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


A village pump in Burkina Faso [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch



photos at Panoramio[edit]

according to [1], Panoramio no longer available after November 4, 2016. User:Panoramio upload bot just uploading files to ID ~20M, total ID is ~130M. all cc-by + cc-by-sa phptos about 1-1.5M from Panoramio.(now uploading about 200 thousand). How can I upload all the photos before November 2016?--shizhao (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  1. It may be a lot faster to run it on a WMF labs account.
  2. Parallel threading in Python may speed things up, depending on how the internet connections work.
  3. I'm presuming these are url whitelisted transfers, if not then swap to direct url uploads rather than handling files clientside.
  4. If your plan is to upload 1m images, you may need to to a quicker wget and create a temporary archive based on a filter rather than attempting a Commons upload within the cut-off date. Raise a task on Phabricator for it if you want to do this using WMF server space.
However you do this, you are going to be very pushed for time. -- (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Now is a multi-threaded. And I don't have time to re-develop and deploy, and time is too tight....--shizhao (talk) 09:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried reaching out to Google to see if they have anyone interested in helping. They're not exactly short of computing power and internet bandwidth. -- Colin (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Another party to consider is the volunteer project Archiveteam. They have an interest in archiving and preservation and they even have a page about Panoramio. --Gazebo (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I have begin crawl all metadata of freely licensed photos--shizhao (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed change to UploadWizard: Use {{PD-1923}} instead of {{PD-US}}[edit]

Proposed change would result in UploadWizard using {{PD-1923}} instead of {{PD-US}} when the user chooses "First published in the United States before 1923" on the license selection screen. It would only affect newly uploaded files (it doesn't affect existing uploads, or any tool other than UploadWizard).

{{PD-US}} is broader than just works published before 1923. This license description only mentions works before 1923 (the most common case for PD-US licensed works), so we might as well apply the specific {{PD-1923}} template. The [localisation message documentation] entry even specifically mentions {{PD-1923}}.

This looks like a good idea to me, but I'm asking for approval here in case I missed something (and also to let you know of the change; are there any documentation pages to be updated?). We plan for the change to be deployed on October 26. Matma Rex (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I've merged the change and it will be deployed on October 26, as planned. Matma Rex (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed change to UploadWizard: Warnings about mismatched licenses and dates[edit]

Proposed change would result in UploadWizard displaying some new errors and warnings when the license selected by the user and the work creation date don't match. In particular:

  • We'd display an error (preventing the user from uploading a file) if:
    • Selected license is "First published in the United States before 1923" ({{PD-US}} or {{PD-1923}}) and selected date is after 1923
    • Selected license is "Author died more than 70 years ago" ({{PD-old}}) and selected date is less than 70 years ago
    • Selected license is "Author died more than 100 years ago" ({{PD-old-100}}) and selected date is less than 100 years ago
  • We'd display a warning (which can be bypassed) if:
    • Selected license is one of "Faithful reproduction of a painting that is in the public domain" ({{PD-Art}}), "Original work of the US Federal Government" ({{PD-USGov}}) or "Original work of NASA" ({{PD-USGov-NASA}}), and selected date is today

This looks like a good idea to me, but I'm asking for approval here in case I missed something (and also to let you know of the change; are there any documentation pages to be updated?). We plan for the change to be deployed on October 26. Matma Rex (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Sounds like a good idea :-). --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Sure I agree with the change, although I have felt like some people misunderstand the date field as an field for the date of upload, which it is not.--Snaevar (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Snaevar: It is clearly labelled as "Date work was created or first published" (MediaWiki:Mwe-upwiz-date-created), so I think that's unlikely. If they really do, I don't think we can help those people :( Matma Rex (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    Oh, right. I have not looked at UploadWizard for a while, so I do not think I have any cases after that label was added.--Snaevar (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • are you stopping the upload, or are you guiding the uploader to a better input? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Slowking4: The exact error message shown is e.g. "The selected date doesn't match the license (First published in the United States before 1923).", and the user can't proceed until they correct the date; hopefully that's guidance enough. Right now it won't always be possible to correct the license, because it's selected in the previous step and you can't go back – we're actually working on this too (, but it's not ready yet. Matma Rex (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    i sure hope you have a way to comply with the warning, rather than start over, i.e. for me that would be a show stopper. (and yeah the 2 step process is a minus compared to the other tools) Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    There may be a problem: if the original date is unknown, the easiest way to proceed is to guess at a random year satisfying the wizard. We can get a lot of hard to distinguish incorrect dates. I think we should explicitely suggest a way to say the date is not known to the uploader. "Unknown" is probably not the best option, as it is widely used when the year is unknown also to others. Suggesting a range (such as "before 1850", "1200-1300") might be better. A "before 1923" is obviously suspect, but should be allowed for this exact reason. --LPfi (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    @LPfi: Interesting point, but I think in this particular case this is unlikely to be a problem. In most cases it's easy to identify modern images vs ones that were taken 70 years ago, and I don't think intentional copyright violations are often exceptions to this. (As a side note, it is possible to specify any value for the "Date" field, including "unknown", and the user will be allowed to proceed with the upload if they type anything that is not an actual date.) Matma Rex (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Good idea. Face-smile.svg Poké95 03:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we agree this is an improvement, so I've merged the change and it will be deployed on October 26, as originally planned. It can still be reverted if anyone has a good objection, or if it turns out it causes copyright problems, but I don't expect that to happen. Thanks for the comments :) Matma Rex (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


Is this possible in commons? --Jos1950 (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It is impossible to give a general answer. It depends on the circumstances of each file. Ruslik (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
But usually, no, because we don't accept copyrighted images without an explicit license from the rights-holder. - Jmabel ! talk 21:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
But you can search, it's posible to find free logos because they are very simple (only text and simple shapes). See Commons:Threshold of originality. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 00:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
If it is simple, it is "free". Likewise if it is old enough or has an acceptable licence. So no, I cannot see when that category could be used here (else than as a path for deletion). --LPfi (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Incredibly, many simple logos are tagged in Wikipedia in English (and others) as "non free". E.g. this simple artistic interpretation of the real logo made by a local user: File:AP Films logo.png, that I recently transferred to Commons. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 02:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

User nominating images with sources for deletion with no sources template[edit]

I noted that User:Jcb is nominating images for deletion due to no source/etc. but I am afraid that this being done without due attention. As at least one image of mine was deleted (I did not react in time because the template that was used on my talk page was malformed and suggested it is a problem with description - see here) I've decided to bring this here, particularly as in the random 4 images nominated by that user for deletion I was able to find source in three, and perhaps all four images:

  • File:8e R.A.jpg - malformed description template, but clear source "collection personnelle"
  • File:Sachsen-koenig - coat of arms.jpg - source was given in the original edit summary, accessible through the Original upload log field (H.G.Ströhl, Deutsche Wappenrolle, 1897)
  • File:Sakai Cockpit A5M.jpg - source is given in the description. The image is also clearly labelled as public domain, and so secondary source is of little importance as it cannot change public domain status.
  • File:Sala Mauretańska sufit.jpg - no source, but uploader chose CC with attribution, whose wording suggests it is their own picture.

While case number 4 is somewhat dubious, I am afraid that this small selection calls Jcb's judgement into question. I am afraid that user is not reviewing the files carefully, perhaps uses some automated tool that also leaves broken notification templates on uploader's talk page. I'd like to ask Jcb to stop tagging files for deletion, revert him/herself and resume only once he addresses the concerns raised. In addition, community review of all files deleted due to that user's nominations may be in order. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I tag files for which the source information is not sufficient to determine copyright situation, which is obviously the case for all of these four files. If the community wants to review the about 50.000 files I have dealt with for the past six months, I wish them good luck. Jcb (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The community may then wish to stop you from creating further work for them, because as I've shown, your deletions and tagging are problematic. Why did you revert me at [2]? With no edit summary. This is clearly disruptive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is more:

Now, I am not saying all of your taggins are in error, I can't see a source for File:866corregidor map.jpg for example, and I support you there, but at least 50% of your recent tags seem dobious - source is given, or very easy to find. This IS a cause of concern, given how active you are in deleting things. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

