Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
🌐 Village pumps for other languages
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES
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; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/12.

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:

   

Start a new discussion

# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 Long-term disputes on various wikis involving a cross-wiki IP author 20 3 Sarcelles 2024-12-11 12:10
2 New calendar templates 3 3 SirlupinwatsonIII 2024-12-08 01:09
3 iOS Commons app is no more 14 6 Nylki 2024-12-08 19:24
4 Tmbox improvments 5 4 Acroterion 2024-12-08 14:52
5 Cooked food in supermarkets 8 6 RoyZuo 2024-12-08 11:20
6 Commons:What is this? (Get help with file categorization) 10 4 Prototyperspective 2024-12-10 18:13
7 Conflicting info on sculptures 4 3 ReneeWrites 2024-12-05 15:05
8 Admin as supervoter 12 5 Multichill 2024-12-08 10:49
9 to flip or not to flip 4 3 Jmabel 2024-12-06 17:57
10 Unneeded bloated category tree 15 6 1234qwer1234qwer4 2024-12-11 10:49
11 Appeals of decisions in Commons:Categories for discussion 15 6 Laurel Lodged 2024-12-09 14:14
12 Opinion on mass request for deletion 8 5 Slevinski 2024-12-07 22:12
13 Peak editor activity 7 4 Jeff G. 2024-12-08 16:33
14 Copyright? 3 3 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2024-12-09 19:30
15 Combo cats 21 9 Omphalographer 2024-12-11 23:05
16 Template:Places by decade/main/doc 2 2 Jmabel 2024-12-08 18:58
17 "prove a license" 5 4 Jmabel 2024-12-10 19:57
18 All Rights Reserved statement in content published under CC-BY 3.0 license 6 4 Prototyperspective 2024-12-11 13:37
19 Reminder: upcoming Commons conversation about new media and new contributors on December 12 3 2 Sannita (WMF) 2024-12-10 18:00
20 Wikidata links to Commons 3 3 Multichill 2024-12-10 20:34
21 Syrian Flag discussions across the Wikipedias 4 2 Abzeronow 2024-12-11 00:27
22 OpenRefine - Commons upload validations 3 3 Jmabel 2024-12-11 19:24
23 White nose syndrome 2 2 Jmabel 2024-12-11 19:26
24 Russian tram specialist needed 1 1 Smiley.toerist 2024-12-11 22:25
25 WordPress Photo Directory 1 1 Ckoerner 2024-12-11 23:02
26 Bot job request 1 1 MBH 2024-12-12 06:09
Legend
  • In the last hour
  • In the last day
  • In the last week
  • In the last month
  • More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur,
please check the setting first.
The last town pump to be in use in Saint Helier, Jersey, until early 20th century [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive
Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day.

October 23

Summary

Description

A photo of the address side of a Taiwanese postcard. The postcard was received by me (User:Hijiri88) on January 11, 2017, for contributions to Wikipedia Asian Month 2016. Not sure if it was for French or English Wikipedia, but still waiting on the the other one either way (another similar photo will be uploaded then). I am not legitimately sure of the copyright status of the words written on the card, but it's probably fair use to put this photo on my user page either way.

(My personal information is blanked out, except for the first line of my address that I already revealed on-wiki here.)
Source I took the photo
Author Wikimedia Taiwan (portions edited out with sub-text by User:Hijiri88)
Permission
(Reusing this file)		 Evidence: Will be provided on request.
Other information

The following was entered into the boxes for "non-free" images because I was being super-careful but was not aware that filling in "User:Hijiri88" in the article-for-intended-use box would prevent me from uploading.

Wikimedia Taiwan (portions edited out by User:Hijiri88)

The photo is mine, but it contains text that was written to me by someone else. Not sure if that means it's copyrighted.

This will be used in my (Hijiri88's) user space as an illustration of contributions to Wikipedia Asian Month.

Umm... it is text alone. The non-text portion (the fact that it is a photograph) is mine.

I don't know. This almost certainly is not a non-free work. I only clicked that option to play it safe.

The only conceivable owner, if not me, is Wikimedia itself. I just don't know the copyright status of the non-public text included therein ("Hi, [...] 亞洲維基人愛你！ Wikiedia Asian Loves you! [...] We appreciate your contribution in Wikimedia(sic) Asian Month in 2016.").

(But if someone thinks the postage stamp is not covered, that too can be blanked out.)

I only intend to use it on User:Hijiri88 and possibly User:Hijiri88/Articles I created or significantly contributed to, but nowhere outside my own user space.

Huge backlog dating back almost a decade 😰

Hello 👋🏻 everyone,

Currently at Commons:Batch uploading there are batch requests dating all the way to October 17th, 2013 which is a huge backlog (even the OTRS backlog is less than 90 days), currently there a list of scripters with only 8 🎱 (or maybe 9?) members, in fact some requests like Commons:Batch uploading/Peter Parker's Lam Qua Paintings Collection have not even received any feedback in years (this one is from February 1st, 2015).

Personally I think 🤔 that Wikimedia Commons or some of its people should try to convince more people to become batch uploaders, I’ve seen Wikimedia projects with backlogs but I’ve never seen a backlog that goes back as far as that of Wikimedia Commons’ Batch uploading. So this post is mostly a shoutout to anyone who is potentially interested in joining as maybe some people aren’t aware as to how big the backlog is. If someone doesn't know which tools they could use there’s Commonist and the VicuñaUploader among others, I personally can’t join the uploaders because I'm on a wireless telephone 📞 which suck for uploading 😅, and I hope that there are plenty of volunteers here who would like to tackle this 9 (nine) year old backlog.

I can't wait for the day that there’s no to little backlog there are the archives are full while the requests are nearly empty, but in its current state very few requests get completed and it would be a shame to archive them solely because they were unanswered.

