Commons:Village pump/Archive/2012/01

Rename before or after moving to Commons

Early (2006-2007) in my Wikiphotography career I uploaded hundreds of pictures to en, which have recently been marked for possible transfer to Commons. Being dissatisfied in most cases with the filenames I gave them, I wonder whether it would be better to rename them before or after the interwiki transfer. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Rename as you do it - Commonshelper allows you to specify a new filename to move to as you transwiki. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Or better tool - en:Wikipedia:FtCG Bulwersator (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The filenames appear to be a bit on the short side. I guess you want them to be a bit more longer and descriptive? It's just a couple of files, I can pull them to Commons for you if you like. Multichill (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You might consider amending en:Wikipedia:Moving_files_to_the_Commons#File_Renaming which recommends against renaming while moving. Indeed, to my mind it suggests that "after" would be best since the renaming record would persist after the en version is deleted. Anyway it's a false alarm and my fault. A couple days ago when the en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Commons/Drives/Jan 2012 drive assigned priorities, bumping over a hundred pictures of my watchlist into my recent change list, I assumed they were mine. No; without checking them all it appears that every one of them is someone else's, and only watchlisted because I assigned it a category long ago or made some other change to the description. So, having a long backlog of new pictures of my own to process and upload , I shall simply trim these from my en watchlist unless I've got an abiding interest in the subject. Thanks for the information; I'm sure it will be useful someday. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/El Lissitzky

Lissitzky died in 1941, but there are claims that the Russian copyright goes beyond 2012. Can anyone clear that matter? --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Lissitzky's works are only PD in 2016, because the copyright has been extended for four years as he worked during World War II. --Claritas (talk) 12:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed: en:Copyright law of the Soviet Union#Transition to post-Soviet legislation in Russia and en:Copyright law of Russia#Amendments of the 1993 law. --Rosenzweig τ 13:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• How about all the works created and exhibited in Germany and elsewhere in Europe during the years he lived there ? --ELEKHH^T 13:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If they were first published in Germany, they are PD in the EU, but you must be able to prove that they were not first published in Russia. --Claritas (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

TIFF rendering

Does anyone know how TIFF images are rendered to JPEG on the servers? The reason I ask is that File:Helix Nebula in infrared (captured by the Spitzer Space Telescope).tif has quite different colors compared to File:Infrared Helix.jpg, even though viewing the TIFF in an image editor on my computer, or converting it to JPEG using imagemagick's convert file.tif file.jpg, shows the same colors as File:Infrared Helix.jpg. I thought the servers were using imagemagick too, but maybe I'm mistaken or they pass some colorspace options I'm not aware of. Prof. Professorson (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

TIFF is actually a loose collection of semi-compatible file formats (rather than being a single unified file format), so the answer could be rather different for various different TIFF sub-formats. AnonMoos (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2

New ships

Hi @ all!

What is the purpose of this image gallery New ships ? Could somebody write a short description why these randomly chosen ship-photos are collected in this `New Ships`-gallery? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.57.86.224 (talk • contribs) 2012-01-02T01:03:19‎ (UTC)

It appears to track the creation of ship categories. Not sure what the value is in this, but it may be someone's project to help maintain the ship cats. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Related discussion: Category talk:Ships by name#New ships. I am not certain if this should be in gallery namespace. MKFI (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons_talk:Deletion_policy#Privacy

Please see proposal at Commons_talk:Deletion_policy#Privacy. Rd232 (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Public Domain day

As many of you may know, yesterday was Public Domain day. Here's a list of painters whose works became part of the Public Domain yesterday in those countries with 70 years "post morten auctoris": User:FA2010/PD2012 Please upload any images you may have of paintings and drawings of these artists to the Commons (especially if you can scan images from art books in good quality). As a license, you may use {{PD-art|PD-old-70}}. --FA2010 (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Principle of Least Astonishment

We have been talking a lot about the Principle of Least Astonishment recently, but it's not an official Commons policy, or even a guideline - it's something the board said that quite a lot of projects have simply ignored. In our case it has led to the spawning of 1000 categories "nude and partially nude people with X". They were originally created because people whinged and complained if they for instance saw pictures of people masturbating with electric toothbrushes in the electric toothbrush category, and they seemed like a reasonable compromise to keep the image in the toothbrush category tree but still satisfy the "THINKOFTHECHILDREN" people.

This is simply not acceptable. Either POLA is a Commons policy, in which case the categories should stay; or it isn't, in which case they should all be deleted. Previous discussions on the matter simply fizzled away with no resolution. I propose this: a straight up or down vote, should the Principle of Least Astonishment be a Commons policy? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, almost forgot, closing date is 0000 UTC, 1st Jan. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

@Matt, what I miss in your proposal is an outline of what the adoption of POLA would exactly mean for Commons, as we are rather different than Wikipedias. --Túrelio (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This straw poll is meaningless

1. Given Commons_talk:Nudity#Proposed_addition_regarding_categories this whole thing is arguably redundant. But if we want to specifically address POLA, we have to discuss how to do that seriously, and not conjure up a straw poll on adopting a policy that hasn't even been drafted and doesn't really make much sense as a standalone policy/guideline. See my comment in the Discussion section. Rd232 (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
2. Bulwersator (talk) 09:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

If we would know how image-filter would work, we would better know how to achieve the "no-shock". I would suggest moving this to COM:VPP since I expect lots of discussion with no result again. But even your example shows that we need no extra-categories: Why not creating Category:People masturbating with electric toothbrushes as a sub-category of the two topics. No one should be surprised and it is proper categorized.-- RE rillke questions? 15:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

We did have Category:Masturbating with electric toothbrushes, but then the image it contained was deleted and so the empty category was deleted. People complained about that too. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Not every bit of common sense needs to be explicit official policy. - Jmabel ! talk 16:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

 Comment Just recently we had Commons_talk:Nudity#Proposed_addition_regarding_categories covering very similar ground - and it's still open, though it's run out of steam now. That proposal (and the better alternative that followed in the same thread) was at least concrete. This one is not. How do you start a straw poll on a "policy" without providing a draft, and with reference to highly specific issues around sexual images, as if the policy would only affect those? And why start it on VP instead of COM:VPR, given that it's bound to get large amounts of input, as all these discussions do? This is a complete mess, and whatever comes out of it can have no validity; therefore the sooner this poll is aborted in favour of a more sensible approach, the better. I suggest starting to draft Commons:Principle of least astonishment as a guideline. (I would suggest that it would be good as a section of a Commons:Category structure guideline, but I never did get round to organising that split from the mess that is Commons:Categories.) Rd232 (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not need a new policy which is including POLA anyway. So there is no need to draft one. ;-) Oh, but - I strongly agree that Commons it totally messed up regarding these topics. That poll too fast shot - as your poll is in Commons_talk:Nudity#Proposed_addition_regarding_categories was. That said, I did not do a better poll until now. ;) So you guys are not to blame. Meant in a good way - but after some more thinking it could have been done better. But who isn't fucked up by the constant discussions about those topics here?! --Saibo (Δ) 18:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

An issue with the "Nominate for deletion" in the toolbox in the left pane

I appreciate how easy the tool made it for me to nominate a category for deletion. I appreciate how it created a Commons:Categories for discussion-sub page and listed it on the relevant page. (Good job developers!) I also appreciate that it notified the creator. What I don't appreciate is how it did that. That it signed the notification to the user with my username without giving me the chance to approve of, or customize, the message. Was I notified about this in the process and missed it? This is not my edit, but it's signed with my username!? Both under the message and in the history. I find that a tad creepy... Perhaps the notification should be rephrased to instead inform the creator who nominated the category, but not sign the notification with the nominator's name. I'd like to think I still control what I say on other people's talk pages. :-) I also suggest the tool be modified to just perform one edit (creation of the sub page?) and that the other two tasks (listing and notification) be performed by a bot. Then it will be clear for everyone who checks the history who did what. --Bensin (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It used to do left, but that left us with a bunch of incomplete nominations. You can always go to the user's talk page and modify the edit made in your name there. - Jmabel ! talk 06:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you want to discuss this category? Yes, I think so. You are free not to use the tool. We place default-messages on the user's talk-page because they are autotranslated. You can't be sure, if you talk in English, that the user will understand it. -- RE rillke questions? 11:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is your edit, because you initiated it -- Nominate for deletion does four things for you:

• Puts {{Delete}} on the subject page with your reason.
• Creates the DR subpage, also with your reason.
• Adds the DR subpage to the day's log.
• Notifies all users in the file's history, that did not revert, in his or her chosen language with a boilerplate message.

This is just one of a variety of tools on Commons that automates routine or difficult tasks. If, for some reason, you don't like what it does, you are free to do DRs by hand. I'd suggest, though, that because a DR is a four step process, many users fail to get it right by hand and then one of our colleagues has to clean up behind them. Please don't add to that task.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I think the intention of the tool is marvellous. (Again, good job developers!) What I suggest are some tweaks in its implementation. It is not my intention to increase the burden of other editors to clean up after others. :-) My suggestion is that the tool either: clearly state to the nominator what four edits can be made in the user's name and 1) offer to perform them and discourage (but allow) the user to opt-out of one or more task to later perfor them themselves and 2) allow for customization of a suggested message to the creator, or: (my preferred choice) that the tool performs the first task (putting {{Delete}} on the subject page) and trigger a bot to perform the other three tasks. The bot can then in its edit comment refer to what user edit triggered the bot's response.

Hopefully this will make the user contributions more logical to read from a user perspective. One click from the user, one entry in the contribution list. Or four, if you actively agreed to have four performed for you. --Bensin (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a need for any such refinements. The goal should be to keep the process as simple, clear and straightforward as possible. If one is going to nominate an image for deletion, one should be prepared for an autotranslated message to be left on the uploader's page in one's name. The nominator should take responsibility/credit for his/her nominations. If you don't want a bot signing your name, don't use the tool. One always has the option of adding additonal clarification on the uploader's talk page after the fact, or manually doing the DR. I think having a tool that does all four tasks automatically is tremendous, and I can't see any compelling need to screw around with it.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll guess that you are probably in a very small minority in having discomfort with the four actions of the tool. All four actions must be done to start a correctly formed DR. If you don't like the boilerplate that appears on the user page, you are free to change it, although, as Rillke points out, it has been translated into many languages. As for whose signature should appear, all four actions are your responsibility, so your signature must go on (or in the history of) all four. It is true that you didn't write the user notice, but doing a DR requires that you notify the uploader, so either you accept the boilerplate or write your own -- either way, your signature belongs on the user page. Obviously you must sign the DR subpage, at the end of your nominating comment. Your signature does not actually appear on either the nominated page or the DR log, but it is included in the history, again, as appropriate.

As for changing the tool as you suggest, I would oppose it strongly. It would slow down all other users -- more than 100 per day -- for the benefit of a small minority. If you don't like the tool's actions, don't use it, but, if you don't, please be careful to do all four steps correctly.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The process would still be simple, clear and straightforward with any of my suggested improvements. Yes, the nominator should take responsibility/credit for his/her nominations, but we should not assume that all users using this tool are aware of what will happen when they click "proceed". The least we can do is inform the user what four steps will be taken when they do so. --Bensin (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

<-- Actually, from a casual reader's point of view Bensin's remarks seem to make perfect sense. Frankly I fail to see why an automagically generated boilerplate would need to be signed with a user's signature, especially if the user is unaware of this. It is an automated notification generated by "the system".

If there is any need (is there really?) to clarify who initiated the request it might as well be phrased as:

"Category:Whatever has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion (by User:SoAndSo) so that the community can discus..."

(change to current version in green). The box could be left unsigned, or signed by some bot/process if need be(?). Because that is what it is: It is not the user leaving you a message, but rather a (system) message by a process/bot telling you that User:SoAndSo has put your work up for annihilation (ehhr, oh sorry, the official euphemism here is "discussion" I think it was ;o) Where is the error in the logic here? Pudding4brains (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Script ≠ Bot. Scripts run under your account and you are responsible for its actions. Signing on talk-pages is a rule and why should the notifyee not be able to ask the notifier on his/her talk-page or find the user-page in order to see what languages the notifier is able to speak by attaining his/her user-page. The next point is that talk-pages tell a lot about users when it comes to examine whether to grant user-rights. Finally signatures are important for auto-archiving. -- RE rillke questions? 13:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you all miss several important points:

• A new user of the tool will only be surprised once -- and perhaps people who use tools should be surprised if they don't check out what the tool does before they use it. It seems to me foolish to slow the tool for 100+ users a day to avoid the occasional surprise.
• If you don't use the tool, you still are required to leave a notice on the talk pages of all those who appear in the image history. You are required to sign those notices. Why should the signature on the notices be different if you use a tool to place them? Why do you want to avoid having your name show up with a DR notice on the various talk pages?
• As a practical matter, using the boilerplate notice is essential for all of us. I'm essentially a monoglot, but even our most polyglot users write only five or ten languages well. There is no practical way to notify many of our users without using the template -- do any of you seriously propose that when you place a DR, that you are going to check the language preference of each of the people in the history and place a notice in that language, as our rules require? The template offers 40 different languages. Do any of you actually write anything like all of those?
• Commons is very much a high volume operation. We delete about 1,100 images every day. Five or six Admins do half of those actions. Anything that slows down editors who do large volumes of work should be considered very carefully. If the changes suggested above are implemented, I plead strongly for a different version that remains the same. I have absolutely no desire to translate my user notices into appropriate languages and place them, unsigned, on user talk pages.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be a few misunderstandings regarding my proposal.

• One surprised user is one too many if it can be easily avoided. The now added information to the tool relieves this problem (Thanks!). Yes, the proposed bot-solution would probably slow down the process but not much and not in a way that would concern most users. It would still be just as easy to nominate anything and the end result would be pretty much the same with the difference that the edit history better would reflect who did what.
• Yes, it makes perfect sense that users involved are notified what has been nominated and by whom. Never did I suggest they should not. My suggestion was Either: the script suggests a message (the boilerplate notice) and allows the nominator to modify or add text to it before it is delivered. or: that a bot informs the editors what has been nominated and by whom.
• The boilerplate notice is excellent! I just don't want it (or anything else) put on someone's talkpage in my name signed with my username and withot my knowledge. I am perfectly fine with it being placed on anyone's talkpage by a bot, informing the user that I nominated something for deletion.
• Like I said, the process would not be slowed down in a way that would concern users. Yes anything affecting many editors should be considered very carefully. That's what we're doing here and now.

I hope this clears up some of the confusion about my suggestions. --Bensin (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well it appears we disagree philosophically. My thinking is fairly straightforward -- the template message is placed on one or more talk pages as a direct result of my nominating an image for deletion. Therefore my signature should be under it, saying "I initiated this process and I approved this message", even if I didn't write it. Since your alternative is to write your own message -- in whatever language is required -- and then sign it, as required by our rules, you come out at exactly the same place. The difference is too subtle for my aged brain.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

My philosophical stance is that if a message is not composed by me, or not viewed to me and approved by me before posted, then it is not my message and should not be signed in my username. As you can see I propose one of two alternatives be implemented. One of them (the second and my preferred solution) is that a bot places a message (unapproved and unmodified by the nominator) on the talk page and notify the editor who initiated the nomination. The nominator's name is then included in the boilerplate notice insted of under it. By the way, thanks for updating MediaWiki:AjaxQuickDelete.js/DeleteInfo. Perhaps you can also include a link the the message in question? --Bensin (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

(frustrated -- probably my last word on the subject) -- Again, if you don't know what a tool does, then you shouldn't use it. If you don't approve of the message that the tool uses, then you shouldn't use the tool. You are responsible for the tool's actions, and should be entirely happy with signing your name to them -- if not, then don't use the tool. The subtle difference between putting a sig at the bottom of the message and putting the Username in the middle of the text is too fine for me to compute.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not my intention to make you frustrated. Almost everything you say is true.

• True: if you don't know what a tool does, then you shouldn't use it. But to make available a tool to users and not declare what it does is equally irresponsible. The sole information given by the tool when I used it was the link to it: "Nominate for deletion". Why would anyone assume that the tool does anything else than what it declares to do? If the declaration of content on your milk carton does not say anything about peanuts, it should be safe to assume the product does not contain peanuts without calling the manufacturer and ask them. Anyway the information is now updated and thus better reflects what will actually happen when the tool is used.
• True: if you don't approve of the message that the tool uses, then you shouldn't use the tool. But if the tool don't reveal what message it will send and sign in your name then you have no way of approving or disapproving of it. (An update of MediaWiki:AjaxQuickDelete.js/DeleteInfo to include a link the the message in question would resolve this.)
• True: users are responsible for the tool's actions. But, like I said, don't assume users will know what actions (good or bad) the tool will perform in their name unless you inform them. We do now, and that is a vast improvement.
• Almost true: You should be entirely happy with signing your name to the tool's actions -- if not, then don't use the tool. There is also the option of raising the issue for discussion and suggest improvements. That's what I did, and something very good came out of it with the help from you and others. Thank you!

If you read my proposals you will notice that only one of them suggests moving the username from the bottom into the message body. That is when a bot, instead of the script, informs the editor. --Bensin (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding more guidance to MediaWiki:AjaxQuickDelete.js

• While we are at it, would someone oppose if I add a link to the deletion-policy to the "Why should this file be deleted?" - dialog? -- RE rillke questions? 17:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• It is also possible to add the steps that will be done to the dialog, so we do not have surprised users again. -- RE rillke questions? 17:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I say go for it. - Jmabel ! talk 17:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please do both :-) --Bensin (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

+1. Rd232 (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

+1 Bulwersator (talk) 08:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

→ {{Doing}} -- RE rillke questions? 13:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Rillke, we edit conflicted above -- I take it you mean you are adding words and links to the dialogue -- all of which experienced users can simply ignore -- not adding any additional steps for the user of "nominate for deletion" to actually do? That's fine with me as long as it remains a relatively small window on my workspace.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If the result won't satisfy the ones who are very involved in the process, I will revert. I am not going to remove any action done by the script. (Just adding some words) -- RE rillke questions? 13:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Please Please purge your browser’s cache or enable JavaScript in your Browser's settings. (You only need to do it once.)

Operating system Browser	Microsoft Windows or Linux	macOS
Chrome	Press Ctrl+F5 or ⇧ Shift+F5 or hold down ⇧ Shift while clicking Reload	Press ⌘ Cmd+F5 or ⇧ Shift+F5 or hold down ⇧ Shift while clicking Reload
Mozilla Firefox	Hold down ⇧ Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl+F5 or Ctrl+⇧ Shift+R)	Press ⌘ Cmd+R (reload page) or ⌘ Cmd+⇧ Shift+R (reload page and rewrite cache)
Safari	Hold down ⇧ Shift+Alt while clicking Reload
	Press Ctrl+R	Press ⌘ Cmd+⌥ Option+E (clear browser cache) or ⌘ Cmd+R (update)
Opera	Press Ctrl+F5 or ⇧ Shift+F5
Konqueror
Internet Explorer	Press Ctrl+F5

.

The guides can be edited by any admin like a normal template using wikitext. They are here: MediaWiki:AjaxQuickDelete.js/DiscussCategoryInfo and MediaWiki:AjaxQuickDelete.js/DeleteInfo.

Input is appreciated. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 19:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The addition is a good idea -- I made a few changes -- a few word choices and using bullets for the four steps.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Jim, looks much better :-) -- RE rillke questions? 16:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Per Bensin's good suggestion, I have added a link to the template message.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! --Bensin (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Time magazine cover from 1963

I see there are many Time magazine covers on Commons at Category:Time Magazine covers from between 1923 and 1963 which I understand are based on the assumption that the copyright was not renewed. I would like to upload this cover but am not familiar with US copyright. If anybody can help clarify if is PD would be much appreciated. --ELEKHH^T 06:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

We generally use this site to get a rough look at whether a magazine copyright has been renewed or not. As you will see there, Time renewals began in 1934, so only issues from its inception in 1923 to 1933 are dependably PD.

As shown at Wikisource, the renewals were very sporadic, so most later issues, through 1963, are also PD. Since your choice is a 1963 cover and is not on the list at Wikisource, it should be all right to upload.

For a very quick look at the complex US copyright rules, see File:PD-US_table.svg.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool. That would be a great image to have. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! --ELEKHH^T 23:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Uffffffffffff. --ELEKHH^T 02:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Um... I think that Wikisource link is for issues up through 1946, but not later than that -- 1963 issues would have to be renewed in 1990 or 1991, and the records should be online at copyright.gov . Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This discussion continues at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minoru Yamasaki - TIME cover 1963.jpg. Apparently my reliance the Wikisource page above was wrong.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I did the research [1] on Time magazine that is on Wikisource and these are the issue of Time magazines that are public domain.

• March 3, 1923 to January 22, 1934.
• January 7, 1935 to June 29 1936.
• July 3, 1939 to May 13, 1940
• January 7, 1945 to January 29, 1945.

I did not find any issues after February 1945 that did not have their copyright renewed. (There may be some.)
Fortune magazine was also published by Time but they always renewed the copyrights. Many magazine publishers never renewed copyrights; they felt it was too much trouble. I started a page on expired copyright here. -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html, which I linked above, is not perfect, but covers a lot of ground. I suggest you study it carefully before putting a lot of time into a new project on Commons. (And your user name takes me back a long time!)      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

User:CategorizationBot

Hello. It seems the bot is down, as it hasn't edited all day and barely edited yesterday. (Just notifying everyone, not sure if this is the appropriate place.)  Hazard-SJ  ±  06:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Peeked at the logs and didn't see anything unusual, the bot appears to be running normally. Multichill (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Gallery titles

Do we have a policy about the language to use for gallery titles? I notice for a number of galleries have been moved from an English title to a Persian one: for instance Persepolis is now تخت جمشید. Of course it's the proper name of the city in the domestic language of the country, but it creates accessibility problems. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I presume it comes under the same sort of rules as category names, ie the names should be mostly English unless there's a pressing or logical need to use a foreign language. And as far as I'm aware naming it in one's native lingo arbitrarily like your instance above is a no-no. I could be wrong though. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

One can do galleries in multiple languages for the same topic. Or one can do multi-lingual galleries. Moving a gallery with English-language captions to a Persian/Farsi name seems counterproductive (although at least the person doing this has been leaving redirects). There would be nothing wrong with adding Persian/Farsi captions to the photos in the galleries (using the usual language templates) or with creating a second Persian-language gallery on the same subject. - Jmabel ! talk 19:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Galleries#Naming conventions? Multichill (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Syria has been سوريا for a long time... AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Similarly according to gallery naming conventions: Москва, Firenze, मुंबई, Երևան, თბილისი, 東京, etc. The redirects for galleries work well. Man vyi (talk) 10:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Logo use in templates

Moved to "Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Logo use in templates" for more comments from copyright experts. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Unwanted picture rotation...

All pictures that I uploaded were set correctly. Since the introduction of MediaWiki 1.18, a large number of images are rotated somehow. The problem should be solved in MediaWiki not manually (Category:SFeraKon...) --Roberta F. (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

please search the village pump or the help desk for "rotation", there are various discussions on this already. --Martin H. (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Rotation. (...perhaps the editnotice should be bigger?...) Rd232 (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it has been discussed, for weeks, and the developers responsible for the surprise introduction of this feature continue to be less than fully responsive. I understand that more modern image programs pay attention to rotation values in the exif data, while the wikimedia software didn't, meant that people who downloaded images from us were surprised to open them up on their computer, to find them rotated. Several key questions have either gone unanswered, or have answers that do not seem official or definitive.

1. developers have not been responsive to questions about the extent to which they thought about the human burden of unexpectedly introducing this feature.
2. Carl Lindberg, and possibly other people, have asked why developers didn't first send a bot around to first build a list of all images that had a non-zero rotation value, and then set the rotation value of those images to zero.
3. One of the early respondents to these threads asserted that when those of us who found images we uploaded needed to be rotated, again, should have been using the {{Rotate}} tag with an undocumented "resetexif" parameter.
   • Is this necessary? Was this ever necessary?
   • If this "resetexif" parameter is important, why isn't it documented?
   • We have been told that the "jpegtrans" program can be used to rotate images on our own computers reliably, and that it will change the rotation values in the exif data. Okay, but I use irfanview. I asked, and am still waiting for an answer, as to which other external programs that can rotate images can be counted on doing so reliably.
4. Was a list of images with non-zero rotation values kept? Some respondents here have written that 50,000 images had non-zero rotation values. Is this correct?

We should all be grateful, in general, to those who develop and maintain the wikimedia software -- who I assume are all volunteers, just like I am. But still, I encourage them to regard incidents as this as cautionary tales. In general developers need a strong sense of caution and humility. About five years ago a developer on the English language wiki thought he or she could write a bot that would go around, and assume that every biographical article there should have the sort order set to the last name first format -- even though while this is appropriate for most European names, it is not appropriate for Chinese and Arabic names, and names of people from some other regions.

This sort order bot may have guessed correctly 90 to 95 percent of the time, but that 5 to 10 percent error rate caused, and continued to cause a really large waste of person power -- at least thousands of hours I'd estimate -- possibly tens of thousands of hours. Almost everyone since that bot was run has assumed that any biographical article that had a different sort order set, had that sort order set by a reliable human being, who knew what they were doing. Subsequent bots and semi-automated tools, written by more cautious developers, weren't ready to blindly guess at resetting the sort order of names, but they assumed, incorrectly, that if an article had some kind or sort order set it had been set by a reliable human being.

I think we would have been far better off if this sort order bot had never been run. There are some tasks that are so complicated we just aren't ready to trusting them to unsupervised bots.

Sorry, I am afraid this recent feature change is an instance of the same kind of mistake. We could have assumed that all, or almost all, the most important images rendered correctly or a real reliable human being would have noticed, and either fixed it themselves, or arranged for it to be fixed. We could have assumed that the only images with rotation values embedded in them, that needed to be rendered according to those values were images that no one used and no one was really looking at.

I am with Carl, really, all our old images should have continued to be rendered, as per always. Images with non-zero rotation values should have been listed and checked by a reliable human being.

Someone (a developer?) defended the introduction of this feature, without warning or explanation, as being defensible, as this change had been listed on a list of desired changes to the software for some time. I am sure that more than 99 percent of us have no idea what features are or are not listed on the desired features list.

If you follow these things some applications got a delayed hit from the Y2K bug in 2010. When bugs are fixed the wrong way variations on those bugs come around and bite over and over again. Geo Swan (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Brion Vibber is a paid employee; I believe that the Foundation has more paid programmers. They MUST be more responsive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of being responsive, - the thing shouldn't have happened, ever. What was the rationale for this "improvement"? Who made the decision, who authorized the spec - give me the whole chain. NVO (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• It was the most idiotic decision I have seen in Wikipedia for years. They should be embarrassed by the mess they have created. --Ghirlandajo (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• If I was a programmer working in the employee of the WMF I would not normally want to answer to volunteers, who post to the village pump, unless I was answering a general "well done". I would want to write to specifications approved by the WMF Board of directors, or by a committee of individuals delegated to and responsible to the WMF Board of directors. I would not agree to start a project unless I had clear specs. In my opinion it would be inappropriate for employees to set policy. Geo Swan (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

@Geo-Swan: you are apparently mixing up the fix of the exif-based rotation feature mess and the mess itself. {{Rotate}} is a community tool to fix - it didn't break anything. Regarding the resetexif parameter: as I have written in the duplicate post by you: please ignore it. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Status

Some volunteers are currently working on a list solving the problems on Commons. All files used in Wikimedia-Wikis- Main namespace are done. I think we can process all the (old) files so no action at your side is required. Of course you are allowed to request rotation for a file if you find a wrong-orientated one. -- RE rillke questions? 00:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Questions? Yes, I would still like someone from the team to clarify whether or not the undocumented "resetexif" parameter is necessary. I would still like to know whether my favourite program, irfanview, resets the exif data when it rotates. I am sure other people with their own favourite programs want to know likewise, for theirs.

  I still regard this as an example of bad planning, and would feel more comfortable if the team members also acknowledged this. Geo Swan (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Since Irfanview is also my favorite: Don't use simple rotation (L or R key) and save over the original file! The functionality you want is supported through a plugin. If it's installed it should reside in Irfanview's folder (not the plugin folder): "Jpeg_LS.dll". The function is available through them menu Options > JPG - lossless rotation… (PlugIn) or with Shift-J. Lossless rotation requires the image's height to be a multiple of 16 (acc. to JPEG's specs). Alfie↑↓© 23:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• OK, Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

OgreBot ravaging the overviewability of my files' upload histories

OgreBot ravaging the overviewability of my files' upload histories when transferring from wikies. how can i disable the additions of old files when ive already done that manually? isn't there a keep-off- / exclude-template for that? example: File:Convoy PQ18 September 1942.jpg - i only didnt upload one intermediate sh%tversion which was only a stupid useless watermarkcrop. it was a beautiful two-element history. now a goddam five. i dont want that.

(already had problems with this before :) Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2011/12#deletion_of_individual_revisions_possible ) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaa3-other (talk • contribs)

Note that OgreBot's files are 11 KB while the file you uploaded was 10 KB, so the file was obviously different in some way. I guess it makes sense to upload all versions of a file for completion. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

OgreBot did this because I authorized that particular transfer.[2] OgreBot is 100% run by humans when choosing which versions to transfer. And I transferred the versions because CSD#F8 on English Wikipedia states that all versions of an image must be transferred. What does it hurt? - it's not like the old version is harming the history. If you'd prefer, from now on, I will simply decline your transfers because they are not eligible for deletion at English Wikipedia; then your version of the file will not be visible at all from there. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If it is very important that all versions are transferred, shouldn't CommonsHelper be reprogrammed to do that? --MagnusA (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that it would be useful if Commons moving tools such as Commons Helper, Commons Helper 2 and en:WP:FTCG could move all versions instead of just the latest one, but it might be useful to opt out from that in case an image on Wikipedia needs to be split into multiple files on Commons. For your information, it was suggested at en:User talk:This, that and the other/For the Common Good#A few thoughts that uploading old versions would better be left to OgreBot. You might have an opinion about this. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

hi, ok sry its not hurting me that much that we have all versions. was maybe exaggerated somewhat. (i just manually left out that unneeded one but) if it must then let that be; and im happy to give up on this from now on as it was requested. HOWEVER, i still insist that NOT every apparent version there should be uploaded: in both the 10 vs 11kB and the 2.02 vs 2.11MB file, obviously (as i am personally extremely insistent on stating if otherwise, unlike many other users, and btw also usually state this as well when practical, but in one-summary uploads...), i only employed 1000000000% lossless huffman optimization using an official jpeg tool that doesnt remove at all any information stored in the files, not even exif, or comment, or any other unknown garbage which might be there. jsut as it supposed to be. SO, my proposition for such future manual stuff, is, in cases like where i missed a watermarkcrop, to upload only that one and then revert to latset (will be then 4-element history), and on the others, do no change. if scared then compare 'em beforehand, or maybe ask or whatever. having so huge files 2x is also painful for the mind thinking of it lol. --Aaa3-other (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC) (i admit though that i have made a very serious mistake, but this was only due to human error, in one of the transfers (not made by me in fact, only templated) i missed that the commons vertsion was much lower resolution. i apologise for that but it was not intended 2b subject of this discussion) - and btw was that threatlike sh%t f%cking neccessary?! i wasnt meant to offend you the bot operator...

p.s. and is it only a bug that the convoy also disappeared from my ul gallery?

re MagnusA, Stefan4: the reason it doesn't do it currently is because sometimes the file needs to be split, and (worse) sometimes there's an unnoticed non-free version of the file sitting in history.

re Aaa3: it's OK; you were frustrated, and the words weren't directed at me; I used to work a customer service job where customers swore at me all the time, although they rarely were directing it at me, just the situation. So I don't mind here . Anyway, I'll treat the two issues you brought up.

• As general practice, I don't compare versions like that because I can delete literally thousands of commons equivalent images per week, so it is inefficient for me to check them bit-by-bit. Also, if the file is large, it can take a long time to download.
• I had not realized it would muff your uploads. I'd always figured "it's not clear that it's lossless compression, so there is no harm in another upload" - not realizing this would happen; so I'm sorry for that. I wonder if that's something the developers would be willing to fix?

Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

hi, well when working at such a pace i guess it was really the best as you have done it. it could even do harm if another user once really re-encode something and it would go unnoticed, and i cant expect that you remember every user who is more careful. i guess that extra storage space (and even less the elegant short version history) just doesnt worth that (anyway it is only my mind protesting, financially its free nowadays...)--Aaa3-other (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Downloading large images on Slow connections

I have dialup and decided to bite the bullet to download an image labeled "Public Domain" at full resolution. Of the 4MB it transfers about 300KB and quits, telling me it's done and leaving a partial scrap with proper extension but mostly blank. I tried loading it in a browser window with a similar truncated load. When I have this problem with other files I can download them at public computers with high speed lines, but other servises are fully willing to dribble out the data at a speed compatible with connection. Is there anything you can do through your IP to allow this leisurely operation?

Ref: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sleeping_Cupid-Caravaggio_(1608).jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Sleeping_Cupid-Caravaggio_%281608%29.jpg

• I don't know if you are experiencing what I sometimes experience. I drive my computer to the very edge of its performance, and when I am close to, or at, the very edge of a stall, my uploads fail to complete, in just the manner you describe. Geo Swan (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• It's probably a time-out thing. The dataflow isn't being monitored just the start of the download and end of the download, and if the latter doesn't complete in a predetermined time the operation is cancelled. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• You might consider a download manager. Their popularity has fallen along with dialup, but if you're still on a slow connection, this might be best. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

January 1

MediaWiki:Gadget-NoUploadWizard.js

... will be removed soon from the gadgets and will be replaced by the default gadget MediaWiki:Gadget-UploadWizard.js, which you can disable if you do not like Upload-Wizard. technical background, logical background. -- RE rillke questions? 16:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

One further "pro" is that UploadWizard can now be much more simple deactivated when there are known incompatibilities for certain browsers. -- RE rillke questions? 18:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Please point me in the right direction: Where on Commons did you get consensus to disable the upload wizard in German by default? Multichill (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't do so, MediaWiki:Upload-url/de &action=history. But I endorse Saibo's decision as I do not see consensus to activate it. If I am missing anything, let me know, please. Otherwise we will run a survey on COM:Forum how to deal with. I just had no time, yet. -- RE rillke questions? 21:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

But why singling out people who access Commons in German? That's a completely arbitrary criteria. Why not Linux users, users whose IP starts with 64, users who live in the UTC+3 timezone, etc. Maybe they don't like UploadWizard either, but they can turn it off on their own, we should not assume that a whole arbitrary group of people want Commons to treat them differently. Prof. Professorson (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

How about, errr, how about, shall we say, what if, what if the developer's native language is German? Do you think that could be a reasonable motive? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Upload-Wizard is perfectly acessable through Commons:Hochladen. It is the first option. Please note, that Upload-Wizard suffer(ed)(s) from too many bugs as I would recommend it to my best friend at this stage. Currently there is one in german language only Bugzilla: 33338 which causes that MediaWiki:Mwe-upwiz-deeds-macro-prompt is not shown as text. But this is only one of many. I am going to ask the German community now. -- RE rillke questions? 11:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There may be remaining issues with the JS parsing library, but your message update has since been deployed, causing the specific issue in bug 33338 to no longer appear, as far as I can tell.--Eloquence (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: the discussion about the German interface is now here: Commons:Upload Wizard Gadget Polling (de). Thanks Rillke! --Saibo (Δ) 03:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Prof. Professorson, I would have changed the xxx interface too - but I didn't get the same feedback like from the German community. And: it is a long time standard now for the xxx interface. But, sure - could be discussed. Especially why it was activated without a legitmation. --Saibo (Δ) 03:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

@Multichill: It is the other way round: where did Eloquence get consensus to (try to) enable UW per default? --Saibo (Δ) 03:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Upload Wizard, to-date, has been used to successfully upload more than 600,000 files, including more than 170,000 in Wiki Loves Monuments, with many thousands of new users uploading for the first time. In addition to being vastly more user-friendly, it has many features that aren't included in the standard upload form, including multi-file selection / multi-file licensing / multi-file description editing; geo-data extraction; support for upload campaigns; more understandable licensing instructions. Its usability has been tested repeatedly in both lab tests and online tests with new users. It's also been compared with the old upload forms, which are regarded by new users as horrible manifestations of evil.

