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/2024/10.

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 Proposal: AI generated images must be clear they're AI in the file name 104 36 Bastique 2024-10-04 21:17
2 Proposal: de-prioritise AI images in search 38 17 Ckoerner 2024-09-30 19:10
3 Monuments database in Russia 38 9 Svetlov Artem 2024-09-30 09:17
4 Hosting HDR images as JPEG with gain map 0 0
5 How to change the text in a speedy deletion (GA1)? 4 3 ReneeWrites 2024-10-06 22:53
6 Publishers info in newspapers 11 6 Enhancing999 2024-10-04 12:33
7 Special:EditWatchlist timed out 11 5 ReneeWrites 2024-10-03 23:52
8 Help:Misinformation 6 5 Prototyperspective 2024-10-03 09:52
9 Template:No advertising 2 2 Prototyperspective 2024-10-03 10:00
10 Why? 4 3 Jeff G. 2024-09-30 14:00
11 Image not displaying at correct resolution? 4 3 Bastique 2024-09-30 21:49
12 Sliding location 5 3 Broichmore 2024-10-01 07:22
13 Rename of images 2 2 Bastique 2024-10-01 16:07
14 Commons Gazette 2024-10 1 1 RoyZuo 2024-10-01 18:56
15 Cat-a-lot is slow 6 4 Adamant1 2024-10-02 16:19
16 Intersection category of gender, occupation, nationality and decade of birth 12 6 RadioKAOS 2024-10-07 02:57
17 What are these Arabic seals called? 3 2 Omphalographer 2024-10-07 02:11
18 Template:Cosplay at 3 2 Ellicrum 2024-10-05 23:02
19 Invitation to Participate in Wiki Loves Ramadan Community Engagement Survey 0 0
20 Wikidata infobox forcing Wikidata based DEFAULTSORT 18 4 Adamant1 2024-10-06 20:47
21 Fixing the picture 2 2 Prototyperspective 2024-10-06 17:56
22 Dashes in category names 3 3 MKFI 2024-10-07 06:37
23 Uploading photos taken in a commercial establishment 1 1 Ineuw 2024-10-07 06:48
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.
A village pump in Burkina Faso [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.

Oldies

Doubt to rename image

Is possible rename a file without changing its extension? In this case, for example, the extension was changed (.JPG -> .jpg) and does not preserve the original configuration. --HVL talk 15:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, yes, but most filemovers seem to like to lowercase the extension when they change a filename (and in this case the renamer was the original uploader anyhow). There's not a 'rule' about the extensions, but the lowercase form is more common both on and off of Commons. Revent (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's the default when using the gadget. JPG is changed to jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the uploader and filemover, I would not hesitate to move it again if you prefer .JPG, assuming you can figure out how to make the gadget let you do that. Delphi234 (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should just be able to type the uppercase version of the extension on top of what the gadget gives as a default, though I haven't tested it. Not, tbh, something that 'matters' beyond personal preference. Revent (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it's a personal preference. In the past I've tried to move a file keeping .JPG (uppercase version) when choosing the new name, and in a other case I've changed a .jpg image to the same title with .JPG, but the motion didn't occurred. It must be a limitation of the "filemover". --HVL talk 00:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you were only trying to change the extension, and it did not let you, you can move it through an intermediate name 1.jpg to foo.jpg to 1.JPG. Just clean up afterwards to avoid extra file names. Delphi234 (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 08

Comments in filename

File:The President Wilson Hotel Geneva - Starwood Luxury Collection! Switzerland - 01112009 Great hotel, good food and drink, photography is not allowed, smiles are rare here!.jpg Is this allowed?Smiley.toerist (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Fæ (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Policy Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view says it may not always be possible for file names and related descriptive text to be "neutral". However, neutrality of description should be aimed at wherever possible. While the "review" in the filename is mostly positive, and so unlikely to attract unwanted legal attention of the hotel owner, Commons is not TripAdvisor. I suggest that our policy in fact strongly encourages the removal of that sentence, which appears to have ended up in the filename as a result of the upload tool's simple algorithm rather than any deliberate ploy to force Wikipedian's to insert hotel reviews into their article text :-). It doesn't belong in the description paragraph either. -- Colin (talk) 07:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for a rename under reason 5.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same problem with most filenames in Category:Model at beach (Philips advertisement). While filename stability is very important, and although improvement file renaming is a neverending slippery slope, this kind of (needlessly) creepy/smarmy characterization arguably falls within the spirit of COM:FR§5: «gratuitous vulgarity, personal attacks/harassment». Anyone against such renaming? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saudi Arabia Fedration.png

Logo was uploaded as own work in 2013, but this google image search gets quite a lot of hits. Almost all of the pages are not in English so there's no way for me to tell whether the uploader is the copyright holder. Some of the urls such as this and this appear to be official pages of sports/news organizations which may or may not matter when it comes to copyright, but I'm not sure. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After having a look at the user's other uploads, I doubt that any of the files are own work. I nominated all of them for deletion. --Didym (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 11

Template:SVG Chart

Moved discussion to Template talk:SVG Chart -- Offnfopt(talk) 12:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 12

Naturalis - using persistent links to come?

Naturalis Biodiversity Center intends with me to upload thousands of images to Commons from their online databases. However, they are in the process to introduce persistent links and want only the future persistent link to appear, so no longer, for example, this one. This can entail that in the mean time thousands of broken links will appear, causing error messages etcetera.

  • Is this acceptable?

Regards, Hansmuller (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia project with Naturalis[reply]

Hi Hansmuller, it could be possible to find a smart template-based solution for that. Can you tell us more about how the links are currently structured and how they will be structured in the future? Will the IDs still be the same? Can you estimate how long the transition will take? Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File page of image as a example of the links in question, for those reading this. Offnfopt(talk) 07:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! At this point IT staff at Naturalis isn't sure yet how it's gonna be. In the crab example of Offnfopt you see the present structure, a simple link for the image, and an api call on a Naturalis database for an original description page with biological info. Regards, Hansmuller (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Present link structure, for example that crab:

Future persistent link structure as a reference on the Commons page:

Before September 1, persistent links should be introduced at Naturalis. Of course, a smart template-based solution would be very attractive (i myself am not able to create this..). Kind regards, Hansmuller (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hansmuller: I've got some ideas but don't have the time to test them at the moment. If you haven't heard from me after the weekend, i might have forgotten about this – in that case please leave a short message at my talk page to remind me. Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:DELIDAS LOGO JPEG board.jpg and File:Gul Delidas Stark sås 150 grams flaska.jpg

First image was uploaded in 2006 and second was uploaded in 2013. These are the only images upload by the editor and both are claimed as "own work". Neither image seems to meet the exceptions specified in COM:PACKAGING and it is also likely that the uploader is not the owner of the copyright. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated both of these files for deletion per my reasoning given above. I thought that discussing the issue here at VP was a good idea to do, but realize now such a step was not needed. OP, etc. can be removed/archived as needed if inappropriate for this page. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-created artwork" as a reason to delete files from Commons

Link Commons_talk:Project_scope
I have seen many successful deletions of images with "self-created" in the nomination statement. Logically, it should make absolutely no difference to the deletion outcome what the source is, as during a deletion discussion what should concern the community is having a correct copyright release and that the image is of potential reuse value ("educational value" including cultural and historical value as well as images with use for teaching). I would like us to move to it being an irrelevant tangent to worry about whether an uploader created the artwork or whether the "self creator" is someone else.

