you want to block them mattbuck then that's your call. But at this point we should all admit that its not going to stop him, he will just create another. I would suggest its better to have him edit with an account we know, than to guess or assume he is another one and cause a bunch of collateral damage with blocked IP's and waste a bunch of time. But that's just me. I also agree that the trolling aspect can be a little irritating, but that's fruit of the poison tree IMO. It's only due to the no other recourse factor. No matter how friendly a person is, if you back them into a corner and give them no alternative, then they are going to push back. BTW it's also funny that you say he has socked 5 or 6 times in this discussion but you say you keeping blocking them. So really, the reason they have socked 5 or 6 times is because they keep getting blocked and have to create a new account, not that they want to or are doing it maliciously. Reguyla (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

One thing about this whole Russavia circus I really don't get. It's been over a year now that he has a global ban and still he spends hours a day trolling around here. Who knows how sad and lonely his real life must be now this trolling apparently is the only thing he lives for? Jcb (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to soud really naive right now, but where has he actually trolled? We need to stop blurring words meanings Editing files description pages and removing his name from "source"-fiels and categorizing isn't trolling. Filing DR's isn't trolling. Protesting deletion of files isn't trolling. We need to stop calling everything he does for "trolling" merly because he is gbanned. Josve05a (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I've probably dealt with more of these sock than most, and the trolling is in creating accounts with names of the ilk of "Can't catch me", "Easy enough to create another account", "I will keep going" and Continual blocks are interfering with my Commons activity (talk · contribs). An incomplete list is at Category:Sockpuppets of Russavia, bit it's clear he' sticking two fingers up at us- that's trolling and a good enough reason to enforce the ban, however unjust it may be felt to be. To do otherwise is to play his game. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) But, is it really our ban to enforce? He hasn't been banned from the Commons comunity, but the WMF, and therefore it should be they, and only they that should be the ones blocking him. But that might just me my oown naive opinion. Josve05a (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
He has been blocked locally on Commons for intimidation/harassment. I'm sure that was discussed extensively at the time on the AN. And in any case, his recent activity is in itself disruptive - its far too fast for a non-bot to be doing.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Nilfanion: Just to make sure that people are not wrong on the Internet, no, this hasn't been discussed at the AN at all; @Yann just blocked russavia's account, and everyone else is still too scared to unblock it. odder (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
It is the current policy: "Controversial blocks may also be discussed at the blocks and protections noticeboard after they have been applied. To avoid wheel warring, they should only be lifted by another administrator if there is consensus to do so, even if there is no clear consensus in favor of the original block." Why not initiate a discussion as suggested by the policy than questioning it here? Jee 13:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
His block on commons is a personal vendetta by Yann, nothing more but alas you can't point fingers on admins on this wiki or you get blocked next....not much different than enwiki i say..--Stemoc 00:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
(BWC)Please be aware that in case of Russavia there is a lot more than what you can see on Wiki. But I will give you an example: Russavia presents himself as a representative of our projects, then gets some general releases from photographers for all their work and then telling those photographers that they should revoke their release and that they have to do so via OTRS. Jcb (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jcb: Has that happend to OTRS by Russavia. Isn't that revealing information, not in accordance with the Confidentiality Agreement? Josve05a (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
This was discussed last year at the AN and the ombudsmen commission was asked to take a look about it, but I never got any feedback from them, so apparently they didn't see it as a violation of the confidentiality agreement. Jcb (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Again, you all are giving examples of stuff that Russavia did after the WMF forced a global ban on him. Has he created a lot of accounts? Yes, but they wouldn't be needed if he wasn't banned by the WMF. Do some accounts like the ones mentioned above amount to trolling? Sure, it could be argued they do but even then it wouldn't be done if he could edit. Did he ask photographers to revoke their release after worked with them to get their approval and after his ban? Maybe so, I doubt he did this before his ban but I don't really know about that for sure if he even did this at all. Again, as far as I know it was after his ban and if we/the WMF do not want him editing, then that is the price we pay. When someone is banned, then that means that their work is not wanted. So, if they choose to go back and revoke that after we ban them then IMO they are free to do that. I did some of that with ENWP as well. They lost a lot in donations and other stuff because I asked people whom I had asked to donate not too and suggested there were better tax write-offs than Wikipedia that is no longer interested in creating an encyclopedia. Again, a few on ENWP do not want my edits and feel that they speak for the entire community and the projects and just as Russavia does here, I continue to edit on ENWP and no one, not even the WMF is going to stop me from doing that until I choose to stop. I am not going to be bullied out of the project by people who haven't done half of what I have to build it and neither is Russavia. So these bans comes at a cost and again, unless someone can prove he did this before he was banned, then I don't see it as a problem because the WMF told them they do not want them to help. And he still edits, so all of this is irrelevant because none of us are going to stop him from editing, clearly. Reguyla (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please forgive my interruption - I have a question concerning the "Uploaded by Russavia" cat: I often see it when going through the "bad named aviation files", shall I remove it when a renaming is done? The category related statement above is not fully clear to me... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To me it looks like we love to solve not important matters ... honestly seeing us fight on all the Russavia case is just sad. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi P-S, it's a mistake to think this is just about Russavia, or getting him unblocked. No doubt that by now Russavia has burnt so many bridges and upset so many good faith contributors that his account should be blocked, and you know that the Commons community has adequate policies and processes for sensibly managing that. The underpinning ethical issue that causes drama here, is whether the WMF should control Wikimedia Commons accounts and content, and by implication our consensus supported policies, by using the threat of unaccountable office actions. This case shines light on the fact that the process is so bizarrely secret that the banned person does not even get to see any evidence, or any chance to discuss it, so is a failure of natural justice. Fairness and natural justice must be seen to apply especially when the majority of contributors believe a person is guilty of breaking community created policies or may have been stupid enough to repeatedly challenge Jimmy Wales.
This case went a significant step further than past office actions, as up until this point either the banned person had both a known criminal background and was acting in a way that should be reported for police investigation, or they had the opportunity to discuss the evidence with the WMF and then quietly went away, agreeing that it was in their best interests to do so.
It is well established that all bureaucracies will grow forever in scope and authority unless firmly governed. What is missing here is any credible governance process that can reassure the community that the outcome is ethical and fair. For these reasons the WMF office action should be replaced with a community managed block and subject to the same rules and processes as the rest of us are happy to be held against. -- (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Bans are less secret now[edit]

Harassment Survey 2015

In the past I have also wondered about bans from the Wikipedia community. I have no comment on what ought to be done except that I like the idea of a transparent process for managing bans.