So, it's the right default. It links to the old form, as well, and falls back to a simple upload form if no JS is available.

When we compare making UW the default to not doing so, we have to take into account that not doing so is likely to lead users down a path they'll find confusing, that'll be less efficient for many cases, in short, that'll bear its own frustrations and annoyances. Moreover, the old forms have both known and unknown bugs, and some of the bugs in UW are in features that don't even exist in the old forms.

With that said, although it may seem that WMF has tons of resources to throw at problems like this, we're as always very stretched thin. I'd love to have a team of 5 people working on nothing but media uploads, but our current engineering resources don't allow for that. So, while I'm happy with the quality of the product overall, it would have been great if we could have smashed through bugs faster, and I understand the frustration with breakages over the last few months. It's also the case that UW's tests aren't yet integrated into our continuous integration server, which would help surface issues and regressions more quickly.

That means that in practice, folks like Saibo and Rillke have done lots of the testing and reporting of issues which -- in a better world -- WMF would have surfaced well before deploying code. I'm grateful for that, in spite of the occasional snarky or aggressive remark.

Thanks in part to their help identifying issues, UW today seems generally pretty mature. There are only four bugs left with severity "major", and one of them is arguably an enhancement request. (If other bugs deserve the "major" severity, please say so.) The rate of feedback about broken uploads has slowed down significantly, while UW's built-in feedback system generally leads to problems becoming visible quickly. The arguments for not sending users there directly in any language are IMO pretty weak.

From anyone who has reservations about UW that aren't fundamental, I'd love to know what the main bugs or wishlist items are that they'd still like to see addressed before they feel that they can wholeheartedly enjoy using it. While it may take us a while to work through all of them, my goal is for the uploading process to really become more and more user-friendly over time.

I know my own mental wishlist: 1) fixing remaining browser issues (either by blacklisting broken features or repairing them), 2) supporting simple batch-application of metadata, 3) fixing remaining upload errors/API issues. What's yours?--Eloquence (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Woohooo! Be aware: "we have to take into account that not doing so is likely to lead users down a path they'll find confusing, that'll be less efficient for many cases," .... Why? What is wrong with the decision the users can do at Commons:Hochladen? I do also recommend the UW for newbies - but I tell them that they need to be aware that it can fail, contain bugs or be just not suited for their usecase. I would like to see the UW gadget as a non-default gadget for those users who want to always upload with UW (knowing through the gadget's description that they use a alpha/beta version).

You're asking for a wishlist? Do a redesign of UW and bring it back to where it should be - inside the wiki with us rather than this WMF-pushed foreign object. In the meantime you could fix the big buglist. --Saibo (Δ) 15:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Saibo,

1) Whenever you introduce additional decision-making complexity into a piece of software, you lose users in that complexity. The problem is that a user is not a machine. That is, they will not robotically review the entire page they're looking at, weigh different options against each other, and then choose the "correct" option. Instead, they will scan the page for cues which will allow them to complete the task they were looking to accomplish. This means that if their eyes happen to first track "my own work" and not "assistant for uploading files", that's where they're going to click without further thought.

Even if they notice both options, they're not going to necessarily be in a position to consciously evaluate them against each other. Similarity and ambiguity of different options always causes confusion. That's precisely been an issue that's been hitting us in the uploading process again and again (even in UW if you remember the "Free Art License" problem). You know all about how users are willing to just click through the fastest apparent path to upload a file, so I'm surprised you seem to think that adding decision-making complexity is a good idea.

2) You also know very well that the bulk of MediaWiki's code isn't JavaScript or accessible beyond the version control system. This includes essential elements of the upload code, e.g. the upload API which provides all the functionality utilized by the various upload forms. So to characterize a piece of software as "foreign" just because it's not a gadget is simply incorrect. Indeed, even complex JavaScript gadgets are sometimes managed through version control because it's a more suitable way to keep track of changes (cf. Twinkle's GitHub repository).

Would it be a good idea to attempt an UW-to-gadget port? Perhaps, and you're welcome to give it a try, although there would be many technical considerations. Even if such a port was fully successful, you'd likely want the code to be in version control regardless, and you'd likely want to distinguish between an experimental/staging version of the code, and the current default-deployed version. Moreover, you'd want to have test-runners perform unit and integration tests as code is committed, report test results against specific revisions, etc.

All this could be accomplished within the current model. It might be nice to shortcut the deployment cycle by having an on-wiki hosted version at least of the experimental codebase, but we could, for now, simply set up an automated code push to a staging environment. The barrier to directly participating in development isn't very high. You simply request commit access. In future, we'll be using git, which will make it easier for any user to push code changes for review.--Eloquence (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no question: Upload Wizard has been improved. Thanks for that.

And you are right saying that lots of bugs are caused by the new features. But this is no excuse. If an uploads fails due to such a buggy feature, you don't have won anything. Upload Wizard is nice and has potential but the old upload form is robust.

Just to give you an example (don't know whether this is still an issue): Upload the maximum number of allowed files, choose custom license for all uploads, describe and hit publish. Now it is very likely that your browser becomes unresponsive for some time.

While multiple-file-upload is a feature, if the upload fails and images+categories+descriptions are lost for lots of files, it is more and issue than if it fails for only one file. And I saw users, e.g. Nevit who uploaded some 50MB-files and then upload wizard hang up while publishing.

This is my current view on the things and I am happy to correct it. -- RE rillke questions? 15:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

January 3

What did I do wrong here?

Hey, I uploaded an image File:Overview of Independence Street, with Building 1001 (administration building) on right, looking south, Naval Air Station Chase Field, Texas State Highway 202, east of intersection of Texas State Highway 202 and US Highway 181, Beeville, Bee County, TX.jpg, but the image will not display. What did I mess up this time? Thanks. 25or6to4 (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you did anything wrong -- the underlying image looks fine -- but it's not thumbnailing right for me, either. Anyone? - Jmabel ! talk 06:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I can not see neither the image nor the thumbnail. FF7. May be the name is too long?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's it. Linux has a 255 characters limit for file names, which is exactly how many are in Overview of Independence Street, with Building 1001 (administration building) on right, looking south, Naval Air Station Chase Field, Texas State Highway 202, east of intersection of Texas State Highway 202 and US Highway 181, Beeville, Bee County, TX.jpg; that's why it can be seen at [3]. But when creating a thumbnail, the system prepends the file name with, say, "597px-", which brings the file name over the 255 characters limit; that's why [4] returns an error. Just guessing. Prof. Professorson (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The source. You wrote "US Government". Im sure the whole US Government not came to your house and gave you this file. Provide sources where you take something from, its not so difficult. --Martin H. (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention who the author was. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thats regretably only to find out with access to the original photo caption page which is not yet online. --Martin H. (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: User:Ruslik0 fixed the issue for this file by renaming to a shorter title. Rd232 (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Note2: I added some info at COM:MAXTHUMB and Commons:File naming. Rd232 (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleting images

Hello, I found that de pictures on Commons too quickly removed. I would like you to http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:De_kroeg#Het_verwijderen_van_afbeeldingen_op_Commons redirect, and as the discussion to read. (My english is not so good) Mvg Bakel123 (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC) >een gebruiker van Wikipedia Nederland<

The thing is, we're deleting them because they're copyright infringement. We're not going to worry about how fast we delete images unless you show that we could keep them if we took more care.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If they're copyvios then we aren't deleting them fast enough. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oude Bakelsedyk.png - the deleting admin does not seem to have listened. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering the uploader's history of uploading copyvios here at Commons (just look at his talk page) I chose to doubt what was said there. If he really is the author of that image, there are a number of ways to confirm it. I suggested one of them (sending a mail to OTRS) some time ago, yet as of now he does not seem to have done that. Instead he asks elsewhere for them to send an permission to OTRS, a strange action if he himself is the author, and complains about the matter at several discussion boards (the Village pump, here, here). Those actions don't exactly lessen my doubts about the true authorship of that image. --Rosenzweig τ 11:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and re “too quickly”: I decided that deletion request after two months. Hardly too quickly. --Rosenzweig τ 11:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I regret the negative comments you get from Dutch editors. Dutch editors: if you made a mistake accept it, admit it and fix it. Don't blame someone else. --VanBuren (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

VICbot

The bot hasn't been working properly since before Christmas, and as a result the valued images process has ground to a halt. --Claritas (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Gizmodo shamelessly snarfing Commons content

Do we have some kind of wall of shame for major news media sites who reuse Commons content without respecting the license (i.e., not giving attribution)? Maybe we ought to have! Gizmodo has just done it to me. What a bunch of lazy bastards they are… --Morn (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You can add {{Published}} to file talk page with the parameter legal=no. And perhaps you should also complain by e-mailing the author Andrew Tarantola using the "Email the author" link on the webpage, as well as the webmaster if there's an address or form. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack! I've already sent the author of the article an e-mail, but not the webmaster. I'll add the template you suggested to the file description page. --Morn (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries. (Note that {{Published}} should be placed on file talk pages.) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I meant talk page, not description page. --Morn (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a great image, by the way. Thanks for bringing it to us.

I am not a lawyer and any legal advice you get for free is close to worthless, but I would send a snail mail letter to the company, addressed to their General Counsel (by title if you can't find his/her name) together with an invoice for $500 or more (however large your chutzpah calls for) for unlicensed use of your image -- by definition, a use without meeting the requirements of the license is unlicensed. If you happen to live in or near New York, you can probably bring an action yourself in Small Claims Court.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, yes. You should try that. What fun! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Morn, I would seriously pursue them for breach of copyright. You have chosen to make it available under a free licence, and they have breached the licence automatically by not attributing your authorship. Gizmodo is a high traffic website, and as such the value of your work has been diluted by their ignoring the licence. A recent case of Maltese aviation photographers saw them winning in the Maltese courts damages as per this. Or you could contact them and demand that they simply credit you inline with the licence. But Gizmodo should know better than to steal works, so a letter of demand might very well be in your best interests (and also the community at large). russavia (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is a problem and it seems that Wikimedia has no solution for that. I've just accidentally discovered this site using a photo of mine. What should I do now?--MrPanyGoff 11:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Going after some Russian or Chinese copycat site might be too difficult for Wikimedia, but if I upload one of my photos to Commons I expect Wikimedia to protect and enforce its license, especially if a major US company is breaching it. If they don't, why should I upload anything to Commons at all? I bet Stallman and GNU would not be sitting on their thumbs in such a situation the way Wikimedia apparently does. Begging for donations periodically like a bum seems to be pretty much the only thing they ever do these days. Really sad, and not very motivating for would-be contributors if our stuff gets ripped off like that and WM can't even be arsed to send a letter! --Morn (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, all of the advice above is good in your case also -- with the reservation that Morn is, given where his/her image was taken, probably an American and the snarfer is an American company, so the DMCA is a valid threat. I don't read Cyrillic, so I don't know who your snarfer is, but I think a resolution might be less likely.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I'm German. But even if I were American, I'd expect Wikimedia to enforce its own license, not me. I have very little to gain or lose here, but Wikimedia does if their license is considered such a joke even Gawker doesn't think it needs to obey it. After all, Gizmodo isn't Aunt Jemina's Cooking Blog but a major web site that's visited by hundreds of thousands of people per day. This sets a very dangerous precedent if they can get through with this kind of behavior. --Morn (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Morn, just so you know, YOU are the copyright holder, not Wikimedia, therefore only YOU can enforce the licence that YOU have granted. Sorry not shouting or anything, just want to make it clear that it is your copyrights which have been breached, not Wikimedia. Send them a letter of demand, which I think I might be able to make up a template for you, and keep a note of this link (it's an archive copy of the page), and you are well within your rights to demand monetary compensation - a sum of a couple hundred Euro is usual in such cases would you believe. russavia (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

First, my apologies for the bad assumption -- if I had looked more carefully, I would have noted that it was on Hornet, not on an active carrier.

Second, WMF has to work hard to raise around US$20 million each year to pay for its various needs, both hardware and people. That does not leave any room for a budget for license enforcement -- or even for sending letters. Actually litigating this would take $50,000 before you filed suit. And, after all, it is your license, not WMF's. WMF is just a host.

Fortunately, the DMCA gives the copyright holder powerful tools to fight this sort of thing. You can, for example, notify Gizmodo's ISP that the image infringes and that the ISP must take it down. I think you will find that my suggestion above (snail mail to GC) will get action and might even get you payment.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That may be good advice for Americans, but you can't expect Europeans to want to meddle with American courts. If the Wikimedia license does not provide a means for WMF to combat license violations, then it's simply a bad and inappropriate license for this kind of project. Because then for all intents and purposes it's not really a project at all, just a random collection of files by random users that can be raped by commercial content providers every which way they want without fear of retribution. --Morn (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Morn, I'd have to disagree with that. If you publish anything, anywhere on the Internet, be it on some forum, wikipedia or a personal website you are by nature the only one who can claim your rights when these are violated. It would be great if a hoster/project could provide assistance when you need to take action to enforce your rights, but by nature this is your responsibility. In fact, wiki(|m)edia does provide assistance, as there is ample information an advice to be found here and always room for questions and discussions (such as this very one) to clear things up and help/advice you to take appropriate steps. The fact that "our" copyright law (I'm European too) is near useless in countries that choose to ignore it doesn't change that fact and doesn't make it the responsibility of WMF. The only true remedy for this is to not publish anything, ever - be it on paper or digitally. As soon as others can get their hands on it, abuse of your rights will be a fact of life. The decision to take (legal) action to defend your rights is yours alone and will depend on the perceived actual damage and the likeliness of success of the (legal) action - as is the case if someone scratches your car in the street or some such. It just is a very annoying, frustrating and time consuming road to travel, and usually quite expensive too. But this is done to you by our law enforcement systems that make it virtually impossible to have your rights protected - not by the WMF.

As for advice: Please note that Creative Commons has at least as much of a "stake" here as the WMF (if any). It is one of their license schemes that is being violated and as the licenses are their core business they have even more riding on their licenses being enforced as should be. They may also be better equipped to help you with sound legal advice and have previous experience with court cases ruling in favor of the authors of works published under their licenses.

In general you certainly have a point that it's about time to start enforcing free licenses with more vigor as indeed many, many high profile websites (also in Europe) seem to violate the licenses on a daily basis. Partially this is plain ignorance, I'm sure, but publishers should be aware that they have a responsibility in educating their editors to reuse freely licensed materials with proper respect for the copyright holders. Pudding4brains (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the GNU project would be a good counterexample where contributors transfer their copyrights AFAIK and then Stallman/GNU can take legal action where required. Of course this complete copyright transfer might not work for Commons. But maybe we could somehow give WMF permission to pursue these (higher-profile) license breaches in our name? WMF obviously doesn't have the resources to go after every single offending blog, but when bigger sites like Gawker go wrong there has to be some response I think. Just putting all files that are used illegally into an obscure Commons category isn't enough of a response.

WMF has lawyers they can consult so I'm surprised that they are not investigating how to handle this situation legally. Creative Commons has less at stake I'd say because they are not as well-known as Wikipedia. They might have originated the license, but Wikipedia/Commons is the biggest CC-licensed site that uses it. So this mess is very much WMF's problem, because Wikipedia and CC are more or less the same for most people. I certainly only use CC/GFDL because that's what Wikipedia prefers. Although the GFDL has also never been tested in court, so a pure GFDL license might not have helped here. But CC only has become so big because of Wikipedia! --Morn (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I had the same experience 3 years ago with my map. An ad agency altered the map as printed newspaper ads and trackside billboards in subway (MTR) stations here in Hong Kong for Citibank to promote their credit cards. I encourage you to CC your complain email to the chief editor as well to make sure that their administration know your situation. It's taken me more than 3 months to settle with the ad agency for a compensation, and you may spend more if you turn to the legal side.

Commons is a platform to "host" the image for you, so don't expect Commons (and Creative Commons) can provide much help but do ask for their advices to see if they have come across similar cases before. - Xavier114fch (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Now Gizmodo has updated their article to include my name at least. No link to Commons though. I'd call that a partial victory.

I don't see Commons as a "platform" at all. I upload photos solely for inclusion in Wikipedia, the Free content encyclopedia. To me it's clear WMF should have to share some of the legal burden because we are not uploading photos here for our personal enjoyment as on Flickr but to to build them their encyclopedia. Perhaps the CC license is just a bad choice for Commons if it means enforcement falls to the individual uploader. --Morn (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not an issue with the license, it's an issue with the legal system. Since the WMF does not hold copyright to your images, they do not have standing to start legal action. --Carnildo (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Of course Commons is a platform. This seems to be a significant misunderstanding of what uploading to Commons means. As has been said repeatedly above, the copyright holder is responsible for pursuing copyright violations, and afaik that is regardless of the license used. WMF shares no legal burden of the misuse, because you released your image under that license when you uploaded it, not the WMF. It is up to you to go after the violator. While Commons certainly wants images to be uploaded to be made available to the widest userbase, if you feel uncomfortable releasing an image under a free license, you can always upload to a local project and indicate that it should not be moved to Commons. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"upload to a local project and indicate that it should not be moved to Commons" - impossible, as image with free licence can be copied to commons - because it is with free licence Bulwersator (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict):::The way I see it, Wikipedia is "our" encyclopedia, yours, mine, the citizens of the world and WMF merely kindly provides us the means to create it :o) You are and always will be the copyright holder, so enforcement has to start with you. Others may lend a hand.

Gizmodo is publicly displaying that they are too thick to even understand the simple restrictions laid out in the CC and GFDL licenses - even the "human readable" versions. Peinlich, peinlich - they should best be publicly ridiculed and made fun of. Sadly, many, many organizations and companies, including Dutch (I know for a fact) and German (I'm sure) truly seem to be this ignorant as many (if not even most) online sources/media seem to be making the same mistakes on a very large scale, daily. Frightening really, that there are so many people with such limited cerebral abilities actually earning a living in the information industry - what does this tell us about the quality of the content they are providing? :-/

In terms of help, what we (or "the WMF") could probably provide is a standard letter/form that authors can use to alert the likes of Gizmodo about these copyright infringements in a way that leaves no room for interpretation. It should probably be categorized under Educating the dumb and braindead masses of wanna be journalists and publishers about using freely licensed materials, but I think it would certainly help to have a standard letter/email explaining why it is wrong what they are doing and how it should be done. A clear Wikimedia branding on such communications may also prove to have just that little extra impact. In my experience, mostly it really just boils down to total ignorance (yes, probably based on laziness to invest some effort in reading up on the subject), which is bad enough as it is for "publishers".

Was it Napoleon who advised us to Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence? Pudding4brains (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it may be that they largely do this out of ignorance, rather than malice. Still, they need to be educated about this and how this is setting a very bad, Guttenberg-like example for everyone else.

I just sent them an email that said

Hi Andrew!

You are reusing my Commons photo (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hornet_catapult.jpg) in your Gizmodo article (http://gizmodo.com/5869151/its-like-a-slingshot-but-for-planes) without attribution. This photo is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 and the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2, which require you to attribute properly. Please update your article accordingly.

Thanks for your cooperation!

Martin C. Doege

which was apparently sufficiently educational to resolve the matter somewhat imperfectly but (to me) satisfactorily.

Regarding the Commons as platform discussion, I think part of the problem is that the Wikipedia upload form coaxes you into uploading at Commons without fully explaining what it means for content. I'm not using Commons because I think it's so great but because the WP upload form strongly suggests to do it. Of course one can still upload to a specific WP, but in practice this seems to be strongly discouraged and all my old WP uploads got moved to Commons by other users. So it seems to me that it's almost impossible to contribute a Free photo to WP while avoiding Commons. --Morn (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Morn -- some pro bono free-license enforcement legal work does take place around the GPL (which is not the same as GFDL or CC-SA), as discussed at en:GNU_General_Public_License#The_GPL_in_court, en:Free_Software_Foundation#GPL_enforcement, en:gpl-violations.org etc. However, what the GPL enforcers are most worried about is so-called "code-hoarding", or a company distributing a revised version of a free software program without also making available the source revisions. No issue comparable to code-hoarding arises when a photograph is used on a website without complying with the license terms... AnonMoos (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

How's this: {{License enforcement request}}. Rd232 (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, I come across lots of images provided by wire services, that which are merely credited as "GETTY file photo", but which I know are public domain. I come across a larger number which are almost certainly public domain, but which are credited as "GETTY file photo". We, here, make what I regard as a serious mistake, and universally assume that GETTY owns the rights to all images that are credited as "GETTY file photo". I have come across images that are almost certainly public domain, where someone asserts a credit that an image is a "GETTY file photo" proves we are violating copyright, where I wasn't able to find the original {{PD-USGov}} site, but I did find other instances of the image where it was credited as "Reuters file photo", "AP file photo", "AFP file photo". Wire services routinly add public domain images to their image libraries, and redistribute them to their customers without informing them that the image is public domain.
• The photo editors at newspapers, even major newspapers, can't be relied on to be clueful on copyright images. There was an official looking photo of W. Thomas Cumbie, a JAG colonel I uploaded. He was wearing his uniform, and standing in front of a flag of the USA. I had uploaded this uncredited image some years ago, from the Miami Herld, and credited it as PD based on its appearance. This image was challenged, and I wrote to the Miami Herald's photo editor, asking for confirmation of its provenance. Here is her reply, below.

If there was no credit line I wouldn't be able to figure it out at this point but I can tell you all our photos from guantanamo are either shot by a staff member or handout. In either case I wouldn't be able to give permission to reproduce. If you think it was government handout you might seek out their public information officer for permission. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.

Even this is incorrect, as the image that illustrated the article that did not require clicking on "more photos" was credited to the Philadelphia Inquirer. [5] Geo Swan (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

December 28

Concerned about some images (Japanese, Chinese speaker)?

We have several pictures of PTFE ("Teflon") O-rings and gaskets that look somewhat professionally done. I did an image search and found them on this site. http://www.keiyougomu.com/info/

Is it a Wiki mirror or the source?

TCO (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

See also:

File:PTFE jacket.JPG

File:Oring.JPG

TCO (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Does seem a bit suspicious, except -- the EXIF file creation time is May 28, 2007, and they were uploaded to Commons on May 30, 2007. That is not a lot of time for someone to find them on a site and then upload them here. The server date on the site you mention is sometime in 2008, so it's probably not the source. The user has a bunch of similar-looking uploads... and one or two others which seem concerning. But, at first blush... it really does look like that user took those pictures, as they were uploaded two days after they were taken. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably someone working in the field, see my File:IGBT 3300V 1200A Mitsubishi.jpg (taken on my office desk). --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm¹¹⁶⁷¹ 13:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I love the expertise here and that I know how to tap it! Now, I just need to write more article prose...so I have room to stick more images in! :-) TCO (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

RIP User:Gerardus

Just 2 hours ago, we were notified that User:Gerardus, a high-volume contributor to Commons, has died 4 days ago. For a link to the condolences page on :nl, see the last entry in Commons:Deceased contributors. --Túrelio (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

January 5

Should categories be in front of interwikis or other way around?

Many categories and galleries on Common use interlanguage links, commonly called interwiki links (although that term has also other meaning, see meta:Help:Interwiki linking). A standard on all Wikimedia projects, so far, is to place interlanguage links on the bottom of the page, below categories, see here. Other projects like Wikia place them above categories. This layout is enforced by many bots, especially most bots written using pywikipediabot infrastructure, which use standard functions for category and interwiki operations also perform wikitext cleanup while doing other tasks. The wikitext cleanup consolidates all categories and interwikis together, move them below all other wikitext in proper order. The layout can be customized for each project through so called family files, but the layout currently enforced on for pages on Commons is the same as for Wikipedias and places interwiki below categories. Last month my bot user:JarektBot was blocked indefinitely (see here and here) for performing wikitext cleanup while adding interwiki links. Apparently, "there is no consensus on the order"[6] on Commons and the preferred option is to keep the order used by the earlier editors. Unfortunately the way pywikipediabot infrastructure is constructed, it HAS to know the order and most operations perform additional cleanup, like in this or this edits.

So in order to be able to run any pywikipediabot based tasks without getting blocked and to save the trouble for operators of most other pywikipediabot based bots, I would like to propose to reach consensus on preferred layout of Commons wikitext. Which order we chose is less important as to agreeing on some order. The choices are:

1. Wikitext->Categories->Interwikis - the currently enforced order
2. Wikitext->Interwikis->Categories - order used on many pages
3. Other?

I mildly prefer the current order, mostly because if we decide to change it than suddenly there will be a lot more changes to the pages edited by the bots. I do not propose that the chosen order will be strictly enforced by everybody or that any mass layout changes be performed by the bots (I do not think there should be any editing that only "beautifies" wiki code). Only that if cosmetic changes are made to the layout (while performing other tasks) than they should go in single direction. --Jarekt (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

HotCat places new categories adjacent to existing categories, and if there are no existing categories, it places new categories above the interwiki links, which are assumed to be at the end. Before interwiki link handling was implemented in HotCat, it would place new categories, if there weren't already categories on the page, at the bottom, i.e., after the interwiki links if there were any. Numerous people requested insertion above the interwiki links. Since that was implemented, I've not had a single feedback relating to this issue, so I presume people at the umpteen projects using our HotCat are happy with it. Therefore, place categories above interwikis on WMF projects, and all should be fine. (Except for simplistic bots, it doesn't matter. A well-written category or interwiki bot should be able to find the links it's interested in no matter where they are on a page using the API, and the MediaWiki software also doesn't care. It's purely a preference of human editors.) Lupo 15:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I personally prefer the first format, with interwikilinks as the last elements on the page. For me it creates a feeling of nice hierarchy, with page-specific wikitext first, Commons-specific categories second and the Wikimedia project-wide interwikis last. MKFI (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree... AnonMoos (talk)

Agree also, but it's no big deal. - Jmabel ! talk 17:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not a big deal to me either, but bots everyday are doing edits that got me blocked. I just would like to have this discussion, in case other editors have equally strong feelings on this topic. --Jarekt (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Generally agree, but since it works either way (i.e. the rendered page would be identical), I'm not sure I would worry much about trying to "fix" them (i.e. don't make such edits unless changing for some other reason). I can't see much issue with putting all the interwiki links at the bottom, though leaving category links in place would be preferable, as there may be reasons for the ordering/placement of those. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Format 1 is the standard, and should be enforced by a bot if, and only if it's making some other constructive edit (like updating interwikis). We certainly wouldn't want edits just to enforce the standard. I can't understand the claim that "there is no consensus about the order"; it may not be written down anywhere on Commons, but that is clearly the standard. See also en:WP:ORDER. Rd232 (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the issue with HotCat adding categories to the ends of pages had been fixed. If there's no problem of categories being split up, with some appearing before the interwikis and some after, then I've no objections if categories are placed before interwikis. (By the way, I notice that sometimes categories appear before the "Licensing" section. Can that be fixed by bot?) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

(OT, HotCat's placement of categories): is fixed since July 19, 2011. Lupo 21:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

About categories appearing before the "Licensing". That can be added (assuming it is no already there) to beautification steps performed by pywikipediabot based bots while performing other tasks. --Jarekt (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I imagine that is because many licensing templates add their own categories, and some users would prefer that the most relevant categories show up in the category listing before those more generic categories. So, not sure placement before licensing is a problem, let alone one that needs to be fixed systematically. Some editors do care about the order of the categories in order of most-specific to least-specific; there have been some bots which resort them alphabetically though, which is probably not a good idea if it can be avoided. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Categories before the "Licensing" header come from the category bar on the upload form. The category bar on the upload form has no choice but to add them to end of the description before submitting the upload, and then they end up above the licensing header. Dunno what the upload wizard does, but I'd hope (since it works completely differently) it can do better. Lupo 21:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This debate have been held many times and indeed, there have been never a consensus: the Wikipedia order is not the Commons standard. The fact that HotCat has changed might add another light on the problem. As many people that put significant energy in properly documenting, IW linking and deep categorizing categories, we prefer the categories at the bottom.

I documented somewhere between 10 and 20000 categories with text and IWs from sumitup. I gain significant time by having the categories at the bottom, and for maintenance of well documented categories, it is much faster if the categories are at the bottom; in stead of having to search in several pages of text and links, one can jump quickly to the end where the most dynamic part of a category is concentrated. That the bot changes such layout is not a real drama, but I noticed that some people take a pleasure in applying rules and protesting. I saw hundreds of categories changed just to remove a white space or to change the order in the hundreds of disambiguation pages I made. So I don't need an excuse for nitpickers to start making futile edits on those categories; not a drama in se, but just significant more work in my watchlist to check those edits on correctness. --Foroa (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we all agree that edits which purpose is only wikicode beautification, which do not change appearance or efficiency of the page are not desired. Wikicode beautification should be done only while doing other edits. May be we should have a policy or guideline to that effect, so it is clear and we can refer to it while talking to people that do this kind of edits. Does EN wiki has some similar policy? --Jarekt (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does (I've been involved in enforcing it...): en:WP:COSMETICBOT, a section of the Bot Policy. Also point 4 of en:WP:AWB's "rules of use". There is no equivalent rule in Commons:Bots, but it would probably not be controversial to add. (In my experience, people were generally happy to accept the principle, the problem was occasional attempts to argue "this is not just cosmetic" or "this is an exception, it's really important".) Rd232 (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

My preference is categories above interwiki links, because it is in line with most other Wikimedia projects and follows what seems to me like a logical progression. The current wording of Commons:Categories#Creating a new category, however, recommends putting categories "at the bottom" and placing DEFAULTSORT after the interwiki links. (The logical place for DEFAULTSORT is, in my firm opinion, just above the categories.) —LX (talk, contribs) 21:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I corrected Commons:Categories#Creating a new category section. It was rather unclear. Please verify. --Jarekt (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Order at Commons is usually wikitext => interwiki => categories. This as categories are rarely added manually, but through HotCat. --  Docu  at 12:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

user:Lupo said above that current version of HotCat "places new categories above the interwiki links". --Jarekt (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the changes on Commons:Categories. This contains the guideline and de facto standard and practise that is valid since almost 6 years, and never has been seriously challenged. It is not through a little discussion on VP, that will vanish within a couple of days, that we can change that guideline. Such changes need a more formal approach and mainly the opinion of the people that spend the major part of their time on deep categorisation and documentation work. I think that HotCat places now the categories at the first category block it encounters (previous versions put it on the end). Jarektbot just gave a demonstration that there is no problem to place the categories at the end of the block. --Foroa (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be disagreement about what the current standard is (interwiki before categories or vice versa). Would it be possible to have a bot generate some statistics? I presume a complete picture of Commons is impossible, but some random sampling on a convincingly large scale ought to be feasible. What do people think? Rd232 (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Useless. The de facto standard is already 6 years as stated. Problem is that most py bots enforce the wikipedia standards during some operations, other bots used to set cats on the end which mixed it all up. A bot can not extract meaningful statistics about the users. While this order is not so important now, it will become important when most categories will have 2 or 3 pages of intro documentation (intro, sister projects, descriptions in tens of languages) and somewhere between 200 and 300 interwiki's. --Foroa (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the first post, technically bots can do either order, but they have to pick ONE and the one used so far by both pywikipadiabot and HotCat is categories above the interwikis. I do not have much of a preference of one order over the other, but that is the order used by all other Wikimedia projects and what is OK for about 500 Wikipedia, Wikisource, etc. project should be good enough for us. Also changing order used by all the bots would require a lot of coordination. AutoWikiBrowser based bots are usually less sophisticated and usually add everything either at the end or at the beginning of the page. But that is not a big problem either, since eventually a more sophisticated bot comes along and cleans up a page, in addition to their main edits. I do not understand why it is such a big deal to keep it the way pywikipadiabot and HotCat are currently doing it. Just like Rd232 I was not aware that there was any controversy about this order. --Jarekt (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There are two ways of looking at what is the "de facto standard": what is used by the majority of pages where it's an issue (many pages don't have interwikis), and what is used by the majority of currently active users. A bot could give you a sample of the first. For the second, you'd have to do a user survey, via a SiteNotice. Both of these are perfectly feasible, but on some level, given the effort involved, I can't help wondering why we don't just agree to use the Wikimedia standard - which may after all be the Commons de facto standard anyway (we're just not sure!). Otherwise, the likelihood is we'll continue bumbling along with contradictory views of how these things should be done, which is messy at best. Rd232 (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It is feasible to sample the layout of categories with interwikis to check the dominant order, however it would be a lot of work and I am not sure if we would be much smarter afterwards. For better or worse the wikipedia standard is used by all bots using pywikipidiabot framework, so for example User:SieBot "corrects" order of categories and interwikis each time it moves a category like here. Other prolific bots are likely doing the same for years. --Jarekt (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Two points.

I prefer to maintain the current standard out of a long term view; the order is only important for categories that have a serious description in several languages, many categories and many interwikis. Obviously, sampling on short categories makes no sense. Few people do really deep categorisation and documentation work, they just create or extend categories by patching categories using HotCat, so obviously, they don't care.

Till some time ago, SieBot changed the order according to the Commons standard by putting the categories at the end. No idea when and why this has been changed. --Foroa (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If SieBot needs fixing, it should obviously be corrected. --  Docu  at 07:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with user:SieBot, I only used it as an example and I can probably pick one of 78 other bots. My point is that ALL bots based on Pywikipediabot framework standardize the look of the pages they work on, and that standardization include consolidation all categories and interwikis together and ordering them in the "correct" order. At the moment that order is the standard used on Wikipedia and all the other Wikimedia projects (and HotCats) of categories in front of interwikis. It is possible to change a single line of code in one of the Pywikipediabot framework files (used by all the Pywikipediabot bots) to switch the order to the standard used on Wikia (interwikis before categories), which is the order preferred by User:Foroa. However until that change is made majority of the bots based on Pywikipediabot will use the Wikimedia standard. From the responses we got on the beginning of this discussion, there does not seem to be much support for such change, since ~8 users expressed the preference for current categories in front of interwikis standard and only one argued for change to interwikis before categories standard. --Jarekt (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Bots provide a service by setting a de facto standard for Commons; it is fruitless to argue with a bot. Commons should be as consistent as possible with sister projects to avoid useless arguments. Bots based on Pywikipediabot help to maintain consistency. I support the Pywikipediabot order of categories in front of interwikis. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

From the bots that move categories, only SieBot uses since recently reordering as proposed here, it used to be compliant with the Commons guideline, as does category-bot. JarektBot is configurable as it demonstrated the other order in the beginning of the year. RussBot does not change the order, nor MerlIwBot that adds frequently interwikis. I'll come back extensively on this: what is important that we need to encourage and facilitate the proper documentation of categories (intro, labels, interwikis and categories), which is rare on Commons. Very few people in this debate (and on Commons) create completely documented categories. I am compiling a list of people that do so, and those people should be involved in the discussion. --Foroa (talk) 08:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

JarektBot as all pywikipediabot framework bots are individually configurable, but I am not comfortable reconfiguring parts of the bot shared by all other (78) pywikipediabot framework bots, since this would lead to much more drastic changes in edits by different bots with conflicting configurations. I would like to avoid that if possible. Ideally if we decide to change the standard currently used by most bots that will be done through change to pywikipediabot framework. Also I do not like your implied suggestion that not enough "people in this debate [] create completely documented categories" (I hope I am not taking your comment out of context). I feel like I edited enough categories (by hand and by bot) to be qualified to discuss this matter and I assume most other users that expressed their opinion so far feel similarly. However I like the idea to get more people involved in this discussion. --Jarekt (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Really tired with flickr

I'm really tired with flickr. I've been finding a lot of dead accounts connected to images that are suspiciously professional. I've also seen claims about licensing that could easily have mistakes. Is there some way that if we have a flickr images that we do one or more of the following:

1. Have OTRS keep a screen shot of the page with the license for verifiability later.

2. Have people get the original uploader to sign off on the image before it is moved to Commons.

3. Have some kind of policy to deal with removed flickr accounts as they tend to vanish more on violations of TOS (i.e. stealing images) than merely leaving flickr.