Part of the possible confusion is that the Scope policy includes the example "Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use" for which I have proposed a minor change to "Artwork without obvious educational use". Please follow the link above if you would like to challenge the change or discuss it further. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an artwork without obvious educational use should be deleted even if it was created by someone else than the uploader (moreover it is often difficult to check who really created an image). Nevertheless, a lot of wannabe artist upload here a large sample of their creations, which is generally totally useless for the project and I think we need to state clearly somewhere that our scope is not hosting artistic creations of anybody. Therefore, I suggest: "Artwork without obvious educational use, in particular artwork created by the uploader". BrightRaven (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This appears a subjective assessment that does not stand up to scrutiny. When I analysed all incoming uploads by source (see the VP archives), identifying that the camera source was a mobile phone, or that the upload was from a new Flickrstream were high indicators of the upload worth looking at for deletion (mainly as copyvios or out of scope random selfies). Similarly if someone is spamming Commons or excessively promoting their work, then this is well covered by other parts of the policy.
Could you provide some statistical evidence that Commons has a significant problem with artworks sourced to the uploader (compared to artworks uploaded by anyone other than the artist), and support the assertion that this needs to be explicitly enshrined in policy? My own subjective impression is that Commons has no significant problem with self sourced artworks, certainly not self sourced photographs as this was the basis of the WLM programme, and that deletion discussions would be improved if there were not a default presumption of bad faith for uploaders who donate their in-scope creative works to Commons (seeing your work being put up for deletion with hostile allegations of being a wannabe artist must be incredibly off-putting). We have many counter examples which should be positively encouraged. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Fæ that who the uploader is should make no difference in artwork deletion discussions and would support clarification of the policy. Many notable artists upload samples of their work, and we do not want to discourage that, the way Wikipedia discourages them to contribute to their articles (as it should). An artwork can be of educational use because: artwork or artist is notable as defined by en:Wikipedia:Notability or because artwork's subject, technique, medium or history are educational. The rest is likely out of scope. I can imagine that out of scope artworks are more likely to be uploaded by the artists than other, but that should not be used as differentiating factor. --Jarekt (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can I encourage people to follow Fae's request: "Please follow the link above if you would like to challenge the change or discuss it further." It doesn't help to have discussion in two places, and the VP discussion will get lost whereas the policy talk page remains relevant. Note that this change text is just an example, not the actual rule, which remains "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". -- Colin (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with Jarekt here above. Artistic creation that are in scope belongs to 2 categories: artworks by notable artists and artworks relevant because of their subject, technique, medium or history (and of course, all the images that are in legitimate use are considered in scope). Maybe this should be clearly mentioned in the scope page. BrightRaven (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is long enough to cause endless wikilawyering and misunderstanding, if anything it should be trimmed back and let a case book handle liminal cases. I can already think of reasons why your list would be a major problem for DRs, but do not want to expand here if you intend to put a solid proposal. --Fæ (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EN / ES Wikipedia Admin needed to look up file history

Can EN / ES Wikipedia Admins help tracking the author and proper license of File:TrendLinesOilDepletionScenarios41211.png? I think it was transfered from EN wiki -> ES Wiki -> Commons and the history and authorship got lost in the process. --Jarekt (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 13

Commons:Milestones

What was the 26 millionth file? I think, we have missed it (Actual file count: 109,410,815).--Kopiersperre (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:WHTX-AM 1570.png

Logo of radio station uploaded as own work, but there's no indication that uploader owns the copyright. This CNN article in which the image is used is dated exactly the same day as when the image was uploaded to Commons, which might indicate that the CNN article is where the image originated. For reference, similar images uploaded by same editor have been deleted for copyright reasons. Seems most likey to be a non-free logo mistakenly uploaded to Commons as "own work". - Marchjuly (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jmable. Thanks for the push in the right direction. I thought that VP was sort of a Commons Teahouse/discussion board type of place to get general opinions of other editors about whether an image was acceptable or should be nominated for deletion. I wasn't intentionally trying to muck up the page with these posts. My bad if that is what I ended up doing. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 'copyright' VP is a better place for such questions, but this image is worthy IMO of a DR for the 'topical' evaluation there... it's a threshold of originality question, really. Revent (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply Revent. I completely forgot that there are two VPs and that the "copyright" one is where I should've gone. Should I move this post their for further discussion or simply start a DR? Thanks again and sorry to all for getting the VP tabs mixed up. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs removed from webpage

I recently posted 6 pictures of my own on the Barry Railway Station webpage. Apparently someone objected to the presence of these photos though I have received no explanation as to why. I raised the issue on the Wikipedia Commons helpline and received some replies but my postings and the replies have also been deleted, again without explanation. Could somebody offer me an explanation as to what is going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhobat Bryn (talk • contribs)

This is Wikimedia Commons, the problem you refere to is related to Wikipedia. Anyway, even if you asked at the wrong project your questions have been answered. See Commons:Help_desk#Barry_Railway_Station and Commons:Help_desk#Barry_Railway_Station_2. --Martin H. (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 14

File:Seymore D Fair Children's Education Foundation Logo.png

Image uploaded as own work. It is supposed to be the logo of the foundation, but I can't find it anywhere on the foundation's official website or any of it's social media accounts. Same uploader had various other files deleted as for lack of permission, so not sure if it is a non-free logo mistakenly uploaded as own work. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading from other websites

What is the protocol, if any, for uploading photographs from other websites? Is this permitted?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhobat Bryn (talk • contribs)

Hi! Please do not double post. You already got an answer here. Gunnex (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate-for-deletion script

Not sure where to request changes to scripts, so if you know of a better place, please move this there.