Recently (January 15 2016) meta:Support and Safety was established. This group manages meta:WMF Global Ban Policy and the list of Wikimedia banned users. They just published meta:Research:Harassment survey 2015, and it seems like they wish to address some serious interpersonal conflicts which happen related to Wikimedia participation.

Amitie 10g - you wanted to know who manages the block. This is the group. - as you say, there are secrets, but the "who bans" is no longer secret. This team is taking responsibility whereas before no one in particular did except "the WMF". I do not know what will come of this, but I appreciate having a group to contact for these issues. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is what I think is going to happen based on what I am seeing on multiple projects. The term harassment is going to be used by some admins and others to get rid of some adversaries. They are going to use the term "harassment in the same way they do "disruption" in block summaries because its the new catchphrase of the hour and it reduces the amount of scrutiny by making it appear like they are dealing with harassment. The Harassment survey shows in several slides exactly what some of us have been saying for a while, that there is a problematic group of admins on multiple projects that act like bullies and intimidate editors into getting their way. Its more of a problem on some projects than others, but that survey shows that its clearly a problem.
I would also disagree that bans are les secret. The English Wikipedia Arbitration committee for example is using secret offline evidence more and more on cases and the recent The Devils Advocate case is a perfect example. Not only are they not telling the community based on secret evidence, they didn't even tell TDA what they were being accused of prior to the indefinite ban they implemented out of thin air and without a proper case. Just we decide they are banned. Reguyla (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The above text spends more time talking about blocks than the actual original discussion. It is clear that Russavia wishes for his category to be removed from the images he uploaded, his sockpuppets have been flooding RC at a speed of 50 epm or higher doing so. Is there consensus for this to be done? If so, I'll file a BRFA under RileyBot. I'd rather a flagged bot be doing this than RC be flooded.. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • And with "speed up" and "check", you probably mean "blatantly remove". A bot can't check this. It isn't just about categories that category is ment to track for maintenance. Josve05a (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • So tens of thousands of pages can be blatantly added, but not blatantly removed? Interesting logic. Even though, as said on the BRFA, categories would be added in addition to removing the tracking category. Riley Huntley (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If they came form one "check"-category, to another, yes. And as I said before, it' more than just categories that needs to be checked. It's title-speelling, description-editing, crop-requests etc. We can't just assume it is to add a category and more on. Josve05a (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Animal head tilting vs Animals head tilting[edit]

So these two should be made into a single one.

Advice on proper English sought. -- Tuválkin 11:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

My understanding of common practice is that categories ought to be singular rather than plural. In in terms of grammar "Animal head tilting" is the better choice if we recognize that we are being a little bit cryptic by missing punctuation out—it can be read as "Animal, head tilting" or "Animal head, tilting" which have different implications for the content of photographs, but probably not so confusing that we need to change it. -- (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Or, really, "Animal head-tilting", where head-tilting would be the noun, and not the sort of noun that commonly gets pluralized (it's a bit too abstract for that, just like we don't say peaces). Anyway, "Animals head tilting" is simply not English. You could have "Animals with tilted heads" or the two possibilities with commas Fæ points out. Categories actually are commonly plural, so if you were going with Fæ's it would be "Animals, head tilting" (but that's a bit awkward) or "Animal heads, tilting". All the ones I've bolded are reasonable. I'd personally go with "Animal head-tilting". - Jmabel ! talk 19:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Admittedly, the singular/plural choice is complex, and I was focused on this case. The guidelines at CAT says "generally have names in plural form". The best rule of thumb is probably to look around similar categories if you are unsure, for example we should not force commonly used singular descriptions in English into their plural forms just for the sake of it; e.g. Category:Boeing 777 is better than "Category:Boeing 777s" even though the category includes many aircraft rather than one.
By the way, my personal rule of thumb is to avoid debating category names. I see many categories on my watchlist being moved about each week, and I'm just glad to see someone contributing towards making uploads easier to find rather than worrying about whether the language is optimal. -- (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to both for the input. I usually follow ’s approach above, but in this case, since one of them has to go, wanted to be sure we’re retaining the best (or the least bad). Since Category:Animal head tilting can at least be seen as a string of nouns (two adjective nouns modifying a main noun, even though it’s a gerund) while Category:Animals head tilting cannot be shoehorned in the same way (plurals not good for an adjective noun…), I’ll collapse the latter into the former. -- Tuválkin 20:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Meanwhile already ✓ fixed by User:Mattbuck — thank you! -- Tuválkin 00:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Harzer Schmalspurbahnen[edit]

Someone under Pnr started removing the category Deutsche Reichsbahn (GDR) from Harzer Schmalspurbahnen train pictures taken in 1991 when these trainservices still belonged to the Deutsche Reichsbahn. The locomotive classification has a mention of DR (example: DRG Class 99.73–76) but this is highly confusing as there a lot of pictures taken after 1993 of the current HSB period. I am reversing the change.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this hint! It is part my request here. Kleeblatt187 (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

February 01[edit]

Harassment Survey showing our sad reality (sysops misusing their tools)[edit]

Harassment Survey 2015 - Results Report.pdf

Recently I pass through this reality, sysops misusing their tools, and the most sad, again. The feeling that I'm having here at Wikimedia Commons is like to be under a left dictatorship, were I can't questioned comrades/former comrades/comrade partners, every time that I criticize one posture that sounds fishy or it's a clear conflict of interest, I'm summary blocked, and with no reasonable justification. Like the last time, that the sysop reverted 2 times one edition trying to remove my opinion about another sysop [5], and than he blocked me, not asking to another sysop to see the issue, not talking about it. Same sysop removed a {{copyvio}} flag of one photo, and opened one deletion request saying that should be kept, and immediately closed [6], imposing his opinion using his administrative tools, not opening any discussion, even WP having a different view, and using the logo by fair use, at the time, so the reasonable posture should be a discussion, not the imposition of his opinion.