We are supposed to have a "when in doubt" approach to copyright, and there are so many potential problems with flickr, especially flickrwashing. Meh. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

In Wikispeak, flickr's purported chains of custody do not meet en:WP:RS. What we read on flickr is no more credible than what we read on a Wikimedia project; anyone can open an account and claim anything he/she likes.67.168.135.107 06:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep. That is the frustration. Meh. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Surely you would not doubt a photostream like Seattle Municipal Archives merely because it is on Flickr. - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I would not automatically doubt it only because it has data that can be verified - source records. But I would doubt their right to license material in that way. Did they get permission from the original authors? Seattle isn't the Federal Government and isn't automatically PD. This lacks an author, which means that its copyright status is not known. The bureaucrat who uploaded it probably has no clue about copyright. This is why Flickr cannot be trusted. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like that one is a work for hire, and is not claimed to be PD, rather CC-BY. Yes, sometimes Flickr users license stuff they shouldn't. Probably at least as often, probably more, people upload stuff here and claim "own work". There is nothing we can do to completely prevent this; so do what we do now -- find other sources, use common sense (does a Flickr user have photos with tons of different cameras but claims to be all from one person, etc.). We do assume good faith. If you are tired of Flickr, you are also tired of Commons users. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Nothing in their stream is claimed to be PD. The few third-party images are normally marked as "All rights reserved" (though I have caught them in a mistake once in a while). I've spoken with several people from the Municipal Archive. These are city government materials, most of them taken by Engineering and Parks employees in the process of their work. And it is precisely their intention to release them. We got an explicit OTRS for their maps (which weren't on Flickr), but since the Flickr content indicates an acceptable CC license OTRS seems unnecessary to me. And it would be a pain to get it for a continuing stream of images. - Jmabel ! talk 01:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Works for hire" does not mean that the original artist gave up their rights to the image nor does it mean that they didn't merely license the image for use. We have no proof that Seattle owns the rights to those images let alone can legally release them under any license. Only in the Federal Government (primarily, the military) are creators of images giving up their rights and that is because of federal law. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Um... that is exactly what "work for hire" means -- the copyright is owned by the employer completely, so yes the individual employee gives up all their rights (actually they never owned the copyright in question, as the company is considered the "author"). This is generally true of all companies and employees, for work done on company time -- please see 17 USC 101 for the definition, and 17 USC 201(b) for how that relates to copyright ownership. That's a pretty basic part of copyright law in the U.S. It may also apply to contractors or commissioned work, depending on how the contract is written. In general, the state or city government will own all copyright on work done by employees, and so there is really no reason to doubt ownership for most of what is in that Flickr stream. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• "the copyright is owned by the employer completely" No. 1. We do not have an employee's name or the person who took it. 2. We do not have the contract that would determine if they gave up all rights to authorship. 3. You have to give up your right/claim to authorship. That is how it works in the US. I still own the rights to the images that I took pictures that were used while I was on the job and that is true in most states. From Wikipedia: "However, when a work is created by an employee as part of his or her job, or when certain kinds of works are created on behalf of a client and all parties agree in writing to the designation" - there is no proof of that nor is there an author given that would allow us to determine if that was the case. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't need the names of employees. If you are a straight-up employee, then we don't need a contract either -- it is implied that you give up the right to claim authorship, unless the employment contract specifies differently (very rare). The "all parties agree in writing to the designation" part refers to works done on commission and other non-employee situations; those are not automatically a work for hire the same way. From the law I linked above:

A “work made for hire” is—

(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or

(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. [...]

Case (1) covers basic employment (federal government works do not use the "work for hire" terminology, but the legislative notes say it is the exact same concept). It is only the cases in part (2) of that section which need agreed, written instruments -- which is exactly what the wiki article says, if you read the "ors" and the "ands" correctly -- "when a work is created by an employee as part of his or her job" is not qualified, it is only the part coming after the "or" which need the written agreements. If you are an employee, then for anything you do as part of the job, the company is the "author". The employee's name doesn't really matter, not even for copyright term (which for corporate works is based on date of creation or publication). The Flickr stream in question is from the Seattle city government, organized by the agency which created them it seems, who would be the copyright owner for anything done by their employees, at least if they were done as part of their duties. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"We don't need the names of employees" Legally, we do. And you don't understand how the law works. Merely being an employee does not mean your images are not your own. It has to have a specific contract. That is how the laws operate. You are quoting about federal employees when this is a state/municipal entity. Why did you conveniently leave that out? That isn't good, and anyone reading that would know it specifically deals with Federal Government employees only. I expect an apology for such bad behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The part I quoted has nothing to do with the federal government -- that goes for all employers (companies, local governments, etc.). If you are an employee, and you create works as part of your job, then the company/employer is the "author" and the employee has no rights at all over it. That is what a "work for hire" is. 17 USC 101 (which I quoted, and defines "work for hire") and 17 USC 201 (which declares that the employers are the authors of works for hire) apply in general, and not specifically to any entity. That is the "default" for an employment situation (as opposed to a commission or contractor). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Not true. The link you put before under "legislative notes" was for Federal Employees only. 2. The law says "within the scope of his or her employment". I find it odd how you overlooked that. That requires the specific contract and the expectation that the employer would have the right to determine the copyright. I write for newspapers and not once have I been forced to give up my copyright to those pieces I have written. That was my point before which you seemed not to get. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

1. That link I gave explains government works in terms of work for hire -- basically, a government work is basically a work for hire where the federal government is the employer. It helps define the term "government work" but does not restrict the definition of "work for hire" in any way. I posted the full definition of the term above (other than some of part 2, which is about non-employee situations). 2. Correct, works for hire must be those done within the scope of the employment. That is part of the definition, which I quoted -- in other words, work done on their own time is not covered by that. There does not have to be a special clause about copyright in the employee contract though; once an employee, work you do as part of your job description belongs to the employer. If you are an independent contractor, the situation changes -- no idea what you are, but unless there is a special clause in the employment contract about copyright ownership, I'd think that work by newspaper staff would be works for hire. The determination of "employee" vs "independent contractor" can be complicated these days by various employment arrangements; see for example this link which goes over some of that ground. I have no idea what your situation is, but for almost all regular employees, they never own the copyright of the work done on the job. Stuff done on their own time, and/or their own equipment, is of course different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• It seems to me that no apology is called for from Carl here. On the contrary, it seems to me that there is another contributor here whose replies which have skipped addressing meaningful and civilly expressed counter arguments, and who has been clouding the discussion through the use of inflammatory language. Geo Swan (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• I proved above that you are wrong, so cut it out. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • You claimed the bot was routinely generating bug reports -- apparently without looking closely enough at its talk page archives to recognize that all the bug reports since the bot's first year or so were due to good faith misunderstanding on the part of the complainants. A handful of complainants offered instances of images which they thought the bot should have confirmed. In every case the comlainants did not understand that of the half dozen creative commons licenses flickr supports only two are ones that we consider "free".
  • You keep claiming or implying that the bot has failed, and falsely passed images when they weren't under valid licenses. However, several of us have asked you to point to a single instance, a single image, where the bot failed. Not only have you failed to offer a single confirming instance, you have not acknowledged this very reasonable request.
  • So, your claim Carl owes you an apology is baseless. I strongly suggest you go back, re-read those archives. I honestly believe that if make a sincere good faith attempt to re-read those archives you will recognize your claims the program falsely represents a danger are baseless. At that point I request you re-evaluate who you thinks ought to apologize. Geo Swan (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Commons has plenty of problems. Flickr has plenty of problems. But when you combine the two together, the problems become exponential. I would rather a small headache than a massive migraine. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not exponential. Just additive. We'd get the same problems here, and all you'd do is to discourage people from legitimately making their works available under free licenses by saying we can't trust explicit licensing present on other sites. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we trust any licensing elsewhere at all, especially when our core belief is to be skeptical regarding copyright and make sure to be very cautious. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

In that case, we shouldn't trust any licensing from anyone anywhere, and just shut down ;-) There is such thing as being too paranoid, if you want to have a remotely successful project of this type. License claims here are probably no better than ones elsewhere -- some things get better scrutiny, but far from all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Bots aren't people. When they generate errors, they generate them in mass. People can be checked and verified. By requiring a screen shot along with the verification, that would go a long way to having a way to check and see if the bot was operating properly. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Screenshots are essentially worthless (as they can be trivially faked), they are no stronger than an individual's word. Demanding them would be an overly bureaucratic step that would flood OTRS for no good reason. The bot was extensively checked in its first few months of operation. If you think its having problems now, look through its Special:Contributions/FlickreviewR and look for a false pass or a false fail?--Nilfanion (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Now you are being ridiculous. If the bot takes a screen shot of what it is reading, it would not be "faked". It would be a record of what it is scanning. And if you think a bot has a word, then there is something really off here. A bureaucratic? We have to respect copyright. Laziness is not an acceptable excuse and that is made clear in our core policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The bot doesn't take a screenshot, and shouldn't: Why would it have any "interest" in how the page looks to a human user? It parses out the relevant information and makes a decision based on that. The bot taking screenshot would add nothing, as the bot has already identified the relevant information.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

" Why would it have any "interest" in how the page looks to a human user? " For verifiability of it operating properly. Even now it still gets errors where it goes to the wrong page or cannot find the image. That is odd when it should be copying the link directly and the links work out. That should tell you that there are problems with the bot that will never be resolved. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, give me an example from today's reviews please? And are these cases where the bot has passed the image, failed the image, or requested human support?--Nilfanion (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Today's reviews are a lot. 2. Who is to say it happens every day? Out of the tens of thousands, if 300 images have bad license approval of the flickr bot it is not excused because the majority do not have problems. I don't think you get how this works. We are supposed to ensure that we do not have any copyright infringing material or mark things as a license that it does not have. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The bot's coding should prevent the errors with 100% accuracy. A script that is programmed to recognise "cc-by-nc-2.0" as "cc-by-nc-2.0" will not decide that "cc-by-nc-2.0" means "cc-by-2.0" in 1 in a million cases, it it will get it consistently right or wrong every time. If bot does have the flaws you claim it has, these should be noticeable on a relatively small sample - and you'd be able to provide evidence of it. If "even now it still gets errors where it goes to the wrong page or cannot find the image", you should be able to find examples. Provide one actual example, otherwise there is no point attempting to discuss further. "I don't trust bots" isn't a valid argument.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I have uploaded several thousand images from flickr. I have not, however, encountered the problem User:Ottava Rima describes. Perhaps the topics where I look for free images on flickr are topics that don't attract people apt to claim professional images as their own. For whatever reason there is a discrepancy, and I ask O.R. to consider their experience may not be typical.

With regard to O.R.'s numbered suggestions:

1. Keep a screenshot to verify the lisence? What, the flickrreview bot can't be trusted? Would an individual unwilling to trust flickrreview trust that a screenshot was not a forgery?
2. I suggest asking each original flickr uploader for confirmation for each image would be pointless:
   1. Since November 2009 I have tried to leave a note on each image I uploaded, telling the flickr uploader where it had been uploaded, and thanking them for using a CC license that allowed re-use. Hardly any other wikimedia commons contributor bothers with this. If our existing contributors find leaving a thank you too much work asking them to enter into a long process of explaining our licensing rules is going to be way too much work.
   2. Flickr uploaders are also volunteers, and the burden of asking them to understand our licensing rules has proven to be a big burden on the flickr uploaders when I ask them to use a freer license. One typical response I get is a "sure, go ahead" that falls short of convincing me they understood the license.
   3. Wouldn't continual requests for confirmation as to whether the flickr uploader was really entitled to apply a free liscense, and as to whether they really meant to apply a free license serve mainly to annoy them, and change all their licensing to "all rights reserved"?
   4. I don't see how requesting confirmation would satisfy O.R.'s concern. If they lied when applied the initial free license, what is to stop them lying in their confirmation?
3. O.R. writes "...removed flickr accounts ... tend to vanish more on violations of TOS (i.e. stealing images) than merely leaving flickr."

   And the basis for this assertion is?

   The only removed flickr account I am familiar with was a guy who seems to have requested flickr to shut down his account solely in reaction to learning wikimedia contributors had uploaded over 200 of his images, without telling him. Flickr didn't actually say why his ID was shut down. O.R., are you asserting that flickr leaves a note informing people when an ID has been shut down for copyright violations?

Of course we should all simply pass over, and ignore, the flickr image with an apparently free liscense, when we suspect flickrwashing. Any of us can challenge a flickr image when we suspect it was flickrwashed. But I don't think a suspiciously high quality image is sufficient evidence in and of itself to suspect flickrwashing. Some volunteers do upload professional quality images, either because have been professional photographers in the past, or they are amateurs who took their photography habit seriously enough that they can take professional quality pictures. Geo Swan (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

"What, the flickrreview bot can't be trusted?" No, it can't. No bot can be. Bots are scripts that fail all the time. The CorenSearchBot should be proof of that, and its code is far less complicated. One of the worst things to ever happen was to allow the bot to review without anyone verifying. Furthermore, the bot just aids in flickrwashing, which is really bad.

"Bots are scripts that fail all the time." - [citation needed] Bulwersator (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• The bot errored so badly it had to be blocked before. This is a truth of all bots. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The bot was blocked, three times, but those blocks were all from 2007 and 2008. Further, those blocks have nothing to do with the failures you claim the bot makes. Geo Swan (talk) 09:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

"is going to be way too much work" We don't need flickr images, and if it is too much work doing the right thing, then that is a problem. Either do it right or not at all.

As for the removed flickr accounts, I have pointed out 4 in the past week. It is common in Deletion discussions. We normally blanket delete the images because of the problem of flickrwashing. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The Flickrreview bot is perfectly fine. It documents the license on the Flickr page. If the license there is bogus, of course it doesn't matter much what the bot says, but it's going to make far less mistakes than a human. If you want to bring up a instance where the bot failed (marked an image as having a license when it didn't), bring that up. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Clarification please, User:Ottava Rima you write you "have pointed out 4 in the past week". You seem to be implying that you have pointed out 4 flickr IDs where it can be confirmed flickr management shut them down for copyright violations.

  If this is what you meant, please explicitly say so.

  If all you meant to say was that you pointed out 4 lapsed flickr IDs that you suspect were shut down due to copyright violations -- that is a whole different kettle of fish. If that is all you meant: (1) please say so; (2) please either name them here, or point us to where you named them before.

• With regard to "doing the right thing". Personally, I think telling the flickr uploaders when we upload their images IS the right thing, or part of the right thing. Practically no one else does so. That guy who shut down his flickr ID -- I was the first person to thank him and tell him one of his images had been uploaded to the commons -- even though over 200 of his images had been uploaded here by other people. 99.5 percent of the time no one told him. If I want other commons contributors to leave a note on flickr images they upload I am going to have to convince them to do that extra work. The same holds for you, except what you want us all to do will be a lot more work than a simple thank you. Sorry, but I think you need to work a lot harder on convincing everyone your proposal makes sense, and is not an annoying waste of time that will counter-productively turn off the very flickr uploaders we want to continue to cooperate with us.
• With regard to CorenSearchBot proving that the flickrreview bot is not as reliable as a screenshot -- how exactly did the corensearchbot fail, and how is that like the failures you anticipate the flickrreview bot is capable of? From what I have seen the flickrreview bot was written with caution in mind, and will, occasionally, call for a real human being to do the review. I believe staticians call this a "false negative". Can you point to a single instance where flickrreview's check reported an image bore a free liscense, when it did not bear a free liscense? Geo Swan (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Flickr review bot, like all bots, have a lot of errors and are not trustworthy. The mere idea of trusting a bot in this highly sensitive area is disastrous and spells the doom of Commons. Furthermore, merely being used on many pages is not a legitimate reason to keep an image that goes against the mission of Commons, and that is especially true when there is doubt of license. And for your information, coren search bot returns hits based on text, not images. Text is easier to match whereas images are notoriously bad. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• Flickr Bot's block log shows that it malfunctioned before in such a way that it had to be blocked. Bots malfunction all the time in ways that aren't visible enough to block them, especially in obscure pages. Very few people were part of its approval. There have been many, many bugs over the years. Notice that many of these are "matching" errors. That isn't a coincidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• This shows a large list of images Flickr bot assumed were proper and have been deemed not the case. That has been a constant for a very long time. The bot should be disabled permanently and all of its reviews checked. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I am checking your links.
  • User:FlickreviewR does have a block log.

    No offense, but forgive me for wondering if you made your claim that flickrreview was unreliable prior to checking its block log. Forgive me for wondering if you had realized the bot hadn't been blocked for 1089 days you would never have claimed its block log shows it is unreliable. The block log has 3 entries -- from 2007 and 2008. The explanation in the summary field of one block says the bot was uploading too many images. When flickrreview is checking an image, it makes sure the image we have is a copy of the highest resolution version of the image on flickr. Currently, if our image is not the highest resolution version, it uploads the highest resolution image, for its comparison. I am sure you will agree that this was not any kind of sign that the bot was incorrectly certifying unfree images as images under a free liscense.

  • You write "Very few people were part of its approval." I count 6 supports, no opposes. This decision dates back to 2006. I don't know how many endorsements are required now, or whether 6 was a low number back in 2006. I would be shocked if the bot didn't receive overwhelming support now.
  • You wrote "There have been many, many bugs". All the bugs in that bug log are to bugs from the first two months of the bots operation in December 2006 and January 2007. Further, none of those bugs are an instance of what you have claimed -- the bot incorrectly certifying an unfree image as under a free license.
  • You wrote "This shows a large list of images Flickr bot assumed were proper and have been deemed not the case." First, your link to the talk page's archive is bad. Just how thoroughly did you review the archive? Presumably you meant archive_1, archive_2 and archive_3? I see minor bug reports, bug reports based on misunderstandings, requests for new features. I do not see a single report that flickreview falsely certified an unfree image as free. Am I missing one? If you really think one more of those entries substantiates your assertion that the bot falsely certified an unfree image as properly lisenced, then I repeat my request you document that claim. Geo Swan (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• 6 supports for a massive bot that reviews tens of thousands of images is really pathetic. I would demand over 100 to be active in the discussion at the very least. It requires major project discussion, especially with its many bugs. The legal jeopardy it would put us in at the very least would demand such a thing. " All the bugs in that bug log..." because that is the first archive. You know they are archived by date, not topic, right? o.O "Further, none of those bugs are an instance of what you have claimed -- the bot incorrectly certifying an unfree image as under a free license" Wrong. In November, one of the reports says Bot clearly isn't checking against the right Flickr image nor author - hard to determine if it is the right license if it isn't even looking at the right page. Using the right page is a constant error for the bot. And the amount of reporting of the bot saying it isn't the right license means that it is getting false negatives which suggests it also gets false positives. How did you overlook all of that? The bot has had errors consistently since it began and was even blocked because of it going out of control to the point it needed to be blocked. Very few people even check the bot so that makes it possible that there is a lot not noticed. The bot should be removed at the very least. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing to support your claim that the program has many bugs. I think I have to repeat this, as it is a point you simply are not addressing. You keep claiming this program has "many bugs", or even "many many bugs". I have asked you, several times now, to point to a single instance in the record where the bot marked a single bad image as under a good license. Rather than show a mistake was made you keep asserting the program had many bugs.

Yes, I know the bug log you pointed to was early in the bot's history, in its first archive. But please hold your criticism, as I will remind you that you chose to offer that link to establish that the bot was full of bugs. I am going to repeat -- you chose that link, a link that did not establish that the bot was full of bugs, in general, and definitely did not establish that the bot has the bug you claim.

I ask you again, how thoroughly did you check the archive? I see many requests for new features. I see people who have not understood how the program is supposed to work, and incorrectly identified features as bugs. I also see a modest number of genuine bugs -- but none of them related to the problem you claim the program has.

With regard to your claim of "legal jeopardy" -- legal jeopardy over us unknowingly carrying images that violate someone's intellectual property rights... What is your understanding of the requirements of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act? (Digital_Millenium_Copyright_Act#Takedown_Notice) My understanding is that the initial liability for the uploading of images that violate someone's intellectual property rights is placed upon the uploader. It is my understanding that liability lies on the organization where the image has been uploaded only when the party that claims to be the genuine owner of the intellectual property rights takes certain steps. Most importantly, the party that claims to be the genuine owner of the intellectual property rights has to inform the organization where the image was uploaded. If I recall correctly, the DMCA does not require the organization to immediately delete the challenged material. If I recall correctly, there is a brief grace period. So, no, I dispute that the WMF is in the dire legal jeopardy you claim.

With regard to your assertion, above, that a report from "November" says "Bot clearly isn't checking against the right Flickr image nor author". Wasn't that report from 2006-11-21 -- shortly after the bot was written? Isn't it marked as "fixed" on 2006-11-26?

With regard to your assertion that "not matching" is a "constant error"... first "not matching" would be a "false negative" -- the bot not finding an image was properly licensed when it actually was properly licensed -- the opposite error to that you claim, incorrectly passing images that weren't properly licensed. Second, this report is from April 2007 -- four months after the bot was put into commission -- almost five years ago. Note Bryan's response in User_talk:FlickreviewR/archive_2#Yet_another_Not-Matching Of course it is not reasonable for the bot to pass an image when someone edits the image between downloading it from flickr and when the bot checks it. This is not a bug. I am going to repeat this -- this is not a bug.

You claim the archives are full of bug reports. The archives contain a lot of notices of images being nominated for deletion -- these are not bug reports. The archives contain a lot of requests for help that are unrelated to concerns the bot has bugs. The archives contain claims from the individual that the bot contains a bug, but which are really instances of user error. Flickr allows its contributors to use half a dozen different creative commons licenses -- but only two of them are CC licenses we consider free. Lots of the complaints the program isn't working properly are due the complainants falling to understand that the images they thought the bug failed to recognize as under a free license were under one of those CC licenses we do not regard as free. Of the remaining reports, which do describe actual bugs, almost all date back to the first few months of the program -- four or five years ago. The genuine bugs of four or five years ago were fixed quickly. The genuine bugs were all much less serious than the serious bug you claim is in the bot. Geo Swan (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The archives contain a lot of complaints about people regarding flickr choosing the wrong image to look at. That is a constant through its whole use. If the bot is unable to go to the correct page, then it is unable to identify if the license is correct. How does that not make sense? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

And the bot knows it is the wrong image and says it needs human eyes (it might be caused by the uploader uploading file X but linking to file Y for instance); it doesn't review itself. eg If the files have different EXIF, its a different image. Please provide an example where the bot passed an image, as opposed to falsely failing or requesting manual intervention, when the bot looks at "the wrong image"?--Nilfanion (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"And the bot knows it is the wrong image " Only in some instances. There are many cases where it said it was a wrong license when it was looking at another image. That gives the possibility of reading another license that happens to match with what was claimed on the upload but isn't on flickr. And the bot had a long history of problems matching EXIF. There have already been dozens of examples provided, so asking for more when it is already there for everyone to see is silly. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Please state one example here, where the bot falsely passed a review, just pointing at the bot's archive doesn't identify a specific problem. There are a lot of comments on there: Bot failing to match because the Commons uploader tweaked file (not a bug), bot failing to match because file has no EXIF (not a bug), file deletions due to FOP or flickrwashing (not a bug) etc. If it fails to match EXIF - it doesn't pass, it doesn't fail, it says "a human needs to look".--Nilfanion (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look and I can't see a single example of "where it said it was a wrong license when it was looking at another image". FlickreviewR's failure mode for no-matching is to request human review, which is exactly the right thing to do.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"I've had a look and I can't see a single ..." You looked through all 100,000 links? Because I found thousands of examples where it has claimed something was CC-BY when the license appears to be CC-NC. Do we have any ability to say it was actually changed? No, we do not. We only have the bot's word, and as a bot its word is meaningless. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked through the archives, not the sum of its contributions, for the bug you claim is constantly mentioned in the archives; which is clearly not the case, as its not mentioned there anywhere. If I am wrong, please point me to a single image which the bot passed when it should have failed. If you don't want to trust the bot's review that's your prerogative, but you will find no support, from me or anyone else, unless you can provide actual evidence of failure. I personally think the bot is a lot more reliable than humans (the sort of errors you are ascribing to the bot, humans can and do make).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course bots have problems. Humans do too (even more so), so I'm not sure what you are complaining about, other than just venting frustration (understandable sometimes, of course ;-) ). Flickrreviewr has done its job very very well, much better than humans could. It marks whether the license on flickr is correct as reported on the page here; if there is any reason to question the license in the first place obviously the Flickrreviewr stamp isn't worth much (but it helps a lot when Flickr users change licenses). Most of its old bugs were failing to match images, meaning it failed "safe" and did not report an image as "good" (meaning it then needed a human review, which would be required 100% of the time if there was no bot in the first place). Fixing the bugs reduced the number of times that had to happen, but I don't recall a situation where it marked images as "good" when they really weren't (which is the only way the bot could make the situation worse than before). Obviously many such images will later be found not OK (photo of a copyrighted sculpture, or flickrwash, etc) but that is also true of tons of "own work" uploads here. Flickr is not the problem (in fact I would be the percentage of good uploads from there is much better than uploads here). Yes things can be frustrating to track down and prove bad licenses, but it can actually better that way sometimes then direct uploads here. You get a whole lot of other photos in their photostream to have a better guess as to whether the uploaded photo was really theirs, or just part of images collected off the net, etc. We really have no practical alternative to "assume good faith" on uploads here -- anything else would make donating work incredibly onerous and therefore not done, and most uploaders are just fine -- so we just have to deal with the copyvios as we have been doing. Turning of bots and direct Flickr uploads won't help; those will turn into "own work" uploads (or worse) if people are just trying to game the system. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Many flickr uploads are deemed "own work uploads" with there being many doubts as to if it is actually their own work. This is especially true of the pornographic images. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

At least with Flickr, you can look at the photo stream and see if there are other photos taken with the same camera, or similar photos, or similar people, all of which help in guessing if something is really their own work or just copied from elsewhere. If a single upload here, you have a lot more work to see if another source can be identified -- it can be a lot harder to tell. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

There are many instances where images were taken with the same camera because the pictures were all taken from the same guy (but not the flickr person). Ottava Rima (talk) 13:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Carl that if a check shows an uploader's uploads were all snapped with a single camera, this strongly suggests the uploader was the photographer. Ottava Rima, I don't understand your point above. Are you saying you know of uploaders whose uploades were all snapped by a single camera -- where you know the commons uploader was not the flickr uploader?

1. Once again, are you able to offer a single example of a commons uploader who only uploaded from a single uploader, where you know the commons uploader was not the flickr uploader?
2. How do you know the commons uploader was not the flickr uploader? A week or two ago I noticed an image, or a couple of images, uploaded from flickr, where I thought it would make sense to leave a heads-up for the flickr uploader. I think my heads-up to the commons uploader, and my heads-up to the flickr uploader were tactful, because they quickly responded, both here and on flickr, to confirm they were one single individual. I recommend you follow my example here any time you doubt a commons uploader who appears to claim rights to an image from flickr that triggers your concern.
3. A couple of years ago I participated in a discussion of a block of about one hundred military images uploaded by a Balkan contributor. I was concerned that his challengers were not extending sufficient benefit of the doubt to him, and had failed to contact him to get his side of the story. His challengers and I looked at exif data in this contributor's images. A lot of his images had been deleted, and the images that remained used about half a dozen cameras, but spread over about a decade. I offered a counter-example, a long-time, respected administrator who had been taking some very fine images over the past decade or so, whose images also showed he had used a range of cameras. That was a couple of years ago. Since then the images I have uploaded were snapped by a range of cameras, because I have owned a number of cameras. Using multiple cameras absolutely does not confirm a contributor is a copyright violator. Geo Swan (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Looking at the data being collected to me it would be possible to ask that bots check a list of "questionable flickr accounts" from which they cant upload any requested images. That would mean when we run into an issue from a flickr account it can be added to list, when the issues are fixed we can just remove it from the list. The only issue would be maintaining the list but any admin could add/remove accounts form the list, could even run a bot to check for the existance previous uploads form the author when its added to the list. Gnangarra 11:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • See Commons:Questionable Flickr images and User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• FlickreviewR does its job well, in fact better than humans would (99.9% accuracy is high for a human, and humans will give both false positives and false negatives). The whole reason for the bot, and the review process more generally, is that without it we do not know if the image was ever available under a free licence. This means if a Flickr user arbritarily changes the licence (see this list for lots of examples), we would not be able to confirm it was ever free - and would have to delete a good, free image when in fact, we were fully in our rights to keep it. Without it, we would almost certainly have lost thousands of freely licenced files.
• The issues of Flickrwashing were not even conceived of when {{Flickrreview}} was created, and the review process started. Of course now, it is the predominant issue with Flickr-sourced files. There are also other problems, such as FOP, which mean that a freely licenced image on Flickr is not "free enough" for Commons. This suggests to me, that {{Flickrreview}} could be toned down, to clearly indicate that it only means "This file was licenced on Flickr as above on this date", and it does not additionally imply "This file is OK".
• Flickr-related tools, like Fliinfo, reject uploads from blacklisted Flickr accounts, but Commons itself doesn't prevent it. The Spam blacklist prevents you linking to http://www.flickr dot com/photos/38898880@N06/3574905687/in/photostream , but the spam blacklist cannot prevent you linking there as part of an upload (admins - see File:Flickr cv test.jpg). If the MediaWiki can be tweaked to have a upload blacklist to prevent links to bad URLs on upload, we could prevent any uploads from blacklisted accounts.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

If you look at flickrbot's archives, you will see a lot of people concerned with copyrighted images. Bryan, the bot's creator, even said he thought it would be important to come up with a list where such likely cases of copyright are flagged so the bot never accepts any of the user's contribs. That definitely suggests that the creator was concerned about it and did not want his bot to be connected to such problems. Just an fyi. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It is obvious that the bot is unable to do what humans can do and cannot be trusted in any capacity regarding something as sensitive as copyright matters. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Bot worked fine; human cheated. And is not it time to stop Rima? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop Rima? You've already made it clear that you don't care about images being copyrighted or not at Wikipedia Review and that you are using Commons to make a point of having as many images as possible without respect to proper licensing. That isn't good and puts us at serious legal jeopardy. And I nominated that image for deletion when I found out that a person went ahead and changed the license. How many other instances of that are happening that we cannot tell because there is no human review? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the Adele image, what did the bot do? It was not able to positively review the image and called for human attention? Is that not ideal bot behaviour? Maybe this could be rectified by improved coding, so the bot doesn't need to scream for human help, but the fact the bot has limits doesn't mean its untrustworthy.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It calls for human attention because it cannot parse the links well enough to determine what the proper image is and has never been able to fix that problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course it won't with images like that. Compare the Commons version to the Flickr original. The Commons image is a substantial crop, so they are different images. The bot says "Commons image != Flickr image, therefore I won't pass". Coding a bot to recognise one image as a crop of another would be incredibly complicated, and liable to induce errors.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

That is the point. The bot does not have the ability to truly "scan" an image like a human eye. It compares bits of data. If someone types in the wrong flickr page or it screwed up, then how are we to really know? There were many different kinds of errors, and the problem right now that I have identified a lot of are regarding images from before it was blocked for major malfunctions. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It only passes the file if the two bits of data match, that is if the data of the Commons file and the Flickr file are bit-wise identical. It only passes (or fails) files where there is a definitive match - anything else it says a human neeeds to look at. If "someone types in the wrong flickr page" and the bot passes it, then the "wrong flickr page" has the same image as the Commons image - hardly an error! Therefore, it is not going to pass a file where the data of the two images are different, so it is not going to pass a file by looking at the wrong thing (which is your concern).

And have you made any attempt to work out what that block was about - as opposed to saying "its was blocked, therefore its dodgy"? There is a bit of discussion at User talk:Bryan/archive/2008/12#Flickreviewr broken - which makes it clear the bot was blocked because it was pointlessly uploading files; nothing to do with the review process.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

" that is if the data of the Commons file and the Flickr file are bit-wise identical" From the complaints I've read on the bot's talk page, this does not seem necessarily true for all of the bot's history. Instead, it seems like it only use to look at the meta data at least at one point in time. And what you suggest ignores that it had to be shut down for a few weeks because of gross errors. Pointlessly uploading files verifies that it acts in a way that misreads images and language - there was no reason for it to have that error. Bugs happen all the time. Anyone who knows anything about computers would acknowledge that no program or script will be bug free or infallible. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Can you quote the specific passage that led you to the conclusion the bot even once failed and reported identical images when the images were not identical? Flickr presents images rendered in a range of resolutions. The commons should use the highest resolution version. Some wikipedia contributors upload versions of the flicrk image of lesser revolution. Before it does the bitwise comparison flickrreview should confirm that the image that was uploaded was the highest resolution. When the bot guesses that the human uploader seems to have chose a lower resolution version it uploads the highest order version. The excessive uploads you complain about were completely unrelated to the failures you keep claiming the bot has made, and for which you keep ignoring requests to supply a single instance. Apparently the earliest versions of the bot uploaded the highest resolution versions of the image too often, when it wasn't nedessary. This was a minor waste of resource, worth stopping the bot, but it does not suggest, much less confirm, your claims that bot ever failed and passed a non-compliant image as compliant.
• Similarly, your notion that the program once only compared the metadata -- please quote that passage that triggered this notion. Geo Swan (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons uploaders can upload Picking up on a thread of discussion above: if we were to accept Ottava Rima's argument that we cannot trust the Seattle Municipal Archives that photos they provide license for are work for hire by Seattle government employees unless the particular employee's name is given, we would be up against the same for work of the federal U.S. government. As we've long accepted, the mere fact that a photo is in a U.S. government publication does not mean the image is in the public domain (the U.S. government often uses works of non-employees), but we take them at their word when they attribute a photo or other work to a department of the government rather than to an individual. Why on earth should we apply a different standard to what is, by all accounts, one of the half dozen best municipal archives in the country for their attributions to city departments? The only even vaguely relevant difference I can see is that one releases into the public domain and the other provides an acceptable CC license, which seems to me to be neither here nor there because the Commons accepts both equally. - Jmabel ! talk 03:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Federal Government Employees are specifically determined as works of the Federal Government when they are licensed under their office. Not every employee gives up their rights to images. This has always been the case. We need to prove that it was actually part of their job. Images that I uploaded, for example, are registered in the Quartermaster General's office as being official US Army documentation of properties. They have to be officially marked, and if they are done by the US Government they are released via the National Archives or similar archives as governmental works. Municipal governments have their own laws. The Federal Government is under one. I don't know how that is so complicated. There are many states which do not make their images PD. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that "There are many states which do not make their images PD" is absolutely irrelevant to the Seattle Municipal Archives. (1) Seattle is not a state. (2) The archive does not make its images PD. (3) The archive does release (most of) the images it posts to Flickr under a CC license that is acceptable to Commons. Again, what I was saying is analogous to the federal issue is the work-for-hire question. Why would you take the federal government's word for which images are work of their employees, but not take the Seattle Municipal Archives' word for it? And why would the latter's choice of Flickr as a site to release images have any imaginable bearing on the question? - Jmabel ! talk 09:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to link now to that disussion but Ottava is right. I've told for ages that FlickR can't automatically be trusted, especially if the "member is no longer active" (as FlickR nicely says). Our FlickR-bot just does its simple job: Checking whether the putative FlickR-license is compatible with commons, nothing more. Well, there is a growing body of evidence that our bot has some limits (Commons:Questionable Flickr images and User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors) and that the bot is not a guarantee for anything. For all pictures I have uploaded from FlickR I could show e-mails in which the FlickR-member agreed to change license and to upload the picture on commons. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

As you say, the bot simply verifies the license on Flickr. It is trusted to do that job, and nothing more, but it does that job well (and is trusted to prove the license did exist on Flickr for images no longer visible). At that point, an image is basically synonymous with an "own work" upload here -- we assume good faith unless there is reason to believe that Flickr was not the original source. If that is the case, then nominate for deletion along with the reasoning that the image source was outside of Flickr (or even just not that Flickr user), and such provided reason would stand on its own merits -- the Flickrreviewr stamp wouldn't mean anything in that argument. However, if the reason is simply "the Flickr page no longer exists" or "the Flickr page now has a different license", then those reasons do not stand up, since that is only a factual situation where Flickrreviewr did prove the original page did have the license. We need find a source elsewhere, or some other reason why we think the Flickr page was not the source. It's no different than an "own work" upload, where we assume good faith that the uploader owned the rights, unless someone finds a good reason to believe otherwise. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, i'm fucking sick of seeing the image copyright info reading Some rights reserved only to find out that it is licensed under the CC non-commercial or some other CC license we can't use. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 17:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase Dr. Frankenfurter, they didn't build it for you. But the bot consistently gets that right, one of the many ways it is useful. I agree with Carl that a Flickr bot upload is exactly as good or bad as a claim of {{{Own}} by a Commons uploader. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Authors can choose whichever license they want; lots of people do not want to see commercial use and that kind of thing, which is perfectly fine. For Flickr, add "&l=commderiv" to their search URLs (often easiest after you have done one search) which should limit the results to the acceptable licenses (but of course, still don't upload stuff which was obviously copied from elsewhere into that Flickr account). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorting Category:Copyright violations by date rather than name

For a while now, Category:Copyright violations has been rather full, sometimes containing more than 400 files. This seems to result in some files remaining there for a rather long time (some days ago I sent a couple of files which weren't clear copyvios IMO, though being tagged as such, to the regular deletion requests, and those files had been tagged as copyvios for several weeks before that).