A "nominate for deletion" link appears in the toolbox when viewing most (all?) images, and it provides a link to a helpful script that takes care of the entire process of nominating an image for deletion, aside from writing the rationale of course. There's one problem, however: hitting "Enter" causes it to run the script. I'm often hitting the wrong key and sending through a nomination when it's not complete; see this mangled DR for an example, created because I accidentally hit "Enter" when I meant to type a quotation mark. Could it please be modified? I don't care if it's modified by removing the hit-enter-to-run feature (i.e. you'd have to click the Proceed button or navigate with the tab key), or by giving you a prompt, or waiting a few seconds and giving you the chance to stop the script before it runs. Nyttend (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This would have a (negative) impact on the workflow of many users. If you click the expand icon next to the rationale field, you can already hit enter without proceeding.    FDMS  4    00:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How would it have a negative impact? Hit "tab" twice and you're on the Proceed button, and hitting Enter or the spacebar will send things through. It's a trifling thing to reprogram a bot to do this. Nyttend (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The enter-to-proceed was a feature requested by many users. The only way to accommodate both interests would be a user preference, from what I see. You may add a section to MediaWiki talk:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js requesting that. -- Rillke(q?) 13:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 15

Zoom browser broken again

See, for example, File:All Saints Margaret Street Interior 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpg. Such images really need the zoom browser to be appreciated, and because many browsers or computers struggle to open them. @Dschwen: -- Colin (talk) 06:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just have to comment, extremely nice image linked. Worthy of a FP nom, IMO. Revent (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has one: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:All Saints Margaret Street Interior 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpg. And one problem is people complain it is too large, which is really a problem with browser's not really being designed as high-resolution image viewers. So that's where the zoom browser makes it much more useful. -- Colin (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T54717
This is f'ing frustrating. Something changed again on tool labs. This error is new. Fcgi is broken. Some libraries disappeared from the webserver nodes. I reopened the ticket in which I requested them to be installed. --Dschwen (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I fixed this by doing a
 webservice --release trusty restart
Let's see if this is all. --Dschwen (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone help with template/javascript code to make it easy to display an image at a given size. This might be a given megapixels or a given reduction from full size (e.g. 50%), or even a combination (e.g., 50% or 8MP whichever is larger). See Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Image viewing tool for FP for details. -- Colin (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Search function on Commons and Wikipedia is dead

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T102463

Already since morning, the search function here on Commons and on Wikipedia (at least :de) does not work and instead produces an overload-message

  • "Bei der Suche ist ein Fehler aufgetreten: Die Suche ist derzeit überlastet. Bitte später erneut versuchen."

However, when I call Wikimedia status[1], everything appears in green, AKA "no problem". WTF? --Túrelio (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Túrelio: Basically, they broke it WMF-wide, and rebooting the search server supposedly fixed it, but they are keeping it down until they can figure out why it broke. See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T102463 Revent (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 16

Frequently, we will have a photo of a sculpture that has a tag like {{PD-old-100}} along with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. The {{PD-old-100}} tag is misleading for at least two reasons: (1) it says, "This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights." That is definitively NOT the case - the file can only be used if you comply with the terms of the Creative Commons license. (2) It categorizes the image into a sub-category of Category:Public domain, which may lead someone to mistakenly believe, again, that the image is in the public domain.

I know that this is at least something of a common practice - but it's a very bad common practice. In some cases, it's ridiculously obvious that the underlying object is hundreds or thousands of years old and is obviously not subject to copyright.

Some image pages, like File:Hirsfängare Neapel, F Bourgeois - Livrustkammaren - 86545.tif, put the object in its own collapsed section, which is an improvement, although it still categorized in the PD category.

Others, such as File:Hispano-Moresque - Large Plate with Concentric Bands - Walters 481214.jpg, whose template Jarekt (talk · contribs) has now protected to his preferred version to prevent anyone from being able to improve it, are horribly written and display the PD template above the actual license template, and thus more likely to be noticed. A well-meaning person desiring to re-use this content could, from a cursory glance, think that this image is in the public domain.

I would like to suggest making an effort to standardize these template by adding an "underlying=1" parameter to the PD-old-100 (and similar) templates. If underlying=1 is set, then (1) the message "This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights" is replaced with "the object depicted in this image is free of known restrictions under copyright law, but this image itself is a derivative work with its own copyright. Please see the accompanying tag for additional licensing information."; (2) the image will not be in a public domain category, and (3) the grey (c) gets replaced with a different icon (maybe something like File:PD-icon-info.svg?.

The purpose of this exercise is to give it a visual cue that the image is not actually in the public domain. --B (talk) 04:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infosplit}} and {{Author}} can (and often should) be used in such cases, though it doesn't seem to be frequently done. The example uses in the documentation of the infosplit template, in particular, should be illustrative. Revent (talk) 05:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(further comment) As far as the dig at Jarekt for protecting that template, a licensing template with over 18,000 transclusions seems a rather obvious candidate for protection. Instead of assuming bad faith on his part, you can simply make an edit request on the template's talk page with your suggestions. Revent (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to modify {{Cc-pd-mark-footer}} to not show up if any template that is not another PD template is present on the page? It just seems ridiculous to say "This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights" when that is definitively 100% not true. --B (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I  Agree that {{Cc-pd-mark-footer}} text and machine-readable marking should not be added when PD license template is accompanied by other non-PD license templates, as it often happens with sculptures, music and other works which might have multiple licenses for multiple authors. Many images using {{Art Photo}} also have that problem. {{Cc-pd-mark-footer}} is part of all (or most) PD license templates (2.2k in all) but should be skipped if non-PD license template is present at the page. To my knowledge we do not have any templates which can change their functionality based on if other templates are detected on the pages or not. Maybe something can be done with JavaScript. I had discussions with other users about this before and usual attitude is that this is too complex to contemplate or that the problem is too rare to worry about. Others like B decided to remove DP license templates from 18k files without talking to anybody about it. One other drastic solution would be to remove {{Cc-pd-mark-footer}} from PD licenses. --Jarekt (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T89692
  • License and other information should be separated to be machine-readable, but that's not possible in the case of File:Hirsfängare Neapel, F Bourgeois - Livrustkammaren - 86545.tif. This should be fixed. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hadn't even considered the machine readability aspect of it. What about adding a parameter to the PD templates "underlying=1"? "underlying=1" would remove the message that the image is PD, hopefully come up with a different icon that makes it clear to someone casually glancing that this image is not public domain, and remove whatever machines are reading that makes them think the image is PD. That would allow the issue to be resolved in bulk for all of the source templates that transclude the PD template. I would bet that a bot could even add underlying=1 to any individual image that has two templates, one of which is PD. As for being able to detect what other templates are on the page ... how does the GFDL template do it? I have seen where GFDL will show the re-licensing notice, but hide it if there is a cc-by-sa-3.0 template on the page? Or on Wikipedia, there are navigation templates like en:Template:CBSNetwork_Shows_(current_and_upcoming) that show up as expanded if they are the only template on the page, but collapsed if there are any other navigation templates. In en:Zoo_(TV_series), the CBS template at the bottom is expanded, but in en:Blue Bloods (TV series), it is collapsed. Neither usage of the template has any parameters, so I'm assuming that there is some magic where it is aware that there is another navigation template on the page. --B (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably hundreds unique PD templates and each would have to be edited and documented separately. Then there are wrapper templates like {{Self}}, {{PD-Art}} or {{PD-old-auto}} that call other PD templates and would have to pass those parameters. The GFDL does change it's behavior based on presence and absence of CC template, but I think only when both are wrapped in {{Self}} template, so I think the magic must be hiding in {{Self}}. --Jarekt (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