And most horrible thing it is not one sysop doing that, it's the others empowering his actions, as [7], [8]. Our when I was blocked by another sysop, just because I wrote that one volunteer was the boyfriend of a sysop, but the reality was that they are actually engaged, and as a punishment, not only I was blocked, but also a third sysop removed my reviewer flag during my block saying that I'm not trustful, not opening any discussion, and as I was blocked, not capable to talk about it.

The administrative tools was created to protect the community, and now the use is to stablish a power of a caste over others, used as a punishment to questioned Your Highness. We need to change in some how the way that are free to use block and protections, at least a opened discussion. Or after one abuse, at least a channel where we can talk without the fear of been blocked again, and some one take some action to inhibit this actions.

The second case exposed here happened in 2014, I'm without the Reviewer flag since then, nothing was made, even being a former OTRS volunteer, and one of the few active Brazilian volunteer that have a wide knowledge about copyright in the country, and always used the tools responsibly. How this is beneficial to the community?

I'm almost sure that I will be censored and have a high possibility of block; but I need to try to start a discussion, this events are absurd, I know that not happen only with me, and can be away more violent with another volunteers, we should take action. Administrative tools should be to protect, not punishment, not to personal uses.

-- RTA 10:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

As for the survey: One should note that Unjustified use of admin tools (34%) is of category other harassment (57%), which in turn gives 19%. 19% of experienced harassment is Unjustified use of admin tools. Since Wikipedia and sisters are often conferred to as undemocratic, I had expected a higher percentage in this section. -- Rillke(q?) 12:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Frankly, I wouldn't count Unjustified use of admin tools as "Harassment". I know some people like to have a free wheel, and be able troll anyone they don't like, and that IS a much bigger concern to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The quality of the survey is horrible and honestly, admins "harras" me is often a misused argument when someone disagrees with a block or is unable to deal with fair critisisme. This little essay would have been a lot more usefull if it includes examepls of actual harrasment and not blocks you just disagree wit. (The person being blocked almost always disagrees). Natuur12 (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I have been saying this for a couple years now. Its no surprise that it finally got verified now that someone bothered to ask the question. I would b interested to know of the ones that felt this way how many were admins saying it. I will say that its far better here than on the English Wikipedia where admins are basically given the ability of doing whatever they want to whomever they want as long as its not another admin. So at least commons is a little better from that aspect of things.Reguyla (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Unjustified use of admin tools is indeed a threat and stopping block for good people to continue in a community without fear. The atmosphere was terrible when I joined here. Admins and maintenance volunteers ruled everywhere, considering media contributors as grade II citizens. "Fuck the content creators, who cares" was their attitude. I had thought several times, why should I waste my time here. I decided to stay, and protest as bold as I can. I found similar minded people here. Slowly we found some grips; we were able to stop the bulliest people, somehow. They withdrawn to their caves, at least. I have to say the current situation is much promising than what I experienced a few years ago. We need to remember, "The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing." Unfortunately many of our best content creators are very silent on our day to day affairs which give the junks to rule this project. IRC gives them an "underground world" to group together to plan and execute their secret agendas too.
RTA, I don't think your examples are the best; but we have a long road ahead. I wish if our volunteers (including me) are willing to accept these types of self-criticism and review our actions than concentrating only on some anti-wmf agendas. (Off-course, they also need to be more democratic and transparent; but it is a different topic.) Jee 13:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Jee when we start to think "it's not good, but okay, it was worst in the past", and "Wikipedia is worst" (as others raised), things don't improve.
I was here also (and before), and okay, had some improves, but we are far from our goal, and far from being a heath environment. This examples are not different from the postures of Wikipedia, or from the past, they are here, and as you can see, some people see this as normal, and sysop see himself as a hero who will save the community from trolls, trolls, in his vision, are people with free wheel, and incorrect use of admin tools to impose a fear, is not harassment, and is not worst then write opinions.
This is not normal, one community that have free in their principles don't see this as bad. This monstrously bad, people approved to have the power of block editions attacking free wheel is not acceptable, and no one looking at this and manifesting against it is worst.
-- RTA 14:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
"...we are far from our goal, and far from being a healthy environment." I agree. Jee 15:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, User:Jkadavoor, that must have been before my time. These days I feel it’s distinctively the other way around, with content curators considered as grade II citizens. Which is a bad thing not only on ethical grounds (as any such caste system is) but also on strategical grounds: Commons could survive without its own home-bread content creators (dealing only with free media posted elsewhere and PD material), but without curation Commons would be just a clone of Flickr or Imgur. -- Tuválkin 16:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
It still is that way Tuvalkin. Non admin editors and content builders are considered second class citizens on the WMF wiki's and anyone who doesn't think that is probably an admin. Reguyla (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Tuválkin, there are indeed some good content curators like categorisors (eg: Roland zh), coders, etc. They usually work behind the screen, unnoticed. They rarely show their nose in (drama) boards. The only moments I find them are when they "touched" my file pages. I enjoy their works and never forget to show my gratitude using the "thank" feature. They too vital part of this community. My (rather humorous) comment was not about them. :) Jee 02:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
All you really have to read is page 2, which tells you it's a self-selected sample applying their own definitions of everything, including what is and isn't justified use of admin tools. "Other methods would need to be explored in order to validate the information" is putting it mildly. I'm sorry, but this was an utter waste of resources and 4.82 MB of storage. LX (talk, contribs) 20:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Per Carrite on en:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Defective_harassment_survey, it seems the software tool used in this survey was a defective pre-alpha version, which delivered unreliable numbers. --Túrelio (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I too agree that the tool and methodologies in creating the survey were flawed. We must also take into account that happy people are less likely to waste time on surveys whereas people who are upset or feel they have been wronged in some way like myself are substantially more likely to make the voice heard and take the survey. So I would support a new survey, using clearer and more focused questions based on the results of this one to clarify the results. For example, clear and specific questions about the feelings of harassment and if people feel admins are misusing their tools. This survey had a lot of fill in the blank comments, which are good and should be retained, but its much harder to define and quantify those. So it needs to be made clear what came from the check box and what was mined out of comments. I think this survey touched on a lot of good weak points though, now we just need to address the problems and do it again. Perhaps annually or semi annually adjusting the result each time. I would not support this type of survey being done more than once every 6 months until we get the results refined a little and then annually. People who are interested in the topic will take a few minutes a couple times a year to do the survey. Especially if its at scheduled recurring times. Reguyla (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
you can measure it all you want: if admins won't change their behavior; the community won't change the "cultural buzzsaw" it does not matter. rather than jimbo whining about "wikistudy ethics", maybe an implementation plan by admins might restore some confidence in them. Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:File renaming reasons/i18n/uk[edit]