    • Please be aware that in most countries you have to show that the author has died more than 70 years ago, so just the date of publication is often not enough. And no, my error rate is not 50% of course. Jcb (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I am perfectly happen to extend good faith and say it is maybe just the last few taggings of yours which have a bad ratio; it is certainly clear you are a dedicated and experienced volunteer who is doing a lot of helpful edits. But while we have to be vigilant regarding spam or other illegal uploads, we also have to be careful not to delete good images (and using correct templates). If you wish, we can discuss images on a case by case basis, but I do think they are anything but clear cut no-sources. -- 07:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC) (that was me, Piotrus, editing from a public computer)
      • I am posting here again since there have been reverts in file space without discussion anywhere that need to be addressed. Your attitude is not helpful, User:Jcb. At [4] instead of constructive edit summaries you are now threatening speedy deletion. This is just short of abuse of admin power - seems like you cannot produce any valid arguments, so you want to stifle discussion by deletion. (And Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion is not a toy for admins, you need to provide a valid speedy deletion rationale, which you have not done). You say on my talk that I can convert the discussion into a regular DF ([5]) but why should I do so? I identified a source. Your no source template is NOT VALID. Ditto in [6]. I explained, twice, that there is a source. You just keep reverting me without a rationale. This is a behavior not becoming of an admin; users who revert others and refuse to engage in discussion are classified on this site using a different terminology, I am afraid. If you have further concerns about this or another picture, you should not revert me without any comment, restoring the wrong template (which is what you have done several times now), but at the very least you should provide an informative edit summary (explaining why I was wrong), and ideally, if you still have concerns, since the speedy template is disputed (and by someone else then the original uploader), you should convert it to DR yourself (since you think there is a problem). I do not think there is a problem, so I see no need for a deletion discussion (or any template). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I have converted File:Karel Eichler.jpg and File:8e R.A.jpg to deletion requests. Jcb seems completely sure these are copyright violations, enough to repeatedly revert other contributors and threaten speedy deletions without a correct explanation. I suggest these are used as test cases for Jcb's judgement, as there seems to be a very obvious issue that these look to be fundamentally public domain images of the type that most contributors believe are in the public interest to host on Commons and which administrators should make all reasonable efforts to avoid removal on bureaucratic grounds rather than factual grounds. -- (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

After a brief examination of the above two files I raised DRs for, I can see no good reason for Jcb to engage in revert-warring over the no source template and to threaten speedy deletion and to give warnings to the uploaders without a more detailed explanation of their actions. For an administrator, the actions on these files appear inappropriately aggressive and tendentious. I suggest other administrators experienced in the appropriate judgement of when to require hyperlinked sources and when to make a judgement about public domain material that does not need a hyperlinked source, chip in with their views. Thanks -- (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring on speedy deletion tags is inappropriate, we have deletion requests for that. But I write here to make an admission: lately I've been using the "no source" tag also for sources which I believe to be blatantly incorrect, mostly uploads by newbies sourced as "own work". The reason is that the helpful script leaves an informative message, unlike {{Copyvionote}} which does not say anything specific. Nemo 10:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Refer to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_of_User:Piotrus. -- (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: it would be useful if {{Disputed}} could be set up to leave similar user notifications for "low-risk" images which are likely to be public domain, or have valid sources added with a bit of research, rather than forcing the 7-day limit before deletion on everything. Maybe this is something to request on Phabricator as a change to the listed Tools? That way certain administrators would avoid getting into un-mellow spats over files that need housekeeping, but are highly unlikely to ever be real copyright problems. -- (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
yes, we need a process to improve metadata, and deletion / doubt source is not it. it is a standard of practice by some, to delete file rather than fix license or source link. this tends to undermine the credibility of commons. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why these files couldn't have gone to DR. It's a clearer and more overt action that gives more people time to see them and fix them if possible.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think everyone except Jcb agrees. I hope that after the outcome on COM:AN, he will accept the trout-slap for his tendentious behaviour, rather than wasting everyone's time with more of the same nonsense. Based on the past record, I doubt we are going to see Jcb apologise to anybody, or even admit to doing anything wrong. -- (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I've been checking the categories under Category:Media without a source (the day by day cats) by taking a look at files which (visually) look like they might be PD-old or PD-gov-US. I've found that for quite some of the files I've been able to find a source with just a few clicks and found that in a lot of other cases further discussion is necessary. Often this discussion is about the licensing of the file. For example whether it is reasonable to put a pd-old template on a 1890 file. Those kinds of discussions should be dealt with using a deletion request and not a no-source-with-7-day-deletion method. By checking these categories from the last few days I've already been able to find circa 20 files which have been saved from deletion. These files are often widely used and more than 10 years old. I find it shameful that we as a community allow for such valuable (widely used) files to be deleted with so little procedure. Given that I've been able to identify the sources for an average of circa 5 files a day in these categories, and the number of 50,000 cases Jcb mentions above, I estimate that thousands of validly hosted and often valuable files have been deleted in this manner. Often these files have initially been hosted by local Wikipedia's and were later moved here. How can local Wikipedia's trust us to host their (valid) images if we throw them away without too much of an investigation. The current methods hurt Wikimedia Commons and its free content to an enormous extent. Basvb (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
A very good point and indeed this is our main concern: we should take all due care to protect PD content from deletion. Having no source should NOT be an auto-deletion criteria, not where there is any reasonable doubt that a source may not be needed. Please see Template_talk:No_source_since#Valid_licence.2FPD_but_lacking_source. I think we need to develop best procedures for using no source and similar images, which clearly state that not all cases should end in deletion after 7 days. Many should be converted into deletion discussions. We also need to accept that images with no source have right to exist (if there are clearly PD otherwise). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
we see a rise in use of "doubt source", and mass "doubt sources" of uploader, rather than engage on talk, or DR. because why waste time when you can semi-automatically give adversive direction. we need training in how to curate images and collaborate with uploaders. those who do not want to professionalize their conduct may need to get a goodbye. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
We should open a COM:AN/U for Jcb (as I intended a few weeks before). Unfortunately Commons has not an admin-critic-system like Wikipedias and admins here are more like master of the universe. I've much more examples of this aggressive and irrational behavior, which is more like vandalism (I've evidence for this judgment). User: Perhelion 10:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
well, the problem is systemic more than an individual. the last time he got talked about at AN/U it degenerated into admin bickering. we need some training and professionalism among the admin class. there is a fundamental lack of standards of practice. will they be motivated by this case to elevate their conduct? i wish it were so, but i doubt it. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 17:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see also Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Files_uploaded_by_VirginRedemption where JCB deleted images as "out of scope" after all the discussing parties reached consensus that the files should be kept. --Jarekt (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to halt all unsourced cross-wiki transfers[edit]

I suggest the following proposal in the light of the highly probable significant loss of Public Domain education material that the current processes for cross-wiki transfers have encouraged, and the absence of improvement to the way Commons administrators are deleting unsourced public domain files. Refer to the estimates by Basvb above, which I find highly believable.

  1. All cross-wiki bot transfers of media without explicit and verifiable sources are to stop, if necessary by blocking the relevant bot accounts if the operator is unavailable.
  2. Cross-wiki transfers by bot can only restart once a bot operator has confirmed that sources have a tested verification process. This need not require hyperlinks, but sources must be verifiable and reliable, such as standard source book references.
  3. Rejected cross-wiki transfers should be marked as such, indicating on their home wiki that there is a problem with sourcing that requires a manual fix.
  4. Sources which are "own" or to a Flickr account, must be verified as by established accounts. Uploads from accounts with very few remaining uploads, or accounts that are blocked or banned, should not be considered "established".

Note that the community will need to agree some numbers for what "established" should be, just to help out the bot operators decide how to do the checks. Thanks -- (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I doubt whether the new uploading of unsourced images is the real problem here. In this query (other cat) you can find an overview of the years in which the files in Category:Images without source have been uploaded, there you can see that the bulk of the images is older than a few years. That doesn't mean that I oppose your idea, I simply think that we should not forget to focus (as well) on the images that are already here and which need attention. We should be able to find a less destructive way to deal with this backlog. Basvb (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I would not be against moving all unsourced transfers back to their 'home' wiki, regardless of age, and not moving them back until they have been reviewed correctly. As has been said, these mass deletions of public domain media files uploaded in good faith, do not help the reputation of Commons one bit. -- (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
the problem is that some of these are ancient, and the transfers are semi-automatic without regard to source. and the broken transfer process breaks what little sourcing is there, i.e. changing author to transfer bot. and the wiki may have a different view about sourcing, i.e. we had the case of the person who bought a copyright release with the print and uploaded to english, and then the files were transfered, and deleted on english, and then later deleted on commons when the paperwork was not otrs'ed years later. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 17:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Moving files back to the home wiki is impossible in the case of e.g. sv-wp, which has no local repository. And the files moved back would not be usable elsewhere. We also have truly problematic files uploaded on projects other than Commons, which should be deleted here instead of left on the original project. So, the problems have to be solved here.
Even verifying the source does not help, as some administrators place absurd burden on the source. One example linked above included the requirement that an anonymous photographer should be proved anonymous or otherwise the death year of the probably 90+ years old photographer found. In another, "Private collection" was not enough as source, as that would not allow proving the copyrigt status (which above is stated as a requirement for the "source").
In an earlier case, the link being dead and the file not available at the source anymore was reason for deletion (the administrator suggested the verification scheme should have been used – is it really used for places like governmental web sites?).
I think the problem is our having very different views on how much evidence we should have to keep an image, the function of the source information, and when the no nource since template should be used. The views should be consolidated, with adinistrators stopping with these deletions until we reach consensus.
--LPfi (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to ban Jcb from using the 'no source' template for six months[edit]

While we consider procedural and policy changes, the vast majority of problems in applying the {{no source}} template in the last few months can be sourced to the actions of one user, Jcb. In the light of this administrator's tendentious edit-warring and highly inappropriate and incompetent use of the administrator tools in relation to their aim to mark for deletion files that have been automatically flagged as unsourced, regardless of the fact of whether sources are in the description, or the image page history, or whether the image is very clearly out of copyright so need not be deleted. Many contributors no longer have any trust in Jcb to apply this template or to use the admin tools to delete files affected. Refer to the history on AN for background. Banning Jcb from using this template need not affect their valued volunteer efforts on other backlogs.