Category:Duplicate, seemingly to avoid similar problems, presents the files in a chronological order (sorted by the last date they were changed, oldest first). I think the same sorting order in the copyright violations category would help in reducing problems like described in the first paragraph.

As I understand it, one would have to change the templates that are sorting the files tagged with them into the copyvio category, like it was done here with the duplicate template. The templates involved are {{Copyvio}}, {{Logo}}, {{Fair use}}, {{Music sample}}, {{Flickrvio}}, {{France-cv}}, {{Do not move to Commons}}—did I miss any?

What do you think of changing the category sorting order as proposed? And is there someone who could change the templates accordingly if there is a consensus to do it? --Rosenzweig τ 20:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It is fairly simple finding out when one file was added to a category using the API. So writing a processing-tool should be simple, too. I already contacted Lupo for the broken GalleryDetails and please note this thread. You may use VisualFileChange for this task. Click here to start. (using the sorting option). But vFC is not suitable as processing-tool and often suffers from bugs. Changing all templates and the affected scripts would be also possible but probably more work for all users. -- RE rillke questions? 21:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

What work would be involved besides changing the templates (which seems to be fairly easy, it seems you simply change one variable to another, as demonstrated with the duplicate template)? Having the files sorted by date without having to resort to any additional tools would be preferable IMO. --Rosenzweig τ 21:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Templates, plural. Just look at Category:Problem tags and all the scripts placing those templates would have to be changed (I think there aren't a lot but finding them ...) and users who do not use those scripts would have to subst: something or add a date, right?

At {{Duplicate}}, REVISIONTIMESTAMP was prefixed as sortkey. This is no problem as long as no bots rely on it and no changes to other things would be necessary. But it is always the date of the last edit, not the date the file was tagged. But I think this is suitable here. -- RE rillke questions? 21:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

REVISIONTIMESTAMP would still be better than alphabetical sorting, it's not like those file are edited every other day. And perhaps I just don't understand, but why would the scripts have to be changed? As I understand it, scripts place those problem templates (we're talking about seven templates here) in the file description pages, but they don't affect the category sorting in any way. Or am I missing something? --Rosenzweig τ 22:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Before reading your example with REVISIONTIMESTAMP, I thought, additional parameters should be added to the template. No, nothing has to be changed when altering the sortkey as long as no bots or toolserver tools rely on it. -- RE rillke questions? 22:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed those 7 templates accordingly. I hope that action wasn't too rash and everything works as intended. If any problems arise, those changes can be undone easily. --Rosenzweig τ 20:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ditto for {{Screenshot}}. --Rosenzweig τ 13:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

January 4

New Bot Registation

I plan to test running CommonsHelper (with prior permission granted from Magnus Manske) on a Wikimedia Labs instance, however while trying to create a new account called "Image Upload Bot (Rich Smith)", I get a pretty denied message saying that the name is blacklisted. How can I get this created, I don't really want to use either my own account or a non conventional username. Thanks. - Methecooldude (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S PLEASE(!) leave me a message on my EN Wikipedia page if you have replied. Many thanks - Methecooldude (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That is too long (34 characters, including "User:"). Max 29 are allowed currently. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, thanks for that but I don't think that's the issue, I just get "The user name "File Upload Bot (Rich Smith)" has been banned from creation as it matches one or more blacklisted character strings. " - Methecooldude (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Solved in IRC. Bot is now named user:Upload Bot (Rich Smith) (which is short enough). --Saibo (Δ) 00:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Saibo (Δ) 00:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing older versions of files

I would like to ask if it's possible to remove older versions of File:FSO Polski 2000 replica on Reymonta street in Kraków.jpg and File:FSO Polski 2000 replica on Reymonta street in Kraków (1).jpg. In case of both pictures I have removed the license plate numbers per owner's request but the older versions still remain available.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Would this now be o.k. for you? --Túrelio (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. All that matters in this case is that the old versions are not visible. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

[alt-b] thank you

For The first of my searching this , It is great for me -- 04:56, 15 October 2011‎ User:Trieu Sung hop

Timestamp: 04:56, 15 October 2011‎ (UTC)

dummy signature: -- RE rillke questions? 18:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Christmas Light Displays

Moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Christmas_Light_Displays

dummy signature: -- RE rillke questions? 18:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

December 13

I want a picture of an HF burn

I have written to 4 people who had images and have not gotten a donation. Actually it is hard to find that many even non-free images. Please help me. I am usually pretty damned resourceful...but this is kicking my ass. give me some ideas or help...

TCO (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

We have this image on the Wiki article for NaOH. I want a comparable picture for HF, fluorine, etc. articles. HF burns are very noteworthy.

There's an app for that. Rd232 (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I just signed up. That thing seems really dead though. any ideas to track one down?TCO (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"really dead though" - yes, it could do with some invigorating, with more vigorous promotion. Perhaps by linking with relevant Wikipedia WikiProjects? I'll think about it (suggestions welcome). As for your image - have you considered online medical journals? It's a long shot perhaps, but someone might have decided to release a relevant image with a helpful license. Or if you're committed enough, if you find a relevant non-free image in a journal you could contact the author, since for educational purposes they might well be helpful. Rd232 (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you considered hot objects, or even a microwave with a broken door switch? Just a thought. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

HF burns your skin from underneath the surface of it, so the burns look quite different. --Claritas (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not been able to find a free image online and have (literally) written to 4 different sources (two physicians who wrote journal articles, a hand doctor, and a commercial database) asking for a donation. I tried twice with Wikiproject medicine. If there were a good OSHA or USN or the like source, I could even correspond. National burn center is weak. I'm unwilling to use a burn that is not actually from HF. I was thinking about those people on Commons who like to take photos of their body...take a bullet for the cause?

Please don't suggest that Commons contributors hurt themselves to make a photograph, even in jest. Thanks, --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, finally got a donation. how do I show a Wiki picture here?

en:File:HF burned hands.jpg

TCO (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can display an en wiki image here, but the edited link above should suffice. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it could be moved here as "OTRS-pending" but for the sake of form, perhaps it could wait. I don't see even the most zealous deletionist failing to assume Good Faith on this one. Rodhullandemu (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I sent the OTRS, right away to Commons (several hours ago). Server was down here, so IRC advised to upload to wiki. Volunteer at wiki said they have access to both OTRS queues and would straighten it out, no problem.TCO (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

'donate' vs 'upload' - how to fix the uploadwizard text?

Hi all. The upload wizard has a button which states 'Select a media file to donate'. This phrasing doesn't make any sense to me, since when someone uploads a file to Commons they're making it available as free content for anyone to reuse, rather than "donating" it to anyone or any organisation. So this phrasing needs to be changed, e.g. to "Select a media file to upload", or alternatively "share" or "release". I've tried to raise/address this issue multiple times via the feedback form [7] [8] [9], but this doesn't appear to be leading towards a solution.

Others have also raised this issue e.g. [10], [11], [12], [13], again without success. It also doesn't seem to be something that can be raised as an issue on translatewiki since that just tells me that "Translations to this language in this group have been disabled".

So, if the feedback tool, the mediawiki extension page or translatewiki aren't the best places to raise this ... is this page the place to raise the issue? Or is there a better page for this discussion? I've spent several hours trying to figure this out, but have yet to figure out which page this should be raised at in order to lead to a discussion and, ideally, a fix to the problem... So if this isn't the appropriate page, please could someone point me towards the right one? Thanks, and yours frustratedly.... Mike Peel (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it could be kept here since Commons talk:Upload Wizard is not a very prominent place. Or you move it there and link from here.

The button must clearly tell the uploader that he/she makes the content freely available. -- RE rillke questions? 23:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the intent of the word "Donate". Although the nature of the release is stated several times, in general, in user interface design, it's good to employ redundancy in order to make a point clear.

But, I'm not sure the word "donate" really is that clear. We've never specifically user-tested it, as far as I know. A user could just as easily come away with the impression that they're donating a picture "to Wikipedia" as opposed to the public. Moreover, the user may upload files which have already been "donated", which makes it somewhat awkward.

So I'd be fine with changing it to "upload" if folks feel that's generally preferable. We can think of other additional ways to bring the point across. Unless someone wants to design a scientific experiment to see whether it makes any difference, I'd say let's just run a quick straw poll to see what the Commons community prefers and change it to that.--Eloquence (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Publish freely"? - Jmabel ! talk 01:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Donate could mean "donate [certain rights] to the public" but I doubt anyone would think that instead of "donate your media file to us" so it's misleading at best. In many cases it's simply incorrect as people upload other's work, public domain, and their own work that has been previously licensed (donated publicly). Likewise they can't "publish freely" or anything other than upload/add files if they're not the rightsholder. (Rocket000 (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The Charles Hotel München

Hello everybody

Could it be that in this "international" project there's a certain bias towards the English language, as it seems from several recent contributions? I hope not but I'll do my best to put the following remarks in English, though they concern a topic in Germany, where a considerable part of the population still understands German. If anybody desires a summary in German, Czech, Dutch, French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, or Romanian, I shall do my best; but the only languages I am really somewhat fluent in are German and Esperanto.

Maybe the subject says it all: "The Charles Hotel München" not only has its own category in Commons but also pretends a lakeside location on Ammersee (47° 59' 30.52" N, 11° 10' 14.41" E or similar). This situation, which is clearly far from reality, may have been conjectured by DschwenBot. Still it is inaccurate and highly misleading. I therefore suggest correcting it.

Shouldn't we change this erroneous and somewhat ambiguous location? It concerns at least the following pictures:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

It seems a bit like commercial product placement to me. That may be alright in today's economy but the erroneous lakeside coordinates are not.

Ĉion bonan, -- Aisano (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Du kannst diese jederzeit korrigieren. Der Bot holt die Koordinaten nur aus den Exif-Daten. Englisch nutzen wir, weil es uns erleichtert zu verstehen, was andere tun. (besonders in den Zusammenfassungen). Esperanto ist leider nicht so weit verbreitet und wurde an meiner Schule auch nie angeboten, sonst hätte ich mich sicher dafür entschieden. -- RE rillke questions? 23:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Übrigens: falls du es nicht weißt, es gibt auch z.B. das Commons:Forum (ist hier ganz oben im Village Pump verlinkt). Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 03:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"The Charles Hotel" seems to the be hotel's name. It's in English. --  Docu  at 12:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Docu, I had no doubt about the page title. I only am somewhat embarrassed that I have to write here in a language I am not fluent in. But it looks like Saibo got the meaning of my question and was kind enough to concentrate on the meaning instead of criticizing may language usage. And I do not doubt the communicational value of English among people who master it.

Saibo, vielen Dank für die Erläuterung. Ich hatte die erweiterten EXIF-Daten nicht aufgeklappt; stimmt, da stehen die Koordinaten. Ein bisschen verdächtig, dass sie ausgerechnet an der Seepromenade von Herrsching liegen; durch Zufall kann das kaum gekommen sein.

Wirklich korrigieren kann ich die Koordinaten nicht, denn es handelt sich um die Kameraposition ({location}), die ich nicht kenne. Ich könnte sie durch die ungefähre Objektposition ({Object location|48|8|34.5|N|11|33|45.2|E|region:DE}) ersetzen; das Hotel liegt anscheinend an der Sophienstraße in München. Ich werde mir das noch überlegen; die Koordinaten der einzelnen Gebäudeteile müssten ja eigentlich leicht unterschiedlich sein, aber besser als die jetzigen Ammersee-Koordinaten wären sie allemal. -- Aisano (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you said at least 3 or 4 things. I responded to one of them. Anyways, I fixed the coordinates. It's a known problem with camera GPS. I'm sure if you build a better camera GPS and offer it to Mattes he would use it. --  Docu  at 20:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

January 6

Group portraits and Group photographs

Group portraits and Group photographs

We take a look to category to Category:Group portraits by number of persons there are +200 pictures that need to be moved.

Category:Group portraits We want to know, if it is a good idea to make new categories like group portraits by number of persons and Category:Group portraits by number of rows for the Category Category:Group photographs because we think, the group portraits have been originally made for paintings and not for photographs. We are missing it there. --AtelierMonpli (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC), and --Funfood ␌ 11:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you suggest?

Personally, I think it's a good idea to create more categories describing how group images are composed. Categorizing them by group size and basic alignment is a start.

These don't necessarily need to determine if an image is a photograph or a painting. Generally there are already subcategories of Category:Paintings by year that describe that a given file is a painting. Additional ones repeating that don't have any added value.

In general, we hardly use "photographs" in category names. Photographs are the primary content of Commons. --  Docu  at 12:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion subcategories in Category:Group portraits by number of persons are not very useful to anybody. I can see merits of Category:Group portraits by century and possibly Category:Group portraits by country‎ and "by technique" (painting , photo , sculpture, etc.) but Category:Group portraits by number of rows or Category:Group portraits by number of persons is an overkill. May be if there were fewer subcategories of Category:Group portraits by number of persons. For example if they were in log order (ones, tens, hundreds and thousands) than it might make more sense. Also separating family units, co-workers, etc. could be useful too. --Jarekt (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you are mixing theme and composition. The idea is to focus one specifically on the composition. Have a look at, e.g. Category:Group portraits with 5 persons how a portrait of 5 persons can be done/look. It's inherently different from 4 and 6. A log scale seems pointless for that.

Obviously is subject to debate with what number Category:Group portraits with many people should start, but there isn't really much benefit in discussing that.. --  Docu  at 12:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If someone finds that useful and someone is willing to do the work, I do not have a problem this creating such categories. I just could not imagine use for them (probably doe to lack of imagination). --Jarekt (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jarekt that I cannot see any useful purpose for categorizing group photographs by the number of persons featured in them. I think it would be far more useful to categorize them by the location, the occasion when they were taken, and the relationship between the people in the group, if any (such as graduating students or employees of a company). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to add "by"-subcategories for occasion and relationship. Not sure if location really adds much. It already exists though. --  Docu  at 19:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

thats fine, so it is ok to put the portrait photographs into the category group portraits, this was my fist question. the second thing i need is only the connection from group portraits to the group photographs , then it can be found with hotcat by the way over group photographs. My first idea, to do the same categories number of persons and number of rows put to the group photographs is not nessecary, because i saw the most of the pictures in group portraits by... are paintings and in the categories down and in Category:Portraits i found most art works and no connection to the photographs.--AtelierMonpli (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

And so the question is, in which category the photographs of groups belong: Category:Group photographs or Category:Group portraits. At the moment it is irritating to have two Categories with the same kind of images (if I look for such a pic I have to look in both categories). --Funfood ␌ 21:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Numerals Localization

Currently, a lot of huge template structures are used to localize numerals per the user's preferred language. These could all be gotten rid of if magic words supported language-wise numeral localization. This is especially important when the filepage is being viewed at another language project. The language's numerals are not necessarily the correct ones. For example, most indic language projects use arabic numerals and not the language's native ones.

So I've filed a bug for this (and other magic word localization) at bugzilla:33576. Any comments will be appreciated.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

January 8

Downsampling as a criterion for quality image status

Should downsampled image files be automatically disqualified for quality image status? Currently a specific file is discussed (see here), however a uniform decision of policy should be made. Gidip (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Doing so you would only punish those who do not hide it. I do it for my photos, too to speed-up upload while not having a big loss (most sensors produce a lot of pixels but no additional information). -- RE rillke questions? 14:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that for better or worse quality image status is given to images which look good at the full original resolution. Down-sampling is a process which would lover the quality of "quality image", however is fully justified in case of images which look blurry at full resolution, since for those additional resolution is wasted. The bottom line is that no matter how valuable an image might be, it does not qualify for quality image status if it is down-sampled or blurry at full resolution. For example I consider this image as one of my best shots, but I do not think it would quality as "quality image" because it was taken with very cheap camera and is blurry at full resolution. --Jarekt (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

To clarify things, please notice that currently Commons and Wikipedia have contrasting attitudes towards downsampling, although in most other respects the concept of a good image file is very similar between the two projects. See the following citations from Commons and Wikipedia, respectively:

Images should not be downsampled (sized down in order to appear of better quality). Downsampling reduces the amount of information stored in the image file. 1 (see also the talk page for previous discussions on the matter)

If, when viewed at 100% (actual pixels), an image appears slightly blurred and/or there are visible JPEG compression artifacts, it could benefit from downsampling. Images from modern digital cameras which produce very large (6MP or 10MP) files can look much better when slightly reduced in size. 2

To elaborate, the question can be split in two:

1. Should images always be evaluated in full resolution or should they be evaluated in a reasonably detailed view, which may be in lower-than-full resolution?
2. Should downsampling be totally discouraged, or should it be encouraged when the 100% view is improved?

Gidip (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The obvious answer to me is 1. Downsampling never improves the 100% view. It baffles me why some people don't get that. --Dschwen (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose Downsampling, for me, does not become a criterion for quality image status because, sometimes, it's necessary to downsample an image. --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose - sometimes downsampling is necessary because the 100% view is very unattractive. This is especially true with macro shots using poor-quality equipment. While full resolution is generally preferable, downsampling should not be a reason in itself for opposition of a QI candidate unless the resolution is too low. --Claritas (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

A clarification on my above statement. Downsampling never improves the image, but in cases of seriously blurred images, like for example this one it does not matter if image is stored at full resolution of 1,728 × 2,304 pixels or if someone down-samples it to smaller resolution. The image is of such low quality that noting is lost. This can be tested by down-sampling followed by up-sampling and the resulting image should be hard to distinguish from the original. That said I agree with commons guideline of not downsampling images, since it is less confusing. All that discussion is not very relevant to quality image status, since it will not be granted to either blurry or downsampled images. --Jarekt (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course the example you've given is an obviously bad photo - because it's blurred in any resolution you choose. But let me give you 3 other examples, which are much more ambivalent:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Narcissus_tazetta_1.jpg (in this one, check the history for the full resolution)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Colchicum_hierosolymitanum_3.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Colchicum_hierosolymitanum_1.jpg

These photos are pretty good in moderate resolution (still much above 2mpx), but blurred to varied extent in full resolution. Should they be disqualified from QI status, even though they look pretty good in a sufficiently detailed view? Gidip (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I started a similar discussion in Wikipedia. Gidip (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• I never disqualified automatically a picture only because of downsampling, not for quality image status not even not for featured picture status. There is no need for a rule dictating how a user has to sample his pictures or not. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMPORTANT ! Please notice that almost the same discussion recently took place here regarding the FPC rules. I have nothing to add, that discussion was really complete in my opinion. So I strongly oppose to any project about this question. We have a (good) rule regarding the size of pictures, that's enough. I don't know if a picture "should" not be downsampled, but downsampling must not be an anti-criterion for QI.  Question Technically, who can prove (and how) if a picture is downsampled or not ? Why prohibit downsampling and not prohibit other manipulations (crops, perspective corrections, re-framing, balances of colors, increasing contrasts, removing dust spots etc etc) ? Every digital manipulation reduces the amount of information stored in the image file. Unless the rules oblige to upload only pure RAW files just out from cameras, the discussion is irrelevant. --Jebulon (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    • @Gidip: What is "Wikipedia" ? You surely mean English Wikipedia. Please don't forget that some (a lot !) of us are working in our own language wikipedias... I think a discussion about images is really more relevant here in "Commons", which is an international Wikimedia project...--Jebulon (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I fully agree. I started a discussion on en: Wikipedia becuase this is the largest Wikipedia project with the largest number of users, and they already had a guideline that contradicted ours. So I thought it might be good to rediscuss the issue in both projects, since currently one contradicted the other. Perhaps the guidelines should be rephrased more clearly in both projects. Gidip (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Are you sure this is the right place for this discussion? This talk page should be better imo. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I think once the discussion is archived, it can be copied to Talk:QIC. Gidip (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Downsampling is a tool. Like all tools it has meaning only in the use we make of it. We should notdismiss a tool. We must judge the finished product, not how to get there. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose +1 --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am a little bit confused of what is being opposed. Commons guideline, En Wikipedia guideline, User:Alvesgaspar suggestion that Commons talk:Quality images candidates would be a better place to discuss Commons:Quality images guidelines? I assume it is the first one, although I am not sure. I think the current guideline of not down-sampling is trying to prevent need to evaluate images like this, this or this which might have been an excellent quality images that met all other quality criteria, but down-sampling made it hard to use them. I  Support current policy. --Jarekt (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose As long as a picture meets the requirements for the minimum size, I don't know, why reducing the image size should be bad. This does not affect the quality because the image is redrawn, and then has indeed just that size. Another thing is the quality of the image is stored - if it is compressed, it has a bad effect on the pressure.
  
• If you want to ban shrinking the image size, you have also to prohibit the perspective correction, because perspective correction is nothing else than reducing. Nice greetings, --Haeferl (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Simply put, an image should be judged solely on what the image contains, not on how it got to be the way it is. If people aren't concerned with the lens used then they shouldn't be concerned if it has been downsampled or not. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose for stated reasons above, but note that the quality/featured processes are a good place to nicely ask a user to contribute a higher resolution version if they have one, to improve their chances of success. For all we know the higher-resolution image may be quite sharp and contain more detail. They should still be able to refuse though. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Just to clarify: By just downsampling it, you never improve a photo, while it could look better in 100% view after doing so. Photos shouldn't be automatically disqualified because you know that downsampling was used. So I say "should be evaluated in a reasonably detailed view, which may be in lower-than-full resolution". If that resolution is below your borderline of MPs, you may disqualify the photo. -- RE rillke questions? 13:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

May I make an animated gif of a .en article?

Much like cars and planes moving around an airport in a time lapse, I thought it would be pretty cool to capture a single .en page during its many changes and display it as an animated gif. I doubt if the resolution will be good enough to see words, but things will be moving, thus demonstrating the busy-bee work of the editors. However, I don't think we are suppose to use screeen dumps. Is that correct? If so, could I get special permission to do this project? Doug youvan (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why there would be a prohibition on screen dumps. Seems like the idea of being "free" is to explicitly encourage this type of thing. The only issue I could think of is if some of the text or images was later found to be a copyright violation. I would think the result would be a derivative work though, so I think the license would have to be CC-BY-SA and/or GFDL if you were to create such a work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

IDK where I got that sceen dump ban idea! That would have saved me a lot of work in the past had I known it was OK, because I've worked (re-drawn) to avoid such things. Doug youvan (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's fine, but make sure the Wikipedia logo isn't visible on the gif, as it's not freely licensed. --Claritas (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks, no Logo. (And we are the same entity?) That sounds like licensing stuff I do not understand, but will comply. Doug youvan (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

To a lesser extent, also be wary of the "a Wikimedia project" logo at the bottom of the page, which is also not freely licensed (although at low resolution this won't be clearly visible and so is de minims). Dcoetzee (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Century categories

I have no particular problem with most of the recent changes of century categories (e.g. moving Category:19th century helmets to Category:19th-century helmets), though I think it was a large effort for not much gain. However, some of them seem completely wrong to me, for example moving Category:18th century by country‏‎ to Category:18th-century by country‏‎. In this case, "18th century" is a noun phrase, and hyphenation is improper. If we are going to do some massive thing like this over a quibble in punctuation, we ought to get the punctuation right. - Jmabel ! talk 16:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Terms like 19th-century should only be hyphenated if used as an adjective, that is, modifying the noun. Thus, "19th-century paintings" is correct, but *"Paintings of the 19th-century" is wrong. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Any idea where this was decided so we can bring in the relevant parties? All the changes are by bots. - Jmabel ! talk 01:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As has been discussed several times recently here, the "CfD" process is currently set up in a way which is guaranteed to attract minimal participation and involvement in conversations about proposed category changes, and maximum startlement among those who had no idea that any such conversation existed until after the categories have already been changed. I'm still finding and correcting incorrect categorizations resulting from the "adolescent girls" category fiasco debacle of several years ago... AnonMoos (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can do some bot or template magic and have a table at the top of the Village pump highlighting open discussions at CfD? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Examples of some bad choices that have been made recently: Category:Balls in the 18th-century, Category:18th-century by country. - Jmabel ! talk 06:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I decided to switch over because since several months, such categories have been directed piece by piece creating a considerable mess. There might be a couple of mistakes in the 12000+ categories I did rename, but it might be a better idea to help instead of criticising it. --Foroa (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Foroa: I am trying to help. I asked above - and you have not answered - where is the central discussion on this, in which I would gladly participate. Part of trying to help is to get it right, not just to blindly impose an arbitrary rule that is wrong in many cases. Most of these moves are fine (because the century was an adjective), but some are wrong (because the century was a noun). In the latter case, blindly carrying forward an error is the opposite of "helping". - Jmabel ! talk 17:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There was somewhere a discussion (cfd ?), don't remember where, and user:ecummic (or so) started to redirect the last six months hundreds of cats with the correct nth-century notation. This gradually created plenty of inconsistencies in the system and templates, so that I decided to bring the system in a consistent state. So far, we moved around 12000+ categories, so one should not wonder that there are here and there some mistakes, no systematic mistakes as far as I can see. So no need for long discussions a posteriori, there remain only 1000 to 2000 cats to be moved. I think that your comments hasve been answered by a correction some time ago, which is better than lengthy discussions. --Foroa (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Move-to-Commons Drive

Hi everyone, the English Wikipedia still contains a lot of images that should be here on Commons. To get a lot of these images to Commons some users at the English Wikipedia organized the 2012 January Move-to-Commons drive. Feel like helping? You can either move the images yourself or help check the files already transfered here. Multichill (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Revision deletion

Commons:Revision deletion is a new draft policy. This draft is intended to document current practice; it also creates the possibility for future restriction of use of RevDel (en:WP:REVDEL is very prescriptive). I suggest some initial tinkering with this draft, and then moving to adopt as a policy, and then consider possible amendments (which would have the effect of changing practice via the policy). Comments? Note: I would like to get a Sitenotice up within a week, unless serious opposition emerges either to that time frame or to the principle of the policy. Rd232 (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

question

I noticed that the URL supplied in File:Pir Gillani.jpg is a generic one to the main dea.gov site. I couldn't find a page with this image on any US government site.

This is particularly problematic for a couple of reasons.

1. Pir is not a name, it is an honorific, that is accorded to the highest ranking members Sufis. The Gailani (alternately Ghailani) are a prominent Sufi family. So our page doesn't really identify which member of the family this is.
2. The description field makes some serious allegations -- that the individual in this picture is a drug-lord. But we can't back this up, without a specific link to the source page.

While this image probably also qualifies as PD under {{PD-Afghanistan}}, that too would require a specific link to the source. Geo Swan (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As can be seen here it's an AP photograph shot by Paul Wong. The subject of the photograph is of Pir Sayed Ahmed Gillani, head of the National Islamic Front of Afghanistan. So basically the image is a copyvio and the description is an attack. Having said that though there are various other pages I came across that did state that this isn't a very nice man. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sayyed Ahmad Gailani, with a better version of this photo there. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Image has been deleted as a copyright violation based upon the above. russavia (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Search problem

All of a sudden Search isn't finding anything, even when I search for things I searched for earlier. Does it do this when it's updating its database or something like that? - The Bushranger (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I am under the impression that the search doesn't work a couple of times per week for an hour or so, I guess when it is refreshing it search database. If this is the case, it should give a warning indeed. --Foroa (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Search works for me, but it seems that indizes do not get updated. Changing text is not reflected in results, even after days. cheers --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Licence of a picture

Hi. I´m not sure about this picture. Clearly is not own work, and I think the symbol is not PD-textlogo. It has been introduce massive way in es:WP. Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Deletion Request started by User:Claritas. Rd232 (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Typing long descriptions using the wizard locks up my browser

I like to type in long descriptions on my photos. When uploading using the wizard, doing so eventually causes Safari to put up the beachball-of-doom and spin forever. It appears to happen around the 1 kB mark, and is 100% repeatable. This needs to be fixed, but I'm not sure where to go. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As far away from Safari as you can get? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No, to Bugzilla. Now on bugzilla:33607. I had also problems with these elastic modules by jQuery. They try to automagically fix the height of the box according to its content. Please respond to questions of the devs if they have some. Please also write down the version of Safari you are using. -- RE rillke questions? 14:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

January 10

Could someone responsible for the new orientation feature explain the undocumented resetexif parameter?

Example of a full-resolution-image: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Example.jpg

Example of a thumbnail generated by MediaWiki: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Example.jpg/170px-Example.jpg

Could someone responsible for the new orientation feature explain the undocumented resetexif parameter? I am sorry, but I have asked this question a number of times before -- and I am afraid no one has responded with a definitive answer.

About a month ago a parameter for the {{Rotate}} bot was mentioned the "resetexif" parameter. This parameter was then undocumented. I think it is still undocumented.

It was mentioned in a context that implied it was necessary, without explaining how to use it.

I used it like this: {{rotate|degree=90|resetexif}} [14], [15], [16].

Today, on my watchlist, I see a bunch of images where someone else has used it like this: {{rotate|degree=90|resetexif}} [17], [18].

What we have here are two different good faith interpretations of how this parameter is supposed to be used.

I really think an explanation of the use of how to use the {{Rotate}} bot to cope with this unexpected surprising feature. Geo Swan (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Way too much work. You ask for an individual responsible, well I am not but I attempt to answer your question:

Use either resetexif or a degree-number. If your image showed up properly before the MediaWiki-update, or the full resolution (=raw file, e.g. Media:Formula-on-blackboard758.jpg) of an image looks fine (only the thumbnails are wrong), then you can use {{rotate|resetexif}} OR the appropriate degree-number (e.g. with Rotatelink). If the full-resolution-image is rotated but the thumbnails are right and it is very likely that someone will view this image (e.g. because it contains small text) in full resolution, add {{rotate|0}}. All right? Regards -- RE rillke questions? 12:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I documented undocumented resetexif parameter. See Template:Rotate/doc and please correct if I got something wrong. --Jarekt (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. I made a mistake above. The other individual used {{rotate|resetexif}} -- which you documented. What the developers still haven't documented is what happens where someone uses both parameters as I did -- {{rotate|degree=90|resetexif}} . Geo Swan (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• It was intentionally not documented as most, most users should just use the correct degree number (with RotateLink). The case {{rotate|degree=90|resetexif}} is not useful. Don't do it if you do not know what it does - that simple. Use the degree number and that's it. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Btw: discussing the rotate template here is not useful - I have just seen this discussion here by accident.
  • You write that the feature was intentionally undocumented. On December 5th a response to a concern over the lack of information about the strange and unexpected sudden appearance of many wrongly rotated images directed concerned contributors to COM:Rotation. And COM:Rotation tells contributors to use the resetexif feature. You contributed to COM:Rotation document.
  • Let's be clear, the software developer team deserves positive recognition, kudos, for preparing new versions, with bug fixes, and cleverly though out new features. They deserve this even even if the review that follows that tests the new version, to make sure it can be introduced profesionally, decides to not introduce this version, or to send it back for more work.
  • I think it needs to be said here that the review phase here failed. The introduction of the strange rotations feature, in this revision, unnecessarily distressed many contributors. Many good faith contributors found this failure of professional review unnecessarily squandered an unacceptable amount of their volunteer hours.
  • Some people, defending the introduction of this feature, asserted that this feaure had been on a "to do" list for some time. I do not accept that this is an acceptable justification for the sudden introduction of a disturbing undocumented feature.
  • There have been a number of suggestions as to what can be learned from this failure, in hindsight. For instance, it was suggested that it would have been less distressing if we had assumed that all the images where the rotation information in the exif data said the image should be rotated was incorrect -- and should be set to zero, prior to the introduction of this feature. Someone wrote that there were on the order of 50,000 images that had non-zero rotation specifications in their exif data. While it is possible that some earlier images were sideways, and the introduction of this new feature would fix them, there was also a large number of images that were already rendering correctly, but had misleading exif data. More commonly used or reviewed files were likely to be correctly rendered. In retrospect it seems that correctly rendered images with bad exif data were overwhelmingly more common than incorrectly rendered images that had valid exif rotation instructions which we had previously ignored.
  • I am going to repeat three things. (1) We should appreciate the efforts of volunteers on the development team; (2) This introduction of this unpleasant surprise should be a cautionary example of mistakes the development team should not repeat; (3) There is no sign that anyone on the development team has acknowledged the review step that should have preceded the introduction of the new features was either nonexistent or was a failure. Geo Swan (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    • If you look in COM:Rotation history you will see that I did not mention the resetexif there. Yes, I could have either delete it again or go over to the template and document it there - not thought of, whatever. I am just a volunteer like you and invested way more than enough time in the rotation stuff.
      Your points (including the failed introduction process) are well known at, I guess, everyone who is involved in the rotation thing. --Saibo (Δ) 03:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
    • You may be interested in my meta-post. -- RE rillke questions? 11:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of pending OTRS

It appears that the initial response time from OTRS is on the order of a month now. However, speedy deletions for missing OTRS takes only seven days. When I have mentioned this in the past, the complaint was dismissed with the comment that it only took a single click to restore the image when the tag was posted. In fact, this is not true. That's because deletion triggers a cascade of robots that removes the image links on the other wikiprojects. These are not re-linked when the file re-appears, and it's a laborious manual process to do so.

So, what's the chance we can:

1) get a re-linking robot, or… 2) have an extended SPEEDY for good-faith OTRS?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Uploads with pending OTRS cases shall be tagged with {{OTRS pending}}. This way, they will survive longer. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This does not appear to be the case, operationally. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Files tagged with {{OTRS pending}} should be given 30 days before they are treated as deletable for having {{No permission since}}. That's better than 7 days, but if the response time is a long as you say, not really long enough. Maybe {{OTRS pending}} should give longer - say, 60 days, unless/until the backlog is reduced. Rd232 (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

60 days would definitely help. However, it should be noted that it takes about 30 days for the initial response, and can be much longer before it's actually cleared. Still, this would help. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• I would support a re-linking bot. This would make such deletions far less contentious, particularly as I have seen a number of OTRS pending cases where no email was ever sent to OTRS... --Fæ (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just do not link the file until the rights have been cleared. Then you do not fear a delink. And only upload after the rights are cleared preliminary (e.g. you have told the copyright holder about the free licenses and he is willing to release his work for everyone). And if you follow the steps in COM:OTRS there should be no problems. However, files for which the uploader really is communicating with OTRS should get a longer time, yes - but please no use during that. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Does this mean you're happy to increase the template "no permission" delay to 60 days? Rd232 (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

 Comment see also Commons:Requests for comment/OTRS 2012. Rd232 (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

January

February deployment (test deploy now on a test site)

We (Wikimedia Engineering) are planning to deploy Mediawiki 1.19 next month. To avoid post deployment troubles we had during previous deployment we are setting up a test site.

We are going to clone subset of some pages and configuration of several production wikis there, including Commons, to give everyone a chance to test software before it is deployed to production. The test site should be fully operational on 09-January-2012. For now you can, of course, create an account there to test various scripts or even import pages. For larger XML imports please ask petan or hexmode in #wikimedia-labs (webchat link).