I translated Template:File renaming reasons to ukrainian, but the renaming request form is not shown in ukrainian anyway. How to make it show ukrainian? --Tohaomg (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It is likely just a caching issue. Try to purge the page & clear your browser cache. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I deleted the cache, but it didn't work. I looked from another computer, but it didn't work neither. --Tohaomg (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed It turned out to be the server cache at Template:File renaming reasons/render. -- Rillke(q?) 13:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03-fig17-7 (2008).svg[edit]

rsvg or whatever Commons used it seems can't cope with unusual font substitutions, I've already had to substitute Arimo for the propriatery Furtiger. Can I please have a list of KNOWN fonts installed for Commons, so that I can ensure the SVG's are going to render correctly? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: There is one at m:SVG fonts. Matma Rex (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
And Arimo isn't on the list.. Bother, A whole day's effort wasted. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Relevant files now deleted. Now we can have the discussion on what font to substitute.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
ShakespeareFan00 -- There have been longstanding issues with SVG font rendering (see the talk page corresponding to m:SVG fonts, or the upload history of File:Simple inverse relationship chart.svg). The quick and dirty solution to almost all rendering problems is "convert text to paths"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
File:Traffic-signs-manual-chapter-Diagram 608 (2008).svg - Also shows this fault. I don't see why as I sanitised the file and told it to use a basic "sans-serif". Your work-around is doable, but this really should be fixed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

NSFW Main page images[edit]