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 12:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you would have to recruit a team to close the backlogs, and better yet, design processes that do not have backlogs. give people who want to do mass uploads, easy to use tools, i.e. Pattypan. use of work boards to get work done requires a functional friendly community. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Slowking4: What are you doing to promote "a functional friendly community"?   — Jeff G. ツ 00:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
i'm collaborating with the friendly people. turns out they are all off-wiki, i.e. smithsonian, only show up here to get work done. and organizing for some culture change by hostile takeover, i've basically given up on this community becoming friendly on its own. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Slowking4: I take that as an insult to those of us on-wiki.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you realize how many new uploaders are greeted by a talk page wall of deletion notifications? when there is not even a teahouse to answer questions, and there is a widespread history of admin misbehavior. world class librarians know this place as a "cultural buzzsaw"; that is a fact. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually the first thing new users see is a welcome message with some handy links, I do agree that "a type of teahouse" would greatly benefit Wikimedia Commons but the help desk seems to be filling in for this at the time, not sure how practically different they are. Though I am an inclusionist on any other wiki, Wikimedia Commons should be weary about copyright © as it could take the whole project down, but yes, I can agree that the templates might look a bit unpersonal. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 10:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still, anyone willing to help with this backlog? Last time I checked any registered user (who isn't exclusively on mobile) can help with batch uploads. 😉 --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 10:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
for example, a recent friendly welcome here User talk:Rashkeqamar. sorry no - not working the backlogs of others' broken processes. i have plenty of work to do helping friendly people, like SoaP and Rosie. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved in several batch uploads, and every time it is a huge undertaking to preserve most of the metadata and display it in a form which is accessible to widest range of users through internationalization (i18n), to properly categorize your uploads, and possibly to add new uploads to correct wikidata items or wikipedia articles. We have a few users that specialize in this task (User:Fæ comes to mind), but it is a steep learning curve. May be we should rewrite introduction to Commons:Batch uploading to say that in most cases people should do their own uploads. They can propose uploads at Commons:Batch uploading but in the end the most likely path to get mass upload done is to learn how to use tools which are available to most users. --Jarekt (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Openstreetmap uploads

There is a great template {{Openstreetmap}} that does everything I need.

{{OpenStreetMap |name=hierboven}} fills out all the metadata in every section for a map snippet cropped from an OSM.

All you need to do is add the Categories. It can just about be used with Commons Upload Wizard if you paste it in the information field, as can be seen here. This is less than satisfactory, as my creative effort was minimal and I need to add the wrong license to pass onto details page. The code I want it enter should be


== {{int:filedesc}} ==

{{Openstreetmap|name=Justus van Effen komplex}}
{{Location|51.915918|4.430625}}

[[Category:Justus van Effencomplex (Rotterdam)]]
[[Category:OpenStreetMap maps of the Netherlands]]

and not


== {{int:filedesc}} ==

{{Information
|description={{en|1={{Openstreetmap|name=Justus van Effen komplex}}}}
|date=2017-11-26
|source={{own}}
|author=[[User:ClemRutter|ClemRutter]]
|permission=
|other versions=
}}
{{Location|51.915918|4.430625}}

== {{int:license-header}} ==

{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}

[[Category:Justus van Effencomplex (Rotterdam)]]
[[Category:OpenStreetMap maps of the Netherlands]]

So is there a better way? Do we need to change the licensing page on Upload Wizard to include Openstreet map? Do we need to change t|Openstreet map to overwrite the unwelcome Wizard additions? --ClemRutter (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ClemRutter: You seem to know what you're doing, why not use the experienced version?   — Jeff G. ツ 00:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yes the upload wizard team is resistant to adding more templates, (although you could add it to the 2017 wishlist) in the meantime, we can use old uploader one at a time, or commons:pattypan for multiples. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Yes that is the solution. Have a look at File:OSM Hundred of Hoo Academy.png to see the result. Is the metadata sufficient in your opinion- I am happy with it. Adding a map to 10 000 or so school articles is a significant benefit to the project and a task that we can use in training sessions with new editors. I intend to write this up as a tutorial sheet, and add a help paragraph to multiple pages, maybe a template would be appropriate?. @Slowking4: I do like the idea of adding this to the 2017 wishlist (wherever that may be), simplicity is so important. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ClemRutter: It would be nice to include the bounding box for the map into OSM template data, if you're adding these systematically. Jheald (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes- I was thinking of that. Stage one was to get this working, stage two was to document it using very simple language, stage three was to implement and explain bounding boxed and stage four extensions I haven't discovered yet. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
wishlist window has closed - m:2017_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Multimedia_and_Commons; but maybe this one m:2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Multimedia and Commons/Improve UploadWizard campaigns -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ClemRutter: The page looks good, except I don't like the exposed underscores in "Hundred_of_Hoo_Academy".   — Jeff G. ツ 12:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a note to Template:OpenStreetMap/doc‎. @Jeff G.: That was careless but so easy to fix. Done. ClemRutter (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MP3 Extended uploaders user group created

There's been lots of talk about support for uploading MP3's over the last few months. :) We discussed approaches, held an RFC on which user groups should be initially allowed to upload, and defined the qualifications for the new user group.

The result is the creation of a new user group called "MP3 uploaders". Currently there is an Abuse Filter running on Commons (192) that should prevent anyone from uploading mp3s unless they are an administrator or in the "MP3 uploaders" user group. If someone wants to be added to the MP3 uploaders user group, they can apply at Commons:Requests_for_rights#MP3_uploader.