I am raising this proposal on the Village Pump, due to people recently affected by Jcb's actions not all following the discussions about Jcb that have been raised on administrator noticeboards, including several serious admonishments from fellow administrators that Jcb has ignored. For this reason it seems more representative to gain a sense of consensus here, where more non-administrators may take part.

Please add a support or oppose below; I suggest raising longer comments, discussion and discussion of specific cases in a sub-section.


Jcb is to be banned from using the {{no source}} template on any image for six months. Should Jcb continue to use this template, or any variation of it, their account will be subject to a series of escalating blocks.

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer. -- (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. There's no reason to try to take sysop tools one at a time from a sysop. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as currently drafted. This ban would be incompatible with Jcb's duties as an administrator, so there would need to be discussion about whether or not a de-sysop request is justified in the circumstances. Nick (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't see how this is incompatible. Refraining from using this template is not part of sysop tools and Jcb could raise DRs or use the {{disputed}} template as more collegiate alternatives to achieve precisely the same objective. Sorry to say this, but being an administrator does not give you a free pass from responsibilities that would be enforced for non-admin accounts, this is explicitly stated in COM:Administrators. The continual deferring of corrective action until things have got so bad we must have a desysop vote is a simple form of the Super Mario effect, giving Jcb special immunity because they have sysop rights, rather than treating the account in the same way as we would for any non-administrator account. -- (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
      • You misunderstand, if any administrator was to be barred from performing a less complicated task, such as tagging files as having no source, it raises the obvious problem about whether they can be trusted to have continued access to the administrator toolset. The question is thus - is Jcb's conduct unbecoming of an administrator. Nick (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
        • if a user misuses a tool, then maybe a tool timeout is warranted. conduct is separate from trust. (just ask doc james) the all or nothing mindset is part of the problem. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The {{no source}} means no source, not an admin thinking the source is wrong. The latter requires explanation and probably discussion, so COM:DR is the right way in this case. And, source is not required if it is not necessary to resolve the copyright status. If, as it is suggested in previous opinion, using {{no source}} is an admin tool, I would consider this situation as misuse of admin tool. Nominating for deletion because the uploader made a little mistake (and even without notifying the real uploader) does not made Commons better. Ankry (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @Ankry: Imagine you find a file with an obviously wrong source... say a photograph of a modern politician, whose source states "Olmec inscription"... are you saying an admin should not remove the obviously incorrect source and cannot tag it as {{no source}}? What if the source reads "Z" or "source" ? Are you saying if it was not literally blank at the time of upload, it cannot be tagged "no source" and should go through DR? Storkk (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
      • @Storkk: Removing absolutely bogus source information is OK to me. But I do not think that adding {{no source}} is OK if a source information (even bogus) is present or if it is misplaced or when copyright status can be determined without a source. And something totaly meaningless for one person may be clear for another (eg. "Source = s.25" (or "p.25")) may be clear information if it is stated in the description that it is an image from a specified book. IMO, it is better to let somebody else to look at it in a DR if any doubts or, especially, if the uploader is not or cannot be easily notified (bot upload/cross-wiki upload).
And please note, we are not talking about desysoping (I appreciate Jcb's work in other fields). This is just suggestion to avoid a specific template (he would be still free to create DR's, delete files, prepare lists of unsourced files for other admins' review, etc.) Ankry (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ankry: I was trying to clarify your statement that "{{no source}} means no source, not an admin thinking the source is wrong". I have often done exactly that, and as long as we agree that bogus information doesn't count, then I think we're discussing a matter of perception rather than clear black and white. IMO this points further towards my suggestion below of changing policy to nobody using {{no source}} on files over a certain age. Storkk (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I believe it's better to discuss these issues with Jcb and on COM:AN/U, not in the main village pump. Such a discussion could (should IMO) include both the administrative tools as well as tagging files without a source. In this stage I still hope that a discussion indicating that some working methods are considered harmful (by a broad range of users) and a short cool down on the side of Jcb to consider his methods are a solution. However for that to work Jcb needs to involve himself in the discussions concerning his working methods. I understand that this is not easy to do and that the current discussion can feel like an attack on ones person. However the current working methods: tagging files with doubts about the validity of the source or license as having no source (there are sources, but Jcb doesn't agree with them, often correctly, sometimes incorrectly) as well as blocking/deleting users/files with which Jcb has an issue/nominated himself, are harming our project. Basvb (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now. I have not seen suitable evidence of widespread "incompetence" presented here. Instead users have cherry-picked a handful of images they contest. A quick glance at Fae's talk page and archives will reveal thousands of his uploaded images posted for DR. Are we to conclude Fae is "incompetent" wrt copyright or scope issues and should be banned from uploading for six months, or consider that in the light of the couple of million uploads he's done. I'll assume the same for now of Jcb, who is rather active as an admin unlike some we've discussed recently, unless we have clear evidence that he gets it wrong too frequently. Seems to me Jcb is being made a scapegoat for the huge backlog of unexamined uploads and for poorly written bots that lose information. Perhaps he needs additional help in examining these files with poor/no sources rather than a constant stream of attacks. Images that are not reliably documented with a source and evidence of their free licence or PD are worthless to our re-users. -- Colin (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose mostly per Colin. I'd support a change in policy, though, to confine {{nsd}} and {{npd}} to files younger than, say, 6 months. Storkk (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh come on. Months of tagging PD works that have been here for years and can be easely fixed only to delete them yourself 7 days later isn's widespread incompetence? Tagging complex cases for months which should go to a DR isn's widespread incompetence? We don't need a policy change merely because one user abuses the tagg. Natuur12 (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Natuur12 I've seen the noticeboard posts. What's the ratio of success to failure? And how much better would the next average admin do (given that nobody's perfect). What we've got here looks like someone commenting on all the dead bodies coming out of a hospital and concluding that it should be shut down. How many images does Jcb investigate and locate/fix sources or correct licence tags? How many are correctly tagged and deleted? How much effort are people expecting an admin to spend investigating each image. For example, 10 minutes work per image for 1000 images is 16 weeks at two hours a day, five days a week. Is there a particular class of image that is a problem (e.g. PD old). Is the problem the tag or the fact that it serves a 7 day death sentence on images where the uploader is no longer active -- in that case, the community needs to revise the procedures so we know the steps/policy that applies to everyone. There was an attempt at something like this before, but it confused procedural policy with hosting policy. Natuur12, perhaps you could mediate because it seems clear Jcb won't talk to Fae. -- Colin (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
      • (Edit conflict) I see it differently... is there really any reason to use {{nsd}} or {{npd}} on old images? I don't see a major drawback to confining them to young files. I have used those templates on older files, and always felt a little uncomfortable doing so, because the whole point of the templates is to get the original uploader to fix the error while things are fresh... what percentage of uploaders from ~2 years ago are even still active? Why not just put them through a DR, where they are more easily seen by a wider variety of people, and can be referred back to by non-admins, and are also much less likely to cause contention. I see Jcb's actions apparently much less black-and-white than you or Fae. I see a difference in interpretation of "source" requirements, perhaps mistaken, and perhaps pursued overly enthusiastically. I agree that these all probably shouldn't have been tagged {{nsd}} ... but IMO neither should other old files. That's where I think the appropriate remedy lies here, I don't see a sanctionable offence. And I'm not shocked that Jcb has made some errors, nor should you be. Maybe he should slow down a bit - but that's a totally different discussion, and not one I would participate in. Storkk (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
        • @Colin: Please see the post made by Basvb at 18:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC) for some estimated numbers. He should just slow down and take more time investigating images. Having no backlog at no permission, no source and deletion request is nice but if Jcb and INC would just slow down a bit other admins would have a change to help. I used to close some series of deletion requests in the evening for example but because they are rushing through our backlogs there is nothing left. If Jcb would slow down in that area he would have more time to investigate the sources.
He is blocking people he gets in conflict with, behaving dickish when people complain about deletions, taggings etc, not responding to questions and complaints from his fellow admins. I am not sure if we can resolve this. Natuur12 (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok I see that post now, though it only looks at tagged files, not really easy to work out how many files Jcb examined and (a) decided were fine or (b) corrected or added sources or licence fixes to. I agree there is an issue with Jcb not participating in these discussions, though I suspect that's partly because fae keeps starting them and various people are itching to remove his admin bit. So we have a communication problem. But we also have a general problem with the procedure whereby tagged images always get deleted 7 days later, and everyone here seems to think that should only happen for newly uploaded files, whereas older files should presumably go onto some DR or backlog pile for people to work through. I do agree with you that it isn't good for any admin to be over productive. Perhaps fixing our procedural policy would be the least confrontational approach? -- Colin (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jcb's recent actions made me worried that all files that were uploaded years ago will be deleted blindly just because it lacks a source or the source provided is not sufficient. And their block of Piotrus is also inappropriate, so that's why I am no longer trusting this admin anymore. -- Poké95 13:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I clicked on a random day in the Category:Media without a source: 16 October 2016. I picked the first three files that JCB had tagged:

  • File:800px-Oceanie2.png. The file is confusingly both released into Public Domain and GFDL. This was created by User:Domaleixo who was blocked permanently in 2012 for copying the illustrations out of books. Seems like someone needs to investigate why his other uploads are still not deleted. We've been illegally using this file since 2007. There's even an SVG created from it.
  • File:866corregidor map.jpg. This claims PD US GOV and was uploaded by en:User:Celebrity historian. That user hasn't been active since September 2006. Their talk page is full of messages, since August 2006, about the lack of sourcing for their images. So clearly there has been a known problem with this person's images since 2006 yet it was transferred to Commons in 2009. That's indicative of a systemic problem with Commons accepting material other wikis already know isn't acceptable.
  • File:86th BCT.jpg. Another PD US GOV. Uploaded by en:User:Mikeofv who is still active on Wikipedia but has not been notified that their image lacks a source. This has been discussed before -- the wikipedia transfer bot has been notified instead!

So this is a bigger problem than just Jcb, and we are failing to notice (and thank) Jcb for helping to delete content (like the first one of three above) that we've been hosting illegally for nearly a decade. There's definitely a problem here, with Jcb, with transfer bots, with tag->delete processes, with the user notification mechanism, but also a big problem with Commons hosting material and Wikipedia using material illegally and which nobody is removing in a timely manner. -- Colin (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you think we should stop accepting automated transfers where the original uploader is no longer active (less than 10 edits in the last 90 days, or some other metric) ?
I'd also suggest we shouldn't be allowing automated transfers where the original uploader is now blocked/banned on their home/source wiki. I mention automated uploads - manual transfer with careful analysis of the images would of course continue to be permitted/encouraged. Nick (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Please see User:Basvb/nosource for an investigation of all the files tagged no-source on the 15th of October by Jcb. Of course the conclusions are influenced by my personal opinion, but I believe it gives a good overview of an average day and relevant percentages. On the other hand Jcb has indicated on my talk page (in Dutch) that he is reading the discussions and takes into account the feedback. I think the considerations on the files from the 15th of October shows that often the cases are more complicated than should be handled using a simple no-source tag. Limiting the no-source tag (and maybe the same for similar tags meant to warn users) for files uploaded in the last 1-3 years seems like a good solution to me. Older files can often benefit from a broader discussion via a DR. Basvb (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
It's worth looking for no source + PD licenses where it becomes easy to see obvious PD files, such as reproductions of works more than 200 years old or where the source is given in the description, it's just not a hyperlink. The report is, but most problematic files have been removed in the last few hours. When the error rate is greater than 10% then the process is not working, so it's interesting to read through Basvb's analysis which shows there was only a 50/50 chance that a templated file was suitable for speedy deletion once scrutinized by other volunteers. -- (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Basvb, very helpful, with the limitations you point out. And I note your comment "investing so much time for all images is not something that I expect to be reasonable". We must remember that for those tagged no source by Jcb, there are many others left untouched, or source added, or licence corrected, or sent to DR, etc, etc. The practical element of this must be considered: if people are uploading unreliable images faster than our admins can review them, say, then our repository will fill with cruft that makes it very useless for re-users. Nick, I don't know the details of the transfer bots. It seems some wikis are not doing their job wrt checking images, so perhaps we need to consider those wikis are utterly unreliable and thus every image transferred must be examined by a human. There was an earlier attempt by Fae to change the policy wrt this template leading to deletion, but it suggested changing our precautionary principle hosting policy, which was completely the wrong focus. I see no need to change our hosting policies but a desperate need to change our procedural ones wrt this template. As has been widely pointed out, for files we have hosted for years, the assumption that the uploader can rapidly fix the issue does not hold. Either that uploader has gone or the tool isn't correctly picking up the Wikipedian who uploaded it and so is templating the transfer bot. I would support a change to our procedures that prevent files older than 1 year, say, being automatically deleted for "no source", though that obviously requires some commitment from admins to do more DR.
I would also be interested if the same analysis could be done for other editors adding nosource tags (I saw Hedwig and Ellin in the category I looked at, perhaps there are others). My guess is that a second pair of eyes on these images may also demonstrate more than Fae's 10% error rate threshold (error being that the file probably shouldn't be speedied, which is Basvb's analysis, rather than being that the file shouldn't be deleted). It's simply a contentious area whether an image is "obviously" lacking necessary evidence or is "probably" lacking the necessary evidence and users will disagree. We can't design a perfect system. Other pragmatic suggestions might be that a file that is in-use must go to DR. Both changes could surely be handled by the tool detecting the upload/tranfer date and also the in-use on other projects links. There clearly aren't enough people doing this job, if we've hosted many deletionable images for nearly a decade, so we need to improve the system to target those files most likely to be faulty and to take extra care with those files most likely to harm our project if wrongly deleted. Simply demanding perfection (or eliminating a user who is generally doing a useful job) will only make the backlog grow and we'll be hosting these files illegally for another decade. I'm glad to see comments that Jcb is reading this and considering it, so I hope we see a more cautious approach to using this tag in future. -- Colin (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support i've long been concerned with the projection of black and white, when for me, there is a lot of gray area, and a lot of low risk items. this conduct is impacting the reputation of commons. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support With the caveat that nothing I have seen since I first encounter Jcb on Monday makes me believe he is suited to be an admin, and I'd support removing sysop privileges, since he has abused not only the template in question, but also other more important tools, such as the block button (which was used to silence me for no other reason then I disagreed with him; I have yet to receive a single word of apology from that user). Further, the fact that the editor has not even bothered to explain him/herself here suggests to me that they still believe they did nothing wrong (and perhaps can do no wrong...), and that all of our talk here is meaningless fuming. Several editors have suggested that this should be discussed at COM:AN/U and whatever the outcome of this discussion here, I think it should be continued there (and if it is, I'd appreciate a ping). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jcb does "an important work", but I say only COM:Forum #Quellenangabe bei Wappen / amtlichen Werken…. He deleted (SVG) images with source (reference) and also don't replaced the SVG with the JPG source on deletion (without deletion log), although mentioned and pinged. User: Perhelion 14:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: I was skepical at first, about this sectorial, temporary taking awa of admin tools. But seems that it is feassable, judging from some of the above, so I join the chorus: This will prevent further deletions of important material. Faulty file pages should, of course, be improved, and actual copyvios should be deleted. -- Tuválkin 20:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fix the technical issues if any. An admin need to be trusted to use all tools available to do his duties. If the trust is compromised, go for de-admin. Jee 03:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
    Adding a "no source" template is not a sysop tool. Poké95 05:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
    Who said its a sysop tool? Read carefully. Jee 05:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Also Symbol support vote.svg Support de-admin. Why? Frequent incivility. On top of all the comments I see here and have noticed elsewhere:
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have just deleted half a dozen images marked "no source" by Jcb. I have also kept two. As far as I am concerned that is a very much more than acceptable ratio. Even if his "no source" nominations were wrong 80% of the time -- which is nowhere near the case -- bringing problems to our attention is a good thing. I think the problem is that when you do as much work on Commons as Jcb does, there inevitably are mistakes and, since he does more than all but one of us, he makes more mistakes even though his error rate (as measured by successful DRs and UnDRs) is lower than average.
A suggestion, that might eliminate some of the problem. Now that our DR backlog is under control (thanks in large part to INC and Jcb - 60% of deletions are their work) perhaps the active Admins could go to work on Category:Images without source which has 52,000 images in it. We probably need a new template to put in the "Source=" line which will keep the bot from adding them to this category. I would suggest something like "reviewed by license reviewer or administrator x and found to be OK even though there is no stated source). On the other hand, I see at least half a dozen image on the first page of the category that ought to either be {{Speedy}} or {{Delete}}. And, of course, there are many there where the source is in the description line and the bot can't find it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
With regard to the raw numbers point, you used a very small sample to come to an opinion. The statistics like yours of 2/8 were keeps may seem of marginal concern, but once we are talking a failure rate of 20% to 25% in 1,000 or 50,000 deletions, that's an unacceptable failure rate which loses a significant number of valuable public domain images from Commons. If you check the prior discussion around stats, this used a slightly different sample space. I assert that based on my using searches like this, limiting the statistics to deletions where there were public domain licence templates on the images will yield a much higher rate, like 50% being keeps, which then becomes weak enough to let a simple bot take care of the backlog. As you have sysop rights and can analyse deleted images, it would be very useful if you could do some analysis along these lines for images which Jcb has deleted in the past, rather than analysing just those which have not yet been deleted. -- (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
If we're going to fling imaginary numbers around based on random guesses of error rates, 1,000 "no source" deletions with an imaginary 20% error rate is 800 violations of our COM:PRP and a substatial number of these will be copyright violations. So while some might weep for the imaginary 200 images that might have been saved given an imaginary number of imaginarily productive admins spening an imaginary number of hours of investigations, it is very likely that a much larger number of images are being illegally hosted by Commons and published on Wikipedia against the wishes of a large number of very not-imaginary photographers and artists.
This whole topic should have been conducted as a discussion on how the community best deal with the issue and to come up with consensus on best practice, policy changes and procedural changes. Instead, it is started as yet another attack on Jcb. Can we just stop the personal attacks for a while and discuss this complex area without trying to ban someone or encourage a whole lot of pile-on spleen-venting by people who aren't offering any solutions or to volunteer to spend their evenings doing it any better. -- Colin (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strongly oppose: I think Colin made some very valid points above and also Jameslwoodward. Let's get back to work and stop personal attacks on others. Period. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Is Template:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer de facto a blanked exception for FoP Italy on historical monuments?[edit]