In case you found any issue please use this page to report it. If you have any questions or suggestions let us know! — ☠MarkAHershberger☢(talk)☣ 20:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope somebody finds the time to test the Commons gadgets before launch, especially those in Category:Resourceloader-unready scripts, since in MW 1.19 "Gadgets are always loaded through ResourceLoader". This includes Cat-a-lot! Rd232 (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Cat-a-lot is there since 2011-02-16T07:39:20Z but RL usage was added here. -- RE rillke questions? 07:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark, though I appreciate this (rather discreet) in-advance warning, I (and likely many other victims of the MW1.18 disaster, sorry guys) would prefer if the still unsolved/existing problems resulting from the MW 1.18-update would be resolved before adding more of them. Just as a start, try to debug the problem underlying the following nasty error message, which I get (with a 2 seconds delay) on many (but not all) pages on Commons:

• Error: http://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=de&modules=ext.gadget.AjaxPatrolLinks%2CExtraTabs2%2CHotCat%2COldEdittools%2COldUploadForm%2CQuickDelete%2CRotateLink%2CStockphoto%2CThumbnailPurger%2CTineye%2CUploadWizard%2CUserMessages%7Cjquery.checkboxShiftClick%2Ccookie%2CmakeCollapsible%2CmessageBox%2CmwPrototypes%2Cplaceholder%7Cmediawiki.action.view.metadata%7Cmediawiki.action.watch.ajax%7Cmediawiki.language%2Cuser%2Cutil%7Cmediawiki.legacy.ajax%2Cmwsuggest%2Cwikibits%7Cmediawiki.page.ready&skin=monobook&version=20120109T020707Z&* at line 65: Das Objekt unterstützt diese Eigenschaft oder Methode nicht.

Regards --Túrelio (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you add '?debug=true' to the URL you are using? That will give us more usable debugging information (rather than just the minified dump from ResourceLoader). Kaldari (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ähem, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the "add ...". I see the above posted message for example when calling these URLs (recent random choice): http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Andreyfeskov.jpg (already deleted), http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tower2012, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:T%C3%BArelio (own talkpage), http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:T%C3%BArelio/gallery/Wien (own gallery), http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fermedeprunay, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Paula1989, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maurits90, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_IUST_buildings,_Iran. --Túrelio (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Kaldari, it would generally be appreciated, if I could call a page like &title=FAQ&debug=true to get all RL-minified scripts unminified. Is there such a possibility? -- RE rillke questions? 11:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This is likely to be caused by one of our gadgets... -- RE rillke questions? 11:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

With the kind help of Rillke the above mentioned problem, which occured after the MW 1.18 update, has been identified as resulting from incompatible old code in my monobook.js (now deleted) and has been effectively solved now. --Túrelio (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I get the impression from this that MW1.19 will restrict filenames of new uploads to 240 bytes, because of problems with thumbnailing and reuploading for filenames near the 255-byte limit (see COM:MAXTHUMB). That's good, but the comments there leave me wondering if this is another Commons:Rotation issue in the making: what will happen to files already over the 240-byte limit? Rd232 (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

January 9

Extracting a PD image from a flash site

A very large version of an image that would be quite useful on Commons (first ever depiction of a dodo, among other now extinct animals) can be found here: http://www.atlasofmutualheritage.nl/detail.aspx?page=dafb&lang=en&id=5627 But I am unsure how to obtain the image, since it is protected by an annoying Flash viewer. Can anyone help me out? FunkMonk (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

See Help:Zoomable images, may be that will help. I could not find any large versions of images following your link. --Jarekt (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, though I could not find one working for me. You can see the very large image by clicking on the small image[19], and then a picture viewer pops up. The image here looks small too, but you have to pull the zoomer on the right to maximum, then the thing will zoom in on a spot on the picture, will look very pixelated first, but after loading the image gets clear. FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The guideline is quite reasonable. Use a tool to intercept HTTP requests such as HttpFox or Tamper Data for Linux or Fiddler for Windows. Understand format of the request, and the response. Then download tiles using a straightforward script. Combine tiles using one more straightforward script via e.g. ImageMagick "montage" tool (sometimes it's possible to use jpegtran with drop patch to combine tiles losslessly). Voila -- File:View of the Mauritius roadstead - engraving.jpg. Trycatch (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thanks a lot! The whole script business makes me panic, so I did not try the ones that seemed more complicated. This image is very useful, so thanks again! FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedians to the Games

Wikimedians to the Games (W2G) is an opportunity for two Australian Wikimedians to go to London and cover the 2012 Summer Paralympics held in London for Wikimedia. The purpose of W2G is to encourage content improvement related to the history of the Paralympic Movement in Australia and to identify participants who are self-motivated and will use the press-pass effectively. The program will involve participants contributing to Wikipedia, Wikinews and Wikimedia Commons.

Wikimedians to the Games begins on 10 January 2012 (today) and is structured as a two round tournament. The plan for the tournament is as follows:

10 January 2012 to 20 April 2012

We start with one group of all participants, with the top 4 from that group progressing to the second round. These four will be given press passes to cover the 2012 Paralympic Games. Points reset to zero at the end of the first round.

22 April 2012 to 30 June 2012

Four participants only – the top two will earn paid transportation and accommodation to cover the Paralympic Games in person.

For the full rules clarifying for what points can be awarded and other rules, see outreach:HOPAU/W2G/Rules. However, the spirit of the rules are more important than the letter, and the judges reserve the right to deny points to anyone deemed to be abusing the system, as well as remove persistently problematic users from the competition. The judges for W2G include Laura Hale and John Vandenberg‎. They will be assisted by other judges including Sp33dyphil. They can be reached by their talk pages, the W2G talk page, by email or in the Wikimedia Australia IRC channel, #wikimedia-au. Also, check this page and its sub pages to see if your question was already answered.

If you believe one of the contestants is abusing the spirit of the rules, intentionally submitting subpar articles with the aim of getting more W2G points, or anything similar, please contact one of the judges by email. They will look into the matter and take action if necessary.

You can sign up at any time between 10 January and 20 April 2012 by following the directions on outreach:HOPAU/W2G/Participants. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Category Ransomes & Rapier equipment

I have problems placing this category in a railway category. In principle the company could have produced other railway equipment. But I see no railway equipement categories or compagny categories. This seems to be an ofschoot of Ramsomes and Jeffries. This should also be placed in a early English company category. And did "Ransomes Sims and Jefferies" produce only vehicles? Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

How long does it take …

… for a somewhat experienced user to find 20 obvious copyright violations in Category:Metallica? I needed about five minutes. I wasted spent the rest of my time finding sources (and I found them all). This project has a serious problem. --Polarlys (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Polarlys: I'm somewhat confused. Metallica are not a topic I'd normally look at, but are you saying that this is in the current content of Category:Metallica? And that you've nominated them for deletion? Because at a quick assay, I don't see anything there nominated for deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

We should make a Gadget for meta:User:Krinkle/Tools/Commons Upload Patrol. I also don't know why Krinkle puts the description of this useful tool on meta. -- RE rillke questions? 17:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done CUP. Needs a TUSC-account. Let me know if you have concerns. -- RE rillke questions? 21:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You’ll find most of them here: Category:Copyright violations. Don’t get me wrong: It hasn’t anything to do with Metallica. Take a category of average photos that were uploaded some years ago and were categorized automatically because they had no category. Some of these categories include thousands of photos and you will find more than a hundred copyright violations ("easy ones") inside. Some of the metallica images are/were used in many projects, they are used outside saying "source: Wikipedia". For years. --Polarlys (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Active users: 38,978
• Files: 110,410,123
• Avg. files/active user: 2,833
• insert conclusion here

Rd232 (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• If the Edge decision is the way to go then all those Metallica and Guitar Hero logos are not PD-Text and should go. Come to think of it, even without the Edge decision it's pretty blase to think they are PD-Text as they are very sylised and the publicly available fonts that make up the logo came out only after the logo did. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Who talked about PD-Text logos? --Polarlys (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I just did, with regard to the logos inside Category:Metallica. There's a few in there. I thought you'd looked given that you brought the subject up. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I am no expert on such logos, especially when it comes to national regulations. I just saw an article nomination on de.wikipedia.org, noticed an copyvio (from the thumb!) and had a closer look at the Metallica category then. There might be even more doubtful files included though. As I pointed out before: It hasn’t anything to do with Metallica. We just have reached a point where people upload images from the latest sport game or concert, without proper source information and EXIF data that attributes the file to a professional photographer and nobody notices. I regularly see obvious copyright violations in popular articles (especially on football players) which have been on Commons for years. When you work on Category:Copyright violation you also see one file tagged, look at the uploader’s contribution then and see 20 similar files that were unnoticed. --Polarlys (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It is quite frustrating, I agree. I get the feeling that it takes twice as much time to report a copyright violation than it does uploading it. There are many tools that help users upload massive amounts of images to Commons, but as far as I know, there's not such tool for reporting massive amounts of copyright violations. And the manual procedure for mass deletion requests is painfully slow. Some time ago, I reported a category that contains only copyright violations, and was told to start a DR; I simply don't have the time (or patience) to tag each and every one of these files, so they will stay until someone is willing to deal with it. I think the discrepancy between the time required for someone who doesn't care about copyright (or our policies) to create a mess, and the time required to clean it up, is a major issue. Prof. Professorson (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That's why I wrote VisualFileChange (to pick-up files from one cat or user, tag them and notify the user). Just have a closer look at COM:MASSDEL. I don't think the WMF is actually interested in keeping Commons clean of copyvios and improperly sourced works. All tools to assist these tasks were written by community-members. -- RE rillke questions? 16:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Amazing! Thank you so much! It took me seconds to create Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cribs from all the world (Poggio a Caiano), instead of several boring and straining minutes. Just the tool I needed. Is it going to become a regular gadget? Prof. Professorson (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Unbelievable work. Thank you, I’ll give it a try. I am also concerned about the WMF’s effort (AFAIK not existing). We regularly delete copyright violations after there was an OTRS contact from the rights owner, we regularly delete files that are used outside our projects but aren’t free at all – when it comes to free knowledge some efforts have to be made that even laymen can basically rely on the our hosted files. Regards and thanks again, --Polarlys (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Why would Edge (Commons:TOO#UK) apply? It's about the UK threshold of originality, and Guitar Hero is a US product and Metallica a US band. Rd232 (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this Ronda railway station?

I made a trip in Spain in 1989 and cant remenber where I took these (File:Spanisch station 1989 crossing trains.jpg, File:Spanisch station 1989 regiment wagons.jpg) pictures. I strongly suspect it is Ronda or another station on the Cordoba - Algeciras railway line. It is not electrified line and one of the regions I visited. There is a long-distance coach (French?) visable wich I suspect is a France Algeciras through coach wich used to run in the past for Marocan workers in France. Can anyone tel me more over the regiment wagons? I looks like a museum transport.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you ask at en:WT:TRAINS. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

OGL / CADW licensing issue

The cadw website has a copyright statement at http://cadw.wales.gov.uk/copyright/?lang=en Someone/people has assumed that this means that all the images on it are available under the Open Government Licence v1.0 But bear in mind the first sentence: The material featured on this website is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. However, nearly every image sourced from Cadw has an embedded rights meta-data statement as follows:

This image is Crown Copyright and is reproduced with the permission of Cadw under delegated authority from the Controller of HMSO.
This image can only be used for the specific purpose for which it was originally requested and must not be stored, or reused for any other purpose, without further permission being sought from the Cadw Photographic Library.
Resale or redistribution of any Cadw Photographic Library image is prohibited.
Use of this image indicates acceptance of the above conditions.

Therefore surely these images should not be on the commons.wikimedia website? I have contacted CADW to get clarity, but it seems clear that the images are not available for redistribution. (20040302 (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC))

There are many CADW images on commons - see e.g. File:Dolbadarn_Castle_Cadw.jpg

It also says in the second line that: "Crown copyright protected material (other than the Royal Arms and any Welsh Government logos) featured on this website may be used and re-used on and subject to the terms of the Open Government Licence: (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/).", which sounds pretty clear. —innotata 18:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, they are Crown Copyright, so they need to be licensed. Which the second sentence on the page you link explicitly does. The OGL does not mean that the copyright is gone, just licensed under specific terms (which in this case, are "free"). It's the same thing with CC-BY or CC-BY-SA -- the copyright is still completely valid; it's just that the author has licensed some aspects of it (i.e. some rights are no longer reserved, but some still are). If there is an item on that site which is not under Crown Copyright, then the given license would not apply to it though, since that is only licensing the Crown Copyright material. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This is very interesting, so if the images are then moved from the cadw website, the governing license, which appears on the website, is no longer attached to them - however, the meta-data, which clearly says "Resale or redistribution of any Cadw Photographic Library image is prohibited", remains present. Crown Copyright materials are not by default subject to the OGLv1.0 unless declared as such. Likewise, if the Cadw website were to change their copyright page to something else, do the images currently present on commons lose their protection or not? If not, why not? (20040302 (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC))

It also occurs to me that the website staff may not have the rights to authorise an OGL license over the images that have been given to them by the Cadw Photographic Library, and they would need to be able to demonstrate provenance - I mean, the onus is upon the Cadw website to show that they have the right to distribute these images under the OGLv1.0 license. If the Photographic Library is upset about the declaration and the Cadw website rescinds the copy on their page, because they never had the right to assert the OGLv1.0 over them - then where does that leave the images that are currently on commons? (20040302 (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC))

We put the license on the file page. I'm sure when the photos were produced with their metadata, the OGL was not in wide use, so that is not surprising, but that does not negate a license given later. The OGL is a perpetual license, so once licensed, it cannot be revoked by them changing the website (it may be good to have webcitation or something create a snapshot of the current page). That is in the text of the license. I'm not sure why you are separating the "Cadw website" and the "Cadw Photographic Library" -- Cadw is a single organization. If a website staffer put up that copyright notice without authorization, I'm sure they would be fired and it would have been taken down by now ;-) Crown Copyright means that copyright is held by the government in general (and any entity higher than you in government can control them I'd guess), and many such UK works are now being licensed under the OGL, and these would appear to be among them. The copyright statement on their website defines the scope for that license, and there is no reason to doubt that. Hopefully, this should become more and more common with UK government websites (and Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, who seem to have similar efforts starting up). And yes, there are some materials automatically under the OGL; see here. Since I don't see that these materials have received a delegation of authority from the higher UK government, it may be their license is more mandated from above (the Visit Wales Image Centre did get such a delegation, so it can decide what the license is on those if any, but that is a different organization). If it turns out images were incorrectly licensed, then yes we would delete them, but I'm not sure I can fathom how that could happen (unless images came from a non-Crown Copyright source, and rights were not transferred to the UK government, and were accidentally not marked that way). This license is the general direction that UK Crown Copyright stuff is headed. In general, we do need the explicit license to be mentioned on the website, of course (or one of the predecessor click-use licenses, which seem to have been automatically converted to the OGL). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Carl, thank you very much for taking the time to explain this so clearly to me. My concern (as a redistributer) is with the maintenance of incontestable provenance - A more common thing that I have noticed is that some Flickr image owners have changed the license on their Flickr page, and although a bot/person states 'this reflects the license at the time' - it's only an assertion. I wonder (rhetorically) if it is up to the owner or the distributer to demonstrate adequate provenance. Re. what you are saying about UK Crown Copyright, I agree - except for where the crown is commissioning high value photography to generate income - e.g. posters/postcards of the royal possessions, etc. The Cadw pictures that I encountered are all very high quality, and I was concerned that they had slipped out from that. OTOH, maybe the low-resolution images that have been scraped from the website were indeed intended to be covered by the OGL, and the metadata was merely not discarded when it should have been. (20040302 (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC))

Help needed categorizing NOAA Images

We have a great set of PD Images of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (about 4000) which are all uncategorized. Help putting them in the right categories would be really appreciated. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 09:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

See Category:Uncategorized NOAA images --Jarekt (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Would be also great to add them to the articles once the objects have been identified.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If added to articles at Wikipedia, CategorizationBot can categorize the images based on that. --  Docu  at 00:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

And, clicking through, I notice that someone has (for example) removed Category:Uncategorized NOAA images from one while not adding any category more specific than Category:Animals in water (that is, no species). For a picture of an animal, you should either leave Category:Uncategorized NOAA images or add a category about the species. - Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if placing them into specific categories is preferable, would could also move an entire series to Category:Unidentified fish. --  Docu  at 00:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Assuming it's a fish, Category:Unidentified fish is fine, but if you remove Category:Uncategorized NOAA images and add no category relating to being a fish, that's bad. - Jmabel ! talk 05:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to add categories but leave the Category:Uncategorized NOAA images on there, and let others decide when is the right time to remove that tag. I'll check back here to see if I should remove that tag myself. Surely a bot can remove the uncategorised tag later, or request more categorising? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Many of these are just made by bored scientists taking pictures of arctic ice. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I must admit, the images above seem to have been selected as the best of those available. Some of the others are not very good (quality can be very poor) and/or lack identifying information. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as with most other collections, most of the images will not get Quality Image or Featured image ratings, but I still think on average they are much better than the most user uploaded images. I am more concerned with lack of identifying information. --Jarekt (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Having looked through them all earlier on, there are some useful images in there, but still a lot that will likely not ever be useful or get used. Some have no information at all. And there are duplicates as well. File:Fish0183 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg is a duplicate of File:Saccharina latissima NOAA.jpg; and File:Fish4381 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg is a duplicate of File:Blackbar drum ( Pareques iwamotoi ).jpg. I only discovered those duplicates after categorising them, and it felt like I'd been wasting my time. Is there no way to filter out duplicates like this? If I come across more like this, what should I do? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• I categorised four more fish from the 'Collection of Brandi Noble'. In all four cases, we already had the image. See Category:Prionotus scitulus, Category:Porichthys plectrodon, Category:Prionotus stearnsi, Category:Prionotus tribulus. I think someone has already uploaded lots of fish images from this collection. A search for "Brandi Noble" (or something similar) should find all the dupes for that if the duplicates are correctly credited, but there may be lots more duplicates in this upload of 4000 NOAA images from Flickr. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

January 11

12M

The 12M file.

We will hit 12 million files tonight. That makes exactly +4M in one year, +6M in two years. Jean-Fred (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes. Current {{NUMBEROFFILES}}: 11,998,971. Live count: 110,410,123 Rd232 (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

And here it is ! Jean-Fred (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If this was :en:WP, not Commons, they'd celebrate that by tagging it for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you say that? Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because of incidents such as when the Wikipedia article "Cougar (slang)" was read over U.S. network broadcast TV on the David Letterman show, that was taken as a signal to merge the article, but the article it was "merged" into currently doesn't mention "Cougar" at all (even though the term is much more prominent now than it was in 2006). AnonMoos (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Smaller image with stripes and negative

I came accross this image and that image with black horizontal stripes in Firefox 9.0.1. The full size is OK. When using Safari 5.0.6 the image was as a negative image also with horizontal stripes. Full size OK. The latter image has also the message with a link to bug 27635 of 2011-02-22. There is mentioned for the status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 24854, but the problem is not resolved yet as can be seen for the example given. Any idea when this will be resolved? Thanks, Wouter (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I am also using Firefox 9.0.1 and both files look fine after they finish downloading. --Jarekt (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it makes a difference but I work on Macintosh. The problem is not with the full size but for example for File:DavidBobzien.jpg 536x599 pixels. Wouter (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a known problem since ages. Help:JPEG#Color model. -- RE rillke questions? 21:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The devs are currently experimenting with Vips as a new image-scaler. -- RE rillke questions? 21:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I converted both to RGB and assigned sRGB as their colour spaces. If that's incorrect then please let me know and I'll revert. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

US free?

This map needs to be updated. SOPA, NDAA, and several are unfree bills which are being passed. Tracking devices on phnes and internet and unlimited detention are now allowed. Drones are being implemented in US police departments. It should be yellow meaning "partly free" The United States needs to be updates quickly.PassaMethod (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Please take this up with Freedom House if you have a problem with their classification ( http://www.freedomhouse.org/ ). The map is a perfectly correct representation of their 2009 listing. Thanks, Jarry1250 (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

In addition, it really doesn't make too much sense to revise such maps on the basis of proposed legislation which may not be passed, or may be passed in significantly different form. The NSA has been eavesdropping on large numbers of phone calls since the 1970s, in any case. AnonMoos (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:The Commons Log

The recent "12th millionth file" milestone has prompted me to draft the concept I had for a lightweight replacement for the Commons:Journal. It is lightweight since there is no publication schedule (no pressure for regular entries), no editor (anyone can add an entry) and a very simple setup for the log entries (localization via {{LangSwitch}}). This can be seen at Commons:The Commons Log. To quote the first entry, about the Log itself:

There is no publication schedule or editor; whatever is logged, is logged. The Log is archived at the end of every calendar year. It is hoped that the Log will make it easier for users who don't visit Commons very often to keep up to date with major events, and also serve as a historical record of major events. Examples of expected log entries include election results (administrators and bureaucrats); substantial policy debates, especially if policy is changed as a result; significant technical changes; and content milestones.

I know it may not succeed, but it's designed so that success requires relatively little effort (entries should generally be very brief, with links to discussion or documentation elsewhere). Even if at the end of 2012 there are only a handful entries, that's still better than nothing, IMHO. And the advantage of this approach is that entries can always be added later, to fill in gaps. We could even try and retrospectively cover 2011. Comments? Rd232 (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Mass CFD question

I'm planning to make a mass nomination of all categories beginning with "Gothic revival architecture in", "Gothic Revival architecture in", "Romanesque revival architecture in", and "Romanesque Revival architecture in" — we have tons of categories with a lower-case "revival" and tons with an upper-case "Revival", so there's no clear naming convention to serve as a basis for a CommonsDelinker request; consequently, I'm planning on tagging all of these categories and recommending in the nomination that they all use the same capitalisation. I know how to make a mass nomination, but the sheer number of categories is so high that I'm thinking of requesting a bot to tag all of them. Is it better to make the nomination and request the bot, or should I wait until the bot is done tagging before I make the request? Nyttend (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There's been a request for consistency in capitalization of heraldic tincture words ("Argent", "Or", "Azure" etc.) in category names which has been unresolved for coming up on a year now[20], so good luck. AnonMoos (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but Nyttend's example is clearly a case of "Any rule is better than no rule." Once it's posted, I'd give it 30 days and then be arbitrary if there is no clear consensus. (My own preference would be to capitalized "Revival" since "Gothic Revival", "Romanesque Revival", etc. are common enough proper nouns in their own right, but that's just an aside.) - Jmabel ! talk 16:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Office_actions.2FDMCA_notices

Please see a proposal at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Commons:Office_actions.2FDMCA_notices to move DMCA notices away from the Village Pump. Rd232 (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Users from

I've recently created {{User is from}} as much more efficient way of handling localization of Category:Location user templates: everything is handled via a single LangSwitch in {{User is from}}, instead of being spread across hundreds of subpages of dozens of templates. I will complete the switchover shortly; users should not notice any difference. The test case is {{User Estonia}}.

In doing this, I notice that these Category:Location user templates almost all say "user is from X", and all categorise in "Users in X". Those categories then say "Users living in X" (eg Category:Users in Estonia). This is contradictory. Post-merger, it will be easier to switch the categories to being "Users from X". Does that seem sensible? We can make {{User is in}} as a duplicate of {{User is from}} which uses the same setup and layout templates, if people want that, and that template could categorise into "Users in X". Rd232 (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You can be simultaneously from country A and living in country B -- the concepts are not really the same, so the current situation could be considered confusing. AnonMoos (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Rd232 (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that "User is in" would be a redirect to "User is from"? If both instances dump users into a single category structure, wouldn't the resulting structure have to be something like "Users of X", so it doesn't inference that they are either in or from X? Or am I misunderstanding your proposal (entirely possible...)? — Huntster (t @ c) 09:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I could have been clearer :) I'm, saying we should have both Category:Users from X and Category:Users in X, and have templates that categorise there which match those categories. Alternatively, if we don't want to have "users in X" (maybe it's not considered useful?), then we should rename the categories to "users from" to match the template. I don't really mind either way, but the current inconsistency is silly. Rd232 (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons standards uses "people of" precisely to avoid the from/of discussion. Don't count on people to correctly fill out two categories; in practise, people will fill in "user in" or "user from", but rarely both, which will lead to inconsistent category contents. And a majority of users will categorise inthose categories without using such a template. --Foroa (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

So, what are you suggesting? Ignore the inconsistency? Rd232 (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Category_scheme_People#People_by_country_.2F_People_by_occupation_by_country suggests "from" if we consider "User" to be "Doing something somewhere" type of thing. "Users of Estonia" sounds silly, and it's the sort of silliness which is the basis for using "from" for the "doing something somewhere" in the category scheme. So, in conclusion, we should rename the categories to "Users from", and consider that as covering both users living in and originating from but living somewhere else (category descriptions should make that clear). Rd232 (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I still think "of" is more useful, as it more easily lends itself to both situations. To me, "from" indicates "origination point" rather than "current location". In addition, I just don't see any need for parallel category trees...have the two templates, which lets users visually indicate they are from or in a place, but have everything sort into the same tree. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

"from" is OK for current location if it's residence; I find "of" very awkward, and it's a solution that works for content categories, but I'm not convinced it's necessary here. Anyway, maybe it would be better to do a mass CFD? Rd232 (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

January 13

Resource Loader (RL) Preparations for our >60 Gadgets

With MediaWiki 1.19, that will deployed in February all gadgets will use Resource Loader (or not but if not in the next release). This requires several preparations, I am doing and I did recently. E.g. finding & replacing deprecated functions, adding dependencies explicitly, ... If you encounter that one of your gadgets stopped working, please report it here. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 16:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The difference between license and permission

This isn't in the FAQ, but should be. Maybe someone can answer it here.

1. What is the difference between license and permission? 2. Why do files need both license and permission to avoid being deleted? 3. Why doesn't the upload wizard ask for both license and permission at the time of upload, to avoid deletion? Keithpickering (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

1. License section is mainly for license templates, permission in information template for giving an explanation (e.g. "License is for photo, artwork depicted on wall is public domain because published in the US before 1923"). But it's OK to put a license template in the permission area and omit the license section entirely.

2. They don't. They just need a license template, but if it's a complicated case then the permission section lets you give the necessary explanation. And, of course, you need to own any relevant rights you claim to be releasing. (E.g. if you post someone else's work, simply stating a license means nothing.)

3. I can't address that, but I imagine that it's because of your misunderstanding of 2.

- Jmabel ! talk 17:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for uploading to Wikimedia Commons. I think you would actually like to know why we asked you for permission for the maps you uploaded. The simple reason is that the maps are based on data that has to come from somewhere and there were copyright disclaimers on the files while we do not know whether you are really Keith Pickering. -- RE rillke questions? 17:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

So how do I, Keith Pickering, prove that I'm Keith Pickering? Do I need a photo ID? Does it, or should it, take an extra step in uploading when I upload my own work with my own copyright? The problem is that I did nothing wrong, and I followed the upload directions exactly. And the files were still marked for deletion, because of alleged lack of permission. Keithpickering (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I should also point out that the (c) mark on the file is irrelevant. Every single licensed file uploaded to Wikimedia is copyrighted, whether or not it has a (c) mark. Keithpickering (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it depends. Are you famous? If so, we'll need confirmation that they are your works via COM:OTRS - an email from an address displayed on your website or such is usually sufficient. If you're not famous, we'll generally take you at your word that you are Keith Pickering because it doesn't matter much. As for your particular images, I believe the issue is that you don't own the copyright to the original maps, and so unless there is a statement of licence from the source of those maps, we must assume your files are derivatives of an unfree file, and hence unfree. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not famous. And YES, I do own the copyright on the original maps; they are MY OWN original work. What leads you to believe any different? Where have you seen these maps with any other copyright but mine? Keithpickering (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wad of "United Kingdom" categories in the YYYY period

We have a swathe of categories that refer to the United Kingdom in a period before its political creation, such as Category:United Kingdom in the 1610s which have been created, and which are ,as the United Kingdom wasn't a political entity of the time. If we are doing it be by geographic area, then it would be more accurate to put of the British Isles, or if we want by political states then we are going to need to do by England, Scotland, Ireland rather than by nations that didn't yet exist.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You have a point. Usually we use political criteria. Anyway if you think we must rename "some" :) categories give us a notice in the category talk page or use the template:category redirect.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 16:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I know I have a point, I was doing an admin cleanup (or trying to) in a limited time period and was doing some grumping at users under my breath, and this was my polite prompt at the community that we need a clean up. Part of the issue is that this sort of category sits way down the hierarchy never gets a discussion, and also gets tagged with an template with same problems.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

{{User AWB}}

I use this template in my Babel box to show that I am an active user of AWB -- AutoWikiBrowser. (Yes, I know that all Admins are AWB enabled, but not all are active users.) Recently, it started showing that I am a native speaker of Awa (Papua New Guinea). I've tried to sort out the interaction of the various components -- but I can't. Help would be appreciated.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

#babel only uses Commons templates if there is no matching language code. awb is a language code, so Template:User AWB is not used. If the template had more descriptive name like Template:User AutoWikiBrowser, it would not be confused with a language code. /Ö 19:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Per that suggestion, I've moved the template to Template:User AutoWikiBrowser, and using that template name fixed the problem. Rd232 (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the template move and fixing my user page. Perhaps when we add new language codes, someone should check to see if they are in use for other reasons. While "AWB" is not very descriptive, it is the name by which we all know the tool. I note that "AWB" is not an official ISO 639-2 code -- perhaps it is actually just a mistake for "AWA", which is the correct code for the language shown at Category:User awb-N.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

awa and awb are different languages; both are in ISO639-3. awa is Awahdi, an Indian language, awb is Awa, spoken in Papua New Guina. Its minor (it doesn't have an article on en) but it exists.

That said, why can't we have AuotWikiBrowser at User AWB? Shouldn't babel be case sensitive - and the language codes all be lower case... :)--Nilfanion (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Aha -- thank you. It really isn't important here as it's a template you will type only once, so the extra length is not a problem -- but I do think someone should check when new codes are added.

I won't even get into the question of whether adding a language code on Commons for a language spoken (and maybe not written at all) by a limited number of people who have limited contact with the rest of the world is a useful exercise.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

January 15

Certain templates need to assign different categories

Some of the categories in Category:Built in 1904 need to be in Category:Built in 1904 by country instead. It's probably the same for other years. Specifically:

• Built in the Czech Republic in 1904
• Built in Finland in 1904
• Built in Germany in 1904
• Built in Hungary in 1904
• Built in Israel in 1904
• Built in Kenya in 1904
• Built in Romania in 1904
• Built in Russia in 1904
• Built in Slovakia in 1904
• Built in Slovenia in 1904
• Built in Switzerland in 1904
• Built in the United Kingdom in 1904

I think the templates used in these categories need to be changed. The templates for some other countries do this correctly. I don't feel comfortable changing those templates myself, so could someone take a look? In the meantime, I have manually added this categories to Category:Built in 1904 by country, but I don't plan to do that for all years! Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Announcing Wikipedia 1.19 beta

Wikimedia Foundation is getting ready to push out 1.19 to all the WMF-hosted wikis. As we finish wrapping up our code review, you can test the new version right now on beta.wmflabs.org. For more information, please read the release notes or the start of the final announcement.

The following are the areas that you will probably be most interested in:

• Faster loading of javascript files makes dependency tracking more important.
• New common*.css files usable by skins instead of having to copy piles of generic styles from MonoBook or Vector's css.
• The default user signature now contains a talk link in addition to the user link.
• Searching blocked usernames in block log is now clearer.
• Better timezone recognition in user preferences.
• Improved diff readability for colorblind people.
• The interwiki links table can now be accessed also when the interwiki cache is used (used in the API and the Interwiki extension).
• More gender support (for instance in logs and user lists).
• Language converter improved, e.g. it now works depending on the page content language.
• Time and number-formatting magic words also now depend on the page content language.
• Bidirectional support further improved after 1.18.

Report any problems on the labs beta wiki and we'll work to address them before they software is released to the production wikis.