Now we're ready to take a big step forward and enable the upload of MP3s to Commons. This will be enabled on November 28th. Thanks to everyone who's worked with us on this and we look forward to seeing what the Commons community does with support for this "new" file format. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We had to delay the deployment slightly in order to make sure all of the transcoding pieces are in place. MP3 uploading is now scheduled to be turned on for Commons at 20:00 UTC, Wednesday, November 29. Kaldari (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaldari: I noticed you crated an abusefilter, not a fan because we had problems with the condition limit in the past. I also think the group should be renamed as proposed on AN. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Steinsplitter: Currently, Commons is only using about 280 conditions per edit (the limit is 1000), so there's no danger of hitting the limit any time soon. In fact, I'm surprised that Commons' use of AbuseFilter is so limited. Most wikis are above 500. Regarding the user group name, I don't really have any opinion on that. I'm happy to set it to whatever the community wants. Do you have a specific suggestion? Kaldari (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaldari: Oh, i am surprised :) (btw, the limit on commons is 2000, where you see the usage stats?). I think "Trusted uploaded" or so would be perfect, so we can exempt users in that group from copyvio filters, we can (maybe later) add uplaodbyurl to that group, etc. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Steinsplitter: Abuse Filter dashboard. I like "Trusted uploaders" fine, but you and George Ho don't agree on it, and so far the two of you seem to be the only people who care. If the two of you can come up with a name that is agreeable, I'll be happy to change it. FWIW, George only objected to the "trusted" part. He wasn't opposed to creating a broader group. Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@CKoerner (WMF), Kaldari, and Steinsplitter: How about simply "Uploaders"?   — Jeff G. ツ 01:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are already uploaders, right? ;) George Ho (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: Yes, those of us with accounts in confirmed, autoconfirmed, and sysop groups are allowed to upload, but we don't have a specific user group named in our honor. Do you like any synonyms of "trusted" for this purpose?   — Jeff G. ツ 03:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) No synonym of "trusted" would do for me either, especially by reading definitions and meanings, like Wiktionary's or Merriam-Webster's. George Ho (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Steinsplitter: Same question for you, do you like any synonyms of "trusted" for this purpose?   — Jeff G. ツ 03:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, i don' really care if "trusted" or a other word (which one?) is used. I am not a native speaker so it is better to let the native speakers judge. But it don't think "soud uploader" because so we can't use it for non-sound related stuff if needed (such as uplaod-by-url tool later). Best--Steinsplitter (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about "extended uploaders"? Or even sound uploader? Artix Kreiger (talk)

@Artix Kreiger: Given that there are now and will be interesting in-scope files in various formats whose patents have expired and will expire, I wanted to future-proof the name of the class of users so it can be repurposed later for the next great format. "extended uploaders" fits that bill but is a little long for my liking; "sound uploaders", not so much.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Sound uploader" seems fitting; so is "extended uploader". However, both should be separate user rights as they potentially have different purposes. "Extended uploader" reminds me of "extended confirmed" at en.WP. George Ho (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: Is that reminder a good or bad thing?   — Jeff G. ツ 03:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Not a bad thing. I don't mind "extended uploader" as long as it's separate from "sound uploader". George Ho (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
extended uploader sounds reasonable. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll change it to "Extended uploaders" then. Kaldari (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Image-reviewers to the groups allowed to upload MP3s, as we appear to have consensus for this in the previous thread. I also created MediaWiki:abusefilter-warning-mp3, which will appear when an MP3 upload is rejected by the filter. Guanaco (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not been on much so had no idea this was even taking place - If I've read this right "Extender uploader" goes beyond just MP3's (?) which if that's correct then I think "Extender Uploader" sounds perfect, I know my comment at this point is redundant but figured I'd chip in anyway, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Science Competition 2017 uploaded files

Hi. In Commons_talk:Wiki_Science_Competition_2017#Guidelines_for_the_workflow I tried to discuss some points. Probably national organizers are fine with their specific systems but I will be mainly in charge to all the internationally uploaded files for all countries without jury. I would like to agree on some standard with the community if possible. For example the name for the category of disqualifed files.

The second level jurors are mostly expert wikimedians, we will try our best to leave it in order, I am sure the status of the files (titles, categories) will be better than in 2015 (I am also doing my best to improve some backlog there).--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also tempted to create a specific barnstar or use the wikilove tool with a special icon to those simple users that are massively helping with the files. Very helpful.--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

name of Nuvola sovereign state flags

In Category:Nuvola sovereign state flags both adjective and noun are used, this is quite chaotic and time consuming when someone has to use different flags. Maybe we could agree on a standard.

I was fixing the wrong adjective in a flag name (Chilian instead of Chilean) and I though the noun was better because it is usually shorter and slightly less independent than the language, I am not even sure if sometimes an adjective is widely used for some minor or recent countries, but on a closer look I see than the majority of flags uses the adjective. Even when it is potentially ambiguous (Nuvola Chinese flag.svg). Also, sometimes categories names and flag names are different (see UK or Italy), and the upper level of the trees uses as with many other things the style category:flags of NOUN. So there is a global lack of coherence even on a "vertical" and not just "horizontal" direction.

So what should we do? can we agree on something after so many years? Am I the first person who noticed that?--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Break time

Do we have a category for this? Break time, pauses etc.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure, yes. Country of location is a good categorization criteria for most photos. However both photos are subcategorized in multiple categories that refer to their countries (Belgium and Czechia), so I’m not sure what you mean. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First in Space!

The spoken voice of astronaut Paolo Nespoli, in English
The spoken voice of astronaut Paolo Nespoli, in Italian

The first content made specifically for Wikipedia & Wikimedia Commons, in space!

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/11/29/astronaut-spoken-voice/

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work.
Anyone looking for the most recent space images, will want to know there is a daily 'slurp' of the latest ESA CC-BY-SA images to Commons. See ESA batch upload project for details. --Fæ (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Community Wishlist 2017 voting

Hey, just so you don't miss it – the voting for the m:2017 Community Wishlist Survey has started now. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Become a Tech Ambassador today

Hello. Please help translate to your language. Thank you! Do you have a passion for technology? Do you enjoy supporting this community in things like figuring out software changes and communicating with the developers, or maybe you would consider doing it, but you don't know where to start?

The Community Liaisons team at the Wikimedia Foundation is looking for active tech ambassadors in this community. We would like to help make this volunteer role an attractive and low-barrier contribution path in our movement. You can add your name to the table on Meta, or you can let me know about someone else who should really, really be in that list.