I asked this at Template talk:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer, but nobody replied there for several days. I think this question deserves clarification, as it could affect numerous images. It could also lead to the need to review Category:Italian FOP cases, as IF it can be used to justify keeping such images, we may be able to restore some content that was deleted in the past before this template was introduced. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The answer to your question is no. Commons is not necessarily concerned with exceptional restrictions such as those in the cultural heritage law of one country. A reuser, outside Commons, who would contemplate republishing in Italy the image of a monument affected by the cultural heritage law should be careful. On Commons, the template "Soprintendenza" can be added to the description page as a warning to those reusers in Italy. The other template "Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer" seems to be specifically for images taken in the context of Wiki loves monuments Italy, after 12 September 2012, of monuments on the lists provided to WM Italy by the cultural heritage administrators, in application of the agreement between Wikimedia Italy and the ministry of cultural heritage. The background explanation for the agreement is not entirely clear, but that seems to be the idea. Both warning templates are about the same topic, but they would apply to different files. Note that all that has nothing to do with "FoP", as Commons uses this jargon term in the context of copyright law. Copyright law and cultural heritage law are distinct. If someone wants to publish in Italy the image of a monument that is under copyright, they should comply with the copyright law. If someone wants to publish in Italy the image of a monument that is under the cultural heritage law, they should comply with that law. I would expect that many monuments that are old enough to be under the cultural heritage law are old enough to be out of copyright, but someone who publishes in Italy should comply with all applicable laws there. The way FoP is managed on Commons may be discussed, but it is unrelated to the templates about the cultural heritage law of Italy. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, as we see monuments being put up for deletion under the current FOP guidelines which should not, then yes the section there ought to be extended to explain what was agreed with WMIT. Though WMIT were assured by their lawyer that the outcome was equivalent to CC-BY-SA, we do not have an expert view on public record which lays out the case.
My reading is that the outcome is not limited to WLM type events in Italy, but it is limited to the list of cultural monuments. We probably should have the list on Commons or available as a list from Wikidata, so the guideline can link to it in a definitive way. At the current time we probably have deleted photographs unnecessarily and there may be cases where we have incorrectly applied the template, but in those cases of ancient buildings the separate concern of the rights of architects do not apply. @CristianCantoro: -- (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Indeed, Commons does not forbid the uploading and hosting of free media just because some types of external uses of the media may be subject to restrictions in some particular contexts or in some particular locations. That's one of the ideas expressed in Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. Applications of this general principle include uses that may be affected by trademarks, personality rights or regulations that have a local application only. The consensus is that Commons does not impose, on all its users and reusers worldwide, all sorts of non-copyright restrictions that may exist locally in the laws of some countries or in the bylaws of some municipalities, given that such local restrictions apply only to the use of the media inside the country or municipality in question, and do not affect the use of the media elsewhere. In some cases, users of Commons may add an information template to inform readers of a restriction that exists on a type of use or on the use in a particular location. Some of the examples in the page Commons:Non-copyright restrictions are the templates Trademarked, Personality rights, SpomenikSVN, Soprintendenza. They are optional templates. Any user may add them to description pages where it can provide a useful information. Files are not deleted from Commons when they don't have such an optional information template about a non-copyright restriction. For cultural heritage monuments in Italy, the information template Soprintendenza exists since 2008. It is the information template that applies to images in general of such monuments. Nothing has changed about that. Free images in general of Italian monuments that are and always were allowed on Commons did not suddenly become forbidden or subject to special restrictions on Commons when WM-It and MiBAC in 2012 concluded a particular agreement between them in the context of Wiki Loves Monuments Italy.
  • I think the template Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer should be limited to files of Wiki Loves Monuments Italy and published within the frame of the WM-It-MiBAC agreement. The wording of this template is mandated by a contractual agreement between parties external to Commons. The wording of this template is unmodifiable by Commons. Well, in the technical sense, we could of course modify or delete it, but that would put WM-It in trouble. So, we shouldn't modify it. I suppose we can accept that situation, as long as it does not interfere with the rest of Commons. However, we should not allow this template on which we have no control to creep on the rest of the project on files other than strictly the files uploaded pursuant to the WM-It-MiBAC agreement.
  • Lists of monuments are included in the various statements of adhesion by the local administrators of cultural heritage at the municipal level, available from there. I just looked at two of the 2016 statements. They mention specifically the context of WLM-It and they require specifically the use of the license CC-BY-SA 4.0 Italy for the photographs published in the context of those statements. (However, according to the CC FAQ, ported versions of the CC licenses 4.0 do not exist. I guess the requirement will have to be interpreted either as CC-BY-SA 4.0 international, or as CC-BY-SA 3.0 Italy, or as an interdiction to publish photographs.) The stated objective of WM-It for its agreement with the MiBAC was to make sure that contributors to WLM-It, especially contributors who reside in Italy, would not run into trouble with respect to the local non-copyright cultural heritage law. WM-It did not negotiate in my name, or (I assume) in your name, or in the name of the community of Commons, or in the name of all the communities of all the Wikimedia projects. Whatever obligations WM-It (or any other individual user or group of users, for that matter) agreed to bind itself to, must not force those obligations on all users of the Wikimedia projects who have nothing to do with it. If a resident of the U.S. travels to Italy and, after returning to the U.S., he publishes his photos of Italian monuments on the server of Commons in the U.S., he can use a free license of his choice, not a license chosen by a municipal administrator. Actually, I think that both WM-It and the MiBAC acted reasonably within the limits of their own rights only, knowing that they can bind only themselves. So, I think that WM-It didn't claim to represent all past present and future users of Wikimedia and that the MiBAC didn't expect that the cultural heritage law of Italy would rule the whole world, including outside Italy. If the MiBAC expected that, we would have a big disagreement.
  • The lawyers of WM-It do not say that the information template Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer is equivalent to a CC license. They merely remind something that is already known and explained in the information pages of Commons and of Creative Commons. The fact that laws, or other reasons independent of the will of the photographer-licensor, may restrict some types of reuses by a reuser-licensee in some particular contexts or locations, is not incompatible with the fact that the photographer-licensor can offer his own photographic work under a free CC license. The photographer-licensor releases some of his own rights and allows the free use of his own work. But, with CC licenses starting with version 2.0, he does not offer a warranty that the photograph will never be encumbered with something beyond his own rights. (The notable exceptions to this principle are the CC licenses version 1.0, which include such a warranty from the licensor. Which is a reason why Commons contributors should be careful before they offer a CC license version 1.0, unless they know exactly what they are doing.)
  • I'm not sure to what you refer when you refer to a section of the FoP guidelines. I don't know if we have such a thing. If you think of the COM:FOP page, it's not a guideline and it should not be seen as one. It is a hodgepodge and different users see it in different ways. In my view, the basic usefulness of the page is that it gives information and links, about local restrictions in the different countries, to help external reusers get a general idea about which files from Commons they can or can't reuse in one country or another. (That's mostly about FoP in a copyright-related sense. But should we ask users not to include information about non-copyright restrictons? I don't know. It may not be unreasonable for readers, who wonder if they can use a file in country X, to expect to find a mention about both copyright and non-copyright restrictions of country X.) On the other hand, I know that some users use the page for a different purpose, as a sort of collection of suggestions about what they should upload to Commons. Over the years, the page has turned into a collection of various things. The problem is not the objective information about the laws of the countries, information with which the readers can do what hey want, but the problems start when some users try to use the page to tell other users what should be done on Commons. The dual use of the page may cause misunderstandings. Maybe we need two pages. A page about what can be taken from Commons and reused in different countries remains unproblematic, the obvious limitation being that we can give only a superficial idea of the laws, but otherwise such a page could be relatively objective. On the other hand, a page claiming to be used as a guide about what should be uploaded to Commons would remain problematic and, actually, the difficulties about such a page are just a symptom of the disagreements, still unresolved, about what might be a sensible policy of Commons about matters related to FoP.
-- Asclepias (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