an image from facebook

hi.i want to upload an image from facebook.can i upload it or no.and if i can how can i upload it?.https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/1376569_1378298162444575_478043588_n.jpg?oh=277579154e5991403c2205a7e4805a0c&oe=56285F2D--سوزوار (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your link here gives an error, so I can't see what you mean to upload, but very few images on Facebook can be uploaded, unless they are photos you took:
  • Generally, images on Facebook are neither in the public domain nor free-licensed.
  • Many pictures on Facebook are, in fact, posted by people who actually didn't even have proper legal rights to post them there.
Technically, if the picture is one of the relatively few that is OK, you would download from Facebook to your computer, then upload in the usual manner, attributing the source and indicating licensing that is appropriate to that photo. Unfortunately, even if an image on Facebook was uploaded at a high resolution, I'm unaware of any way of obtaining a resolution higher than what you can see on your screen. - Jmabel ! talk 16:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That specific image looks more like marketing/advertisement than educational? And as written above: The license must fit. --Malyacko (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replace pictures with watermarks

Dear all, I uploaded some years ago some pictures with my signature on the lower right corner. I do not want anymore my name to be on that images for a matter of privacy. I have each version without watermark and I can upload it. Can you please help me and tell me how to delete the images? It all seems so difficult, I already tried but I failed. Thanks a lot.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_User:harlock20

To upload a version without the watermark, go to the list of the files you have uploaded, click on the relevant photo, scroll down and then click "Upload a new version of this file". -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If desired for privacy, you can then ask an administrator to delete the older revisions that include your personal information. Revent (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to do it with one of the images, I link it here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Puente_isabel_II_en_sevilla.jpg As you can see on the File history, the first two versions have watermarks, the last two versions no. How can I contact an administration for the removal of the signed versions? Thanks

Gadget description translations

Hi! I have translated some gadget descriptions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15) to my language long time ago but I don't see translations in this page. Could some admin do something? --SMAUG (Talk – Contributions) 17:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I missed something, it was due to a loss of session data. Blame MediaWiki for that. Sorry you had to wait that long. Next time, please include {{Edit request}} so the page is at least categorized into the admin backlog. -- Rillke(q?) 17:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restore image - File:TPoliceExplorer.jpg

I'm new to uploading, and uploaded File:TPoliceExplorer.jpg but it had the wrong license. I messaged the flickr user and he was okay with changing the license on the image. Can the file be restored? Is it the right license now? Thanks. Shoman93 (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shoman93: ✓ Done File restored. Thibaut120094 (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last mile

I finaly reduced the work Category:Images uploaded by Natuur12 (clcean up2) to 10 files (was about 380). Can somebody find the location of the picture (and File:Amtrak loco on the level crossing (2289063956).jpg) from the same place and time?Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC))]][reply]

It looks like someone grabbed the geotags from the Flickr pages already. Revent (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Er, actually, disregard. Those coordinates are apparently wrong, as they show up as inside buildings and not on railroad tracks. :( Revent (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they helped a lot: Looked for the nearest 2-track railway on OSM, guesstimated that the image would probably show a railway station, picked the nearest one, switched over to Google street view, et voila: found the arches on the brick wall . The other one should be very near … --El Grafo (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the next problem is File:Steam locomotive under restoration (197086166).jpg. There are several pictures of Peter Van den Bossche (:Category:Photographs by Peter Van den Bossche) taken on 2003-09-06 in some workplace/museum. I suspect in Luxemburg but I am not certain.Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found the location and created a new category: Category:Oignies CMCF. The locomotive 231.C.78 seems to famous: [2] [3], but I cant seem to pinpoint the precise category for this pacific type steam locomotive.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 17

File:Ayesha Quraishi 2005.jpg

I see some problems with this file : in the history of this file, we see that the image has been changed. Which leads to 2 problems :

  1. The previous file can't be used anymore
  2. The OTRS authorization may apply to the first picture only.

Could anyone fix those problems ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Credit-less reuse of Commons images

Hi, what is to be done when a Commons image is reused (particularly by newspapers) without due credit given and/or the licence noted? I've seen a number of Indian news sites use Commons images with (when they are feeling generous) a note attributing the source to just "Wikipedia" or more often than not, nothing at all. For example, here's a news article which uses a cropped version of this image without any credit at all. Thanks. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the copyright-holder is the one to complain, it's best to notify him/her (and eventually leave a link to the infringing re-use on the image-talkpage). --Túrelio (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion of still GIF images using color or transparency to PNG

So I have been running User:GifTagger for some time until it was blocked due to "Problem with the editing and the enforcement of an opinion without conversation with the relevant community" in January. I had to clean up the code and was too busy with other things that time anyway. Though, now I feel like getting a discussion up on this topic. I had some users on my talk page asking if I could fire the bot up again but I'd rather have any sort of feedback before getting blocked out of the blue again. --McZusatz (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to start the discussion, I will present what I think are the advantages of using PNG over GIF:

The thumbnail of this gif is useless as it only shows some random black pixels. Sadly it was used in two articles.
Much smoother thumb
  1. Better thumbnails
    C.f. thumb on the right; GIF thumbnails are often pixelated due to transparency (Only a single transparency index is supported). Also PNG thumbnails support 24-bit RGB in contrast to a maximum of 256 colors in GIF (thumbnail) files.
  2. Smaller size
    GIF files tend to be larger than PNG
  3. Easier editing/"Lossless" editing
    Someone may want to edit those files. Surely the editor prefers a 24-bit palette over the 8-bit GIF-palette without uploading a new PNG derivative file before or after his edit by fiddling with (partly) broken tools such as UpWiz or DerivativeFX. Also you can not apply most filters to indexed palettes which results in a lossy process: Palette -> 24 bit -> Apply filter -> another? Palette
    However, the conversion from GIF to PNG is lossless and also the transparency, if present, does not get lost. (PNG supports 8-bit transparency in contrast to GIF's 1-bit transparency.)