Note that this cluster does have SUL but it is not integrated with SUL in production, so you'll need to create another account. You should avoid using the same password as you use here. — Global message delivery 00:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Did anyone already test if {{int:Lang}}(=en) and the derived {{Autotranslate}} still function properly for logged in and anonymous users? Multichill (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Seems to work. -- RE rillke questions? 15:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Help needed to identify duplicate images

I'm posting this as a new section, as my comments above don't seem to have caught the attention of anyone able to help. There are a number of fish images in a batch from NOAA that have been uploaded recently. We already have some of them. For details, please see here. The trouble is, there are hundreds (around 600) images found on a search for "Collection of Brandi Noble". Someone has already deleted two I identified, but there are four more (in the four categories that I linked to up there). Is there a way of identifying the other duplicates? Maybe put the Brandi Noble ones recently uploaded (the filenames start with "fish") in a gallery or category and compare them to the ones uploaded earlier (they could be put in a similar category)? And then delete the duplicates? Maybe it is possible to examine the EXIF data and match duplicates that way? If posting this request at a specialist noticeboard is more likely to find someone willing to do this, could someone suggest where to ask for this to be done? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I probably do not understand what you are asking, but I would try to find some type of identifier that exists consistently in both sets of files and search for the matches. For example, from each file from the list of 600 generated from the "Collection of Brandi Noble" search, you could take its original NOAA library "name" in the source field, search it and match it with the newly uploaded file containing the same "name". Here is an example for one file searched with the "name" fish4084. Of course, you need to repeat the process for each of the 600 files. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You can use Commons:Tools#Find_Wikipedia.2FCommons_dupes tool, although as I recall those are not identical duplicates. I do not think those duplicates are a big issue, although I agree that it is annoying to work on image which then you discover to be a duplicate to be deleted. --Jarekt (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement "I do not think those duplicates are a big issue". It is very inefficient to upload a batch of 4000 images with an unknown number of those being images we already have, and then ask people to work on categorising them. Volunteers who get the impression that other people are just making unnecessary work for them are less likely to volunteer their time. Before uploading large batches from PD sources such as NOAA, there should be some checks are made. Does Commons really have 12 million unique images, or are some of those copies of existing uploads? What I think this does show is a need to take care with batch uploads from large PD sources (e.g. US government organisations and agencies such as the Library of Congress, NOAA, NARA, NASA, and so on). Individuals uploading pictures select ones they think will be useful. Batch uploads are broader and more hit-and-miss. The two approaches will duplicate each other. One way to avoid duplication is to require use of the original reference name, and for the system to cross-check and tell the uploader that a picture with that reference name already exists (this reference identifier is different from the filename). Some work has been done on this by Asclepias (thanks for this), but that is only 5% of the 600 images. What about the rest? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

From the list generated by the search on "Brandi Noble", I checked the first 30 files and here is the result:

File:Dolphinfish ( Coryphaena hippurus ).jpg -- no match

File:Lestrolepis intermedia.jpg -- duplicated by File:Fish4307 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg

File:Luminous hake ( Steindachneria argentea ).jpg -- duplicated by File:Fish4480 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg

File:ArgyropelecusAculeatus.jpg -- inconclusive (the uploader to Wikimedia did not preserve the NOAA identifier) duplicated by File:Fish4098 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg

File:BrevoortiaPatronus.jpg -- inconclusive (missing ID) duplicated by File:Fish4126 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg

File:AlosaMediocris.jpg -- inconclusive (missing ID) duplicated by File:Fish4079 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg

File:AnchoaHepsetus.jpg -- inconclusive (missing ID) close duplicates are File:Broad-striped anchovy ( Anchoa hepsetus ).jpg and File:Fish4083 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg

File:CentropristisStriata.jpg -- inconclusive (missing ID) derivative copy at File:Centropristis striata.jpg

File:CalamusCalamus.jpg -- inconclusive (missing ID) duplicated by File:Calamus calamus.jpg (cropped version) and File:Fish4135 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg (exact copy)

File:CentropristisFuscula.jpg -- inconclusive (missing ID) duplicated by File:Centropristis fuscula.jpg

File:Zenion hololepis 2.jpg -- duplicated by File:Fish4513 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg

File:Sharpnose sevengill shark ( Heptranchias perlo ).jpg -- duplicated by File:Fish4278 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg

File:ArgentinaGeorgei.jpg -- inconclusive (missing ID) duplicated by File:Fish4095 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg

File:CentropristisPhiladelphica.jpg -- inconclusive (missing ID) no match found

File:Sand devil nmfs.jpg -- duplicated by File:Fish4478 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg

File:Sandbar shark nmfs.jpg -- duplicated by File:Fish4143 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg

File:Shortspine spurdog nmfs.jpg -- duplicated by File:Fish4474 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg

File:Smalltail shark nmfs.jpg -- duplicated by File:Fish4144 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg

File:Smooth lanternshark nmfs.jpg -- no match

File:Spined pygmy shark nmfs4.jpg -- duplicated by File:Fish4468 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg

File:Spinner shark nmfs.jpg -- duplicated by File:Fish4138 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg

File:Spined pygmy shark nmfs2.jpg -- duplicated by File:Fish4472 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg

File:Spined pygmy shark nmfs.jpg -- duplicated by File:Fish4471 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg

File:Splendid alfonsino ( Beryx splendens ).jpg -- duplicated by File:Fish4120 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg

File:Striped anglerfish ( Antennarius striatus ).jpg -- duplicated by File:Fish4088 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg

File:Atlantic sharpnose shark nmfs.jpg -- duplicated by File:Fish4421 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg

File:Blacknose shark nmfs.jpg -- duplicated by File:Fish4137 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg

File:Cuban dogfish nmfs.jpg -- duplicated by File:Fish4473 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg

File:Etmopterus gracilispinis.jpg -- no match

File:Finetooth shark nmfs.jpg -- duplicated by File:Fish4140 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg

If we try to extrapolate from that 5% sample, it looks like the majority of the files we already had were duplicated in the new uploads. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You can index the dates and compare files with the same date. Use histograms to check if the files are the same (5 seems to work good: One histogram for the whole image, one top left, one top right, etc). Multichill (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this suggestion. I can't do this myself, but hopefully someone else can and will. What does "5 seems to work good" mean? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Ascelpias. I looked at the 'inconclusive' ones and searched by the taxonomic name, and updated your list with this edit. That shows that 6 of the 9 inconclusive ones were also duplicates from the recent (January 2012) upload. Of the other three, one was no match (maybe already deleted?) and two were duplicated from earlier uploads. It seems that duplication is quite common. I understand that some duplication is unavoidable, but when a large amount of duplication is detected, as here, shouldn't something be done to avoid that in future? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd already found a couple of cases of duplication, but where the new image was much higher resolution, so that the older image was the appropriate one to mark as {{Duplicate}} and delete. - Jmabel ! talk 02:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a guideline in place for when a mass upload is appropriate? Readily accessible PD databases that have been up for years and actually work probably have a high percentage of potential duplicates. Material that is newly available, or available in higher resolution than supported elsewhere, is less problematic. The person contemplating a mass upload should still do some sampling to assess potential for duplication. Experienced users can probably suggest some other useful guidance. Dankarl (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Normally, such batch-upload bots check for exact duplicates (as does the system itself -- they will be automatically listed on the image page if there is an exact duplicate in the system). But if there are slight variations, then they may not have been noticed (or, perhaps, the earlier uploads are crops or other modifications, which means they are not necessarily duplicates). For example, File:Blacknose shark nmfs.jpg and File:Fish4137 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg are not exact duplicates. On the other hand... File:Atlantic sharpnose shark nmfs.jpg and File:Fish4421 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg look very close, though there are additional fields of EXIF added in the second one (the recent upload). It looks as though the NOAA modified the EXIF themselves, as the old version corresponds exactly to the one on the NOAA Photo Library page, and the new upload is identical to the image as posted to the NOAA Photo Library Flickr stream. That may explain why the new uploads avoided duplicate detection in this series, actually, as it would seem as though this batch upload was done from the Flickr side of things, whereas previous uploads would have been directly from NOAA's site. So, while unfortunate, this does seem to be an unusual situation which would not normally happen with batch uploads. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Project templates on File talk pages

I recently created the Commons version of WikiProject Dacia (en) and WikiProiectul Dacia (ro) and I am wondering if it is ok to have a template like Template:WikiProject Dacia on Commons. I am not sure if all functionality can be supported but at least a subset of it could be very useful. For example, it would be great if such a template could categorize articles based on a flag in a category corresponding to en:Category:Dacia articles needing attention, as it works on EN Wikipedia. As another example it could mark pictures with archaeological object who would benefit by a migration from {{Information}} to {{Artwork}}, and/or make those images/objects which are missing discovery date, current location etc. I haven't seen yet such templates, although some projects like Lights Camera Wiki have a template like: {{LightsCameraWiki}} Any thoughts? BTW, don't mean to double post but the talk page of Commons:WikiProject doesn't seem very active.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

On en.wp the WikiProject templates are based on a very complex template, en:Template:WPBannerMeta. Creating something similar on Commons would not be easy. But the examples you give don't really need to be identified with a WikiProject; they're standard cleanup tasks which there should be templates/categories for already (and if there aren't, it's relatively easy to create them). See Category:Image cleanup templates. I could see some geographical cleanup/improvement tasks being subdivided by topic with an optional parameter (eg images missing current location). Rd232 (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how you would use en:Template:WikiProject Dacia. I think it would be OK to add it to galleries ("articles") related to Dacia, but I do not think you should add it to all the images. For flagging images that can use some attention I would propose to use CatScan2, for example [6=1 here] is the link to find all images in category:Dacian_artefacts that do not use {{Artwork}}. --Jarekt (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much guys! Very good points. Regarding en:Template:WPBannerMeta, I wouldn't even attempt to implement something like this in commons. I had something much more basic in mind. Great suggestion about maintenance options. Using CatScan2 for that is an excellent idea! I guess, the main purpose of such a project tag would be to automatically add hidden categories which group media in the project scope in one place, for easy browsing and maintenance. Right now, the media can be spread across this relatively complicated hierarchy of categories. Such a hidden category added by the project template could be Category:Media related to WikiProject Dacia, with a subcategory like Category:Media related to WikiProject Dacia needing attention added by a flag set in the template. Similar to en:Category:WikiProject Dacia articles and its subcategoy en:Category:Dacia articles needing attention--Codrin.B (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

January 12

Okay to not include {{Information}} template directly?

I have a few hundred photos from the Fremantle Society Photographic Survey (a late 1970s project to comprehensively catalogue all buildings in Fremantle, Western Australia) that I'm about to start uploading. Is it okay to make a template based on {{Information}}, so that I can include the common bits easily (permission, author, category, etc.)? Or will that break something or other? I was thinking of something along these lines: {{Fremantle Society Photographic Survey}}. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 07:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is ok. Ruslik (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok from my side. If the HTML-rendering is the same, stockphoto and slideshow should be able to deal with. -- RE rillke questions? 08:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This could be subst:. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would recommend making your own template as well, which uses information, and the specifics of each photo as arguments and then subst it in. Then you get the benefits from both worlds and it would result in less confusion in later maintenance. --Slaunger (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Groovy! Thanks. I've uploaded a couple to test. Will continue... :-) (Still focussing on scanning, but wanted to sort out the whole workflow before going too far.) — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 11:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You could configure Commonist to use this custom template you plan to create or the pre-populated {{Information}} for all uploaded pictures in one shot.--Codrin.B (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Cities and villages in Indre -> disambiguation

The Category:Cities and villages in Indre is listed in the disambiguation site Category:Indre, where it obviously not belongs to. I presume this has its root in the {{Category definition: French commune|department category|36|247}} template Template:Category_definition:_French_communes, but I am not sure. Perhaps someone with better knowledge about templates and deeper categorization can take a look at it. --Funfood ␌ 16:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Did this change. Voodoo seems to work. Multichill (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Great! Tx, I didn't find this. *search skills needs to be improved* --Funfood ␌ 19:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

JPEG error?

I uploaded File:Robin Spielberg.jpg for a photosubmissions request, and there's an issue with the reduced-size version. If you click through to see the full size, it displays fine. Does anyone know what's up with this? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Help:JPEG#Color model -- RE rillke questions? 18:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

SVG translation

Hey all. I have some news that all of you familiar with SVGs will be interested in. Recently, I have worked on developing two related things:

• A "lang=xx" syntax for SVG embeds (example: [[File:Example.svg|thumb|lang=de]]). This would be passed to the renderer (in our case rsvg), and would result in the SVG's systemLanguage property being set to that code. systemLanguage is used for conditional rendering; a good example of its application for translating SVG files can be found here.
• A special page to allow for the easy translation of files within this system. An example of what it looks like at present can be found at File:TranslateSvg.ogv (note that the misalignment of the text is a problem with the underlying SVG and not with the translation).

Taken together, these would represent a massive improvement on our current system for SVG translation, which involves uploading a new file in each language; moving a graphic to improve the SVG then requires numerous different edits and uploads (one for each language). I welcome your comments, and, hopefully, your support in this endeavour. Regards, Jarry1250 (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not work with SVG's much but this sounds like a good idea in general.I am still a little fuzzy on details, like where will those new translations be stored? Inside SVG file or on the outside somewhere? --Jarekt (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

They get stored inside the SVG file - but not as a hack: switch and other elements in SVG1.1 and future specifications are designed with this in mind. Modern browsers render them correctly, and the extra filesize won't touch users in our current SVG->PNG conversion setup. Jarry1250 (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I presume when you say "a special page" that this will work like, for example, Special:ListFiles, where there'll be a link on SVG file X to edit it, and that will take you to, say, Special:EditSVG/X. Also, just to be clear: we're talking about a new MediaWiki extension, mw:Extension:TranslateSvg. I'm not sure what the process is for determining that an Extension is sufficiently stable and effective to be installed on Commons' servers. I guess at this point you're just looking for feedback on the general implementation approach? Rd232 (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in the example video, you end up at Special:TranslateSVG/Equilibrium2.svg. The extension covers the second point listed; it's still very early on and much work will be required to get it into a usable state - basically I'm just checking that that effort won't be in vain. (Incidentally, the first point is covered in the form of a patch - bug #32987 - although the discussion on there is more technical than evaluative. So yes, comments and other feedback is what I'm angling for :) Jarry1250 (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. Well just to be clear, I agree that having translations within an SVG file, instead of multiple SVG files showing the same thing in different languages, is a very good improvement. Rd232 (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have two more questions. At the moment each file on commons look identical and is independent of language settings. When a single commons file suddenly can produce different thumbnails for different pages. Would caching still work properly? Also if we have a special tool for editing the text of SVG files it might make sense to also allow people to compare what changed between edits done by different users. Right now SVG files are stored like images and it is impossible to compare historical versions of the same SVG file using Wikimedia tools. --Jarekt (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Caching is fine; basically we already generate new thumbnails for each size and page, this just adds chacing-by-language for SVG files.

Diffing is something I'm looking at; the simplest way is to give you a summary of all changes in the upload summary but it does look clunky. Jarry1250 (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

 Support if we can rely on a stable SVG-rendering. Your efforts will be worthless if with each version of rsvg new bugs are introduced. -- RE rillke questions? 16:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This looks very cool; would be great to have such a thing working. For caching, do you mean you are altering the filename of the rendered .png to have a language component to it? I wonder if that would break any other tools (like the filepath magic word) which would then need a language parameter as well. Making such a scheme universal (so that even regular pages are cached per-language) may be a good idea too -- reduce reliance on the dynamic translation stuff we currently have. It would also be cool to dynamically get the overall page's language argument passed down as a default... but all those are probably future directions once some of this basic functionality is in place. The first step is to get an editor like this so editors can actually enter the information, and have their be a realistic benefit for further MediaWiki development to make use of it, and this seems like a good way. As for the interface... does look good, though you may want to initially put the English or base text in the fields, and not make the translator re-type elements which don't need translation. You also need to make sure it can scale to images with lots of text points, or at least fail gracefully -- perhaps use File:Africa Map en.svg as a torture test (from memory, it has some fun things where names are split across two text segments, and specialized placement of some labels which results in each letter being its own text segment). Another issue may be that a different font is needed for translation, particularly when different scripts are involved -- does SVG support that? I suspect this will be initially useful with smaller SVGs, as the font renderer used on Wikimedia is pretty clunky when there is lots of text (such as that Africa map). Nothing you can do about that of course; maybe that will improve in time. But it seems that something like this is very close to be very useful as-is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I haven't looked into our filepath tools specifically, but, as I say, we already do this for page numbers on PDFs and TIFFs. (I'll look into this further.)

With regard to the default, my impression from speaking to translators is that numbers and symbols should be the default, but blank otherwise - so that's what it does at the moment. I'm quite happy to change that of course and it wouldn't take a second.

Thanks for the link to the Africa map, I'll test that when I get a moment.

SVG does support different fonts, but I'm not sure how bst to build it into the interface -- again, something to look into (is language->typeface a simple mapping, or should the user be able to select the typeface on a case by case basis?).

Anyway, thanks for the feedback, lots of great points :) Jarry1250 (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point on the DJVU/PDF page support -- this is pretty much a parallel. And actually filepath is the path to the base file, not the caches -- so no issue there either. Not sure how many tools deal with the cache files directly; probably not many. Looking at the SVG spec more, for fonts it looks like you would just add a font-family attribute for the localized text segment, so it seems doable (along with font-size). Of course many SVGs use the CSS style parameter for font info (I think both are supported). It may be desirable to allow an override on each field, but probably a first pass would be to have one field to specify an alternate font for the entire translation, and add that attribute to each text segment you put in. That may cause issues when mixing numbers, math stuff, and language though. As for the defaults, go with what the translators say ;-) Perhaps a small button next to each field to paste in the default text then, though it could get cluttered fast -- the X/Y coordinate labels already look to be an issue there. Or maybe a special key combination. Just thinking here, and not sure how possible this is, but perhaps just have the basic text field available for each item, then a "details" button next to each one, which could bring up a more detailed popup editor which has additional controls like the X/Y coordinates, font, and other possible info -- perhaps itself with next/previous buttons if the user wants to keep that up while going through them. I.e. try to get as many text items visible as possible for the simple/usual cases, but allow detailed editing in another fashion (may even help if there are a lot of fields, to keep the basic image visible while going through a big list). Though perhaps adjusting the X/Y is needed more than I think. Anyways, definitely a difficult problem, but it seems like you have a pretty much workable solution for many cases -- I'd love to see it succeed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As you say, "Details" may well be the way to go. Thanks again for the feedback. Jarry1250 (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 Question Is there any problem to render CJK & Indic characters? Some fonts have limited typography so I think it may not render non-Latin characters. – Kwj2772 (msg) 06:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned above, it would be possible for different languages to use different fonts; assuming there are CJK/Indic/etc fonts available to the SVG renderer (and I believe there are) all should be fine). Jarry1250 (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to add a "+1" for the great usefulness of such an implementation within the scope of the Wikimedia projects. I hope it can be brought to completion. The cost (in terms of human energy) of having different files that are merely translations of one another is just unbelievably high. Thank you for your work. Ariadacapo (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)

Shortcut

• COM:SOPA

Users may be aware that on English Wikipedia there has been much discussion of how to respond to the proposed US law en:Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), at en:Wikipedia:VPR#Coordinated_SOPA_reaction_in_early_2012_RfC and en:WP:SOPA. You'll have to read the Wikipedia discussion on why SOPA is an issue for Wikimedia.

Now, another website, Reddit, has scheduled a blackout for 18 January, and I thought I'd float the suggestion that as some small element of support for these and other protests against SOPA, we could simply feature a relevant image on the front page on 18 January. For example, we could show a cropped version of File:MozillaStopCensorshipDoodle.png (focussing on the Mozilla logo and call to action). I know it's not of the usual quality, but I think it would be reasonable to make an exception, for a very small act of protest (far from the discussion on Wikipedia of severely disrupting access to the entire website, which I mention just for perspective on how far some are willing to go on this). Rd232 (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• We could also run a banner.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• SOPA / PROTECTIP are a real threat to Commons too. We may be forced to remove all links to a particular source website, just because some other image on that website was an alleged copyright violation. This threatens our ability to validate licenses and provide readers access to additional information on works. I would gladly support taking dramatic action on all WMF projects, but at the very least we should run a banner here. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

  "Commons is special since at many instances, website directly link our images, not only in the US but also in countries with no relation to SOPA. If one day the images become unavailable this will seriously undermine out credibility, and is best avoided. I would therefore not advocate taking the website down. However, running a banner and/or somehow expressing our position on the front page is, I think, a good idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, it would only be necessary to provide read access to the File namespace, mw:InstantCommons and all URLs starting with http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons. Access to the File namespace is necessary in order to ensure licence compliance if other sites use Commons images and source them by linking here. It would be perfectly possible to close down the village pump, galleries, category pages and other utilities. Write access could be switched off everywhere without causing any problems. I'm not sure if Mediawiki supports switching off specific namespaces while keeping other namespaces working, though. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe the servers and the seat of the Foundation should move outside the US if SOPA would be adopted? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I suggested to Jimbo (in a recent discussion on his en.wp talk page [21]) that the Foundation should seriously investigate such a move; you can see his response here. Anyway, there is very, very much discussion of SOPA issues on en.wp - I suggest not duplicating it on Commons. Any discussion here should be limited to what Commons should do, I think. Rd232 (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: it now looks like English Wikipedia will enforce a full blackout on 18 Jan (no read or write access). See en:WP:SOPA. Rd232 (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In a related entry on the WMF blog, Sue also addresses the question of "political neutrality". --Túrelio (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Banner implementation

If we're going to do a banner, I rather use the central notice system. It has much better support for internationalization than the site notice. Multichill (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but CentralNotice needs a Meta admin to do it. I've no objection in principle, but I'm fine with SiteNotice for something which I think primarily should be in English and Spanish (the two main US languages), since the objective is ultimately to try and get a proposed US law amended or stopped. One advantage of CentralNotice is that it can be geotargeted (eg banner only shown to US users) - is that something we want to do here? Rd232 (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should be displayed to US users only. Even if users around the world cannot actively oppose SOPA the way US citizens can, they would be affected by it too, as Wikimedia servers (and many prominent websites', for that matter) are located in the US. Besides, US citizens can reside anywhere in the world, and shouldn't be excluded based on their current location. Prof. Professorson (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hey Commons folks. If you want any help with CentralNotice implementation, including design and/or localization of a banner in time for the 18th, then you should let me know here very soon so I can send word on the to the team at the Foundation which is currently working on the English Wikipedia banners/blackout. If you need ideas for banner content and design I can point you to the English and German Wikipedia's options. Thanks, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I think we'd be happy to just use the English/German Wikipedia banner text (with any necessary rephrasing for Commons rather than Wikipedia), rather than spend time we don't have on drafting a new text. If you can help do this through CentralNotice, that may be neater, but I do wonder if there isn't a loss of flexibility in terms of adding additional localizations. As a SiteNotice, this can be done in minutes by a Commons admin, once a localization has been provided; how does it work for CentralNotice? Rd232 (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Poll is unanimous but few people shared their opinion. This is quite a big deal that deserves more opinion. Maybe this should be advertised in the SiteNotice (yeah, I know, running a banner to know if we should run a banner :D). Jean-Fred (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. Though at this point we're really running out of time, especially if we want to use CentralNotice. (I'm starting to think maybe we shouldn't bother with that, and just use SiteNotice.) Rd232 (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm an admin in meta and here, with 90% of my admin actions there being in CentralNotice. I just need a text (Can really be the same as the en.wiki?) and I can develop a banner in 2 min. CentralNotice isn't the problem, the consensus to run it is. Béria Lima ^msg 01:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, good. The drafting is tricky given the lack of time; it's true that it's not as easy to adapt from the English text as I'd expected. It might be easier to base it on the German text here: de:Wikipedia:SOPA#aktuell_vorgesehene_Aktion. Stick a Commons logo in, and try and have a white text on black background, and that'll do. I tried drafting something at User:Rd232/sandbox5, but visually it's horrible. :( Rd232 (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I propose a text like "The free database needs a free Internet. The SOPA threatens Wikimedia Commons in all languages and regions of the world". NaBUru38 (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A political banner is just not educational, and sets a bad precedent. All this soapboxing falls outside of Commons scope. The place to oppose legislation is the Legislature. Horses for courses. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Education is a political act. And defence of Commons and its sister projects is a sensible thing for Commons to do, regardless of whether it's ever been written down. Rd232 (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't buy into the idea that "we're all politicans now" line of talk. I seem to remember that education is about the dissemination of knowledge, not constructing political banners. Commons is here to offer educational content to our users, not ram political campaign slogans down their throats. Please take this activity offsite, to somewhere more appropriate, as its out of scope here. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Banner design

Protest against Stop Online Piracy Act The United States' Congress is holding hearings on the  Stop Online Piracy Act  (SOPA). This bill could be passed. If it were, the Internet and free speech would never be the same. SOPA makes it more difficult for the Wikimedia Foundation to continue its projects, including Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. English Wikipedia has joined other websites in blacking-out in protest on 18 January. To find out more, and to take action, visit    americancensorship.org

Alt. 2

Protest against Stop Online Piracy Act The United States' Congress is holding hearings on the  Stop Online Piracy Act  (SOPA). This bill could be passed. If it were, the Internet and free speech will never be the same... and a link to americancensorship.org or perhaps only a "learn more" link?

The image to be changed.

Alt. 1

Alt. 2

Alt. 2, without text

We're running out of time here. How exactly are we going to get this done in time? I tried drafting something at User:Rd232/sandbox5 (transcluded above), but visually it's horrible. Rd232 (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait there, why we are reinventing the wheel here? There is already a very good banner here (all we need to do is change the logo). And - no ofense Rd32 - the banner is 3 times prettier than yours ;) Béria Lima ^msg 13:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

None taken. :) But "all we need to do is change the logo" - I really disagree. The banner doesn't provide any explanation, and then points users to en:WP:SOPA, which is absolutely not the sort of destination to which we should send an average user looking for an explanation. (And the lack of explanation is worse on Commons, because it's about a different website without any explanation of relevance.) I would prefer it if someone could take something more like my text, combine it with Mmmxx's Alt2 image, and make the result visually like the enwp notice. Rd232 (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, if we can find someone to change the logo in the image here in the side would be great (I could do it, but would take like 3 times more time than would take to someone with more skills). Béria Lima ^msg 13:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the size restrictions, how is this one?  ■ MMXX  ^talk 14:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute, does it make sense to use a Commons logo at all? Especially a blacked-out version suggests Commons is blacked out. I think maybe we should either use the Wikipedia blackedout logo, or use the Commons logo with a "stop censorship" bar (like the Firefox logo at File:MozillaStopCensorshipDoodle-cropped.png), as a general indication of support for the campaign. Rd232 (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Or a variant on File:Erytrocyte deoxy to oxy v0.6 1.gif --Foroa (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Animated? BTW, if we are going to show this for all users, should we omit the text?  ■ MMXX  ^talk 14:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Animation is a bad idea, even if there was time for the extra complexity. I don't think we should omit text - we want all users, logged-in and not, to get the message. Rd232 (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I meant the "Wikimedia Commons", should it be omitted for other languages?  ■ MMXX  ^talk 16:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Yes, probably. Rd232 (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, perhaps we can include the English text too, most of projects with Latin alphabets use the same name for Commons.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 17:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

About the color, I don't see any problem in using a black version of logo, IMO the color version doesn't look good on black bg (see above), also we can't use a black bar on black bg. well, we can use white as bg color.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 17:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If you guys want Brandon to design a logo for the banner today, he says it'd take him about 20 seconds. Let me know, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

We can also change our logo like Mozilla, but it seems to be too late for new ideas.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 20:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Alt 2 without text is the best logo to use. Bidgee (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

And that's what we've chosen, see CentralNotice on Meta. odder (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, :pt has its banner already online. --Túrelio (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI: there is a full list of Wikimedia community anti-SOPA actions/discussions at en:Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Actions by other communities. Rd232 (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Banner link

Should we include a link to this EFF document? It's a recent, clear explanation of why SOPA is such a problem. Rd232 (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Implementation of the decision of the community

As written above, the most convenient way to display banners is to base on the existing ones that are currently being displayed on the English Wikipedia. As such, Beria (talk · contribs) who is a Meta-wiki administrator and I (odder (talk · contribs)), have volunteered ourselves to implement the decision of the community on Meta.

I will help Beria with editing the banners and she will set up a CentralNotice campaign to start on 05:00 (UTC) alongside with the blackout of the English Wikipedia. We are planning to start our work at 00:00 (UTC), taking into account every single opinion issued above. For those interested, Beria is from Brazil and I am located in Poland, so there shouldn't be much problems with timezones. odder (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Rd232 (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Banner is at CentralNotice. Personally I would have a couple of words to explain what "SOPA and PIPA" are, like "The proposed US laws..." And the destination page doesn't suggest any action. If you look at the bottom of http://americancensorship.org/, the link I suggested, you'll see it's supported by the WMF; maybe we could have that in addition. My 2 cents. Rd232 (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I was about to post the links, too, but you beat me to it, Rd232, thanks! The idea was to create a banner very similiar to the one currently being displayed on the German Wikipedia (because that was the question you asked the community), so we did just translate it and change it a bit to suit our needs. I wanted to link to a landing page on Commons, but as we don't have one, the decision was to link to Sue's letter instead, just as the other communities. The banners are visible globally, so there is no way we could've fit a request to take any action in that small banner. I hope that makes the situation a little bit clearer for you. Thanks, odder (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, well how about at least linking "SOPA" and "PIPA" to their en.wp articles? SOPA and PIPA en.wp articles are among a handful of pages that will be excluded from the blackout (read-only) en:Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Blackout_screen_testing#Excluded_pages. And the German banner at least says "the legislative initiative" SOPA. The current Commons phrasing makes SOPA and PIPA sound like they could be organizations or individuals... Rd232 (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, thanks for spotting that! What about adding "SOPA and PIPA acts threaten..." If somebody's interested in the details, there is an underline appearing on hover..., hope that'd be OK. odder (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if we're following the German WP example, the original German version of that says "the proposed law under discussion in the US Congress, 'SOPA', ...". Can we fit that? And can we link "SOPA" and "PIPA"to their articles, so that they're underlined without hovering? If we had a landing page on Commons, like German WP does, I wouldn't mind, but without that, the blog post alone is not really enough, I think. Incidentally, can other language versions of the banner point to the landing pages of the respective Wikipedia, where they exist, so that there's a localised explanation? Rd232 (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick answer because we're fightning with the settings in hope to make it before 05:00 (UTC): (1) Yes, the other language versions can point to the landing pages of their respective Wikipedias or to a translated version of Sue's letter. (2) We've added the information that SOPA and PIPA are under discussion in the US Congress. (3) We're figuring out a way to place wikilinks inside a CentralNotice but are not sure if that's technically possible — help's appreciated. odder (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Great - should be lawS plural though! Wikilinks are not possible - use HTML links. See m:Help:CentralNotice#General. Rd232 (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, the English-language banner is ready for a couple of minutes already, linking to Sue's letter and appropriate articles on the English Wikipedia. The text and the links are all localisable: if there's a wiki in your language that has a local page or there's a translation of Sue's letter available in your language -- please let us know so we can paste the links. Cheers, odder (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, but I can't see the banner on Commons! Also, en.wp finally came up with a landing page, at en:Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more, which would be a better destination than the blog post. It probably doesn't make sense to change the link now though. Rd232 (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Finally, why not just import the translations from other CentralNotice banners? The text is either a good translation of the Commons text, or good enough. eg German Wikipedia banner versions. (My inability to do this is exactly why I had doubts about using CentralNotice... :( ) Rd232 (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

January 14

Promo page ruines

Hi. There was a promo page at ro.wp and I deleted a lot of text & multimedia in it (it's going to be completely deleted but this doesn't matter). The user uploaded his images here at commons: see contribs. What should be done to these images? I have not much experience on commons. Gikü (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC) −

Handled accordingly. -- RE rillke questions? 21:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

10x. Gikü (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

NOAO images

A number of NOAO images and composite images where a portion is credited to NOAO are being put up for deletion discussion by User:Bulwersator. I'm not saying the user is right or wrong, but it seems the usage of these images, especially the composites is confusing. These include File:DEM L316 in Dorado.jpg which I uploaded from the Chandra site, CHANDRA X-ray Observatory CXC Operated for NASA by SAO, url=http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/d316/. With respect to Chandra, I found this "Images credited to NASA/CXC are public domain." at File:Sn2006gy CHANDRA x-ray.jpg. There are others like File:Luchsbogen.jpg which are composites with Hubble that appear to be covered by the Hubble public domain disclaimer yet include portions from NOAO. NOAO (url=http://www.noao.edu/image_gallery/copyright.html) uses the same copyright policy as Chandra (url=http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/image_use.html). This NOAO confusion applies to some 63 images found by searching using "NOAO", without the quotes. Much of NOAO funding comes from NASA, NSF, and other government agencies. There is also collaboration with ESA. Investigating each individually is very time consuming and may be unnecessary. I would be happy to contact any of these agencies on Commons behalf but I'm not OTRS, although if it does not require enormous time consuming effort I would be happy to help. There may be Wikipedia limited licenses which may apply and I will check that per User:Bulwersator suggestion. What do you think? Marshallsumter (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

One possibility for NOAO is something like Non-free with NC or something similar to Non-free ESA media, with ESA replaced by NOAO. Marshallsumter (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

blackout screenshots

Hi, I took a bunch of screenshots of the web pages that joined the protest against SOPA. The file names are in the form <domain>.png . When I tried to upload them, all the .com sites have not been uploaded with "file type not allowed".

Can we allow screenshots of .com websites (which in many cases have linked to americancensorship.org) or are they considered non-free?--Japs 88 (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The file type was not allowed because it got confused by multiple extensions (blah.com.png was interpreted as a ".com.png" file, or something) - just rename it. Nevertheless, screenshots of websites are frequently problematic, as they may contain non-free images or extensive paragraphs of non-free text. Sites with just a small amount of text and no copyrightable graphics are fine (what constitutes a small amount of text is admittedly a bit fuzzy). Many open-source sites (like mozilla.org) license their graphics under the GPL, and so are also okay. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

“Many open-source sites (like mozilla.org) license their graphics under the GPL, and so are also okay.” seems confusing. At least mozilla.org’s text is under CC BY-SA 2.0+. --AVRS (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

(or 3.0+, because mozilla.com is being merged into mozilla.org) --AVRS (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

So, if in doubt, text is under CC BY-SA 3.0+. The logo files (at least in Firefox --AVRS (talk)) are under {{MTL}} (“or MPL2 if you prefer” --gerv). --AVRS (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

(a small warning: I am sleepy and the citation is out of context --AVRS (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC))

My mistake. I can never keep track which licenses OSS sites use... Dcoetzee (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyviol

This User:Lobo512 has uploaded lotta copyr. movies screenshoots. Thanks.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 19:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Pierpao has not carefully read the descriptions of the images, and ignored the great effort I went to checking that the publicity stills (not screenshots) are all in the public domain. --Lobo512 (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just spot-checked Lobo512's recent uploads, and each has a clear explanation as to why it is in the public domain. (In most cases, these are either old publicity stills published without a copyright notice, or old movie trailers that appear to have not had copyright renewed.) Can you point to a particular one (or several) where you feel the explanation provided is incorrect or inadequate? cmadler (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

No one, I confused his uploads with the jobs done by another user. My mistake. My best apologize to both of you--Pierpao.lo (listening) 09:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

And of course thanks for your effort. You made a great job--Pierpao.lo (listening) 09:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Map and PD-trivial

Is this edit appropriate?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I think not. A map is not normally "simple geometry". cmadler (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you and to Prosfilaes, I saw that the action has been taken.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

January 20

Erroneous rendering of an SVG that displays correctly with Inkscape, Gimp and Firefox

The file http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Heme-Synthesis-Chemical-Details-Mirror.svg looks OK with the tools listed above, but displays from Commons with a number of errors:

• A giant "2" disappearing out of the top right corner
• "H2O" rendered as "HO2" in two places

The file was produced with Inkscape as a modification of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Heme-Synthesis-Chemical-Details-NEW.svg which has the "H2O" rendering problem but not the giant "2".

Help, please!

Thanks -- Ross — Preceding unsigned comment added by RossBoswell (talk • contribs)

Usually it helps to convert fonts (and objects in general) into paths and save as plain SVG in Inkscape. Every time I get a wonky SVG, these steps fix it. Patrícia ^msg 12:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The giant "2" looks like it comes from what is supposed to be a "H2N" notation. The "2" is being interpreted as some giant point size by rsvg obviously. The SVG looks fine in Safari as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think I fixed it. The giant 2 may have come from a font specification of "65.0009234%" or something like that -- I think it was interpreting it as a 65 point size, not 65%. I changed to a fixed point size like all the other subscript numbers in there (though many, as Patricia noted, have already been turned into paths). My local version of rsvg did not have that problem, so I presume that is a bug in the older rsvg used on MediaWiki, but will be fixed in a future update. As for the incorrected "H20" -> "H02" ordering... it looks like rsvg has a problem with a formulation like <text>H<tspan>2</tspan>2</text> (i.e. intermixing top-level text with tspan tags). It puts all the tspan tags at the end. It was just getting lucky with the "C02" notations. I manually edited the text file to have <text><tspan>H</tspan><tspan>2</tspan><tspan>0</tspan></text> (i.e. put all text segments in their own tspan). My local rsvg did have that problem, so it looks like it is still a bug in that library. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Double Picture

Can you all fix it?

I uploaded one file about Casey Stoner from Flicker in 11 December 2011 with original link at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:And_I_was_there!.jpg

But I'm finding that other user also uploaded the same file in 26 December in: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Casey_Stoner_2011_PI.jpg

Thanks for your attention F1fans (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

These should simply be linked with {{Other versions}}, since they are differently lightened & cropped. I'll do that. - Jmabel ! talk 17:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Poland's travelling POTY exhibition moves south

(I thought this might be of interest to at least some of you, hope this won't be considered as spam... :)

I am delighted to announce that the first-ever travelling POTY pictures exhibition, organised by Wikimedia Poland, is moving to yet another Polish city. Starting next Wednesday, January 18, 16 images chosen in the annual POTY contests are going to be shown at the Municipal Public Library in Bytom in the south, less than 90 km from the Czech-Polish border.

As some of you may recall, the exhibition premièred during the 10th anniversary of the Polish Wikipedia conference, held in Poznań last September, having been visited by a few hundred visitors in just two weeks. Our first stop outside Poznań was Przystanek Książka, one of Warsaw's media libraries, where the exhibition was shown from November 28, 2011 to January 11, 2012, and has been visited by over a thousand visitors (after making it to the main page of Gazeta.pl, one of Poland's most popular news sites)!

With high hopes, we are now moving to Bytom, where the pictures are going to be showcased until February 18. The opening of the exhibition will be accompanied by a public lecture on Polish Wikipedia and a Wikipedia editing workshop for 50+ people, led by Wikimedian Paweł Marynowski (user:Yarl).

For those of you currently living in the south of Poland or planning to visit the Upper Silesia Metroplex (e.g. Katowice) in the upcoming weeks: the library is located at 3 Jan III Sobieski Square in Bytom, just 400 metres north of Bytom Market Square, with direct public transport from Katowice (bus lines "820" and "830") and is open on working days from 8 AM until 7 PM (8 AM-3 PM on Saturdays).

We are still looking for more organisations and institutions willing to hold the exhibition – and if there's anyone from the neighbouring (European) countries willing to get involved (we are particularly looking at our WMCEE friends now :)), feel free to approach me at <tomasz.kozlowski @ wikimedia.pl>.

On behalf of Wikimedia Poland, odder (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is a bit out of the way for me, living in the Netherlands, but my congratulations on this initiative! Kind regards, MartinD (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you use a strange acronym like this "POTY" which normal people do not understand ? Isn't it better to use simple English words everybody understands ? Teofilo (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

We are using the full name Picture of the Year in all external press releases sent to the outside world. There was a first announcement about the exhibition 2 months ago in which I used the full name, too, but I thought that every user of Wikimedia Commons would know the name by now. Anyway, thanks for your remarks, it's appreciated, and I'll keep that in mind! PS See COM:POTY for more information. odder (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I googled "POTY exhibition" and google found some "poetry" or "pottery" exhibitions. It took me quite some time to figure out what you meant, that's why. It seems a good idea because it is so peaceful, far from the "protest" and "black out" of the last days. People may go there and just enjoy the pictures, without feeling compelled to join Wikipedia or donate. It looks so "neutral". I like the idea. Teofilo (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

COM:ALAFU: Always Link Abbreviations on First Use :) Rd232 (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

How to categorize?

I've been working bit by bit on cleaning up Category:Reenactments, and I'm wondering how best to categorize photos that primarily show items, such as File:Dane Axe.JPG or Category:Historic chainmail reproductions. It seems like there should be some category for these within the main "Reenactments" that might also be within Category:Replicas? Looking for suggestions/ideas. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. Maybe the way replicas of sailing ships are handled can help. --  Docu  at 06:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

January 21

Category:Populated places: Three sub-cats reflecting one another with no constancy.