I appreciate the female form as much as anyone but we need to be mindful that not NSFW applies to the main page. When I just logged into commons I was startled and had to quickly change my screen. A lot of kids look at our site as well and although I am very far from being a prude, I also think there should be some discussion before these types of images are displayed. Do I need to set my default as my watchlist instead of the main page from now on? Reguyla (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • It took nearly 16 hours until someone complained. That is much longer than I expected. (The image is a perfectly fine example of low-key and nude photography. No children will be harmed by it.) --Sebari (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
No issue for this image IMO. Yann (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Well then in that case I will just remove the main page from my default and default instead to my watchlist so when I log in at work I am not confronted by a naked women, vagina or some other NSFW image. Reguyla (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
good call, commons has been NSFW for a decade. see also m:Image filter referendum/en. Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Would seeing that image in a movie "bumb" up the age rating for that movie? I guess it would. To me that is a sign that perhaps it should not be on the landing page here. /Hangsna (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I have been on and off here since 2007, and for many years I had the opinion that NSFW, as well as shocking images were perfectly OK for POTD, because they were in scope and because otherwise it could be considered as censorship. I have also previously defended a NSFW POTD, which received complaints. In recent years I have changed my mind as I think it is a misunderstanding that it has anything to do with censorship to not select a particular FP as POTD. Rather it is a principle of 'editorial judgement' to consider if NSFW images shall be on the front page, and other kinds of images as well, that might be problematic for certain kind of users. Like, I recall a lovely macro of a spider being POTD at some point, and it triggered a strong reaction from a person who had arachnophobia. Maybe it was not good editorial judgement to have that as POTD as quite many people get strong emotional reactions from seeing a photo of a spider? I also opened the main page of commons at work today and I also skipped quickly away from the page, because the nude photo would be in a gray zone at my work place for permitted content, but also because in an open office environment it would just be very awkward to casually browse over a nude photo. Of course, I know there is a risk of that at work, and I could just wait until I was at home. Problem solved. But that would also mean that I would have a barrier at work for re-using just other kinds of media files for work. And nomatter what POTD you have, you can often find someone, who with some cultural background, values, prior experience, trauma, handicap, whatevercould dislike any POTD. And 'slippery slope' arguments will also follow og where the boundaries of 'editorial judgement' or 'low astonishment' should be. On the other hand I find it is very important that it is easy to find such an FP of a low-key nude photo if you actively search for it, because then you will not be astonished as a user, as this is what you were looking for. For this particular image, I would be inclined to say it would have been slightly better editorial judgement not to have it as POTD. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Would seeing that image in a movie "bumb" up the age rating for that movie? - That very much depends on where you live. In Germany surely not. Jerry Maguire for example has the rating FSK 6, meaning children from 6 upwards are allow to see some nudity. --Magnus (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • FWIW, this thread (silly as it is), got me to go take a look at Main_Page for the first time in 2 or 3 years. -- Tuválkin 20:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If I have no opinion regarding the content displayed or not to kid's eyes. However at work advice is you should work. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Christian Ferrer: Sometimes you have a lunch break at work...or at your work it could actually be relevant to use media files from Commons for a work-related presentation. And here the natural entry point is for many the Main Page. Just saying... -- Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
      • In fairness I am usually working at the same time. I frequently have to run scans on servers and whatnot that stop when they hit an error or compiling code. Its hard to be actively doing other things that require deep thought or take me away from the monitor while its running. I can glance here, then do what I need to do with the error on the other screen and continue on. Sometimes also at lunch.Reguyla (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, with my job I've not this kind of issue, that maybe explain my lack of imagination regarding this topic. The fact that I already saw some of my colleague surfing on the Web instead of working while me I must work don't help too. No problem. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I hardly ever pay attention to POTD. I'm aware that nude women have featured before. Just to assess how heteronormative the majority vote/decision-making process for POTD is likely to be, can anyone work out exactly how many photos of nude sexually attractive women have made it to POTD, or at least, women showing their breasts or backsides, compared to how many photos of nude sexually attractive men have featured? I can guess the answer but numbers would be great. -- (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Fae you've raised bias at FPC before and all it demonstrated was your profound ignorance of statistics and the laws of cause and effect. This sort of nonsense demonstrates the kind of 2+2=5 thinking one might associate with the Dail Mail. Tell me, when you set your upload bots off, do you scan every image to ensure an equal distribution of male and female, white and black, young and old, or do you just accept you are completely at the mercy of the distribution to be found out there in the real world. You should apologise to those who select our POTD now for accusing them of bias. -- Colin (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
      I have made no accusations. Please supply the numbers if you want to assess or discuss the facts rather than just appearing intent on making me look evil at every possible opportunity. Thanks -- (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Making you look evil, ? Gosh, I thought all along Colin’s goal was to make himself look evil — and lo, it’s working, too! -- Tuválkin 23:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
, of course you make accusations. From your position of admitted ignorance "I hardly ever pay attention to POTD" and vague assertion "I'm aware that nude women have featured before" you charge "the majority vote/decision-making process for POTD" with being "heteronormative", which Wikipedia tells me "is often linked to heterosexism and homophobia". So lets just put 2+2 together and say this is yet another homophobia accusation against the FPC team. Facts then. Of the 8,245 featured pictures on Commons, there are merely 349 pictures classified as "People", about 100 "Historical" pictures of people and about 100 "Sports" pictures of people. So about 550 featured images of people making up about 6.6% of the possible Featured pictures that could appear on the main page. Or put another way, there are 15 times as many featured images of non-people as there are of people. Which itself is an interesting fact, given that one might assume the vast majority of images taken in the world (professionally or otherwise) are of people. Of these 550 people images, we have four nudes. One is a photo of a Himba woman from Namibia and isn't a sexual image. It appeared on the main page on 27 Jan 2008. Another is Michele Merkin and is a glamour photo with partial nudity. It appeared on the main page 5th October 2009. Another is a recumbent female nude which hasn't appeared on the main page yet. The fourth is the image that appeared the other day. So unless I missed any, we've had precisely one previous photo of a partially nude sexually attractive woman. And given that Commons does not commission photographs, but seems to hoover up whatever it finds on the internet or accept whatever amateur photographers choose to photograph as a hobby, pray tell how this data could possibly be used to "assess how heteronormative the majority vote/decision-making process for POTD is". It can't. But that doesn't stop you waving homophobia accusations around and challenging people to defend themselves against them. Shame on you Fae, you are a disgrace to Commons and to the LGBT community you claim to stand up for. -- Colin (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I have made no accusations or allegations, I asked for statistics. Anyone can read from the above that the only person making allegations of homophobia and ad-hominim attacks here is Colin.

From the numbers in Colin's summary, the answer to my original question appears to be that there are 3 attractive nude photographs of women that can be taken for POTD, and no equivalent photographs of men. I propose a moratorium on any further nude photographs of women as POTD until there is at least a history of POTDs achieving at least one nude photograph of a man for every 2 nude photographs on the main page of nude women. Thanks -- (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Without wishing to comment on whether the Himba woman is "attractive", the criterion that is relevant is "sexually attractive" and that is not a sexualised photo. So we have just one partial nude and one upper-body nude and zero genitalia that have ever appeared on the main page. Your suggestion that POTD should start enforcing a quota system to ensure equality of sexualised main-page imagery is really very funny while also very sad. There are all sorts of injustices and inequalities one could spend one's time worrying about, doing something about, and accusing people of, but this is not one of them. The community should have topic banned you as a favour -- to stop writing such foolish nonsense. The folk that do the POTD do not deserve to be accused of "heteronormative" actions or any similar and you should appologise. -- Colin (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Your personal attacks are cyber bullying, I made no accusations here. Your campaign against me is long term harassment. -- (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Fae you are so transparent. Whenever you up to something nefarious, you accuse others of exactly that. It's kind of a Freudian slip with you. Look at what this topic section is about: Reguyla taking issue with unexpected NSFW content on the main page. But you turn up, admitting the POTD content isn't of interest to you ("I hardly ever pay attention to POTD") while at the same time accusing those organising POTD of "heteronormative" bias. So you go spinning off-topic with yet another ill-thought-out charge of homophobia on Commons. The harassment is by you against those at FPC. You didn't need to make your comments. You didn't need to attack the POTD organisers. Stick to File: space, Fae, it's the only area where you make a positive contribution to the project. -- Colin (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree, Its ugly, please remove that.. no one wants to come to a site and see some Old guy playing a Sitar ...its disgusting, please remove it ASAP....--Stemoc 00:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No comments; as I too never visit the home page unless my login expired or my watchlist highlighted the talk page. Not an important page for me. Jee 02:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Colin's tangent[edit]

I would like to clarify that I have made no accusations against any contributor. Colin repeatedly introduced the topic of LGBT and homophobia; then turned a question about statistical balance into long rants about homophobia, anyone can read the text above to verify this fact. Colin has gone on to deride and humiliate me just for being interested in the "LGBT community".