--McZusatz (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is to leave the GIFs as is and only update them on a needed basis. A large number of GIFs should be replaced by SVG (vector data) to begin with, so a extra PNG is unneeded in a large number of cases. Thumbnail point you made could be dealt with by generating PNG thumbnails with a anti-alias option instead of generating GIF thumbnails (i.e. similar to how we convert SVG to PNG for thumbnails/re-sizing). This is an issue that could be fixed through the wikimedia software end without having to re-upload a new version of every file. Offnfopt(talk) 22:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@McZusatz: One rationale I find hard to understand is (for example at File:Enrico cialdini.png): "This GIF was problematic due to non-greyscale color table." Isn't it correct for a colour image to have a non-greyscale colour table⁇ I'm not sure which of your other rationales may also apply, but the filesize was bigger than that of File:Enrico cialdini.gif. I'm also a little concerned that (non-admins) lose the edit history of the deleted files, so it's harder to check the licensing etc. --99of9 (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
99of9 After reading your comment, I went ahead and ran a small test case of some of the files in the contrib list for the bot. I don't have access to see the pages for the deleted files, so I converted the PNG files to GIFs using the exact same indexed palette found in the PNG, so there is no loss or change in the image from the conversion I did. The original GIF file sizes may be different from mine depending on what options they used to save the files, I didn't do any special optimizations or tweaks to the files. The below table is the results of this small test case. You can see from the table that the claim of PNG having a smaller file size did not hold up to this test case. Also as I stated before, the bulk of these images are better served being converted to vector graphics due to the nature the pictures. Offnfopt(talk) 08:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File GIF size (in bytes) PNG size (in bytes) Smaller file size PNGopt
File:Enis logo2.png 1,997 2,150 GIF
File:Enlarged lateral ventricles in schizophrenia.png 45,747 58,353 GIF 39.227
File:Enlarged spleen.png 10,106 10,960 GIF
File:Enlluita-logo.png 5,500 6,009 GIF
File:Enmascaramiento temporal.png 4,032 5,391 GIF
File:Enneagram - 2.png 30,934 31,843 GIF
File:Ennea triangle.png 1,139 2,161 GIF
File:Enrico cialdini.png 19,980 23,409 GIF 17.314
File:Enrin u0.png 13,577 20,241 GIF 11.227
File:Ensea-fonctions.png 7,854 7,815 PNG
I can agree Offnfopt and 99of9. The file size is only one point, as I mentioned to McZusatz before, the bot need a simple PNG optimizing function (I used the very fast PNGGauntlet). So I only vote for the bot if he has such functionaltiy. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  09:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the poor PNG optimization with some better one in the meantime, so this should not be an issue any more. --McZusatz (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@99of9, Offnfopt: Your proposal to use PNG for thumbnails instead of GIF, indeed solves the issues that can be observed in GIF thubnails today. Nonetheless, I'd still prefer to have the source image in PNG as well to make it easier for users to upload an enhanced version without going through quantization of the color values. This quantization degrades an image slightly if the color values don't match the quantization levels. --McZusatz (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add that I'm not against the bot per se, when I first posted I was in the mind set thinking the bot was going to leave the original GIF, so I was thinking it was going to cause a large number of duplicate files. But being that is not the case and letting the pros and cons rattle around in my head for a while, I'm warming up to the idea. Though I do worry about the bot encountering a file configuration it may not be able to handle and end up outputting a garbage PNG file and removing the original GIF. I wonder if the bot should generate a paged gallery log of files converted so others could keep an eye on the changes being made without having to scroll through the contrib log of the bot. I also support the good suggestion by Perhelion. Offnfopt(talk) 10:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "non-greyscale color table" bot comment is due to giving non-transparent greyscale GIFs lower priority for conversion (i.e. not to be replaced without a further round of discussion at a future date), because of the fact that PNG thumbnailing for many years was significantly worse at resizing opaque grayscale PNGs than GIF thumbnailing is at resizing opaque grayscale GIFs -- and also various developer comments which have led to suspicions that improving PNG resizing in this area is not a WMF priority, and in fact that the very belated partial progress which was finally made in such PNG resizing could actually be reversed if WMF developers choose to adopt image software with some nifty features in other areas. See the discussion at Commons:Bots/Requests/GifTagger... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images of HM Government ministers and MPs (published on UK Government sites)

A reader has expressed displeasure that an image of a UK Government minister was deleted.

That reader argues: "Images of HM Government ministers and MPs (published on UK Government sites) are not private property - they belong to the people (UK subjects)."

I see two issues here: 1. Confirmation that photos of UK ministers published on government sites qualify as public domain 2. Clarification that it is helpful for the upload or to identify why an image might be public domain, especially in cases where it is not obvious, and it should be understandable that in the absence of such helpful information we err on the side of caution and delete until such evidence is provided.

I suspect that our contact person is correct regarding the status but I have been unable to confirm it within the pages I have reviewed.

I looked at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory and I do not see anything within the UK section indicating the special status of photos of government ministers published on government sites.

I looked at: Commons:Copyright_tags and I did not see any tags seem to be appropriate.

Can someone help me identify within our guidelines appropriate guidance suggesting that this image should be public domain?

Once that is done, I will politely point out to the contact person that the uploaded file contained no information suggesting it qualified as public domain, as well as no suggestion that it came from a government site. Once that confirmation is provided I can undelete the image and tag it appropriately.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For most UK government sites, the copyright tag is {{OGL}} - provided that that license is stated on the site. Example.--Pere prlpz (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only UK government specific copyright information I have seen in passing would be "Parliamentary copyright" (see the template) and "Crown copyright" (see the template). I'm not a expert of any of this, so just providing the links so you can further research the issue at hand. Offnfopt(talk) 21:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/prime-ministers-office-10-downing-street you can see at right "© Crown copyright" but at left "OGL All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated". Therefore here "Crown copyright" just implies that the Crown has the right to license the content, and it chooses to license it under the OGL license - a free license free enough for Commons.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Key point to note of your quote is "except where otherwise stated". A prime example is on the MP page when you click the link "Download a high-resolution photo of David Cameron" it links you to a photo on their flickr account, which then says the picture is licensed via by-nc-nd 2.0 Offnfopt(talk) 22:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt responses. I'm concluding that I should not automatically assume that a photo found on a UK government site can simply be copied. We need a more explicit statement of license.--Sphilbrick (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In general, the official approach of UK Gov for new published material is to prefer OGL. However this remains optional for all Government departments and is not retrospective for previously published works (as mentioned above most often found as Crown Copyright or Parliamentary copyright). In all cases a reuser must check for an explicit statement of copyright. Though we should be grateful that OGL exists and is a great step forward, the reality is that most Gov websites remain confusing and unhelpful for reusers with respect to copyright, especially when compared to the approach taken by US Federal Gov. --Fæ (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talkpage errors

I'm getting errors with every letter I type on my own and other users' talk pages:

Error: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=DIGuuO6q line 4 > eval at line 352: TypeError: pending.abort is not a function

These error messages obscure the right part of my screen, making it a bit of a bitch to finish messages. This just started happening today. Anyone know what this is and how to stop it, or when it will stop happening? Thanks. INeverCry 22:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same here when i'm editing any page. Thibaut120094 (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I just got the same error editing a deletion request page, and I'm getting the error now as I type this. INeverCry 00:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't experienced the error yet. You two may want to compare the gadgets you use to see if maybe you can narrow it down to one of those. I only have the gadgets enabled that were enabled by default. If I experience the error I'll see if I can pinpoint the script and update this post. Offnfopt(talk) 01:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 18

Three weeks to save freedom of panorama in Europe

The London Eye, blacked out to show the effect of removing section 62 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, which allows the photography of buildings in the UK

As many of you will know, the amendment on freedom of panorama adopted to the Reda report by the Legal Affairs committee of the European Parliament on Tuesday was very bad, namely that the European Parliament

16. Considers that the commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them;

The text had support both from the centre-right EPP group and the centre-left S&D group.