FSA file without source[edit]

Skip tub on a blast furnace


does anyone find this FSA file at It must be from there, but the uploader has concealed its source.--Kopiersperre (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

There. See also this file. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
the old uploads you should be able to find at LOC. back in the day they did not link as we would like, overwriting with a higher rez is bad form. all the HAER ones have been mass uploaded by Fae. i see user:Revent has linked those versions together. welcome to metadata cleanup. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, correctly attributing the many images we have by en:Jet Lowe from that source has been an on-and-off task of mine for a while now. Reventtalk 22:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Slowking4: could you clarify "overwriting with a higher rez is bad form", please? If it is related to metadata, the only metadata that appears in the low resolution version states that camera make/model was Sinar 54H, which obviously refers to the scanner digitizer and not to the original photograph. Storkk (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
well i did not want to name names but here [7] replacing a 598 KB image with a 5.87 MB one, when there is a 17.22 MB tif (elsewhere that you had to find) does not add much value. see also Commons:Overwriting existing files but i have seen worse cases of over writing. the larger problem is the backlog of LOC photographs in information template without good metadata. the upload tools are not helpful. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 12:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm still having trouble understanding your objection unless it is that I didn't perform this at the same time. If that's really your objection, I'm a little baffled. That's analogous to saying you shouldn't correct a typo in a Wikipedia article unless you're going to bring the whole article to GA status. Wikis, including this one, are built incrementally and collaboratively, and I'm not sure how uploading a higher quality JPEG is possibly detrimental. Storkk (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
i've uploaded a few thousand jpg + tif's from LOC. uploading a bigger jpg than the download options from LOC, but smaller than the tif is a tiny improvement. users who want the highest rez will go to the tif. i'm finding my time best spent cleaning up metadata so users can find the image, or uploading the huge backlog of LOC images not uploaded. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 12:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
You cannot upload a .tif over a .jpg, and the new jpg is not smaller (in pixels, obviously) than the tif. Am I just being dense? Storkk (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
the tif is 17.22 MB > 5.87 MB, you had to convert the tif to jpg and downsize it to upload it over the jpg. it seems like a lot of work for a file not much in use. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
So are you saying that my uploading a larger resolution jpeg is either somehow worsening it, or that it is hampering some other effort with the tiffs? "Bad form" implies there is some kind of deleterious effect of my actions, and I'm sorry but I'm just not seeing it. If you're instead complaining that I didn't either upload the tiff or link the tiff, that is again akin to telling someone not to correct a typo in an article if they're not going to fix all its issues. It seems rather a perverse way of looking at it. And of course JPEGs are smaller on disk, but I'm really struggling to see any relevance of that whatsoever. Storkk (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

October 21[edit]

canadian user uploading us pronunciations[edit] This user is uploading en-us sound files ( ) despite the fact that he's canadian and has certain canadian pronunciations.. I don't think this is right. Canadians have different pronunciations of words. Here is a map of the different NA dialect via map. I think something should be done about this. At the very least he should of uploaded them with en-ca-community.ogg or something like that. Some of the vowels are different. Labov made that map of the NA map who is a highly regarded lingustic. Rezfan83 (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I clicked through a decent amount and didn't notice any major problems. Have you tried contacting K6ka and giving him pointers on the ones you found problematic, so he can correct them?Offnfopt(talk) 04:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The way many of the vowels are pronounced are different. I gave you a link to a dialect coach that even confirmed this. Then I gave a link to Labovs dialct map. I'm not for deleting them, but they should be renamed en-ca and not en-us. How is not having accuracy "not a problem?" Rezfan83 (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Which specific pronunciations did you find problems with? Offnfopt(talk) 04:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
FOr example the a and I in some of his pronunciations are most certainly Canadian. Even is some words the "e" is different. The "I" really glides. I can tell he didn't try to just do US interpretations with these. Again, I don't think he should delete these, they should just be renamed en-ca-wordusedhere.ogg I'm ok with these files being used on canadian pronunciation pages, but it's inaccurate to have them on US pronunciation pages. Again, here is a map from William Labov about different dialects across NA. The canadian and american accent isn't radical different, but there are some differences. And I don't think these should be named us-en. I have nothing against canadians :) I'm sure some canadians would feel the same way if someone from the US made canadian files and had different pronunciations. Rezfan83 (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd disagree with his File:En-us-xenophobia.ogg, though it might be regional in the U.S. I'd certainly use a long 'e', not the short one here. - Jmabel ! talk 05:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • File:En-us-inverse.ogg: I'd never put the accent on the second syllable (just in case it isn't clear, I'm from the U.S.). - Jmabel ! talk 05:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Jmabel must be a regional issue, sounds fine to me. Offnfopt(talk) 05:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Have you tried talking to the user? It doesn't appear that you've even pinged him in this discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
What's exactly bad about bringing this discussion here? I was directed to here on mirc by and admin. What's the problem? I'm not calling for him to be banned or anything of the sort. I just think the en-us sound files should be renamed en-ca.Rezfan83 (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Nothing is bad about bringing it here. What we're doing is discussing it. The uploader should get a courtesy notification that his/her work is being discussed. If he/she wants to create files for US English pronunciation, it would help if people told him/her which files seem to be wrong so they can be fixed. If your argument is that Canadians are incapable of producing files for US pronunciation, or that they shouldn't, then I disagree with you. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Me? No, I'm just providing examples, since the original poster didn't. - Jmabel ! talk 05:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • File:En-us-despot.ogg: for me, the second syllable would have less of a 'short O', more of a schwa.
  • File:En-us-bravo.ogg I've never heard a U.S. speaker emphasize the second syllable. Then again, until now I've never heard a Canadian do so either. - Jmabel ! talk 05:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Jmabel and Rez. Some of these sounds are most certainly canadian sounding. Particularly his "o" sound in some words. Mikekdaniels (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I've been around a bunch of south US dialect, northern US dialect, British dialect, English with German accent, English with Spanish accent, English with Russian accent, so maybe my ear is too skewed to tell the difference. Offnfopt(talk) 05:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
As a Canadian Rez, Jmabel and Mike are right. I live in american currently and the way americans and canadians say some of the vowels are different. To give and example, the despot clip shows a different pronunciation of the o in that word. Rawmonze (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure is a shock to wake up one morning and see myself being dragged here rather than getting a friendly notification on my talk page first. I mean, I'd appreciate that before coming to a noticeboard like this. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I was told on mirc (by a wikimedia admin) to take the talk to this page for discussion of the topic I brought up. They gave me a direct link to this page. If you wanted it to be discussed on your talk page first then I apologize. While I do use wikimedia here and there often, I don't do discussions on boards ever. So that's why I went to and admin first to get help. As I said on the discussion there, I wasn't looking for you to get banned or in trouble, just to rename the files en-us to enca. Rezfan83 (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
what's bad about it, is that you are not collaborating, you are talking behind the editor's back. asking an admin for help is like asking a cop for directions, he may just direct you to court. if we communicated more and templated less, maybe we could get more done. why don't you make a list of the ones you want corrected, record your correct US pronunciation, and then upload them? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 16:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I went to his talk page and apologized. He did not respond. Although I apologized since he was offended, I see nothing wrong with contacting admins on here asking what to do or even the cops (in the real world) The admin I talked to in regards of this was very helpful and polite. They gave me the direct link to here and were very nice when asking for help. Rezfan83 (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
asking admins for help is like asking wiley coyote for a life preserver, you know he will give you an anchor. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 01:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There seems to be a general agreement that at least 'some' of these 60-odd files should be renamed, but I'm sure there are some where the us and canadian pronunciations are the same... can someone please create a list of the specific ones, somewhere, so we can come to some kind of consensus about what if anything to actually move? Reventtalk 00:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Seems to me that they should be renamed (and categorized, as appropriate) as Canadian pronunciations, since that is what they are. The fact that coincidentally some are identical in the U.S. is really not relevant. For example, when I upload a pronunciation, besides accurately naming it based on my own country (U.S.) I would typically further indicate that I'm a New Yorker who has lived most of my adult life in Seattle. On anything where pronunciations vary, things like that are typically relevant. Similarly, a Toronto pronunciation, a Maritimes pronunciation, and a Vancouver pronunciation might vary. They would all be described as "en-ca", but as a rule the description should make the specifics even clearer. - Jmabel ! talk 04:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm in agreement with Jmabel. Braxer26 (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
As I stated in my initial post, I think they should all be renamed en-ca. Rezfan83 (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • All of them should be renamed. This is a canadian giving his pronunciation of words. Mikekdaniels (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Since the consensus seems to have been to move them all, and because it was happening piecemeal anyhow, I've gone ahead and done so (and changed the category to "Canadian English pronunciations", which was being overlooked). Having listened to nearly all of them now, some (such as File:En-ca-libra-weight.oga) are distinctly not 'American' pronunciations... in that particular case, it's a Latin word, and this is the latin pronunciation that probably no American would use outside of a Latin class. In other cases (such as File:En-us-Vienna.ogg), the pronunciations are not 'wrong' for American English, but seem to be so deliberately done that the syllable breaks are incorrect for the dialect... Americans generally pronounce the word "Vee-enna", not "Vee-e-na". Reventtalk 02:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Offensive language[edit]