Please, do not assume that you are not "fit", that you lack the skills, or the experience etc. If you have doubts, questions, etc., let's chat. Thank you for your attention! --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 30

Permission

Am i permitted to upload the following image to wikimedia commons? https://iori-komei.deviantart.com/art/Second-Largest-Religion-by-Country-2013-407960138 79.67.72.227 02:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The license in there is not compatible with Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0). See Commons:Licensing#Well-known_licenses. Also, that image is watermarked; you would need to PM the creator to use the unwatermarked image (which is highly unlikely given the fact this is from 2013). theinstantmatrix (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is that image even still up to date if it's from 2013? And in cases as this I would say that sources might be important as the reliability of the reports can be disputed (such as the fact that not every country uses the same methodology to collect information). --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 12:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The license may not be true

These two images were uploaded under a US PD no notice license, but when I was watching the source, the trailer of the film, it clearly was written at 2:00, "Copyrighted 1957 by 20th Century Fox Film Corporation". Is this alright? Aditya (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Clcx: Why is this PD?   — Jeff G. ツ 18:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably it uses the word "Copyrighted" as opposed to the valid notice of ©, Copyright, or Copr, so the notice is defective. I doubt this would hold up in court. Guanaco (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
US copyrights from that era (until 1963) also required renewal, which may not have happened. Ought to be checked, anyway, and the applicable specific licence tag substituted for the no-notice. (It seems absurd to me that copyrighted could be held not to convey the same meaning & intent as copyright in that context, but IANAL.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does the image from the trailer appear in the movie? The movie Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? (1957) was registered (LP93212) with the U.S. copyright office on 26 July 1957 and renewed (RE0000237380) on 28 February 1985. —RP88 (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RP88: As I understand it, under U.S. copyright law at that time, even if in one place (e.g. the film itself) they put out the material with a proper copyright notice, it lost copyright protection if in another place (e.g. a trailer) they put it out without one. Kind of dumb, but often to the advantage of those who want to use material on a PD basis. But I wouldn't want to rely legally on a possibly defective copyright notice. - Jmabel ! talk 03:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to whether the notice in the trailer was defective, I don't think the notice was defective. In Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition, Section 2204.4(C) "Variants for the Word “Copyright”, the U.S. copyright office says "A misspelled or variant form of the word 'Copyright' or the abbreviation 'copr.' may be accepted if it is clear that the term is intended to be 'copyright.'" One of the acceptable variants they mention as an example is "Copyrighted". —RP88 (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
do not see a renewal at http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First when you search for "20th Century Fox Film Corporation" and there is a renewal for "Wire's end. By 20th Century Fox Film Corporation." 1958. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MP3 uploading is now live

Chopin - Waltz in E minor, B. 56
Performed by Olga Gurevich
help | file info or download

Admins, image reviewers, and extended uploaders (previously called MP3 uploaders) can now upload MP3 files to Commons. Also, all newly uploaded ogg vorbis files will automatically have MP3 versions created via transcoding (similar to what happens with video files).

If the community decides they want to open this up to more users, it's controllable via an abuse filter. I created a proposal at the Community Wishlist Survey to build an audio/video review tool for Commons to help automatically identify copyright violations and flag them for human review. Such a tool will probably be needed before opening up MP3 uploading to all users. If you want to support this proposal, please go to Meta and vote for it.

Kaldari (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

::@Kaldari: , the abuse filter needs updating. Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Never mind. Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 01

All pages which starts with "("

Hello.Please remove "(" from all files which starts with "(" and the reason is "Non-controversial maintenance and bug fixes, including fixing double extensions, invalid or incorrect extensions, character handling problems, and other similar technical issues.".Thanks ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: This seems like a bad idea. It would, for instance, involve removing the (correct) '(' character from the start of a bunch of chemical names like File:(+)-Perillyl alcohol.svg. Can you explain what you're trying to achieve? --bjh21 (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bjh21: I mean the unnecessary false brackets ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: So which files have unnecessary false brackets? Presumably not all files whose names start with '('? --bjh21 (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bjh21: All the files in the list.See also Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 5065123 and Category:Images by Auoob farabi with watermarks ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{On Wikidata}}

Hi, I'm writing here to get a broader audience than on the template's discussion page. Reason is this starting edit war with User:NeverDoING: see [1].

The documentation of {{On Wikidata}} says: This template is intended to be used to link to the related Wikidata entry (when an interproject link at Wikidata cannot be used so). Adding the Commons category (P373) to the wikidata item (Saint John the Baptist Church (Q20675724)) is sufficient to get all the interwiki links created automatically. It works like a charm, no need to add {{On Wikidata}}, which obviously does not add information to the category (the link to the WD item is in the left menu anyhow). So why is there a need to additionally add a redundant {{On Wikidata}} with the item's own Wikidata-id (if so, could be also defaulted to own id)?

Can we clarify on the template documentation page, when to use and when not to use {{On Wikidata}}?