It will now be voted on by the full European Parliament when it considers the full text of the Reda report in its plenary session on 9 July.

Unless we can generate enough public outcry to persuade MEPs at that plenary to stop or amend the text, in its current form it represents a threat to the overwhelming majority of Commons images of public art and buildings and Wiki Loves Monuments created since 1900 in all countries of the European Union.

There is more detailed (slightly UK-centric) draft article for the Signpost, at:

I have also started a project stub at

to be a central on-wiki space for campaign ideas, resources and discussion. Please sign up if you have ideas or can help in any way, and help to gather together a library of useful materials, contacts made, letters sent and responses received.

I am sure there are also other things going on across Europe. Let's share what people are doing, and do what we can to beat this thing. Jheald (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convince the WMF to allow non-commercial licenses. Throw in non-derivative licenses while you're at it. INeverCry 09:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You must have clicked the wrong button, @INeverCry: this ain't Flickr. odder (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just helped a guy I opposed in his RFA get his bit at BN, so I figured why not extend the irony a bit further by standing with the inclusionists... INeverCry 10:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this rings of "24 hours to save the NHS". The long term Commons community is excellent at sticking to the facts, the message should be able to speak for itself. Perhaps our lobbying can remain factual rather than being spun by PR and new media professionals? --Fæ (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Fae: . I'm not a PR or a new media professional, just a regular Commons user who was desperate to let people know what was going on. I'm sorry if you think I'm not up to scratch or don't have the skills -- but that's why this campaign so urgently needs more people to get involved. Jheald (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise, my comment was in no way a personal attack directed at your skills or background as is completely clear in the words I used if anyone reads them. I am aware of the context of how this approach was formed, the list of professionals who contributed to it, along with a number of chapter employees releasing statements for their organizations, and have already worked hard lobbying on this for many months.
It would probably be more effective to engage the project community early in this work, rather than with a deadline of the last 3 weeks, especially if you want some practical evidence, such as an agreed position with a supporting community consensus. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fae: You're probably right. Chapter communications aren't as good as they should be. But to some extent it's our job, as the project community, to come forward and own this -- there's a limit to what chapters have the resources to do. I'm just a regular user, trying to do my best. I wrote to Mary Honeyball, sent her two author-illustrated books on statues and monuments in London, to try to show her what would be hit by this clause, talked to her assistant, all to no avail -- but on my own initiative, not the chapter. We can't expect the chapter to do this for us, we have to do it for ourselves.
Similarly, the Signpost article was me trying to do my best, grinding on until 4am to try to get the text together, because words don't come easily to me, but I was desperate that somebody needed to do it. Yes, it would have been great if we'd got our act together months ago. But this is where we're at, and this is what we have to work with now, if we're to pull the situation back. MEPs simply don't understand why "noncommercial only" is a problem, even MEPs from countries that currently don't have any such restriction -- for example, here's a blog this morning from the quite sane and rational and moderate Czech EPP member Svoboda, who was part of the overwhelming vote in the committee for the Cavada amendment. Unless we can get broader awareness and debate going, this will be lost. Jheald (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jheald I have begun tweeting about it. Here, here and here. Thanks for bringing to our attention. 106.69.128.124 12:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have written to "my" MEP and asked to reject the anti-FOP proposals #413-418 und #420-426. --Túrelio (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's great (and good links). Did you get a reply back? Note that, going forward, those amendments have now been voted on and finished with. There may or may not be new amendments for the plenary, but the baseline text for the main Parliament vote will now be the text I blockquoted at the top above. Jheald (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request by Russavia

Hey gang, this is Scott (Russavia). I have a request. If you look at, for example, File:Park Hyatt, Shanghai (3198569878).jpg you will see in the "Source": * Uploaded by [[User:russavia|russavia]]. I believe this is causing files that I have uploaded to be mis-attributed to "Russavia" instead of the actual author. An example is this. This is, unfortunately, a widespread occurrence, and harms the ability of re-users to easily credit works on Commons to their correct authors. Especially since "Russavia" appears in the "Use this file" links.