This is not a safe space with Colin free to turn any discussion on to a hostile debate about Wikimedia LGBT. This level of hostility and personal attack is planned and deliberate, it cannot be excused as some sort of weird misunderstanding. -- (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

From the title of this section to the -- at the end, there is not a single word that is accurate. You can "clarify" all you like when everyone else can see you creating a tangent on a NSFW topic to accuse the POTD organisers of "heteronormative" bias. Don't try and pretend it was some innocent question on statistical balance. Nobody's fooled. -- Colin (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I have made no accusations against any contributor. -- (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Consent to nude modeling and model release document[edit]

For this image of a nude woman, the uploader provided model consent documents to OTRS. This may or may not be the right thing to do. Another common practice on Wikimedia Commons is to apply the template {{consent}} with the metadata without sharing any model release document. I wrote more about this model release on a proposal for developing a model release.

I want for there to be some minimal standards for defining consent provided in Wikimedia Commons. It already is a regular practice that Commons uploaders make claims about getting consent from models. In fashion and marketing, doing nude modeling generally requires stricter consent agreements than doing more routine clothed modeling, but in Wikimedia projects, I am not sure there are standards or community agreement for what it means for anyone to consent to have photos uploaded to Commons.

To clarify - I am not suggesting that people should use consent documents on Commons more often. I am proposing that when people feel the need to claim to use a consent process at all, then there should be a defined process in Commons and people should say, "My process is equal to or better than that one." We do the same thing with CC copyright releases; anyone can use those or better releases, but we say that if someone promises to use a release, then they have to at least be compatible with CC-By-SA which is our community standard.

I am working with a legal organization in New York called the Fashion Law Institute. They have proposed to write a model release for use in Wikimedia projects and beyond. To go further, they need some Wikimedia Foundation money for them to draft a release, templates, documentation, and to use their name as legal authorities in the field to say, "this kind of release is a reasonable thing to use, if a model release is used". If anyone has comments (criticism and endorsements) or opinions on model releases then please share at meta:Grants:PEG/Wikimedia New York City/Development of a model release process for photos and video. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Model releases mostly have to do with assuring that personality rights have been signed away, so an image is open to full commercial use in advertisements etc. "Consent" is about reassuring that an image does not violate ordinary expectations of privacy. Wikimedia Commons is only obliquely concerned about whether images can be used for purposes of commercial advertising (images that can't be used that way can still be uploaded here). AnonMoos (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
commons is directly involved in commercial reuse running afoul of privacy rights law. we need a better system of subject permissions, than a personality rights tag. re-users frequently ignore restrictions. OTRS is a work around, need some personality rights enforcement as well. this grant for permissions is needed badly. Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but if someone uploads an image to Commons not covered by a model release (i.e with unimpaired personality rights), and an outside reuser makes use of it for commercial purposes, then Commons is not directly involved -- the legal dispute is between the person photographed and the reuser. It's pretty much the same as if an external reuser disregards the copyright terms of an image uploaded to Commons -- the dispute there is between the photographer or image-maker and the reuser... AnonMoos (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


As part of an effort at English Wikisource, the diagrams and figures in these PDF's would need to be extracted.

However a problem arises, in that the PDF uses a proprietary font called "Furtiger", which cannot be used on Commons, which means that the SVG render engine makes a substitution which doesn't work, leading to inappropriately clipped images and so forth.

Out of the Known fonts installed ( the list someone provided earlier) appears to be out of date, which one would meet the following criteria :-

  1. Must be a commons compatible font.
  2. Must be a font that can be embeded or converted to paths.
  3. Must be a metric equivalent for Furtiger as far as possible.

Sugggestions? -- ShakespeareFan00 17:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I note Istok would be a reasonable match. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Sure it's not "Frutiger"? Anyway, font embedding would not be permissible (and doesn't do anything with SVG files uploaded to Commons anyway, as far as I'm aware), but text pre-converted to paths inside the SVG file is generally considered allowable... AnonMoos (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
It is, which is propriatery, so can't be used. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Some quasi-paranoiac interpretations of copyright law would disallow uploading an SVG containing "text to paths" conversions of text in a copyrighted font, but whether right or wrong, such interpretations have generally been ignored on Wikimedia Commons so far. Under United States copyright law, abstract shapes of characters in a text font are considered "functional" or "utilitarian" and are not copyrightable -- only the computer code contained in a computer font is copyrightable (as code). AnonMoos (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Ticket raised - ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-05[edit]

21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
"I have no idea what I'm doing"
  • I had no CSS styling on edit pages (only on Commons with Monobook) for a little over hour today, and (although that's not exactly unusual), there are multiple reports of the Upload Wizard being broken (Commons:Upload help#Upload wizard not loading) starting around the same time. Is there any correlation? Rotten bits, cosmic rays, or someone's dog at the keyboard? LX (talk, contribs) 21:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Above it is said that «You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important.» Good! I have this one bug report, about something that has been damaging all projects imensely and risks further damage down the road, which however has thankfully a really easy and fast solution: That bug is VisualEditor itself — it just needs to be discontinued immediately: unplugged, puff, like it never existed. -- Tuválkin 00:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

February 02[edit]

Caption Challenge[edit]


This weeks entry is up, and I'm looking for a volunteer(s) to take on the task of putting an image up each week, any takers? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the year competition[edit]

What has happened to the 2015 POTY competition? It doesn't appear to have started yet. -- SGBailey (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rillke: @Beria: @Mono: @Miya: Poking the usual suspects. Revent (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
See Commons:Village pump/Archive/2016/01#When will POTY 2015 start? -- Rillke(q?) 10:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

February 03[edit]

User:Cookie and unjustified cat. name anglicization attempts[edit]

This was posted in AN/U before. Since several people saw it as an attack or offense against against the user in question, it was moved to VP.