As a new admin, who has access to the extended set of tools, I am looking for an advice how to deal with edits like this one. Should I hide its contents and/or description every time I spot such an edit? --jdx Re: 09:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Imho just reverting is sufficient (and block the offender if the behaviour continues) - Jcb (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I may be not an admin but as Jcb said above, just revert them (and if they continue, RBI). For the revdel stuff, do it only if the comment was intended as a personal attack against a user. Thanks, Poké95 11:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm also not an admin, but I did a reverse DNS lookup on the IP address and it shows, so may want to do a preemptive softblock (i.e. blocks anonymous users from the IP and requires them to register to upload/edit). You would then put the {{Blocked school}} or {{Anonblock}} on the talk page. Also note I did a look up of the surrounding IPs and through host are flagged with "education" reverse DNS. Edit: Forgot to also note plenty of inappropriate edits from that IP address on other wikis. Offnfopt(talk) 17:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
i would caution you not to do school ip blocks for test edits every 6 months. we all know ip blocks do not work, so you are making work for yourself without result. some version of revscore m:Research:Revision scoring as a service would be more functional. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 16:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

UAS (Drones)[edit]

DJI Inspire 1 Professional

After over 7 years of contributing hundreds of aerial photos to this site, most of them I have done while flying the plane, we now have a host of new talented people with UAs/Drones that is only going to continue to grow. Perhaps a group on the subject would give other UAs pilots a place to go and we make it a regular "Project UAs" group just as we have for Aviation. Few people can ever understand just how complicated Aerial Photography can be and, I am willing to do what I can to share my insight, I fly drones in Film and Television production so it is safe to say that is some valuable insight that others could benefit from. Thoughts?? --WPPilot (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

If there is a project being created, please ping me. I am interested. I fly small airplanes like Cessna 172 and sometimes my passengers take nice pictures, e.g. File:Luchtfoto Harderwijk centrum.JPG - Jcb (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
If you don't mind me asking you, how much money do you get for doing this job WPPilot? Braxer26 (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2016
Commercial drone pilot rate differ from job to job and the rate is dependent upon the provisioning of equipment, to the production. shows that a Cinematographer in this industry starts at 40 a hour. That assumes that the production owns the equipment. A certified Drone pilot with top quality equipment can make as much as $163,218 a year: but that assumes that you have already spent a lifetime in the industry, have a reasonable investment in top quality equipment and have established reputation in the industry. Professional pilots make a bit more, and at least in the Film industry a FAA pilots license is required, in addition to a "drone pilot" certificate making your question a complicated one that is really a case by case issue. -- WPPilot (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for this reply! I will check out those links. Braxer26 (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome, good luck! - --WPPilot (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Who is Nderitu Muriithi[edit]

I am working on an article concerning the personality mentioned. Can someone please help? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  • I have no idea why you are asking this on Wikimedia Commons, which is the media (image, sound, video, etc.) repository of Wikimedia Foundation (which also umbrellas the various Wikipedias). Is there something specific you want related to an image or something similar? Otherwise, you are probably asking on the wrong site. - Jmabel ! talk 23:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

October 22[edit]

Seal of Chico City, California[edit]

According to this website, the design of the seal of Chico City is dated in 1890s (if I understood correctly). Is it possible to use that to upload this file to Commons claiming that it is in the public domain? --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 15:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Metrónomo: Upload it under the license "PD-CAGov" in PNG with a transparent background with all excess space cropped out. For future reference, know that 99% of California government works are public domain due to their "Sunshine Law"; same goes for Florida as well. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@Metrónomo: I have gone ahead and uploaded it here for you. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@Metrónomo: If you have the time, try to upload every California and Florida city/county seal you can find, since they are in the public domain. Upload them under the naming formula "Seal of CITY NAME, STATE NAME.png". Make sure they are in PNG format with a transparent background, and no excess empty space beyond the edges. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I edit from a smartphone, if I get a simple way to do what you recommend, I will upload all seals I find. This website has many. If you have time and want to work, your help will be appreciated. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 00:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

October 23[edit]

Problems with Safari[edit]

Commons doesn't work. wikipedia and wikidata work--Oursana (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, weird. @Oursana: What Safari version do you use? I use Safari 6 on my iPad, and it works very well for me on all Wikimedia sites. Even if I use desktop mode. Thanks, Poké95 01:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Please elaborate what does not work. You've been able to post this comment, so it's clearly not all broken. Matma Rex (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I am using Safari 10.0. I used Firefox to make the posts here. Commons does not show up at all, wp and wikidata do.
That was my last contribution with Safari. That never happpened before. But there are often smaller problems using Safari. With my mobile device it works.--Oursana (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
At least the European mirror server must have had issues last (European) night, and not only Safari was affected. There are in the moment three threads in Dewiki’s Fragen zur Wikipedia (short FZW, English Questions about the Wikipedia); links before archiving (everything’s in German, of course): de:WP:FZW#Bildanzeige, de:WP:FZW#math-Umgebung (yes, math rendering was also affected for all, who get the math environment as image) and de:WP:FZW#George Chadwick – Bild wird nicht angezeigt. — Speravir_Talk – 22:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah, forgot this: @Matma Rex: Almost no images have been shown or sometimes they have been partly loaded, at one article here it worked after the third refresh (probably the images had meanwhile been in my local cache), but I din't try all the articles. In Commons this is “deadly” – at least I guess, this is it, what Oursana meant. — Speravir_Talk – 22:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The image rendering problem is known (see phab:T148917 and potentially also phab:T148830) and has been reported in the issue tracking system). It's currently being investigated. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
And for the Chadwick image there is now phab:T148927. :-) It really seems to be a different issue. — Speravir_Talk – 00:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thx for all your answers. I am not quite sure if we talk exactly about the same. It happened exactly last Saterday European time 9:45 am, see the link to my last contribution. After that I got Safari kann die Seite .... nicht öffnen, da Safari keine sichere Seite zum server aufbauen kann. This only happens with commons, wp and wikidata work with Safari as always. When I want to open the link to my watchlist, the surface is unusual and the login does not work. with the main page in an unusual surface but with images shows up, when I want to reload it says again Safari kann die Seite .... nicht öffnen, da Safari keine sichere Seite zum server aufbauen kann. I guess 10% at least use Safari and have problems.--Oursana (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

(I removed indentation of Oursana’s post above mine) Oh, sorry, Oursana, this looks in fact like a different issue. Translation of German text: “Safari could not open page …, because Safari could not establish a secure connection (my guess, Oursana’S text has ‘page’ here) to the server” @AKlapper (WMF): Could this be a certificate issue? — Speravir_Talk – 00:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

? in templates[edit]

I will put this infolink in file Pedro Juan Rodríguez Meléndez, but there is one ? and it is not accepted by template {{es | .....}} with error (missing text). With a short disappears information. How can I fix this? --Jos1950 (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Please read the documentation of the template Template:Es for how to use it. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Done, thanks. --Jos1950 (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
In other words: The issue didn’t come from the question mark, but from the equal sign in the link. — Speravir_Talk – 16:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Speravir (Talk) 16:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

October 24[edit]

Commons blocked on Virgin Trains wifi[edit]

I regularly travel on the UK's Virgin Trains East Coast services, which provides free wifi so long as I buy tickets direct. I can access all Wikimedia projects when I'm on the train apart from Commons, which is blocked by their service provider. I raised a complaint about a month ago, hoping they would allow access on the basis of this being a valid educational resource, but apart from an original acknoledgment, this does not seem to have made a difference.

It's irritating, as my travel time is often over 3 hours, which would be an excellent moment to catch up on my backlog of projects to look at on Commons. Does anyone have any influence with Virgin Trains to get the block removed?