Can someone please enlighten me and tell the functional difference between:

• Category:Cities
• Category:Cities and villages

and

• Category:Settlements ?

They all exist one next to the other under same parent (Populated places), and at first and second glance they don't appear to justify their independence. Serious. It looks so inconsistant. Is there any structured hierarchy within them, which I didn't get on to? My guess is that it isn't meant to happen like this, and it just developed with each of the sub-categories apart, eventually all roof-meeting in Category:Populated places. Let me know maybe I'm getting it incorrect and entries that match the "Settlement"-definition are fundamentally different from others falling under "Villages", and "Cities"-entries are by no means identical to those which may populate "Cities and villages". Thanks, and sorry for bugging Orrlingtalk 10:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

And for the more simple and local case, see here. Orrlingtalk 10:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the same problem arises in every Wikipedia. Have you checked if any of them has ever found a satisfactory solution?--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Smile* I've been dealing with that sort of failures on the Hebrew Wiki for over 3 years - partially successfully; I'm also active within the Eng, Fr and Swe.-wikipedias yet I never went as far deep into category perplexities and I admit Commons - as a "parent" for other projects - is a cold-water pool for me for this matter, and I don't mind it. I believe everything should be neat and meticulous as we here in Commons "sell" to a larger public and while en:wiki maintains 3 million articles Commons has 12 millions files. This is why I want us to cope with this "head-on" as someone said about me two days ago. Orrlingtalk 12:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know there have been debates over this on en-wiki. It looks like they currently have, within "Populated places by type" categories such as "Cities", "Suburbs", "Towns", "Villages", "Neighborhoods by type", and more. Further, there are some subcategories that aren't ultimately sorted into a type, such as "Unincorporated communities in the United States", which only sits within "Populated places in the United States". The problem is that different nations (or even sub-national regions) may use different terms to describe the same thing (a county in most of the United States is equivalent to a parish in Louisiana) or the same term to describe different things (see en:Township). In some jurisdictions certain terms also have specific legal meanings. Finally some areas have specific terms with distinct meanings that just don't sort well (en:Charter township). (Sorry for US-centric examples, but it's what I'm most familiar with.) That's how we sometimes end up applying terms such as "Settlements" for any non-city populated place. I think these are the relevant discussions on en-wikipedia: [22] [23] [24] cmadler (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think your reference is incredibly important and you put the finger on what I may have self had more difficult to come up with my English, however I think this is highly vital that we again point to the need to neglect on Commons as much as possible of "geocentric" perceptions and accomodate to a common universal terminology with City, Town, Village and District as a start and then only when one reaches deep enough into the particular nation's subtems one may reexamine the scope for any local type of categorizing, be it Kibbutz or Moshav, or Unincorporated place or Community. But in order to get to that place we have to traverse the existing malfunctions and re-sort and be able to tell what contains what. Orrlingtalk 12:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

About the "Settlement" – I personally believe what I see when I browse through similar-themed batches of categories and as I put it already it seems that normally the "Settlement" will include all other habitation forms. But it can prove different just upon your next look... How annoying. Orrlingtalk 13:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that in many U.S. states - Washington, where I live, for example - "city" refers to a mode of local government organization, not to size, so you can have a "city" with a population of only a thousand or so, and another place with ten or twenty times the population that has no legal existence outside of being recognized by the U.S. census. - Jmabel ! talk 18:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

{{Self}}

I've helped to localise {{GFDL-user}} and derivative templates, and I think whether it would make sense to change template {{Self}} so that it would allow displaying informations in a similar way:

Rahulghose at the English-language Wikipedia, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publishes it under the following license:

"aus der englischsprachigen Wikipedia"/"at the English language Wikipedia"/... [25] like in description of File:EuskoTran.jpg. I see two ways of making this: User:BartekChom/self and User:BartekChom/autoauthor.

BartekChom (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Highlighted content in main category structure

I think the amount of resources spend on nominating, reviewing and promoting various highlighted media such as our featured pictures, quality images and valued images are disproportionate to the benefits given to media repository users, who use the main topical category structure. There is not an easy way for these users to find reiewed and promoted content unless you are lucky to navigate to a gallery, where the highlighted material is organized. But many casual users would never look at a gallery, and many would be dissapointed too as many galleries have fallen apart or have disproportionate number of media from a few users. The casual repository user would expect to be presented with the highlighted content in well-organized, internationalized and self-consistent form at the top of a category without having to navigate to any other page. Like showing the top search results in a search engine.

Instead the media are shown in the order of their file name (default) or an optional sort key, and not by their merit.

Ideally, the appearance in a category should be controlled in detail from the file page as argument(s) to the category or by specialized MediaWiki software knowing that if a file page is categorized as an FP, a QI or VI it should use this information to organize the content in a more meaningful manner on the category pages. (Think of the FA star on Featured articles on Wikipedia and how the stars pop up in interwiki links for a related example).

We should not go to a gallery page or a category page to add information, which really is already there in the file page. It is redundant work, which is hard to maintain (can be bot-assisted though) and non-transparent.

Would other users think that such an organization of the categories would be better (if it was technically feasible)?

If yes, should we try to pursuade the MediaWiki developers into implementing a feature which can address our need to better show highlighted content in our main category structure?

Do other users than me see a need for this type of highlightning?

Please do not start voting on anything! Let us discuss first to get the ideas right. Maybe there are some previous discussion about this, which I am not aware of, where clever thoughts have been made - much more clever than the ones I am dreaming up here. --Slaunger (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I have explicitly notified the QI/VI/FP subcommunities about this discussion as well as a few expert users within categorization, administration and technique to try and kickstart the discussion. I have tried to attract users with diverse opinions to avoid a one-sided discussion. --Slaunger (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of quick fixes that could be implemented in order of ease of implementation.

• Insert a category sort key for the images, for example 1 for FP, 2 for QI, ... (potentially with a leading blank). Obviously, this will be used by other people, why some people use file names that always start with a number, mostly a 1.
• Make the thumbnail image display generation software so that it can change the aspects of a thumbnail image in function of a parameter of the image. This modification seems pretty much isolated. Problem is how to protect against abuse and having a limited performance impact. On the other hand, thumbnails usually remain in cache that could maintain such an "aspect" parameter.

I guess that actions at a higher level might be probihitive in terms of development and execution cost. --Foroa (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried a quick patch in {{Quality image}} but is does not seem to work. --Foroa (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks for trying, but i am trying to be a little more ambituous and consider what the (near-)optimal way would be on a longer timescale. The cat-sort idea is a non-optimal hack, where we try to force the existing mediaWiki framework into fitting our needs. It will not work consistently for the reasons you name (other users nameing files such that they appear first, non-logical cat sort key). I am trying to think, what changes are needed to the mediawiki framework and our workflow to fascilitate a better highlightning of reviewed media. can it be solved by implementing a "Media category highlightninh" extension to the existing MediaWiki, for instance? --Slaunger (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree on your assessement about exposure, but I have no idea how to improve it. Yann (talk) 06:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Let the category; work to gallery

the subject is much more complicated than it seems. It can not be only a technical solution. To have a little reflection, I think the category are only storage locations hierarchical division. The gallery can showcase images immediately useful and labels may be included. The gallery must be the entrances of COMMONS. the WIKI should refer first to the gallery. Free to whoever wants to take to the category. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that reviewed images deserve a higher exposure in general, and am happy to see brainstorming as to how this can be done best. Personally I don't use galleries much as I feel the work I do will soon become stale. On the category front, I think the concept introduced by User:Tangopaso, and expanded by User:Docu at Category:Eiffel Tower is a really valuable one: thumbnail category navigation. This requires using a single image from each sub-category, and naturally FP/QI/VPs would get precedence if they thumbnail well. I'd love to see someone make a template for this kind of category navigation structure so that it was easier to set up. --99of9 (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, given the current MediaWiki, I agree with Archeodontosaurus, that galleries are our only option (an embedding in the category pages would also be possible, if allowed), but it is options which require a lot of maintenance of redundant information. Odds are, as 99of9 mentiones, that galleries are a dead end. Especially after galleries lost in the galleries vs categories dispute we had years back. It would be better if we could push the information somehow from the file pages into the category pages, such that the needed information shouyld only be maintained in the one place where it makes sense: The file page. --Slaunger (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Interesting work with the Eiffel tower category, but I would like us to digress a moment from the current possibilities in MediaWiki to a dream world of what we would like (if possible). Once we know where we should be heading, we can let it meet reality and discuss steps, which will bring us towards the right goal. Obviously, this is a development which needs a lot of time. We have some bits and pieces for that puzzle, but I think a birds-eye perspective to see the picture of the puzzle needs to emerge first. --Slaunger (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This should be done in galleries, not categories. The fact galleries "lost" in the galleries vs categories dispute a while back is irrelevant, as that was a different thing: That was about allowing access to all content not highlighting specific files.

Galleries should be the point of access, and they need some maintenance if they are going to track the associated category and not become outdated. This does not need to be as complicated as 99of9 indicates, for example the improvements to Category:Eiffel Tower is something that could (and IMO should) have been done in the gallery Eiffel Tower. Once that is done, that gallery would actually be rather low maintenance.

Also, bear in mind the FP/QI/VI content of a category may not be the most relevant media in that category, to the category's subject. For instance File:Kotor and Boka kotorska - view from city wall.jpg is not that useful to illustrate Club Med 2; it would be wrong to highlight that view ahead of File:Club.med.2.capri.arp.jpg, even though the first is FP and the second is nothing. Working out relevance is an inherently subjective process - so needs human thought, making an automated process inappropriate.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Agree it needs human thought, but the human thought could just as well be at the file page level (if the wiki supported that). File:Club.med.2.capri.arp.jpg could become VI within the scope of Club Med 2, if one could indicate in the file page that the categorization was VI with respect to the category Category:Club Med 2 (ship, 1991) (and only that category) that could be passed onto the category page and used for the highlightning. If a VI can also be highlighted in the scope category, and takes precedence over FPs you would get the intended behavior. That would be much more elegant than maintaining a separate gallery. --Slaunger (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• A gallery will always be able to do more than that: Most importantly - it would allow a meaningful description, unlike the current category default of file name; or the possible option of sucking the description field from the file page (which result in a overly wordy description in most cases). Galleries are not categories, and cannot do a category's role (contain everything). Likewise categories are not galleries, and cannot do a gallery's role (being selective). When there isn't much content this second role isn't needed, so the gallery isn't really useful.

• You are correct that galleries can organize media better than "file page pushed to category page" schemes, and certainly galleries should continue to play such a role. I just think we should work on finding a good way to order the appearance of media in categories after some kind of "value/quality/usefullness" scale. Although we are now in solution mode again (it is so hard to not think of specific solutions), perhaps the FP/VI/QI metric I proposed is not the practical and optimal one. Page views could be another: Let photos in categories be displayed in descending order according to their view count. Although not optimal, this would not require any human maintenance. Supplemented by the option to show a small FP/QI/VI icon in the category view forwarded from the file page we would get something, which is at least more useful than the current category view order. --Slaunger (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• I like the idea of ordering files in categories according to the number of articles in which they appear. I'm not sure if this is the same as Slaungers "view count" ordering. This could be turned off in user preferences, if desired. Also, displaying small FP/QI/VI icons in the category view would be very helpful, I think. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Not the exact same metric, but related. In the Wikiedia database, it is registered how many times each page and file is accessed. So it would be a metric of views, which is probably related to the number of articles it is used in, and weighted with the popularity of the page so to say. But your metric is also interesting. See my new comment below. --Slaunger (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• It may be undesirable to give undue weight to number of accesses. That metric may overweight controversial files, e.g., gruesome or sexually explicit images, and FP/QI/VI nominations with little indication of their merit. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• The situation "non-reviewed image is more relevant than an FP" will frequently occur. Even if the image I mentioned was made the VI, of the other 6 images 3 are of the ship itself - and all 3 are more relevant than the incidental inclusion on that FP. This suggests 3 (or more) basic classes that the reviewed content could be sorted by "media is of subject", "media is relevant to subject", "media has incidental inclusion of subject". This could be done on the file page, but is already getting more complex to support/maintain.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think what is important in the gallery is the fact the contributors state the organization, and select the pictures to show. The categories are tags for me (and very important too). Well for me it's not one vs another solution, both are useful. What I'd like it's more tools to generate galleries (with descriptions) from categories, or categories interesct (a bit like Cat Scan on toolserver). PierreSelim (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• I suggested this a while ago but it passed unnoticed, if we could have a bot automatically adding all FPs, VIs, and QIs, to galleries, with a small seal in the description, it would be a good step forward. --ELEKHH^T 21:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi,
I think that there are often similar images uploaded onto Commons. Following my opinion, it should be necessary to delete these similar images. But when I make a deletion request, it is rejected if the two images are not absolutely identical (duplicate). I think that it is a strong mistake for Commons. For a library, it is important to collect documents, but it is also important to discard similar documents (and keep the best one). There are also the personal images, the "my travel images", the "my wedding images", the images of artists (painters, rock bands...) unknown by anybody but themselves... Deletion requests are rejected for expression liberty reasons.
Category:Eiffel Tower is the perfect example. There is again and again a buddy to upload the 100th image of the tower seen from Trocadero. Thats a pity ! I created the gallery hoping that people will see the other images similar to their one and give up to upload their 101st image. User:Docu made a great job by adding categories from the different directions of view (I did not have this good idea).
I created also galleries in Category:Jardin des Plantes de Paris and Category:Gare de Paris-Est. A little bit Paris oriented ? True, I apologize. But it is really a wonderful town to live in... --Tangopaso (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

General category sorting and filtering

I like the Eiffel tower category idea - essentially, to give a representative thumbnail for subcategories. That's something we could file a bug for, I think it has great potential.

The featured content issue, though, I'm inclined to see in the context of the wider issue of category sorting and filtering. You can see MediaWiki:Gadget-GalleryFilterExtension.js implements the ability to filter by file extension; what we really want is MediaWiki to expand on that and provide a whole sort/filter toolbar for a category, including filtering by things like Featured status. A gadget could possibly be an intermediate step, but really it needs to be in MediaWiki. ... Yes, I know this isn't likely to happen any time soon, but if we're talking about what we'd like to have long-term, I think something in this direction is it. Rd232 (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think this is a good proposal. Improved category sorting and filtering, as Rd232 suggests, would be helpful. But, I think Slaunger is correct that automated flagging or sorting in categories is best for wide accessibility. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure. We need a predictable and verifiable sorting system. In many cases, people sort already images in a category to have the photo of the painter, maps, coats of arms, most representative category picture, ... on top of the list. So this basic capability must be maintained, but maybe overrided or brought forward when hovering/clicking on an icon. --Foroa (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It probably depends on the needs of the user which sort order is the most valuable. I see several relevant sort keys

• Alphabetically by file name (what we have now)
• Most popular (highest view count first)
• Sorted descending according to the number of wikimedia pages the file is used in
• Newest uploads first
• Highest resolution first

I Imagine there could be a dropdown box for a selection of the sort order

The sort could be combined with some filters: E.g.

• License
• Geocoded
• Reviewed content only
• Only files over x Mpixel

The user choice could be remembered until next use as a cookie perhaps? --Slaunger (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

While we are at it: sorting/selecting by media type and date range would be very handy too. --Foroa (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

January 17

URAA affirmed by US Supreme Court - deletion request opened

In a 6-2 decision, SCOTUS affirmed the decision of the district court. The principle findings were: "1. Section 514 [of the URAA] does not exceed Congress’ authority under the Copyright Clause. [...] 2. The First Amendment does not inhibit the restoration authorized by §514." Supporters were Ginsburg, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Sotomeyer. Breyer and Alito dissented. Kagan recused. See SCOTUS Blog.

Regrettably, this means we can no longer defend our long-held position that the URAA is probably unconstitutional, and that our publication of files bearing the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} in contravention of that law is justified. As such, I have opened Commons:Deletion requests/All files copyrighted in the US under the URAA and invite your opinions there. Over 3000 files are affected. Please post your opinions regarding deletion there. Please don't post here to avoid dividing discussion, as I'm posting this notice in multiple locations. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

How does that affect Commons' PD tagging policy and the PD-old template?

Should we not change Commons's policy concerning the tagging of PD files, by requesting users to:

• either use the new {{PD-old-author died before 1926}} tag (saying the author died before January 1, 1926) or one of a set of new {{PD-<countryname>-as-of-1996-01-01}} templates;
• or use an old-xx-1923 template such as {{PD-old-70-1923}}.
• {{PD-old}} is marked with "obsolete" with a message explaining what tagging must be used instead.
• similarly {{PD-art}} is marked with "obsolete" while a new {{PD-art-artist died before 1926}} tag is created. Teofilo (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

We already have, but nobody noticed because it was in small text. The {{PD-old}}, {{PD-old-70}}, {{PD-old-80}}, and {{PD-old-90}} tags all specify that they must be used in conjunction with a US PD tag. I don't think it makes sense to create templates for every possible combination of source country and US PD tag, since there are way too many, but maybe there's another way to enforce this more stringently? Maybe we could have the PD-old tags take a US tag as a parameter, and produce an error message and put it in a cleanup category if none is supplied? Dcoetzee (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If we reach a consensus that the URAA is valid, there is no point of having a {{PD-old}} template which can never be used on its own. A tag which can never be used on its own is obsolete, in my view. I think the requirement to have two tags is much too complicated to understand, and therefore to enforce. And I also believe that the {{PD-1996}} template is too vague. Tags should be considered as a check list telling the user concretely what he must check, such as the publication date or the author's death date. The parametering solution might be good. I don't know which is the most "usable" for the average user who finds an old picture and wants to upload it here on Commons. Teofilo (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The main problem is the sheer number of combinations is overwhelming. e.g. an image may be PD in Canada by {{PD-Canada}}, but PD in the US by {{PD-US-no notice}} (if it was published within 30 days in the US with no copyright notice). Put them all together and we'd have thousands of tags. Common cases like {{PD-old-70-1923}} can be covered by a single tag of course, and the upload wizard could rely on these common case tags. I've considered designing some kind of new wizard for complex cases where a bunch of information has to be taken into account. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I think having two tags -- one for the country of origin, and one for the U.S. -- is fine. For many very old works, which are obviously from before 1923, the single PD-old tag is probably enough.

It would be good to have something - be it with one template or two templates - that can be activated in one click with the upload wizard, at least for the most popular cases. Teofilo (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

We do have {{PD-two}}. Jean-Fred (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

And do you know what uploaders will say about this PD rules: "you're crazy" - and they are right. --Saibo (Δ) 22:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If we want to simplify our PD rules, we know how--stop worrying about anything but US copyright. It is primarily by the request of our European contingent that we keep the complex dual system rules in place.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL - why the f... should everybody learn US copyrights even when it doesn't play a role (in average) for neither the uploader nor for the reuser (I think content is quite localized). --Saibo (Δ) 01:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Because that is where the servers are. If you notice, the megaupload site was just shut down today and folks arrested, despite being a Hong Kong corporation, because some of their servers were located in the U.S. and that gave the U.S. authorities jurisdiction (or they are claiming that anyways). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Then the servers need to go somewhere else. Apparently not possible to think of for some people... WMF's aim is not be in US - I though WMF's aim is free knowledge (or something). --Saibo (Δ) 01:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Already being discussed at Commons:Deletion_requests/All_files_copyrighted_in_the_US_under_the_URAA#Proposal_1_-_server_migration_to_another_country (and note the link there to a relevant comment by Jimbo - actually a reply to me, originally :) ) Rd232 (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

They are claiming that even based on domain names alone: [26][27]. --AVRS (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

See further discussion in #Proposed_changes_to_PD_tags below. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Where to upload a donated instruction manual?

I have a hobby project of trying to document the history of a 1960's dairy farm milking technology known as the Step Saver, though finding citations and sources for the article is difficult.

Today I managed to obtain permission from a company representative to scan and upload one of their engineering manuals for the system, and release it under "CC-by" citing them as the source. They will be mailing me the manual for scanning.

I've never tried uploading an entire book before, so I'm not sure quite how to proceed. Can I upload a PDF of the entire scanned book here? Or should it go on Wikibooks?

Wikibooks doesn't seem the right spot, since the text and page layout of the content probably should not be edited from the form that the company had it, but should remain "intact" wherever it is uploaded.

DMahalko (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A content that should not be edited would be licenced under CC-BY-ND which is not a license allowed on Wikimedia Commons (nor on any other Wikimedia project, as far as I know). See Publication of derivative work must be allowed at Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. Teofilo (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

CC-BY does allow derivatives, which is exactly what we want. I think that would be suitable for inclusion in Wikisource. The normal method would be to upload the scanned documents here, and then run it through OCR and the subsequent error correction on Wikisource. Once that's completed, the original scans (preserving original layout and the like) would be visible at Commons, and we'd have a digital text at Wikisource, which could then be translated, annotated, etc. cmadler (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well if someone ELSE wants to go through the bother of OCR and page layout re-rendering to make it editable, I don't see that as my concern. If you want to do that? Great. Otherwise I'm intending to just upload a static set of high resolution scanned images, and other people can twiddle with it, OCR it, and remix it whatever way they want. The original uploaded scanned image set can remain as the "original" in the series from which all else is derived. DMahalko (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You may want to raise a note at Wikisource:Scriptorium for advice, the related IRC channel is linked there for more immediate advice on how to go about your book upload. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Lady-Gaga-Birthday-1.jpg

Hello, I came a cross File:Lady-Gaga-Birthday-1.jpg recently and I do not know if it should be deleted or not, because it looks as if it is of little importance for the Commons. Thanks, --Gourami Watcher (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's used at an archive of a Czech user talk page. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If using this file to greet other editors in their birthday is not violation of Lady Gaga's personality rights, then the file is potentially useful in Wikimedia projects and should be kept.--Pere prlpz (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's marginally in use; I don't see what we gain by deleting it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Table with border in {{Description}}/{{En}}

When I give a table a border in the en description, such as in the file File:Advantage Six A9home with keyboard and monitor.jpg, I don't get any text to appear. Is this a bug?Smallman12q (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed (you have a "=" in the html). You should use 1= in your bot's desc to care for all cases. Btw: please try not to use HTML - but instead wiki syntax (en:Help:Tables). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Saibo (Δ) 03:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA protest screenshot cleanup

(crossposted on en.wp)

A number of notable screenshots illustrating the 18 January SOPA blackout online are uncategorized or do not have licenses documented, both on Commons and en.wp.

Depending on the site, screenshots may be freely licensed (or can be requested to be freely licensed upon email to site owners - they probably won't object!), or non-free. Some will need to be transferred commons -> en.wp where permissions are not held showing free licensing, or transferred en.wp -> commons where confirmed free.

We need to be sure which are which and start to sort this mess out before it lags, a mass purge is proposed, and it's all a 3 day panic.

A search in File namespace for "SOPA" will probably find all or most images on either wiki - category pages shouldn't be relied on though they are a good starting point. If anyone who takes this up could also check en.wp for transfers inwards to Commons, and perhaps prepare a list of any images where a request for free licensing might be needed, that would help too, subject to Commons norms.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Costa Concordia (ship, 2006) Jan 2012 Grounding

Hey guys! Somebody just uploaded Category:Costa Concordia (ship, 2006) Jan 2012 Grounding. It's an impressive effort! The largest groups of passengers were Italians, German, French, and Spanish. Costa has its ship incident website into in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, and Portuguese (Brazilian & Portugal) - So these languages listed by Costa would be very important for descriptions WhisperToMe (talk) 03:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't really "upload" a category... It's more important to have Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese Wikipedia articles on the incident than to add text in those languages to the category page. AnonMoos (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think he meant translations of the image descriptions, as those images will be used by lots of wikipedia and wikinews articles. And while you don't upload a category really, basically every photograph in there is by one uploader, which are going to be the "interesting" photographs. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The category has been renamed to "Category:January 2012 grounding of the Costa Concordia (ship, 2006)". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

WikimediaCopyrightWarning

I'm finding that {{WikimediaCopyrightWarning}} seems to be applied to Wikimedia-related files that aren't actually subject to copyright. (Example: File:Wikipedia SOPA Blackout Design.png, where the logo content is {{PD-textlogo}}.) Maybe we need a variation of {{WikimediaCopyrightWarning}} which removes the reference to copyright, and just talks about trademark, visual identity guidelines etc? Rd232 (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Tada :) {{Wikimedia trademark}} –Krinkle^talk 00:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Aha! Good. I've added a note to {{WikimediaCopyrightWarning}}. However, {{Wikimedia trademark}} still applies Category:Copyright by Wikimedia - it should really be a different category name too. Maybe "Category:Trademarks and logos of Wikimedia, with Category:Copyright by Wikimedia a subcategory? (There's also Category:Wikimedia official logos and Category:Logos of Wikimedia which seems confused/confusing. Don't even get me started on Category:Wikimedia vs Category:Wikimedia Foundation...) Rd232 (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Why even a subcategory? Why can't this all be deprecated down (to just trademark)?--Brian Dell (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Because Wikimedia copyrighted files are the exception to Commons' licensing policy. This means we should be clear about which files are exceptions, and which files might appear to be exceptions ("It's a Wikimedia logo!") but aren't. Rd232 (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

January 18

Please put a link to the Commons FAQ page on the left menu

I am not a sysop or an IT professional, and I speak for the average user of Commons. We don't always think hierarchically, or have the time or brains to figure out the Commons hierarchy of categories or method of categorization. PLEASE put a link to the FAQ[[28]] on the left menu. Its existence should not be buried in a line of text on the main Help page. Downtowngal (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

At some point the menu gets too crowded. What if not "help" should FAQ be? --Saibo (Δ) 01:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't find the FAQ to be particularly helpful; there's just too much going on, not terribly well organised (especially in non-English versions). Also to be in the left menu you'd have to make it "FAQ", not "Frequently Asked Questions" - and I'm not sure how many people know what "FAQ" stands for. It's common among a certain geek crowd, but they're not the ones who need help. Rd232 (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons Help doesn't have a help section addressed specifically to the casual, infrequent, newbie user or uploader. An FAQ is the closest thing to this kind of guidance, and in my opinion it should be featured prominently. (May I point out as an aside, that the British style of signage requires people to read text; the American style reduces text to graphics and abbreviations as much as possible. Putting the FAQ link in a line of text several lines down on the Help page was obviously not done by an American.) At the very least, the FAQ should be in color, in a box, and featured prominently at the TOP of the Help page. I would rather see the term FAQ or "Beginners' FAQ" on the left menu. That way the casual user knows exactly where to go first.

To answer Rd232, I suspect "FAQ" has been incorporated into other languages (like "e-mail"), but input from native speakers outside Western Europe would be helpful.

In my opinion, there should be two FAQs, one full-length and one directed especially at the casual user. This is SO important in making Commons usable by the general public. (Having worked for a while at categorizing images, I can infer the kinds of errors the uploaders are making when they search for appropriate categories.) At present, only the very sophisticated user can navigate all the help materials. I would be happy to work on a second, smaller FAQ and on offering suggestions on fixing the longer one. Downtowngal (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Any improvement to the help pages are welcome, and a good, short, "Beginners FAQ" might be suitable for the sidebar, or at least for prominent linking in other places. So please feel free to have a go! Rd232 (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Murals vs. Wall paintings categories

Hello,

I have come accross these categories, and I wonder if they are redondant, or if they include different things. There is also Category:Frescos by country. Yann (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

From a quick scan of the relevant en-wiki articles, it appears to me that "mural" and "wall painting" may be the same thing (mural perhaps being a better term, but if merged, wall painting should remain as a redirect), while a fresco is a specific type of mural (paint applied to wet, or not-quite-dry plaster or mortar) and so should be a subcategory of the merged top-level category. Since you brought this up vis-a-vie the "by country" categories, I will add that the frescos of each country should also be a subcat of the murals of that country (e.g. "Frescos of China" would be a subcat of "Murals of China"). I suggest raising this issue at Categories for Discussion. cmadler (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Categorizing images of icy roads in the United Kingdom

I need some help to categorize properly images about icy/snowy roads in the United Kingdom. I looked for them and I got a lot of uncategorized images. I already started but it is a huge work. Could someone help me to put them in the Category Icy roads in the United Kingdom. There's also the possibility to separate between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Cheers.--Carnby (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I can help with that. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A bulletin board

There is an image of bulletin board with a slogan. Once I made this photo because of its political mood. Eight months passed after its uploading, and other user changed the description in a chauvinist style to make the image offensive, and then blamed me of creating an offensive image. Seeing the image is used against its author, I started a deletion request. There I see that user 1) proposes to keep the image and 2) tells that I try to defend the image with its slogan. When I make a DR to remove the image, that user states I make «advocacy for Russian antisemitism». Please, people, help me to understand: what can I do now?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Showing logs for deleted pages

If you go to en:wp and pick a page that's been deleted and never recreated, you'll be presented with the most recent entry on the deletion log for that page; see en:Mattis norén or en:File:Gog Magog0001.jpg for examples. I'd find it useful if we had the same thing here; I'll often see a reference to an image on Commons, and it's a bit of unnecessary effort when I have to check deletion logs to decide whether an image was deleted or whether someone misspelled an image name. Nyttend (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia labs small logo.png is incorrectly licensed

• 
  Official Wikimedia logo
• 
  Wikimedia community logo
• 
  Wikimedia Labs logo derived from the community logo

The File:Wikimedia labs small logo.png is IMHO incorrectly licensed. Their description page have the {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} tag, but is based on the community logo, a PD media. Uploader mistake? Yep, I known that any PD media can result in a fully copyrighted work, but don't make any sense a derivative from a PD logo with copyrights instead of a derivative from the official logo... Lugusto • ※ 17:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

PD is not "sticky", which is the specific reason why Stallman invented the GPL way back in the 1980s. If WMF wishes to declare the combination of a unicorn plus elements from a PD graphic to be not PD, I don't see any big problem. AnonMoos (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It was uploaded as GFDL/CC-BY-SA as "own work", then "corrected" by the uploader to the copyright-by-wikimedia the next day. It's not clear to me if this was a pre-existing logo, or something done by that user who assumed copyright on the underlying community logo design. It is not the logo used on the (just-closed) labs.wikimedia.org site. As far as I can tell, it's only used on a couple of small templates on en-wiki, which were both recently created, one of which by the uploader here. To be "copyrighted by wikimedia", either copyright would have to be transferred, or it would have to be derivative of a copyrighted design. Not sure that is the case here, but I may just be completely ignorant of this logo's history. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if copyright is transferred it is not possible to withdraw a free license. --MGA73 (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too sure of that in this case. Two reasons that there might not be a license to withdraw:

• I am not a lawyer, but one might find that that a "license" is not legally a license unless there is a licensor and licensee agreeing to the same terms at the same time. In the specific case of this logo, that becomes important: If the only licensee to accept the terms was the Wikimedia Foundation, who did not transfer a substantial copy of it to any other party in the next 25 hours before the template was switched, then it may turn out that no act of licensing occurred other than to the Wikimedia Foundation, who in this case is whom the rights were subsequently renegotiated with or transferred to outright, before any third party was involved.
• What if this was a work-for-hire for the Wikimedia Foundation and the Foundation already held copyright at the time of upload, and the uploader had no legal authorization to place a GDFL/CC license in the first place? --Closeapple (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a suggestion: If the unicorn in the logo is a new creation, but was never used by the Wikimedia Foundation, someone can simply ask Wikimedia staff for a clarification. Maybe the Foundation is willing to just extract the unicorn and release it under a free license, or assert that Petrb (talk · contribs) still retains copyright of the unicorn itself. Then, regardless of what happens to the unicorn by itself: If the logo is rejected by the Wikimedia Foundation, then the version with the Wikimedia logo-ish circular parts can be said to fail COM:SCOPE and disappear, never to be heard from again. --Closeapple (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

derived image bot

I am having two problems with the bot that helps upload derived images.

1. The derived image bot asks uploaders to view an image to confirm that they are logged in to commons. The image the bot shows me indicates I am not logged in -- when I am logged in. Ignoring the warning seems to work.
2. The bot refuses to help upload derived images when the original has been nominated for deletion. I don't care if it warns me. But I question when it over-rides my judgment.

I uploaded File:Pushing a barge on the Moskva River, Moscow.jpg a couple of years ago -- an image with a tug pushing a barge in the foreground, and a complex of highrises being built in the background. Yesterday it was named in a huge mass nomination for deletion, by someone who asserted the complex of highrises violated Russia's rules prohibiting freedom of panorama. The justified this nomination, post facto, by an "excess of caution".

So to be cautious myself I cropped the office complex that triggered the nomination. The crops are derived images. But, as I stated above, the derived image upload bot not only warned me that the parent image had been nominated for deletion, it refused to help upload the derived images. So I uploaded them without the bots help. File:Pushing a barge on the Moskva River, Moscow -b.jpg File:Pushing a barge on the Moskva River, Moscow -c.jpg

Should the bot substitute its judgment over mine? Geo Swan (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• In my opinion, the image in question is a candidate to be speedily kept (which happens often with nominations of Artem Karimov, who tends to misunderstand the Russial law on the FoP but nevertheless nominates several hundred articles per day for deletion). May be we should just wait for this particular one to be resolved.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  Which is btw a problem for itself. We decided to run the sitenotice for 4K URAA images, but he will nominate twice as much in a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  You seem to confuse de minimis in Russia and the rest of the world. In most countries with FoP courts or lawmakers set the threshold of originality. In Russia it has been absent so far. Therefore we are in a swamp and have to apply precautionary principle. You say "keep" but refuse to discuss this fact. Artem Karimov (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  I discussed the issue here, and the result was keep. I do not have the capacity to discuss with you every single of your hundreds nominations per day. Whereas most of these files indeed should be deleted, you clearly fail to recognize the difference between a picture of a building and a picture of smth else where the building or a part of the building accidentally happens to be a part of the picture. I tried to explained it to you on several occasions, and you do not seem to get the point. Well, let the admins decide. At some point, you will probably end up here exactly in the same way you once ended up in Russian Wikipedia - being banned for reductio ad absurdum.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  Hehe. Yann never got to the point and asserted majority instead of assessing arguments. Therefore breaking closing guidelines whatsoever. And no, no one here including you ever tried to counter my de minimis argument. Artem Karimov (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that this mass deletion request is abusive. Artem Karimov has an history of arguing without any valid argument against everybody else. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ул. Стойкости от пр. м. Жукова.jpg and my talk page. Yann (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The way you closed the nomination without assessing arguments but counting votes instead is abusive. Artem Karimov (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• This is my first interaction with you. I won't call you "abusive". I will say that this nomination was very disappointing, for several reasons.

1. Your initial nomination was disappointingly brief. There were a lot more details you offered -- once challenged. Really however, as an experienced frequenter of the deletion fora, you should know that the purpose is to arrive at a decision through collegial discussion and informed debate.

   As the initiator of the discussion wasn't it your job to offer a nomination that covered all the outstanding issues around these images? I think so. I think you had an obligation to inform those not familiar with the issues at least a brief introduction to the positions of those who disagree with you. You are clearly familiar with the counter-positions.