Disk with NeverDoING: [2], no answer until now. Pinging @Jean-Frédéric and ŠJů: as the main authors of the template. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Herzi Pinki: The template {{On Wikidata}} was created before several newer function and possibilities. However, there remain several types of situations where the template can be still useful.
Not every Commons page has its own corresponding Wikidata item page. Most of Commons categories are related to a specific item, they are counterparts of Wikipedia articles. However, if the corresponding Wikidata item page is linked with the Commons gallery page, it cannot be linked concurrently with the Commons category pages of identical item. Generally, to link Commons categories directly to "article" items is considered as non-standard (and the gallery page is preferred to be linked with the Wikidata item page). That's one of reasons why some Commons category pages have not a direct link to Wikidata item via Wikidata interwikis. Similarly, if the Commons category page is linked with the Wikipedia category page, it cannot be linked directly with the Wikipedia article page and its Wikidata item page. As accurately says the documentation "This template is intended to be used to link to the related Wikidata entry (when an interproject link at Wikidata cannot be used so)."
The newer template {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} is more sophisticated and is even able to extract interwikis using category's main topic (P301) and topic's main category (P910) from the sister item page of the identical item. {{On Wikidata}} includes this template which enables to utilize both possibilities.
The template {{On Wikidata}} can be removed as duplicate (and replaced with {{Interwiki from Wikidata}}) from those pages which are directly linked with a corresponding Wikidata item. However, in such cases, the change is needless because both the templates work identically. In other cases, {{On Wikidata}} needs to be kept. --ŠJů (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ŠJů: , confuses me even more. What about my example? Is {{On Wikidata}} necessary or not? And why? We have a minor church, Commons category (P373) is set and we have a simple single page on WP - single item on WD - single commons category - relationship. It is rather unlikely that we will get a category for the church on WP side or a gallery for the church on Commons side (and if things change, we can change using {{On Wikidata}} too, in general we do use a quite iterative approach in the wikiverse). Setting Commons category (P373) on the WD item will allow to navigate from the WP article to the Commonscat (through the left menu, no need to add explicit Template:Commonscat) and allow to navigate from the commonscat to the articles in various languages. Not sure that I even understand what an interproject link is. I consider this to be one of the blocks at the end of an WD item: Wikipedia, Wikiquote, Wikiversity, ... and Wikivoyage and Other Websites (or excluding Other Websites?), you can set the commonslink under Other Websites but that is not necessary, Commons category (P373) is sufficient. In my example IMHO the negation of (when an interproject link at Wikidata cannot be used so) applies (means: an interproject link at WD **can** be used) and there is no need to add neither {{On Wikidata}} nor {{Interwiki from Wikidata}}. If this is not true, than there is a consistency constraint that **all** commons categories **must have** either {{On Wikidata}} or {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} (your last paragraph says so). This should be done by correct implementation, but we hope to achieve consistency in the long term by uncoordinated millions of user edits?
Just another remark to {{On Wikidata}} vs. {{Interwiki from Wikidata}}: the later does not need an explicit item identifier, which is less error prone than the first.
The other way round: If 'to link Commons categories directly to "article" items is considered as non-standard holds, is my usage of Commons category (P373) in Saint John the Baptist Church (Q20675724) violating rules? (That's my standard proceeding). best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Herzi Pinki: Regarding the edit war at Category:Saint John the Baptist Church (Sankt Johann in der Haide), the template {{On Wikidata}} is not needed there for now, but it is also not needed to remove the template. There is not probable (but also not impossible for the future) that that specific church will have its own category at any Wikipedia project - some other church can have its own category. Should such category appear sometime, the template {{On Wikidata}} or {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} can extract interwikis from both linked Wikidata pages. I wish that Commons pages have this function implemented defaultly, without adding these templates. But it has not. That's why it can be better to have {{On Wikidata}} or {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} at every page. Then we need not to prophesy which item has a chance to have sometime it's own Wikipedia category somewhere and which item hasn't.
I personally always supported the Commons-category - Wikipedia-article connection and opposed the gallery - article connection (however Commons-category - Wikipedia-category relation should be preferred to Commons-category - Wikipedia-article relation). Regrettably, designers of Wikidata (as I know) were mostly of the contrary opinion, even though galleries are of quite different character than articles. I have even a fear that some aggressive proponent of that opinion will erase the category-article connections all at once by a bot and destroy a lot of useful work of others.
Regrettably, all these problems were caused by ill-considered conception of Wikidata project which doesn't follow it's own principle that one item should have just one item page in Wikidata. IMHO one item page should link both together - article pages of the item as well as category pages of the item. Both the mentioned templates and P373, P301 and P910 properties are only surrogates which should reduce and compensate the basal defect. As soon as the problem is solved sometime, all the properties and templates can be transformed to interwiki links. Regrettably, such a progress is not in sight. --ŠJů (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ŠJů: Thanks a lot for your explanation and for your (fruitless) efforts to get it right. Still {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} should be preferred / replaced by bot, as it does not need the magic number already defined somewhere else. Alternatively {{On Wikidata}} should work without parameter set. Can you please change the documentation of {{On Wikidata}} accordingly, as deprecated in favour of {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} and that every commons category should have a {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} (despite: when an interproject link at Wikidata cannot be used so). Maybe the later can be also achieved by a bot? best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Herzi Pinki: I think you're wrong about Commons category (P373) being sufficient to make interwiki links appear on Commons. Take Chad Brook (Q44198284) as an example. It has a sitelink to en:Chad Brook and a Commons category (P373) link to Category:Chad Brook, Birmingham. But on Category:Chad Brook, Birmingham no link to Wikipedia or Wikidata appears. In your example, Saint John the Baptist Church (Q20675724), by contrast, there's a sitelink to Commons and a Commons category (P373) link, and I think it's the sitelink that causes the interwiki links on Commons. --bjh21 (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bjh21: , you are right. Usually I did link from the commons category to the appropriate WP article (via the adding-interlanguage-links feature in the menu) which creates a situation as in Saint John the Baptist Church (Q20675724) and I always cared for that constraint. (I tried and reverted it also on your Category:Chad Brook, Birmingham). But doing so, creates the navigational links I mentioned above. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Herzi Pinki: I think, the quoted sentence from the documentation is still as accurate as was originally. This template is intended to be used to link to the related Wikidata entry (when an interproject link at Wikidata cannot be used so). This condition applies especially to the case when the interproject link to Commons on the Wikidata item page is occupied by the gallery page, and that's why the Commons category pages cannot by associated with the Wikidata item. And analogously, if we would prefer links to the Commons category, the template can apply to the gallery pages. Btw., the two templates ({{On Wikidata}} and {{Interwiki from Wikidata}}) should be merged, and should be usable in both ways - with a parameter (Q item code) (if the item page is not associated by Wikidata interwiki) and without a parameter. --ŠJů (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some clarifications. Herzi Pinki wrote: Adding the Commons category (P373) to the wikidata item (Saint John the Baptist Church (Q20675724)) is sufficient to get all the interwiki links created automatically. It works like a charm. No, adding Commons category (P373) does not add interwikilinks, only adding sitelinks to the items adds interwiki links to pages on Commons. {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} template is a second way of adding interwiki links. I think it needs to be used with the q-code, in case of commons-category to wikidata-article links, but it can be used without it in case of commons-category to wikidata-category links when you want interwiki links to link to articles instead of categories. I also like to have {{On Wikidata}} as it provides visual link to Wikidata. I also like using {{Wikidata person}} and {{Wikidata place}} templates. --Jarekt (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarekt: , I corrected my error, see answer to Bjh21 above. But then it works like a charm (in case of commonscat - wd - wp article = 1: 1: 1 (no commons gallery, no wp, wikivoyage, etc, category). That I have to enter the commonscat in such a case in two places in wikidata, to allow different values in 1 of a 10000 cases, is annoying. And I do not agree that we need the q-code in case of commons-category to wikidata-article links, we need the q-code only, if the commonscat sitelink is not set on wikidata. As wikidata is our one and only central data repository, the link to commons (commonscat) **has** to be set on the wikidata side.
I understand your wish to have a visual link, but the visual link is already there in the left menu (and more visuality is a matter of css). Adding additional visual links for some purposes clutters the appearance of a page and makes it more difficult to find other stuff. So if we could keep the information in just a single place, it makes it much easier to find other information not duplicated for making it more important. Not everybody can sit in the first row. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Herzi Pinki, sorry I did not see your correction. If I want a template to work on Commons I do not want to leave it up to users on Wikidata to keep the commons-category to wikidata-article sitelink when the usual attitude is that same namespace sitelinks are preferred. For example if we got together and agreed among ourselves that sitelink to category is always preferred over a sitelink to a gallery, than we could try to push such preference but at the moment you can add a template without q-code but at any point it can stop working due to edit on Wikidata and I am not even sure if I should reverse such edit. As for {{On Wikidata}} template it is a preference issue: You value lack of clutter more and I prefer ease of and speed of navigation. I have often the hardest time finding the link I am looking for at the left menu and find Wikidata icon much easier to locate. But as I said it is a matter of preferece and priorities. --Jarekt (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarekt: Agreed. Just allow me one more ideological remark: I consider the wikiverse as an interrelated common structure of parts called wikipedia, commons & wikidata (and some others), where we should do things where they are most effective and we should avoid doing duplicate work (especially if it puts workload on volunteers we consider to be an endless and completely scalable resource - they are not). What is the problem if someone replaces a commons category by a commons gallery on wikidata? As long as the gallery is categorized into the corresponding commons category (I consider this as a constraint), it is one more click for navigation (in 1 of 10000 cases) to the category. There btw is another design flaw in wikidata regarding commons: while there should be only one commons category for a real world object, commons galleries are by concept language specific (by naming conventions, but I never saw that) and there could be more galleries for a category showing various aspects; but the commons interwiki link can only hold one of those. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Herzi Pinki, let me start from the beginning. There are two ways (at the moment) that templates on Commons can learn the q-code of the related item:
  1. Q-code is hardwired, as we do with {{Creator}}, {{Authority control}} and many other templates
  2. Q-code is detected, because the commons page is linked as a sitelink from the item (or related category-item). That approach is used by {{Interwiki from Wikidata}}, {{VN}} and probably other templates
The second approach is nice because the link-data is only stored at a single location (on Wikidata) which simplifies maintenance. However in case of cross-namespace sitelinks, someone can just replaces a commons category by a commons gallery and break the template on Commons that was relying on it. By the way meta:2017_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Wikidata#Allow_multiple_entry_from_same_site_on_wikidata and meta:2017_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Wikidata#Stop_using_string_datatype_for_linking_to_pages_on_other_projects proposals could be a big help with this issue. --Jarekt (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Since I was mentioned) I honestly can’t remember which use case I had in mind when creating that template. Back then it was just a top-right icon and not a banner (so way more discreet). As others said this was all before we had other ways of integrations with Wikidata, so the template is definitely not always the best choice. Jean-Fred (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jean-Frédéric: Perhaps we should fork the template, with one template displaying just a top-right icon as originally designed by default, and the other displaying a banner as currently implemented by default, with optional parameters to trigger the other display method.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 02