In these three seven (so far) CfDs:

Proper nouns, such as established individual names, most of these even subject to local protection and thus officially named, should not be translated to English, unlike plural descritive categories. -- Tuválkin 01:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC) and 10:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: Not sure what about this is an ANU issue, to be honest. There seems to have been a civil discussion about the CfDs on Tm's talk page. Revent (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • This is about an admin pushing against one of the most basic rules of category naming. It certainly needs to be addressed centrally, not scatered in disparate, specific CfDs nor in a user’s talk page (especially not one infamous for being left unarchived for years causing broswer crashes and failed transclusions). -- Tuválkin 10:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Why do you complain about Cookie's talk page which currently has just correspondence from 2016 with a total size of 11,475 bytes? --AFBorchert (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I don’t complain about Cookie’s talk page: User:Revent mentioned Tm’s talk page and I replied about that. -- Tuválkin 23:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree with Revent. And I don't think this was about an admin pushing against one of the most basic rules of category naming. It depends on your interpretation. --DPC (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The Commons categries language policy states quite clearly "Proper nouns which do not have an established English variant are not translated ad hoc but use the original form". A quick look at these categories suggests to me that they do not have abn established English variant and in one case (Category:Aqueduto de Pontes) the English translation is poor to say the least.
NB: I have tidied up the grammar. The diff file is here. I regard this as a "minor" change, so no debate was needed). Martinvl (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree with Revent. To me it does not appear appropriate to open this as a case at COM:AN/U when no attempt was made before to contact Cookie directly. Cookie was not even informed about this thread. Please keep in mind that not all users, even admins, are familiar with all aspects of our guidelines. To me this looks as a good-faith attempt to suggest category renamings. There is no threat when multiple discussions are opened. Whenever a missing understanding of our guidelines becomes apparent, the next natural step is to post a friendly message onto the user's talk page, not to open a thread at COM:AN/U. Hence, I suggest to close this as there is no administrative action necessary in this case. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (I am informed now. Conflict of edition with @AFBorchert:. Thanks AFBorchert. I hope my explanation can calm things down and have a civic, peaceful debate.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookie (talk • contribs)
  • User:AFBorchert, this thread includes [[User:Cookie]] in its header. That triggers a notification in Cookie’s queue stating that «User Tuvalkin mentioned you on So-and-so», or so I understand. Is this incorrect? Need I to use {{ping}} or {{reply to}} instead? -- Tuválkin 13:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is no need to take this as an offense, I'm not going against Portuguese categories, neither French, German, Italian nor Spanish ones. I just got involved on these because of a ping received from @Hedwig in Washington: asking for help. And I'm not pushing anything as an admin. As an administrator I could have deleted them, or moved them but I didn't do any of those drastic actions. I just did what anyone can do (admins, common users or IPs), i.e. to put categories in discussion.
The reason is explained in [Tm user talk. According to the policy, a particular individual object, such a specific building, monument, etc. is an exception and can be named in the vernacular language of the speaker, right? But, aqueduct, church, bridge, necropolis... are common names. If the translation "Aqueduct (in or of) Pontes" is poor then Aqueduct of Segovia, Aqueduct of Saintes‎ or Bekir Pasha Aqueduct are poor translations as well. The word aqueduct is just the common name of the structure/monument along with the proper name of the location where this "object" is located. If you have a look at Category:Aqueducts by country there are categories named in English along with others named in vernacular languages. Which ones should be renamed?
The same with "church", just an example of different naming in the same country, there are more: Church of São Jorge (Santana)‎ vs. Igreja de São Jorge (Guimarães)‎ Which one is the correct?
And the same with Category:Necropolises by country where you can find a mix of vernacular and English named categories. So, is there/could we find a solution to this pandemonium of categories? or as The Beatles said, just let it be. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Cookie: sorry I got you involved. Since I have been involved, I can't close this AN/U. I sincerely hope some other admin will speedy close this. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I had no idea that merely being subject to a mention in AN/U was such a taint for an admin. There, there, it’s now on VP. Let’s hope it doesn’t have to come go back to AN/U. -- Tuválkin 09:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It is very common that names are based on ordinary nouns. All the same Tower Bridge is the name of a specific bridge, not a description of the bridge or any bridge with towers. Notre Dame is also the (abbreviated) name of a specific church (there are many churches by that name, like there are many Peters, which doesn't change the fact). If the category is named after the name, not just as one description out of many possible ones, then it shall be treated as a name. If there are ad hoc translations, they should be changed to the proper name. Mixture may of course also result from some cemeteries, churches and aqueducts being more well-known than others and a few in fact having English names. --LPfi (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I was involved in a similar discussion about non-English category names last year. For some countries and topics, most category names are in their native language, while for many others, category names are translated to English. If there was a conclusion to that discussion, it would be that there is no consensus to change all category names to English. But yes, it can be a bit confusing, especially when there are both categories in English and in their local language for a topic in a particular country. (For instance churches in Portugal.) Blue Elf (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

February 04[edit]

Next deployment of "Watch changes in category membership"[edit]