To make files easier for re-use, I would like to request that someone go through this, or ALL files uploaded by myself, and remove the above wiki-code from all those uploads. I am making this request using one of my normal IPs, and this request can be confirmed by checking with me on IRC if required. Thanks, 58.7.136.251 09:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could look at this and maybe fire up user:YaCBot to do it. --McZusatz (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@McZusatz: Not that I'm going to edit a third of a million files myself, but I did verify this with him on IRC (he has a Freenode cloak), and it is a legitimate request. Probably a bit pointless to block the IP, though. Revent (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, its not like WMF ever cared for Commons Wiki..they wouldn't even let Scott fix his own mistakes...--Stemoc 11:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks McZusatz if you could do that it would be great. Once it is completed for my uploads, I would seriously look at doing it for all uploads on Commons. It is a common problem and sincerely isn't limited to myself. 106.69.128.124 12:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? A banned user edits here, the WMF blocks the IP, and a Commons admin unblocks him? Good grief, Commons is broken. --B (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken, Russavia was never banned. Bans require a rationale and can be appealed. Office blocks have none of this transparent governance. --Fæ (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Silly me to think that the organization that runs a website has the authority to ban people from using it. --B (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not parody what I wrote. --Fæ (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid further pointless wikilawyering over words; note that blocks are as defined by Commons:Blocking policy. A WMF Office action is known as a "Lock" and the WMF Office action on Russavia is known as being "locked globally". This system has no community consensus and none was sought. Commons Administrators have no authority in this system, nor are Commons Administrators requested to take any action to support such WMF Office actions. To protect themselves from risks external to Commons, unpaid volunteers should never take it upon themselves to either interpret or apply a WMF Office action, further no employee of the WMF shall ever ask an unpaid volunteer to take action related to a WMF Office action. --Fæ (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the WMF wants to ban him that's their right. Personally I am here to contribute to building knowledge (writing an encyclopedia, etc.) so as long as the editor is editing positively I don't really care if he is banned. He addressed a relevant problem so there is no validity to the argument that we should simply ignore it and stick our fingers in our ears shouting HE's BANNED, over and over. The WMF only gets involved when they want to and oftentimes when we ask them tin intervene they run off into a corner and hide so if the WMF doesn't like the community taking reasonable suggestions and valid problems seriously regardless of the source, then they can hire full time people to make improvement's to the projects to keep them running instead of volunteers. That's just my opinion. Reguyla (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On User:Russavia: "Consistent with the Terms of Use, Russavia has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing Wikimedia sites." The only person wikilawering over words here is Fae. -- Colin (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I am as well I suppose because I agree with the technical definition that Fae gives as well and the term ban is loosely used in that statement but its not technically accurate. But technically you are as well. Lawyering, wiki or otherwise requires 2 sides. So regardless of the side of the argument, both sides are technically wikilawyeruing. As I said above. The WMF is free to do as they wish and the admins here are as well. I suppose any commons admin who wants to can continue chasing him around until their hearts content, but we should be doing what benefits commons, not what's politically convenient for the WMF. If positive edits are being made and they improve the project for our readers and users, I personally do not really care who is doing them. You clearly feel differently and that's ok. But that's not wikilawyering, its just life. Personally if the WMF wants to keep chasing after him let them. Otherwise there is a ton of work that needs to be done on the project and it takes editors to do that. Banned or otherwise. Reguyla (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that global locks and office actions are just how the ban is enforced (albeit ineffectually). So Fae, in arguing with User:B, is just completely wrong. It's a ban. It might not be a community supported ban. But it is still a ban. And every one of us signs up to the Terms of Use every time we edit. It is about time a few people here dealt with that and moved on, whether they like it or not. -- Colin (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit that, as someone who has been the ongoing target of an unfair ban (on ENWP) that was done by manipulating policy and continues to be an extremely frustrating and aggravating issue for me to date, along with the WMF's attitude towards commons and the Wiki communities in general, I am sensitive to a perception of being unfairly treated and find it personally difficult to blindly obey the "Trust us we know what we are doing" attitude and the "Secret evidence" justifications. I completely understand that they cannot tell us why they added the lock, but personally I do not perceive it as our problem. Let them deal with it if they want, or not. Especially if we do not "need" to know why they did it, when we all know about the JimboGate incident, we have no reason, requirement or need to enforce a WMF lock. Reguyla (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have no policy that requires anyone to do anything on this site: we are all volunteers. If an admin wishes to block a Russavia sock they may, and WMF takes a very dim view of anyone interfering with that (such as unblocking the account or harassing that admin). But an admin can choose to ignore socks just as they can pick and choose whatever they do on Commons. This is already all well established by earlier discussions. There's no need for anyone to continue to spread misinformation about the fact that Scott is banned. -- Colin (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While not wanting to get involved in one of these battles, I've processed quite a few OTRS tickets in the last few weeks, and see a discouraging tendency of uploaders who think that the author field is the place to put the uploaders name. I get that we can't change the term to "photographer" because many images are not photographs, but I wish we could find a better approach.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Author is the correct name for that field and definitely not suitable for any other info like "uploader". But unfortunately some people think uploding files from some other place is the most prestigious work and consider themselves as #1 contributors here. Some tools also designed to add that nonsense (eg: Commons:derivativeFX). I had manually fixed that field in many uploads earlier. Designers need to be well educated about copyright matters. Jee 15:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently experiencing a few bugs when using the "Download" link to download images. I think it worked a few weeks ago.

Example page, picked at random: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wombat_Tasmania.jpg 

In Firefox, the Download link appears first in the list of links across the top of the image.
In IE, the Download link appears to the right of the image.

Clicking the "Download" link brings up a window showing 

Page URL:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AWombat_Tasmania.jpg
File URL:
https:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Wombat_Tasmania.jpg
Attribution:
By D. Gordon E. Robertson (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons

Notice the doubled "https:" in the "File URL" field. Clicking "Full Resolution" then loads a URL which will never work: 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Wombat_Tasmania.jpg

Scrolling down to the versions table and clicking the Date/Time next to the current version of the image works.

Any ideas? — Mwr0 (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's partially my bad due to gerrit:218819. The stock photo gadget needs to be updated. Bawolff (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This now appears to have been fixed by this edit. At least, it works correctly for me now. Revent (talk) 10:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing Labs Outage Update

See details here about labs outage -- Offnfopt(talk) 16:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Labs is back up with some notes for those who run tools https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/labs-l/2015-June/003814.html Offnfopt(talk) 12:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed to classify old-timer automobiles

In Category:Hoek van Holland there is a series of pictures taken on 2010-05-16 of vintage cars. There must have been some event at that time. (or they where using the ferry)Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed some by looking up the plate, but I did a reverse search on one of the images and found this page de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Spurzem/Archiv/2010#einige_Autos... a lot of the same images, but they're lower quality than the ones you're going through. But you can get some of the car descriptions from that page. Offnfopt(talk) 22:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One multilingual file instead of many language files

Hello. One day I decided to help a few Wikipedia. I decided to download the series of files for ESC articles (used in score tables) with the texts of countries where they are used vertically. Each language section of Wikipedia I had to upload the new files (excluding the similar names). Now I decided to make a multilingual file and check it out. it works. And here's my idea, and the question:

Maybe I replace multiple language files into this one file?

What am I talking about? I mean delete (that currently used) and replace it with one files (40 texts of all participated country of ESC instead of 400 files of each set language of countries). For example, this one test file (for example, it names "ESCAustria.svg") can be replace 9 of same files (File:ESCAvstriya.svg, File:ESCÀustria.svg, File:ESCRakousko.svg, File:ESCØstrig.svg, File:ESCOostenrijk.svg, File:ESCAustria.svg (as basic), File:ESCΑυστρία.svg, File:ESCAustria.svg (in Polish it have same name, but some countries have'nt), File:ESCAvusturya.svg).

How it works?