How to change {{#babel}}

Actualy I'm cleaning up non empty cat redirects and stumbled over Category:User pt-BR. All entries using {{#babel}} with parameter pt-br-X. They got categorized not into Category:User pt-br but into Category:User pt-BR (Upper/lower case error). I have no idea which code or page has to be modified to correct the categorization. Maybe anybody else could help. Thx in advance. --JuTa 21:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not possible, this is part of BCP 47 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect, and its subcats, should be reversed --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 03

Photo challenge October results

Huts and sheds: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Hut for hay storage. Tux, Zillertal, Tyrol, Austria. Vineyard sheds in Burgundy. Beach huts in Swanage, England
Author Wald1siedel Roumpf Sun2Shine
Score 27 13 8
Corroded objects: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Three champions on the steps of a podium, Laos A wrecked ship in Conception Harbour, Newfoundland. Varigotti (Liguria), Rusty Anchor
Author Basile Morin JoannaPoe Prelvini
Score 22 19 18

Congratulations to Wald1siedel, Roumpf, Sun2Shine, Basile Morin, JoannaPoe and Prelvini. -- Jarekt (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Send a 'thanks' notification to one contributor for a log entry: it is almost possible...

Hello,
Have you ever wanted to send a 'thanks' notification to one contributor for a log entry? It can become possible... if you add your support vote to this proposal in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey!
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen food + Liquid nitrogen

How would you call the category of food frozen using liquid nitrogen? "food frozen in liquid nitrogen"? "food frozen using liquid nitrogen"? "liquid nitrogen food freezing"? I'd like to use what could sound more appropriate for an en-N.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexmar983: "Flash frozen food", or is that something different?   — Jeff G. ツ 13:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it used? Is it "neutral" in tone? I trust you... I just need a reliable name. I should/will put this category to remove two parent categories, so the key doubt is: is "flash" here equivalent to "using liquid nitrogen"?--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a comparison, it should be used in files like this one, this one, I am not sure maybe also this one and there is some fancy image of "chemical cuisine" (how is it called, that modern style of cooking that shows off the use of chemistry?) too.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wonder if this could be posted on [Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science] for better clarification. 'Flash frozen' is my choice. Commercially, food is not dunked into to liquid nitrogen because the sudden contraction and expansion shatters the food. The liquid nitrogen is 'sprayed' in at the end of the freezing process. The cold vapor then travels down the tunnel to cool the incoming food. Thus avoiding any sudden temperature changes but too quick for ice crystals to form and puncture the cell walls. Thermodynamically, it is more efficient this way. So mention of liquid nitrogen is not needed in the name of the category even though students let loose with a vacuum flask of nitrogen can use it to rapid freeze. P.g.champion (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that, interesting. Thank you.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still. This doesn't answer your query. As you are more than aware, we like to keep categories simple and logical, so thank you for running it by us in oder to get broader opinions. The Category:Liquid nitrogen now looks large enough to be split into two as you suggest. Think the original cat can be kept as it is for showing images concerning the liquefied gas itself and its containment flasks etc. Suggest a new cat called Freezing with liquid nitrogen. This can then include, not just foods such as File:Dragon's breath.jpg (which needs to be immersed in a cryogenic liquid in order to produce the desired effect) but also freezing flowers etc., so that they become brittle and shatter in ones hands. Soft flexible rubber to can be frozen this way so that it becomes solid enough to be turned on a lath or milled and drilled. All the interesting images of this nature can then be included in the new cat. When that cat fills up, we can then think about splitting it again. I am more than happy to create this cat if others think this is the logical taxonomy solution. It is an import question because getting it right now, will save a lot of time in the future. I've spent many fretful hours on WC, kicking badly structured cats back into shape. What do you think? P.g.champion (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've informed two projects on enwikipedia. Personally, I agree with the creation of "Freezing with liquid nitrogen" as a reliable starting point.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could simplify it further and just have for the major cat Cooling with gases. Let me explain the semantics of freezing/cooling. We want to keep things simple and at their most basic. Most people -in normal speech- associate the freezing of object with said object undergoing a change of state. I.E., liquid to solid etc. This is via a process of cooling, which I think is a better broad scientific term. It encompasses, cooling using gaseous/liquid nitrogen, argon, gaseous/liquid/ solid/carbon dioxide and some more esoteric applications using helium etc. It should be obvious to the image up-loader which cooling method is involved and we want to make it easy for them to find the right cat to place it in and likewise, easy for someone searching WC to find the right cat. So I suggest a belt and braces approach. Cooling with gases as the main cat. Then (with a request that administrators don't delete empty sub cats) we (me even) can populate it with some sub cats which include Cooling with nitrogen. WC has a feature that when an up-loader searches for cats, all he will have to do is type in 'nitrogen' for cats. The list can then show amongst all the available options as Nitrogen, cooling with. Thus, making it obvious which cat is most suitable. Same for for dry ice etc. That will display in the list Dry ice, cooling with. Conversely, someone searching WC for images of a cooling method only has to type in nitrogen or dry ice etc., to find a list of categories dealing with these gases. Food stuffs (along with biological samples and seed archives) will then be easy to categories and sub divide as more images get uploaded. P.g.champion (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As this could circle around for sometime,... I have created Category:Nitrogen used for cooling to show what it looks like. It can always be undone if nobody likes it. P.g.champion (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jitra

This is a sample

Jitra is a town located in Kedah, Malaysia. But the category have many child where not belong there. Can somebody cleanup that picture and only leave for the town one? Thank You.*angys* (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the question. --Fæ (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These files are tagged Jitra on Flickr, but they are apparently not referring to the town in Malaysia. I'm not sure what Jitra they refer to. --ghouston (talk) 08:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that it just means "morning". --ghouston (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the example the tag appears to refer to a Czech folk group; Dubinek is another.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So can we create a Category:Jitra (Czech folk group) for these? - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object, because at least it cleans up the Malaysian town. But I'm not entirely convinced that Jitra is the name of folk group. At least, we have File:31.8.15 1 ZZ Bavoracek 031 (21050225281).jpg that says something like "detsky folklorni soubor Dubinek / Barovacek", or "the folklore ensemble Dubinek / Barovacek", and if we Google those we find pages that do seem to be folk groups [3] and [4], but I can't find any page like that for "Jitra". Who knows. --ghouston (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Feel free to fix those up however you want. My guess is that none of them will ever be used for much, but I just wanted to get them out of polluting Category:Jitra. Once I looked through and decided they didn't look particularly useful, I did not take time to evaluate or analyze them further. I just fulfilled the apparent intent (classify them in as the folk group Jitra). - Jmabel ! talk 16:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dubinek appears to be better known; my identification of Jitra was based on a few mentions on pages like this (Google Translate: “The following ensembles performed here: […], Jitra, […] and, of course, our ensemble.” and this (GT: “The [youth] and children's folk ensemble Dubínek from Sezimovo Ústí will take part […], accompanied by Jitra.”) The latter prompts me to speculate that they’re a musical group that plays for folk dancers, but at any rate they seem to be part of the South Bohemian ‘folk scene’.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. --ghouston (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do we deal with 'bad' sourced maps?