We've fixed some issues and our plan is to activate CatWatch for Commons and all Wikipedias again on Friday, Feb 5th between 00:00 and 01:00 UTC. Tobias Gritschacher (WMDE) (talk) 09:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's hope that it works on the third try ... --Sebari (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Will every category that I watch automatically have me watch all additions and removal of pages from that category? Is it possible to watch a category (and its talk page) without watching all that is added and deleted from it? I ask this because I watch some categories which have 100s of pages being added to them daily. However for this category I'm not at all interested in which pages get added, I am however very interested in following any changes to the category itself and its talk page. Basvb (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
No. You can toggle the visibility of category membership changes on your watchlist and recent changes page. By default it is hidden. You can find a detailed explanation of the feature here. Tobias Gritschacher (WMDE) (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


This photo is of James Wickersham, not George Barnes Grigsby. A while back, I showed the image and file description page to the lady minding the store that day at the local Wickersham House. She was very shocked to discover that such an obvious mistake would originate with the Library of Congress, of all things. I originally brought this up somewhere else in the wiki world, don't remember where exactly, but I can't help but notice that it's evidently fallen on deaf ears. I was reminded of it through a recent Wikipedia thread where the fact-checking standards of a private memorabilia collection were scrutinized, particularly WRT an image of Virgil Earp. This caused me to wonder if we're applying double standards in this case because it's the Library of Congress. The uploader appears to have uploaded a substantial number of images in the same vein, and may not be aware or concerned about inherent factual accuracy baggage, a common problem with coverage of the U.S. Congress due to cherry-picking largely primary sources).RadioKAOS (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Can one of you maybe delete Wole.png? It's basically a BLP violation created by someone I just blocked on en-wiki. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Request filed. Martinvl (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

HotCat and category redirects[edit]

In my opinion HotCat should not suggest categories, which are cat redirects, but in at least one case it does this. Where has this behaviour I consider a bug to be reported? --Speravir (Talk) 22:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

According to Help:Gadget-HotCat#Category_redirects_and_disambiguations, it's supposed to act meaningful with redirects and disambiguations. Problems go here: MediaWiki talk:Gadget-HotCat.js. --rimshottalk 22:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
In my experience, if you actually hit Save on a category redirect, HotCat will follow the redirect and insert the real category. So this behavior seems fine - it includes redirects in your search, making it easier for you to find a category, and then follows them for you. For future reference, the HotCat talk page is here. BMacZero (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
If you’ve noticed this behavior, then everything would be fine, yes … Thanks also to Rimshot. --Speravir (Talk) 23:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Speravir (Talk) 23:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

February 05[edit]

Arnnon Geshuri picture[edit]

Hello. Can someone answer me here?--MisterSanderson (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Answered there. Yann (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Huge problem with copyright on Mynewsdesk[edit]

There is a HUGE problem with pictures from the swedish press-service Mynewsdesk, because the site has CC-license per default, something many press people doesn't realise and thus licensing the pictures unbeknownst and without being the copyright-holders - that means that a huge amount of pictures from Mynewsdesk is wrongly licensed and therefore the license is invalid(!). The staff at Mynewsdesk is also not responding well to questions about the license from users (they don't mention that you, as an uploader, have to have the right to change the license to CC). I propose that we have a zero tolerance for picture from Mynewsdesk until these things have been solved. Otherwise we actually risk destroying the Creative Commons license (if we pump out many pictures that are invalidly licensed, it really hurts peoples trust in Creative Commons). People using pictures from Wikimedia Commons should be assured that the pictures are free to use and that the license has been correctly added. //Vätte (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Some links that might be helpful in this context:
--El Grafo (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I seriously doub't that we as a community will be able to forma any form of consensus/policy to ban specific user generated websites from upload, since not everybody uploading images here, are part of the Commons community, hence will not know that this website may be "off limits", and we can't reallty start a DR without some small proof that is isn't their own work...Josve05a (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't feel comfortable with this source. We need to ensure that all files uploaded from there are tagged with license review so if a Commons re-user gets in trouble he may refer to this review tag. Someone with athority, maybe from WMF - should contact at least some of the big music companies and ask for clarification.--Denniss (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Victims of Putinism[edit]

The Category:Victims of Putinism doesn't exist because it was deleted without a valid explanation. It looks like political censorship. Besides, please look here. It seems to me, that Great Britain considers Alexander Litvinenko to be a victim of Putin's regime. Please, who can restore the category for victims of Putinism? Thank you. — Николай (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If I remember correctly you were told multiple times that Commons is not the place to promote your political agenda. If you still have not understood this well, a long term block would be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I see. You prefer to discuss my person. And what about the political agenda of Great Britain? — Николай (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It's a clearly politically polemical category. We don't allow those. I don't like Putin one whit, but it's not a valid category in our system. - Jmabel ! talk 22:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The most polemical is Category:Victims of communism. Endless disputes in many countries. — Николай (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Political vandalism by an administrator[edit]


Николай (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Have you asked the other editor for an explanation before throwing around terms such as "political vandalism"? I think you should. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I should ask what? I see that somebody killed Boris Nemtsov, and somebody wants to kill memory about him. — Николай (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
An independent or nonpartisan politician is an individual politician not affiliated to any political party. This obviously did not apply for Parnas and SPS (+ some more) member Nemtsov, nor does it for his colleagues Kasyanov, Navalny, Kasparov etc.. So, I am certainly not the one who is doing vandalism here. --A.Savin 21:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
This user has not been blocked for almost a year now, but now its time again if this is what will be. /Hangsna (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, some people only seeing either black or white. This may be good for their ego, but is bad for Commons. --A.Savin 22:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Is Khodorkovsky a member of a political party? No. And Kasparov? No. And Navalny? No. The party of Navalny is not registered officially. Probably you could also know that independent politicians in Russia are those who oppose to Putin's regime. They do not depend of Putin's regime. — Николай (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Let me disagree sir: politicians against Putin are oppositioners, not necessarily independent ones. And Navalny's political party does exist. This is the only relevant thing. --A.Savin 22:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
So, you agree that at least some of your edits were incorrect. — Николай (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
No. --A.Savin 23:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)