A few retweets may get action -- (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

i imagine it is a throttling thing. i note a lot of free wifi is phone friendly, but not laptop, would that work? or could you try a VPN? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 23:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Maybe, though images should not be an issue as surfing other image intensive sites looks fine. I'm surfing on my tablet when on the train. -- (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-43[edit]

17:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@Johan (WMF): Could you please sign these posts rather than the information being hidden from view? You are the person directing and responsible for the bot posting this message, so it is our convention for your contact details to be posted as signatory. Thanks -- (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

October 25[edit]

File names for images in Commons categories are truncated to single lines[edit]

For the last few days filenames for images in Commons categories are truncated to single lines. This sometimes makes it very difficult to find appropriate images. For example: if I'm looking for a particular subspecies in a species category, I can't usually tell from the thumbnail or the first line of the filename what subspecies it is. Is there a way to switch back to see the full file names under the tumbnails? -- R. A. Nonenmacher (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

+1 Ghastly change, massive blunder. Makes it impossible to navigate categories to find images by title. -- (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
It was a mistake in gadget maintenance, now fixed. See the last topic on MediaWiki talk:Gadget-Long-Image-Names-in-Categories.css. Matma Rex (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Speravir (Talk) 16:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to stop deletion requests being closed by their nominator[edit]

I have added this proposal to Commons talk:Deletion requests#Nominator closure of deletions. The current policy does not specifically disallow this happening, and it does happen, which gives a basic problem of poor governance of deletions. Comments welcome on the policy talk page. -- (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Head stands and Category:Headstands[edit]

Would you say it's relevant to have both categories ? I suppose we should merge them together and create a subcat such as "Headstands in yoga". --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Using the term article is being generous, it is two sentences. Wiktionary uses 'headstand' and Merriam-webster, Cambridge and Oxfordd dictionaries use 'headstand'. Offnfopt(talk) 19:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done I've merged them into "headstands" and created different subcats. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Good idea. "Headstand" sounds like standing on your head, while "Head stand" sounds like something for a guillotine operator's trophy case. Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

October 26[edit]

Photographs from "Meeting of Frontiers"[edit]

There is interesting site with good photographs from Siberia. Host of the site is the Library of Congress. They wrote: "The Library of Congress and its partners are providing access to the materials in Meeting of Frontiers strictly for noncommercial educational and research purposes and make no warranty with regard to their use for other purposes". [11] What could be used as PD license tag for the photographs from the "Meeting of Frontiers"? Hunu (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

  • "strictly for noncommercial educational and research purposes" certainly does not conform to our licensing requirements. - Jmabel ! talk 15:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Though if you read the next two sentences, it sounds like they're just disavowing responsibility for determining if the images are legal to be used in any way other than for "noncommercial educational and research purposes". Individual images in the collection might be PD for any of the usual reasons - but that has to be determined on a per-image basis. See COM:Hirtle Chart. BMacZero (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Hunu (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

File:FELIPE OGAZ - DIABLUMA (15074070175).jpg[edit]

To categorize this file (series) I need help by a spanish speaking user: Who is the photagraphed man and what is the subject for this file(s). Thanks --GeorgHHtalk   20:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@GeorgHH: Felipe Orgaz is a spokesman of a radical left-wing politico-cultural Ecuadorian organization called DiablUma, mainly about anti-corrida protests (it's the subject of the picture). Apparently (Spanish is not my mother tongue), he and DiablUma are at the origin of a referendum that lead to forbid corridas in Ecuador. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Caution : the files with Orgaz are not only about corrida. this one is a debate about drug control. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done Thank you for help, I've categorized the files now. --GeorgHHtalk   11:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Speravir (Talk) 16:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Open commenting on WMF Seeking Additional Resources for Structured Data on Commons[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation in cooperation with Wikimedia Deutschland, has a unique opportunity to potentially secure additional resources to expedite development work on Structured Commons. We would like feedback on a 3 year plan that describes accelerated software development if these resource becomes available. We would like to invite you to participate in a conversation at: this page which provides an overview of that proposed timeline. We look forward to your comments and thoughts.

Joseph Seddon and Alex Stinson 22:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

October 27[edit]

Looking for your advice on software development[edit]

Hello, all. I wonder if a few of you would please review something one of my teammates has been working on? Keegan's been leading the development of a mw:Technical Collaboration Guideline.

The Technical Collaboration Guideline is a set of voluntary best-practice recommendations related to planning and communicating product and project information, with the goal that content contributors and software developers (both volunteers and WMF staff) will work together better during the product development and deployment cycle. It's intended to be flexible, since every project is unique and also since plans and products change during development. It's also intended to be lightweight advice, rather than completely comprehensive. (Or, in plain English, I'm not writing it.  ;-)

Please share your thoughts at mw:Talk:Technical Collaboration Guideline. The guideline and at least most of the previous conversations about it are written in English, but comments from all languages are welcome. Keegan promises me that he will read all feedback and take it into consideration when working on the next draft of this advice, even if he doesn't reply personally. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Is a template for photos from a library archive a good idea?[edit]

I was reading an academic article on increasing the discoverability of library resources through Wikipedia (, probably behind a paywall, sorry, but the user who wrote it was probably TejasDiscipulus~commonswiki). They recommended using a template on photos to make copyright clear and to tell other users where they could get higher-resolution copies of images, as in [[File:Cloche_hat_Walker_Photograph_cropped.jpg]]. I work for a university and I'd like to get more of our images on the Commons. Is this image actually using a template? It looks like they weren't really consistent with using it either--do you have any specific recommendations? I looked into batch downloading but unfortunately our content management system, contentdm, doesn't provide individual image URLs, so I will most likely be uploading photos manually (though I'm still looking into batch uploading from files). Thanks Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): Best practice for works in a reference collection, really, is to use {{artwork}} or {{photograph}}, that both allow for information about the holding institution, accession numbers, and a 'credit line' if needed for specific works. As far as the actual copyright, when possible a 'specific' public domain license template should be used, that gives the actual rationale for the particular work being PD. For information that you'll be repeating often, you can either create a custom 'template' that you transclude from your user space, as if it was an actual template, or substitute the content of a page from your user page, that can then be edited as needed for the specific file. It does not look like the uploader of that image actually did either, but instead just pasted the text into the pages when uploading.
The license on that image isn't really correct, either, I don't think... UofH apparently scanned the photographic negative, but that does not make them the 'author' of the image... a mere scan does not involve original authorship that creates a new copyright. The author of that image was apparently Harry Walker... UofH seems to believe the original image is PD, possibly due to a donation agreement, but the rationale for that isn't really clear. Reventtalk 04:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The article does not appear to actually be paywalled, btw.... reading now. Reventtalk 04:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
It's actually not bizarre that the archive would hold the copyright to their holdings; during my intro-to-archives class in library school, taught by the director of archives, it was strongly suggested that all deed-of-gift contracts include a grant of all donor-owned copyright to the holding institution. The point is to ensure that the institution is as free as possible to use their holdings as they wish. Presumably in this case, UoH decided to say "If this image is still under copyright, we release it", and while not the right template, PD-author basically got the point across. Do we have a PD-release template meant for use when the author granted copyright to another party, which is the one giving the release? {{PD-self}} is meant for uploader-created works, not uploader-owned works that someone else created and sold/donated to the uploader. Nyttend (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@Nyttend: I didn't mean it was 'bizarre', just that I could not identify the specific rationale that UofH was using, from what I saw.... they don't specify, but a clause in the donation paperwork is indeed likely. There are 'sample forms' for such deeds-of-gift, such as [12], that include such language.
AFAIK, we don't explicitly have such a generic tag, but {{PD-self}} (which claims 'ownership of the copyright', instead of actual authorship) is probably closest. For specific cases there are the tags in Category:No known restrictions license tags, most of which cover the exact situation for specific Library of Congress collections and rely on {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}}... creating such a tag for other GLAMs that intended to do large donations of such material would probably be best. Reventtalk 14:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Understood. I initially saw it as bizarre when first encountering the concept, so I thought perhaps you or others might see it that way too. Nyttend (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

October 28[edit]

Cat-a-lot and metacategories[edit]

Earlier today, a large group of images were uploaded as part of a cooperation project, but they were put into a misspelled hidden category, so someone created a new hidden category at the correct name and used Cat-a-lot in attempting to move them from old to new. Unfortunately, they were subject to a misclick, and the files ended up in Category:Hidden categories by mistake; you can see an example by checking the history of File:06635-Eisleben-1905-Annenkirche-Brück & Sohn Kunstverlag.jpg.

As a frequest Cat-a-lot user, I wonder if it would it be possible to tweak Cat-a-lot to reduce the risk of this happening? I'm imagining that the gadget checks to see whether the proposed target category is a metacategory, and if it is, a dialog box pops up with a message resembling "Are you sure you want to do this?" For this purpose, perhaps "metacategory" could embrace categories tagged with {{CatCat}}, {{MetaCat}}, etc., as well as hidden categories. Since there's often good reason to move categories into these categories (e.g. you'd want to put Category:Buses in the United States into Category:Buses by country, but you normally wouldn't want to put an image into Buses by country), it would move categories without bringing up the dialog box, i.e. it would work just like it does now. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata problem[edit]

Can anyone change this Wikidata (20 entries) to Category:Salcedo (Hermanas Mirabal)? I fail. --Jos1950 (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jos1950: ✓ Done Reventtalk 15:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. --Jos1950 (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


Dear all

Connected Open Heritage (a project aiming to improve information of built heritage in danger) is looking for community input on choosing the official logo. You can submit new logos until 6 November and support the proposed logos until 11 November.


--John Cummings (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Information source of map[edit]

The original uploader mentions the URL, but this does not work. I made the wrong conclusion with the mysterious haploid X wich ony occurs in Europe and America. I came to the easy conclusion that it was the Vikings. The real explanation seems to be in I stil would like to see the original article the map was made for.Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)