Hello all. I'm wondering how we deal with graphics(maps/flags/graphs) that are uploaded but don't have a source for the information they represent or contain contradicting information? I'm not talking about graphics of which the author is unknown but about graphics that are made by the users themselves. Examples: File:Flag of turkish Kurds.svg.png - File:Турецкий Курдистан.jpg ~ Zirguezi 19:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have the {{Factual accuracy}} template along with various disputed templates, to name a few {{Disputed coat of arms}}, {{Disputed diagram}} and {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}}. You can add one of these templates to a file page, then on the talk page put details on what you dispute about the graphic/media and why. Make sure to add information to the talk page because just adding the templates without additional details doesn't help to inform other users (and the uploader) of any potential issues with the graphic/media. - Offnfopt(talk) 19:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you! ~ Zirguezi 19:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 04

Checking on a permissions blurb

At Death Salon: Publicity Photos it says "Feel free to use these photos on any story about Death Salon, but please be sure to include the proper photographer credit for each image." Is that text sufficient for a CC-by license? Or do they need say that in more explicit legalese? Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it were "for any purpose" we could accept it as {{Attribution}}. Unfortunately the wording only allows use in stories about Death Salon. One might violate the terms with other uses, such as distributing standalone prints. For this reason we can't accept the images under these terms. Guanaco (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2017-49

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Changes later this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 December. It will be on all wikis from 7 December (calendar).
  • Very old versions of the Opera Web browser are no longer supported. This means that technical development will not be tested to make sure it works with those Opera versions. Use Opera 15 or above or another browser if you have problems. [8]
  • Almost 170 wikis with no high-priority errors in Linter categories will switch to use the Remex parsing library. This is to replace Tidy. A few larger wikis such as German and Italian Wikipedia will also make this switch. It will happen on 5 December. Other wikis will be recommended to switch soon when they have fixed the errors that must be fixed. Tidy will be removed in the middle of 2018. [9][10]

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 5 December at 19:30 (UTC). See how to join.
  • You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 6 December at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

December 05

Freedom of panorama

After uploading photos of a public sculpture, I have become concerned about the copyright status. The photos were for the article Digital DNA. The sculpture has generated a lot controversy, and photos appear in numerous places, including:

https://www.arts.gov/art-works/2010/altart-sci-we-need-new-ways-linking-arts-and-sciences http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/24/palo-alto-removal-of-digital-dna-sculpture-may-lead-to-court/ https://ww2.kqed.org/arts/2017/10/15/artist-fights-to-stop-palo-alto-egg-sculptures-removal/ https://hyperallergic.com/404716/digital-dna-adriana-varella-palo-alto/ https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2011/12/16/fixes-planned-for-palo-altos-iconic-egg-sculpture https://www.flickr.com/photos/royprasad/19466032390/

The possible solutions to to the copyright problem might be:

1. Ask the artist to use commons licensing, through orts.

2. Ask the artist to furnish a photo with the necessary commons license.

3. Use a photo in which the sculpture is in the background.

4. Use some other exception for considering the artwork in the public domain. Even the government web site is using images of the sculpture. All these news organizations seem to have a way around the copyright.

5. Does fair use apply, since there is controversy about removing the artwork because it is weathered or defective. The photo shows the condition of the art.

What should I do? Comfr (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upload a low-res version to Wikipedia as non-free content? See en:Wikipedia:Non-free_content. --ghouston (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Comfr and Ghouston: There are other projects than English Wikipedia which accept non-free content; all are listed at m:nfc.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comfr -- The de minimis doctrine is for when you've incidentally captured some part of something copyrighted in a photograph, but the main purpose of the photograph is something quite different. If you're using "a photo in which the sculpture is in the background" for the purpose of illustrating the sculpture, then you're violating at least the spirit of de minimis. But thanks for linking to the en:Digital DNA article, which is quite entertaining... AnonMoos (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

welcome to the fair use hypocrisy. contemporary art, that are widely published, are denied here, because "have a care for the downstream profiting reusers" whoever they are. you can write an article on english and get one fair use image. consensus is cast in stone. you can save images to flickr. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything "hypoctritical" about having policies and applying them consistently. Hypocrisy would be making "convenient" exceptions. I may not love all the policies, but they are generally community decisions that have been hashed out at length. - Jmabel ! talk 02:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sites linked above probably can claim fair use, e.g., for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching". How can an image archive like Commons claim fair use? Can Commons host any file as long as it has a "fair use only" disclaimer on it? I doubt it. --ghouston (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the policy is not consistently applied: on the contrary, it is the symptom of an ideology, that deletes what it is not interested in, like say art, and fights to the death the "censorship" of porn. (and dictates license terms to institutions, who use NC, as it allows hybrid licenses with NC). it is fundamentally at odds with the sum of all knowledge. art history go away, we do not value your knowledge. and hey if knowledge graph and now everipedia steal views, that is just fine, they are not as pure as us. new users are baffled, maybe a warning template of license purity FAQ is in order. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 18:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Commons should censor porn or host NC files doesn't seem relevant to this particular case. Porn can't be hosted on Commons as fair use, and the Digital DNA sculpture isn't even licensed NC. --ghouston (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it goes directly to the claim of hypocrisy. it is not the free license, or scope or policy, but rather it is who the uploader is. the list of examples is enormous. lacking a standard of practice, the community thrashes with periodic drama, but it is not unhypocritical. you realize there is an ocean of fair use with PD-old that is only curated by waves of drama, not teamwork? let's not look. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 07

Category:治家全書

Hi, anybody here wanting to take a look at this category to be renamed --> English text. Thank you for your time. :) Lotje (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge: date this tin of buttons

"Honeyco", 2lb tin of honey

Can anyone suggest a date for the original design of this tin? I'm guessing the 1940s based on style and appearance of the earliest buttons stored in the tin. Someone may have an idea of how to discover more about the company, Honeyco, which was in New Zealand, or in fact remember their products. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is out of my wheel house so I'll just add what few crumbs I found. The patent for the tin itself is dated 1934. You can also see a honey can from the same company (the canning company) here with a press-in lid, so they changed the type of can at one point. A similar but slightly different press in lid from same company can be seen here and that page says 1960s. So based on that limited information would lead someone to believe it is from somewhere between the 1930s and before the 1960s. I know that isn't much help, but hopefully someone more knowledgeable can chime in. - Offnfopt(talk) 14:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=270959462"