Multilingual files is able to change. And I want to delete all language files and replace only 40 (how many countries in ESC?) multilingual files (that contains 10-20 "switch" varioations). I mean that:

File:ESCCountry.svglang=azlang=calang=czlang=dalang=nllang=ellang=pllang=tr replace File:ESCCountry.svg (closer look at filenames [or URL-links])

And I want to do this with all files. Or by hand, or with bot. "lang" no need to enter, if your browser recognizes you as a native speaker (it very good for Native Wikipedia Users). For example, in Russian Wikipedia (if exist "ru" variant in code of file), (as Russian) I see the Russian version without the use of "lang=ru" variant in all Wikipedias. See more Commons:Translation possible/Learn more. ← Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos talkrus? 12:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is impractical and will not even work. To have one image file and then a bot to "change the text within a saved image", which is basically being proposed here is way too complexed for even a bot to do. It's like saying upload a blank canvas and depending on what is written in a parameter changes the image on that blank canvas. It is impossible. Wes Mouse | T@lk 12:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wesley Mouse: I think you may have misunderstood the proposal. With SVG files it is perfectly possible to have one file contain multiple text layers for different languages and choose the one to be displayed based on the language settings of the user who looks at it (not documented very well, but see Help_talk:SVG#Multiple_Language_SVG). File:ESCCountry.svg is an example for this: You can change the language by adding a language code to the URL (File:ESCCountry.svg&lang=az) or manually by using the Render this image in option on the file description page. --El Grafo (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wesley Mouse: It works even in non-Wikimedia wikis. SVG use standart HTML-tag. If I offer this, then it works. For example add [[File:ESCCountry.svg|lang=tr|30px]] at Turkish Wikipedia and you will se Turkish variant of file. All turkish users (that sistematically used turkish interface and language) will be see turkish name of country. And if you place [[File:ESCCountry.svg|30px]] at Turkish Wikipedia, you will see only English version (because I set up it as basic in code). BUT all turkish users will be see only Turkish version of file. ← Aléxi̱s Spoudaíos talkrus? 13:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing information templates affecting reusability of content

Hi again guys/gals. This is Scott (Russavia). I am editing here using a proxy as the WMF globally locked my last two real IPs, and frankly, I can't be bothered resetting my modem to get a new IP at this time. The authenticity of this message can be checked by asking me on IRC if required.

It was recently brought to my attention on Twitter by an individual who utilises a lot of Creative Commons licenced media, and especially from Wikimedia Commons, that the "Use this file" option was missing on a file. I worked out this is due to it missing the {{Information}} template. A few days later, I was again alerted to another file which was missing the link. Upon checking Category:Media missing infobox template has approximately 530,000 files in it. This equates to around 2% of media on Wikimedia Commons that is essentially difficult (read: impossible) for external re-users to easily use. I alerted the WMF (@wikicommons) to the issue, but don't imagine this is something that is in their area of interest in raising with this community, so here I am.

Having 2% of Commons files being almost impossible for external reusers to use, and comply with licencing, easily is something that is untenable. I do understand that everyone has their own thing going on. Jarekt raised the general issue of missing templates in November 2014, but there was no input. Perhaps people don't know what these missing templates mean for reusability of this content.

Simply put, there needs to be a solution to this problem, and hope it can be looked at. I could recommend the following:

  1. Establishing a task force of editors, especially the gnomish type (editors like Revent come to mind), who could manually work through these hundreds of thousands of files and fix the issue
  2. Have a bot operator, such as Steinsplitter, Zhuyifei1999, Odder, Fæ, etc, see if a bot couldn't somehow help to put these information templates on such files. Perhaps this could be done with AWB, I don't know?
  3. Institute a filter that disallows uploading of new files which don't have such templates.

That's just a few ideas I have, workable or not, I don't know. I don't mind doing the changes to the odd file when it's brought to my attention by an external reuser, but obviously I am not in the position to do anything long-term, etc. So I turn it over to you guys and gals to see what you can up with. Cheers, 31.193.140.164 12:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia, Thank you for raising this issue. WMF is actually also interested in it and they promote m:File metadata cleanup drive which resulted in Commons:Bots/Work_requests/Archive_11#Adding_the_Information_template_to_files_that_don.27t_have_it this effort by bot operators. Unfortunately it quickly died out since we are mostly talking about some of the oldest files on Commons, which were also edited for last decade and do not lend themselves easily to bot operations and doing it manually is too depressing to contemplate. We managed to clean up files with broken infobox templates and many home-brewed information templates, but that hardly made a dent. Somethings I was contemplating:
  • Contact all the uploders of files in Category:Media missing infobox template give tem a list of their files which are missing infoboxes and invite them to fix them. Some might still be around and willing to help.
  • Propose Policy requiring all new uploads to use a infobox, since ttere is still plenty new uploads without any templates.
  • develop bot preventing or reverting any edits that cause loss of all infoboxes or all licenses.
--Jarekt (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Info probably won't help much, but I made a proposal to add Category:Media missing infobox template to Commons:Community portal. --El Grafo (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a priority fix IMHO. The information template, indeed any template is optional. Rather than de facto making it mandatory, it would be more helpful if the structured data proposals that the WMF started but have since forgotten about, apparently, were resurrected, gained solid community support, and were thoroughly tested and bought off by a community panel. --Fæ (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it adding infobox templates is a first step of implementing structured data, because pages with infoboxes can be much more easily parsed than the ones without. --Jarekt (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I know you are both good with bots and I am also to a lesser degree capable as well. When I looked through the lit of Category:Media missing infobox template I see images with some easy to automate scenarios, quite a few images that IMO we do not need and could/should be deleted anyway. So although I agree with Fae to a point that its not a huge priority, I also don't think we should ignore the problem either and if we can fairly easily automate the task and clean some up we should. Even if we can only do 50, 000 of the 550, 000 by bot, its a start. Reguyla (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment COM:MRD is worth taking a look at for anyone not familiar with it, as it's relevant to why {{Information}} templates are desirable. Revent (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, one thing I was thinking about was scraping the Creator data of the applicable ones and then writing that to the Infobox of the File that's missing it. That should cover quite a few and although it may not be 100%, its still better than nothing at all. There are also quite a few (about 13, 000) with OTRS approval so IMO some of those can probably be done as well if the OTRS data is available and can be used to automate the task a bit (of course that would rquire someone with access). Reguyla (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Info AFAIK @Ladsgroup: is working on a bot for this --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and that will cover some as well. But it only covers certain situations which will still leave a lot to do. But that would at least be a chunk done. Reguyla (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Separating history - can it, should it, be done

Someone uploaded a new image, using the same name as a deleted image. The new image is File:6th FL ANV Pattern.jpg. This is a photo of a reproduction of the original. A photo of the original was uploaded and deleted.

I think it would have been better to upload this new photo with a different name, to avoid the mess that we have, in which an acceptable photo has the exact same name as a deleted photo. However, I am not sure:

  1. whether this is worth worrying about,
  2. or what to do if it is

I considered deleting the photo, and asking the uploaded to use a different name. However, the uploader will be unable to upload in that situation, as the Upload Wizard will detect that the image matches a deleted image.

I considered renaming the image, to, for example File:6th FL ANV Pattern (reporduction).jpg

However, I think the renaming, which of course is a move, will carry along the history of the deleted image. My goal is to separate the two. Can this be done? Should it be done?--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=163736357"