2. Your nomination included different kinds of images. Some of these are images with sculptures or monuments in the foreground, and nothing in the background. As an experienced contributor I am disappointed that you didn't initiate a separate, smaller nomination that just included those images.
3. You have asserted that Russian copyright law does not recognize the "de minimus" principle. That is an extraordinary assertion. No one has backed up your assertion. You haven't substantiated this extraordinary assertion. I am disappointed you haven't done so.
4. With regard to your prior history with challengers who think they know you all too well, I suggest either you shouldn't mention the prior disputes, and they shouldn't mention the prior disputes, or those mention should be accompanied by good diffs. If there really is an ongoing problem with your pattern of contributions, or with the pattern of how some challengers respond to you, I wonder whether that discussion shouldn't take place somewhere else -- someplace where sanctions can be imposed if either you, or your challengers, really have shown an ongoing problem. Geo Swan (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Remove DR template -> upload using bot -> place the template back. It's usually easy to circumvent the bot stopping you from doing something, but I agree with you -- script nannies are annoying. There are more examples of such script (mis)behavior. I've tried to upload using Flickr upload bot, but was stopped by the bot saying that the picture was transfered to Commons already (of course, it was not true). Another example, more serious -- MediaWiki stops you from reuploading already deleted picture (see COM:AN#Permission to upload previously deleted file). PS. What about the Artem Karimov problem -- I agree with Yann & Ymblanter wholeheartedly. Trycatch (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Derivative upload bot? How do you find it? It's not under Commons:Tools and a search for Commons:Derivative FX returns lots of discussions but no operating page anywhere near the top of the search; I'd pretty much assumed it had been taken down. With respect to the inability to recognize logged-in users, I saw the same thing last time I actually managed to find the Derivative FX; I also commonly have to log in again to use the Flickr upload bot, don't know whether that is by design or a known issue. Dankarl (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Users using one of the https-possibilities have to login in the http-portion, too/again.
2. Link to Derivative FX
3. Administrators may be able to re-upload deleted files. Preventing uploading deleted files is important for legal reasons.
4. When Flickr-Upload bot is claiming the file is already on Commons, the reason could be 1) an external link from a file-description-page to that image; 2) an image with the same hash (sha1) is on Commons. -- RE rillke questions? 14:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• There are a lot valid reasons, valid use cases why a deleted picture can be reuploaded. I can't find the discussion where it was decided that reuploading of deleted files should be forbidden using script, so I hope it's a bug, and not one more strange decision forced on the projects by the WMF maintainers. Trycatch (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• I just followed the shutdown Megaupload and read about other lawsuits against Rapidshare. It would be probably technical difficult to prevent re-uploading copyright violations only. In general we tell the user to use COM:UR instead of re-uploading. BTW, does it tell you which file the message is referring to? -- RE rillke questions? 23:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• I found that some users on YouTube simply repeatedly reupload their stuff after repeatedly being banned, and YouTube anyway won the case against Verizon. But it's not the point -- don't forget that Commons is in a completely different league than YouTube or Megaupload (I didn't follow their story, it was a great filesharing site however, so RIP) -- almost all deleted files were deleted _voluntarily_, without being forced by the copyright holder, and they were deleted by _other users_, not by the WMF employees. Maybe reuploading of things that were deleted after DMCA requests may create some legal problems (I dunno, though it's dubious), but for an ordinary deleted file there is no legal risk at all. "BTW, does it tell you which file the message is referring to?" -- yes, it tells you the name of the file (at least something was done right), see MediaWiki:File-deleted-duplicate. However, it's worded as a warning, not as a prohibition -- "You should check that file's deletion history before proceeding to re-upload it." And there is a button "ignore warnings and upload anyway". It's a bug. See also bugzilla:30588. Trycatch (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. -- RE rillke questions? 16:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• One more annoying Commons nanny -- MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. It forbids some quite reasonable titles (e.g. all caps), but the super annoying thing -- you can't re-create deleted redirect, if it's blacklisted. Trycatch (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Then make a concrete proposal what to change and discuss it, please. -- RE rillke questions? 16:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal video made by US army soldiers = public domain?

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_QpSsvO7-I

Made by US Army soldiers on active duty. Public domain? -- Cirt (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Only if it was made as part of their duties (i.e. did someone from the Army ask them to make it), or possibly on government-owned equipment... if it was something they did on their own, I think they'd still own the copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Nope, if making of such video was not part of their duty. Trycatch (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, from the link itself and surrounding info, does it look like it was made as part of their official duties? -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Then the issue is a derivative work; they used content from Lady Gaga so that is an issue that I would say no to an upload of this video. Plus there is no indication if this was an account owned or handled by the US Army in any way. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 02:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, no worries, thanks very much for the input! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a personal channel of a soldier. He uploads to it videos of his cat and so on. The video doesn't look as being commissioned by the army. Trycatch (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

January 24

template issues

This is a bug with the main {{Information}}.

If any template eg {{ValidSVG}} is placed within the "other_fields" parameter, it renders in the permissions block at the end of the template(within the dull grey box).

However it renders like that if the "other_versions" parameter is blank. If it isn't eg {{Bva}} then the templates in "other_fields" parameter render before the info box at the top(outside the dull grey area). Logically, they should render below the "other_version" like in the first case.
Examples:
Wrong rendering:File:Rectified 24-cell orthographic-square-first-2D.svg
Correct rendering (with other versions field blank) File:Alternate angles.svg

--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It is due incorrect use of other_fields parameter, which (as documented) should be only used with {{Information field}} or similar templates. Please move your templates to permissions field. It is also due to general weirdness of current {{Information}} template which mixes wiki and html table styles, as discussed here. New proposed version of {{Information}} would not render the fields in "other_fields" at all. --Jarekt (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Plain upload page

I was looking for a plain simple upload page, i.e. not much of a form (just local file name, commons file name and page content), since the page file contents of many of my uploads are quite similar, so I would like to C&P and then change only the differing items, rather than filling in the form again and again. --LeastCommonAncestor (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uploadformstyle=basic ? Bulwersator (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Exactly what I was looking for. --LeastCommonAncestor (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

But unfortunately, since a couple of months the "preview" button has disappeared there... --Jwh (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I see it all right. Try refreshing your browser's cache. Also, what browser and skin (monobook, vector,...) are you using? Lupo 16:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Visibility of global-usage links on a file page

This is weird but I can only see the full list of interwiki links of File:European Output of Printed Books ca. 1450–1800.png to WP.EN when I am logged in. Prior to logging the one to printing press only ever appears and this now for weeks. Try yourself. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The description and interwiki links look fine to me if I am logged in or not. Weird --Jarekt (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Unlog and clear all cookies from your browser, then I assume you should see only the link to the printing press article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

These are global usage links, not "interwiki links" (which appear in the sidebar at the left). Checking Special:GlobalUsage directly, the usage links seem fine. Might well be a caching issue. Have you purged your browser cache? Rd232 (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Great, the purging mechanism worked! Funnily though, I still can't understand how this could have been a caching issue. I found these links missing on two different computers and despite myself having cleared the Firefox browser on each of them fully several times. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Caching issues can be pretty weird :) Rd232 (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Opinions on a Flickr-Account

Hi there, I just found a Account on Flickr with very interesting Images from iranina politicians and sportperson. All of them are released under creative commons licens and seem fine to be tranfered to the Commons. But before I start with that, i'd like to hear some opinions on that and on if I had missed something. Its Parmida on Flickr and i already transfered one Picture File:Mohammad_Reza_Rahimi.jpg. Is this trustworthy? Because if it is, there are some were nice Files, wich will improve some WP-Articles. Greetings --Ervaude (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd recommend you try contacting this person. It looks to me like a pretty uniform photographic style, so my guess would be that this is, indeed, one photographer's work. - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Same opinion here. Looks like the work of a professional press photographer [29]. Its a pity that Flickr deletes Exif data from the automatically generated smaller pictures. Would be of help in cases like this. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems i was right questioning the trustworthyship of this one. My uploaded picture has already been deleted with the note "(Copyright violation: flickrvio http://www.flickr.com/photos/parmida/ is an flickrwashing account)". I dont know what that means exactly but I guess we can't use those Images, am I right? --Ervaude (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Its a flickr account created by a longtime sockpuppeteer for the purpose of flickr washing. --Martin H. (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Martin, I'm not doubting what you say, but how do we know that? Usually such accounts have a wide variety of photographic styles, and this looks a lot like a single professional's work. - Jmabel ! talk 05:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's certainly something fishy about an account whose profile says the owner is "female and single" [30], but where several images are tagged "work of my wife, Amir" [31]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. For a few of the professional looking images from the photostream I tried quite hard to find out if they were copied from the web, and couldn't prove it for a single one. Some of the soccer pics were uploaded the day after the game, another set was uploaded four days after the game. So to steal them, you'd think they'd have to be available on the web somewhere on that day. --99of9 (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm also tending more and more towards the view that it might be genuine. The rather weird inconsistency in the personal information I pointed out above might conceivably be due to poor English. At some point in her photostream she actually has a picture showing "Amir", her husband. I also didn't find any particularly striking overlap with images or specific narrow topic areas known to have been previously the object of our vandal's attention. That said, it's of course understandable that anything related to Iranian footballers is likely to raise eyebrows, given the incredibly tenacious sneaky vandalism campaign of the user Martin has in mind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Her wife is apparently a man: [32][33] --Stefan4 (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[34] this was found by User:Amada44 in the german version of this discussion here. LG --Ervaude (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow. That's rich. Stealing that guy's photograph to construct a double fake identity just for the sake of Flickr-washing. BTW, this one is also stolen [35]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

For FlickR acounts, it is never wrong to follow this principle. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

January 25

File:Aron Ralston on Independence Pass.jpg

The thumbnail for this looks weird on all the articles it is included on. See here. Should it be reuploaded? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Help:JPEG#Color model -- RE rillke questions? 11:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Identify subject: is there a specific place here to ask

Hello,

I'm having several photos of flowers and plants I took in Ecuador and I'm interested in identifying them. Is there a place like w:fr:Projet:Botanique/Quelle est cette plante ? where to put these images with some extra info and have the knowledgeable people that work here see them ? Thanks by advance, --Awkiku (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Add categories like Category:Unidentified plants or Category:Unidentified Asteraceae. You can use galleries to try to identify a plant yourself by viewing the images (e.g. Aesculus). -- RE rillke questions? 14:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I did that with the files I was interested in. However, I have the feeling that these categories are a little bt crowded :) --Awkiku (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You can also try asking at en:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science which is patrolled by a few people who try to look for answers or maybe en:WT:PLANTS. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

About User:Ken Billington and his "free" contributions

As I'm currently working on a project of guide about european birds, which will use many images from wikimedia, i wanted to be sure there's no problem with these images. So, I have contacted directly this User:Ken Billington to ask him precisions about his contributions on wikimedia. (1843 photos, mostly birds). Indeed, I was thinking he didn't understand correctly the scope of CC-BY-SA licenses he had choosen for all his images.

Here is an extract of the response he gave to me, which is clearly a violation of the CC-BY-SA license : « For commercial purposes I normally make a charge based on the number of images. What is your proposal? Please advise, Ken »

Therefore, it appears that all the contributions of this user are actually NOT FREE. Actually, he uses wikimedia as an advertising for his personal website, on which he sells photographs.

What are you thinking of this ? -- User:Bubulcus

When he uploaded, for example, File:Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) (4).jpg, he did license it as CC-BY-SA 3.0. He also has a message on it saying, "If you would like to use, license, or purchase a high resolution copy of this image, please contact the author Ken Billington. The image is not in the public domain and should not be copied illegally. When using the image for non-commercial purposes, please credit the author in the immediate vicinity of the image together with a link to his website. At the same time please notify the author at the above e-mail address." I interpret this as follows:

• The uploaded image is 2,000x1,500 pixels. If you would like access to a higher resolution copy (for use, licensing, etc.) he will sell it to you.
• It's a simple statement of fact, regardless of licensing terms, that it's not PD and shouldn't be copied illegally.
• He has requested a certain way of being credited and that he be notified when the image is used. This request does not contradict CC-BY-SA, but it is not binding.

As for the separate response he gave you, people are certainly able to release images in different ways through different channels. If he wants to post things here as CC-BY-SA, that doesn't limit his right to sell the same thing elsewhere under different terms. cmadler (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, but the response he gave to me was about the images he had uploaded on wikimedia, not the ones he sells on his website.

For me, the message he put on each image means that he does not want that someone uses his images for commercial purposes, but only for non-commercial purposes.

When I ask him for a permission, i was very clear : i just wanted to use the images that he had uploaded on wikimedia, not the images he sells on his website.

And his response was « For commercial purposes I normally make a charge based on the number of images.»

Obviously, given its response, I cannot use the images of this user and I will certainly not use them. -- 11:31, 25 January 2012‎ User:Bubulcus

There seems to be no dispute that he is the photographer, and that he did release the photos to Commons under a CC-BY-SA license. Under the terms of CC-BY-SA, the license is perpetual for the duration of applicable copyright. The license certainly allows him to stop distributing a work himself or to distribute a work under a different license; however, the CC-BY-SA license can't be withdrawn. Since he did release the photos to Commons under CC-BY-SA, Commons can retain them and distribute them under the terms of that license, and third parties (e.g. you) can receive, use, and further distribute them under CC-BY-SA. He can argue otherwise, but the license is there for anyone to read. cmadler (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

After some thought, nothing said by this author is actually inconsistent with the CC-BY-SA license. Presumably, he does "normally" receive payment for commercial use, since most commercial reusers are either interested in higher-resolution print-quality versions, or want him to sign a license, just to be extra careful (and of course he wants to encourage this). His request on the file page to be credited near the image and inform him by e-mail when using the image is only a request, and I don't think it's part of the license. But the image is usable in a commercial context under the terms of the CC-BY-SA, and I hope the author understands that. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me or is this image corrupted?

Or is this a server hiccup? I cannot see anything but grey. File:Friedrich Georg Jünger.jpg --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem with this image. Idem for me. Yann (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The JPEG is corrupt - this thumbnail has an error message. I've notified the uploader, since he's active. Rd232 (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up about a project you can join

Hey everyone, I just wanted to give a quick link to a taskforce that we're going to do a little work on, Commons:WikiProject Templates/Testing. The templates WikiProject seems to have been slightly inactive of late, but in any case we've been doing some A/B tests of user talk templates on other projects (EN, PT, DE) in order to get data about different styles of message and how effective they are. If you're interested in this, feel free to sign up and bug me with questions. ;) Cheers, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Bizare UK ruling: similarly composed photo may infringe copyright

Though not directly relevant for Commons, it may be relevant for our photographers from the U.K.: Create a Similarly Composed Photo in the UK, Risk Copyright Infringement. --Túrelio (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't find it that bizarre. Look at w:Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., for another example. I'm not sure I would have ruled either case the same way, but there's certainly a precedent that you can get a ways away from literal copying and it still be copyright infringement. I don't think it's a big concern for Commons photographers, though I do think it good advice to avoid trying to rephotograph someone else's photograph. But I don't think the court would have ruled the base B&W photos would have been copyright infringing, or equivalent color photos; it's the artistic effect of the red bus & the B&W world, and that artistic effect would make it less than useful for a Commons photo.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Would File:Bliss (location).jpg be a problem then, when compared to Windows XP's default wallpaper? The composition is identical (more so than in the case above), so one could say that this aspect was "copied" from the original Bliss picture. (Seems like a complete stretch to me, but then again, so does the court case.) Prof. Professorson (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

IANAL, but I wouldn't think Bliss would be an issue. In this case it appears that the judge found that although the composition was a bit different, the visual contrast elements (white sky, grayscale buildings, red bus) were reproduced. Bliss is just the opposite: the composition is nearly identical, but the visual contrast elements --arguably the most striking aspect of the original work -- are entirely different. Perhaps more relevant to the images you mention, this court ruling in the UK carries no legal authority in California. cmadler (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If a photographer has control over the arrangement of something they photographed... they can have a lot stronger copyright in the photograph. To me, at first blush, those two would be separate expressions of the same idea, but reading the case the combination of the red bus on a B&W background, plus the blanking out of the sky, was the overriding factor in the decision, since those were under the control of the author. I can't fathom the base photographs being ruled derivative... particularly as those are some of the most iconic buildings in London and that is a particularly common angle given the bridge being there. Reading the case... it seems as though the defendant had produced a more infringing photograph earlier, and this was a clear attempt to produce a similar photograph and not infringe... i.e. the intent of creating a visually similar photograph was there. This was not a case of independently having a similar photograph, which the judge explicitly said would not have been derivative. The defendant brought up specific photographs, a Getty image (either this or this I think) and one from istockphoto (probably the one here). The judge said such images were just fine, but since the image in question was "causally related" to the first, that was more of an issue. The judge also said these were not "mere photographs"; the post-processing elevated it to something different, and it was those aspects which were copied (the infringing photograph actually had the bus digitally placed on it; it was not a snapshot). So after deeper reading... I wouldn't call it bizarre, and it is not a ruling which really implicates casual snapshots which happen to be similar, but if you are intentionally trying to recreate the visual impact of a target image, particularly when duplicating artistic effects added to base photographs, it may be an issue. The plaintiff claimed that any photograph which had a "southbound Routemaster on Westminster Bridge before the Houses of Parliament at the same angle as the claimant's work on a greyscale background and a white sky" would infringe, and the judge explicitly rejected that claim -- it was ruled on more specific grounds than that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

January 26

Request for Checkuser rights

This is to inform the community that there is a nomination for Checkuser rights here. It was agreed a couple of years ago that such requests and for Oversight which are quite rare should be publicised due to the high level of trust required in users with these rights. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyfraud at Getty Images

I just noticed this image of Wikipedia's main page on the NPR website, credited to Getty Images. In fact they claim copyright to this image, which appears to me to be a blatant violation of Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Pisses me off! Companies complain that their copyrights are not respected, but what about Wikipedia's license not being respected? Smallbones (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, hold your horses. This is not merely a screen capture of Wikipedia's main page but appears to be someone's photograph of the main page as viewed on a computer visual display unit or a tablet. In that case, I don't see why the photographer or Getty Images shouldn't assert copyright over the photograph as a whole. What they ought to do, of course, is to acknowledge that the content of the screen being photographed is licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and that it is from Wikipedia. Perhaps you could contact them about this matter. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

No, they could do that if it was cc-by-3.0, but cc-by-sa-3.0 forces derivative works to be put under the same (or a compatible) license. Prof. Professorson (talk) 07:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Getty Images has a nice 'live chat' feature at http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/HelpCenter. It might be an idea to point this image out to them as a copyright violation that needs to be escalated for corrective action; in a friendly way. --Fæ (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

From the "Live Chat"

Welcome! A representative will be with you shortly. For your security, do not give out your credit card number or other sensitive personal data during a Live Chat session. You are now chatting with Ryan. Ryan: Hello! How can I help you today? Smallbones: Editorial image #: 137246977 is a photo of Wikipedia's main page. Which is licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0 Smallbones: But Getty has said that it is "copyrighted" by Getty, which is not possible Smallbones: CC-BY-SA requires that it be relicensed under the same license for derivative works. Smallbones: Can we get the photo properly licensed? i.e. remove the copyright tag? Ryan: We license images on behalf of the photographer Ryan: The copyright of the PHOTOGRAPH is by Karen Bleier Ryan: we do not own the copyright, we own the rights to license the photograph Smallbones: Not possible to copyright this photo - it must be licensed CC-BY- Smallbones: Sa Ryan: Certainly possible. Ryan: but either way, we cannot change anything on our site Smallbones: Who do I go to to get the copyright notice removed? Ryan: We do not remove it Ryan: so it will not be possible. Smallbones: But who can remove this illegal copyright claim? Obviously you can't, but there must be a responsible person there. Ryan: The claim is for the photograph only. We the content in the photograph might not be able to be copyrighted but we're not claiming to copyright that. Any photograph taken is copyrighted by the photographer. We're not claiming ot copyright the content. Ryan: for example, if we take an image of a famous painting, we're not claiming to copyright the painting Ryan: the copyright is for the photograph the the photographer took Ryan: the content in it is separate Smallbones: You need to read the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License - you are clearly violating it. Should I send the link? Ryan: No, that's ok. We actually are not. Our whole business is built aroudn licensing images...we would not violate it. Smallbones: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/ Smallbones: Please get a lawyer to read it - you are violating the license. End of story</quote>

Smallbones (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaking the wikipedia logo is copyrighted (not even under free licence) by the WMF. PierreSelim (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

As that is probably sufficient to show we have exhausted their complaints process, it might be time to ping the issue to legal so they can try their own form of friendly contact. --Fæ (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Wikipedia globe logo is copyrighted and trademarked by WMF. That image will be a perfect illustration for en:Copyfraud (currently un-illustrated). cmadler (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The WMF should send them a DMCA take-down notice; Getty is usually the first to jump to that kind of legal action when someone uses their images without a proper license, I don't see why we should be lenient with them. Prof. Professorson (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The text shown really isn't copyrightable. They could probably claim de minimis or fair use on the logo or any of the other material used -- it's not necessarily derivative, though it'd be a close call. News-reporting agencies get a pretty wide latitude when it comes to fair use. We don't rely on fair use determinations, but they certainly can and would. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't see a claim that this is not derivative or is "de minimus" - the image is composed of 75% of a piece of Wikipedia's main page, and 25% black. As far as fair-use, the only thing they needed to do to use it was label it "This image from Wikipedia is licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0" rather than "Karen Bleier/Getty/AFP." Doesn't seem to be anything fair about that use. Smallbones (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly a derivative of the non-free Wikipedia logo, which is featured prominently and kind of the whole point of the work. Used in the context of a news story, it may be fair use. Being sold as an asset on Getty's website, it is not. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced at all the photo would be found derivative of the logo. The photo is not primarily based upon the logo. In any event, only the WMF themselves can bring an action, if they feel strongly about it, since they are its copyright holder. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, fair use? Surely this is a perfect example of fair use... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

While the use of such an image in news reporting about Wikipedia probably falls well within fair use, Getty Images' claimed "right to license" the image is probably not, since they are claiming the right to commercially exploit the image for any end use. cmadler (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

If the use of the logo within the context of the photo is fair use (which I think it may well be), then I think the photographer does not need permission to distribute their photo, in any context -- that is basically what fair use means, no need to get permission. If you wanted to crop to just the logo, yes that would be a problem of course. But the copyrightable work in question (the logo) is simply being shown as part of the web page, not a a work unto itself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the web page as a whole (layout, etc.) a copyrightable work also? cmadler (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. Arrangement of text in a printed book is not subject to U.S. copyright, so that casts some doubt on that, though a significant combination of fonts, placement, and styles may be (Reader's Digest won a case against a competitor basically wholesale copying their very distinctive format of their cover, even though none of the elements were copyrightable; see here). Not sure that the shown arrangement is quite as original though -- many sites use the vertical menu on the left, with more stuff across the top, etc. It's definitely fuzzy -- I would just caution against completely accusing them of copyright infringement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I found that this is sorta cheap. For me such challenges look even more mad than SOPA itself. What if Microsoft will go over the web attempting to take down every single screenshot of Windows claiming copyright on it? What if street protesters will try take down news agency photographs of their "copyrighted" posters? It's protection of copyright for the sake of protection of copyright, it doesn't benefit to the society or anybody else. Trycatch (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• And now somebody nominated WP on Getty images with watermark.jpg for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:WP on Getty images with watermark.jpg Bulwersator (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that people aren't thinking through the public relations side of thing very much. Wikipedia makes an unprecedented scene saying unless Congress is lobbied "big media" could potentially create a stink about a single copyvio on Wikipedia, and then turn right around and throw a fit about a single image on Getty? The PR of the banner on Commons was already discouraging to potential Commons contributors because it suggests that your contributions might just grow the Commons which would in turn enable a more influential banner advocating against content creators interests.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We routinely give far too much benefit of the doubt to wire services like Getty

We routinely give far too much benefit of the doubt to wire services like Getty. Just a couple of weeks ago a photo essay was published with 50+ images illustrating the history of the Guantanamo detention camp. Every image had a copyright watermarked added, claiming the wire service owned the IP rights to the image. The captions to over half a dozen of the images directly contradicted the copyright watermark. Further, I am quite familiar with images of Guantanamo, having uploaded a couple of hundred of them, and I recognized a significant fraction of the images as PD images.

What contributors here don't seem to realize is that when an image from Getty, AP, AFP, Reuters, is republished with a credit that says AP file photo, this is not an assertion the wire service owns the image. Wire services seem to routinely add PD images to their files, and don't feel obliged to tell the people who subsequently pay to use the image that it is a public domain image.

About a year and a half ago we had a very important image of Aafia Siddiqui and her 12 year old son. They were captured together, in Ghazni, in extremely confusing circumstances. They were quickly separated. Aafia spent less than a day in Afghan custody. American forces arrived to take her into American custody. They had a jurisdictional dispute with the Afghans.

I had seen that the site where I copied the image had a credit line that said "AP file photo", which I discounted, as not credible. But the nominator insisted that the "AP file photo" signified that the photo was taken by an AP reporter at the press conference where the Afghan police announced the capture of the pair. That was a crazy assertion. First, police don't produce captives, at press conferences. Second, the capture remained secret for the next week or ten days, only being announced when the USA planned to bring Aafia to the USA for trial. But it is extremely rare for anyone to change their mind in a deletion discussion.

It was a disturbing photo. The pair are huddled together, clearly terrified of what will happen to them next. Who took the photo? Not a reporter, as the capture remained secret. Not an American official, as the circumstances of the shots fired demonstrate the two had been separated before the Americans arrived. The photographer had to be an Afghan. The photo looks like a trophy photo, not an official mugshot or other official photo. A corrupt Afghan police official took it, and sold it to the wire services.

I bring this sad deletion up because it is an instance where we gave far too much benefit of the doubt to the wire services. Geo Swan (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you refering to one of these photos?

One reason why Getty Images material is often speedied on-sight is that in Europe, at least in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, Getty Images agency is feared for their rather aggressive prosecution of copyright infringement. (I remember that they won a € 10,000 settlement for unlicensed use of six (6) of their images on the website of a company in Germany.) So, we try to be safe (obviously sometimes too safe) for the sake of our re-users. Current cases: File:114832846BY 029 FINALS GAME 6.jpg, File:Sir Nicholas Winton 3718.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 08:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As you note, sometimes they will slap an "AP" tag on something PD, or more often, something owned by photographers which they have some sort of exclusive license to distribute. However, if they are PD, then we need independent evidence of that fact. If an image is tagged "AP" or "Getty", then obviously there is no independent evidence since we got it via one of the services itself. In your example, Afghan photographers have the perfect right to have their photograph published in a Berne country, and thus get copyright protection in most of the world, even if there is no protection in Afghanistan itself. It is probably an Afghan photographer, but we also need evidence of publication in Afghanistan first, and no simultaneous publication (within 30 days) in any other Berne country. In most cases, something distributed by AP will be published in other countries, meaning it is almost certainly not PD. So... feel free to prove AP/Getty wrong on particular images, but as with anything else, we need some indication of actual PD status. In most cases, something tagged with Getty/AP/etc. is actually evidence leaning (strongly) the other way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"my uploads" suggestions

The last column in "my uploads" should, IMHO, be re-implemented.

The column suggests that it contains the file description, but it does not. What it actually contains is the check in notes.

As it appears the vast majority of images are uploaded once, and thus don't have any check in notes, this column is currently under-utilized.

Meanwhile, the column I want to see, the actual description, does not appear.

Perhaps a blending of the two, the description on the top and the last checking below in italics, would be perfect.

Is this the right place? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

bugzilla: is the right place for feature-requests to MediaWiki developers. The last column is just the log/comment. It is not used by UploadWizard and the upload forms create an auto-summary from the submitted text. -- RE rillke questions? 16:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If that is the right place, I have no idea how to do so successfully. There are a range of gibberish options for tagging, none of which seem to be anything like a term I've heard before. Can you help me get this started? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done: bugzilla:33947 -- RE rillke questions? 14:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Honest, I thought that the Commons was complex… :-) Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

URAA, exhibitions date of paintings in museums and publication data

According to "new" URAA rules, publication date becames relevant to tell whether a work of art is in PD in the US or not. A lot of our involved files are pictures hold by museums, with known date of first exhibition - known or easy to find.

Article 3.3 of Berne Convention states that "The performance of a dramatic, dramatico-musical, cinematographic or musical work, the public recitation of a literary work, the communication by wire or the broadcasting of literary or artistic works, the exhibition of a work of art and the construction of a work of architecture shall not constitute publication."

Has US law a different provision overriding this? Are works of arts in exhibition before 1923 in PD in the US?--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Usually, exhibition of a work of art (especially a notable one) is accompanied by distribution of reproductions of it in advertising, art catalogues, etc. which would constitute publication. It can be difficult to demonstrate conclusively this occurred, but it's okay sometimes to make reasonable assumptions. Whether such assumptions are reasonable is best treated on a case-by-case basis. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, a publication has to be legitimate to count. How do you know if the catalogue producer had permission from the painter? --Stefan4 (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think legitimation is the easy part of assumption, specially when works were donated by painter or when the painter was alive and anyhow involved in exibition - if the painter was not alive when an exhibition took place before 1923, the painting will probably be in PD due to other reasons.

For me, the difficult part to assume is publication. Did museums usually release comprehensive illustrated catalogues of their exhibitions in early 20th century? I don't know.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes. Some of them are on Google books. I think permission can be assumed in such cases. "Publication" in the U.S. at the time could also be exhibition where there was no effort to prevent photographs etc. from being made. See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US; it's not a straightforward question. As Dcoetzee said, sometimes we need to make reasonable assumptions. Usually, works like paintings would have been published one way or another soon after they were made (otherwise why would the painter have worked on it?), but it can be a case-by-case decision based on whatever factors are known (for example, early works by an artist who only became famous later may well not have been published). Couple of other points -- these are not "new" URAA rules; they have been in place for 16 years. And publication date has always been relevant for public domain determinations in the US, even before the URAA. In fact it's still relevant in most cases -- non-corporate works by a known author created 1978 or later is really the only category where it would not be relevant (which really doesn't affect Commons, as such works still have 30-40 years to go before their copyright might expire). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:CC-PD-Mark

What templates are putting files into this category? The text at the top of the category says that it's only for items that explicitly use a CC declaration of PD (not the same as CC-zero), but for some reason {{Cc-pd-mark-footer}} says that it's used by lots of different templates. What's more, this category is showing up at one of my recent uploads, which has no permission tags except {{PD-scan}}, and that's not listed in the footer template's documentation. Moreover, what is the point of having this category? Any permissions category that includes both PD-scan and PD-USGov images seems to me to be redundant to Category:Public domain. It would seem better to me to restrict this category to images with an explicit CC marking, rather than including a 1.5 million images that passed into the public domain for a variety of reasons. Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

For information, previous discussions: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2010/12#CC_PD_mark and Template talk:Cc-pd-mark-footer.

Your upload uses it because {{PD-scan}} contains {{PD-Old}}. Jean-Fred (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Uhh. Using that automatically with our PD-old template looks like a bad idea and goes against the Creative Commons recommendations: "Notwithstanding the disclaimers and notice, if you know that a work you would like to mark is still in copyright in one or more jurisdictions, please do not apply the PDM." [36], [37] -- Asclepias (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree - PD-old doesn't even guarantee PD in US, never mind free of related and neighboring rights. Let's not apply it to the PD-old templates. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

All copyright expiration templates with <100y pma, all USGov templates [38], all U.S. copyright status templates. Copyright expiration with >100y pma can be ok, but pd-old-100 with pd-art/pd-scan again is problematic. As well as other threshold tags that possibly not hold in the UK and similar jurisdictions. Remains copyright exemption tags and pd-self/cc-0. --Martin H. (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

January 22

Sandbox-cleaning bot?

Could a bot be made to clean COM:SB? There's one at en.wp and Meta, so perhaps it would make sense to automate the process here as well? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 22:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's a perfect little bot task. I suggest asking User:Chzz if he can adapt his en.wp bot for Commons, as he's been active on Commons recently (User:X!, operator of the Meta bot, nearly a year ago). Rd232 (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Generally, sandbox cleaning bots are more effort than just manually clearing it every day. At the same time, though, if it can be done easily with an existing one then I have no objections. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Messaged. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 17:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please give me 1 week to work it out. Ta.  Chzz  ►  19:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Please be aware that COM:SB has lots of language subpage sandboxes (eg Commons:Sandbox/es) which all need handling as well. And some aren't actually subpages; but all are linked via Template:Sandbox/lang. Rd232 (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Mhm; am thinking about it. It probably should be reasonably easy. Will let you know ASAP.  Chzz  ►  22:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It does seem *reasonably* easy. It's just a case of my finding a few hours to work on it, test things, and so on; I'll do my best to find time within a few days.  Chzz  ►  14:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

January 23

mw:Extension:FeaturedFeeds/WMF deployment#Notes to site administrators

See also: wmf-blog

* action=featuredfeed *
  Returns a user contributions feed

This module requires read rights
Parameters:
  feedformat          - The format of the feed
                        One value: rss, atom
                        Default: rss
  feed                - Feed name
                        This parameter is required
                        One value: potd
  language            - Feed language code. Ignored by some feeds.
Examples:
  Retrieve feed `potd' //commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?action=featuredfeed&feed=potd

According to Special:Version we now have this feed-extension. Does anyone want to set it up? -- RE rillke questions? 15:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting. But we don't use language code in page title. Do we have a way to resolve internationalization issue? – Kwj2772 (msg) 15:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm this extension's developer, currently trying to figure out a solution nicer than creating zillion configuration pages. Max Semenik (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm, well I tried MediaWiki:Ffeed-potd-page / MediaWiki:Ffeed-potd-transcludeme... Seems to work (?) when testing with int:lang instead of $1, but it leaves the problem of how to pass $1 from MediaWiki:Ffeed-potd-page to MediaWiki:Ffeed-potd-transcludeme. Rd232 (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The same hack with {{int:lang}} should work inside of Ffeed-potd-transcludeme. If it doesn't it's a bug. I'm going to ask about the possibility of creation of magic word for user language anyway. Max Semenik (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: note that due to caching your changes may not work for up to 1 hour, I'll make a fix for it soon. Max Semenik (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The int:lang hack seems to work - but I'm assuming that won't work for the RSS feed. Hence the problem of passing $1 to a MediaWiki: page. (Would it work with transcluding a template, i.e. if it was Template:Ffeed-potd-transcludeme?) Rd232 (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm, it seems to work - so what does the feed show people? And how do you set the language of the feed as a viewer? Rd232 (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Lots of things look borked, people should see links in their UI languages to start with. Working on this. Max Semenik (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh? I don't see anything in feed page. – Kwj2772 (msg) 10:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It's empty now - it wasn't when I posted the link. I guess it needs Max to sort this out. Rd232 (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, its disappearance after your edits is expected:) *-page is supposed to evaluate to page title, not feed content. Max Semenik (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? mw:Extension:FeaturedFeeds/WMF_deployment#Notes_to_site_administrators says *-page "contains day's featured content." I'm (more) confused. Rd232 (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Full sentence reads "Title of the page that contains day's featured content." which is not the same. Anyway, I've fixed one bug related to multilingual support, gotta check if there's something else. Max Semenik (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be better if $1 would be the date passed and $2 the language and the mediawiki-message would return the content, not the title. -- RE rillke questions? 20:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The main problem with multilingualness has been resolved, we'll push the fixes to the cluster next week. Max Semenik (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

January 27

Strange black rectangle on small/thumb versions

Anyone knows what causes this strange black rectangle on the small/thumb versions of File:Roman Gothic Walls Romania Plain.svg and File:Roman Byzantine Gothic Walls Romania Plain.svg. If you click on the image to see the full version, the rectangle is not there. Any ideas? --Codrin.B (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Haven't looked at the images yet, but it's almost certainly due to the same old stupid Inkscape "flowtext" nonsense which has come up so many times before. You can diagnose the problem at Commons:SVG Check... -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the tools/info and for fixing the images!--Codrin.B (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

January 28

oldest photographs

where can i find the oldest photographs in history? Pass a Method (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The oldest is apparently at the University of Texas at Austin. It looks like this. Or at the Bibliothèque nationale de France for this. See also Category:Photographs by year. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There is an unsettled dispute, however, as to the oldest portrait photograph. Kaldari (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Text not wrapping around image displayed on category page

I've come across an issue where the subcategory text is not wrapping around a photo displayed on a category page (acting as a clickable map). The pages in question are Category:National Register of Historic Places in Alabama and Category:National Register of Historic Places in South Carolina. Is there a workaround to get this to display correctly? Spyder_Monkey (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that MW uses a layout-table (width 100%) for subcategories. -- RE rillke questions? 10:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Difficulty

Am trying to add an image, can't get past "Release rights" tab, system just hangs ("Error on page") – what am I doing wrong? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You are using UploadWizard, right? You may use one of the Commons:Upload-forms in-between.

When does it happen? While uploading or after you clicked the continue-button? Which browser are you using? -- RE rillke questions? 11:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

pics

File:Device to hold heads during Daguerreotype exposure.JPG

Are the photos in this category actual photographs? If so, why do they look like paintings? Pass a Method (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

They look like old BW photographs, just as expected.--Pere prlpz (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything which looks like a painting there... Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget about the File:Device to hold heads during Daguerreotype exposure.JPG (added to the right of this section). --  Docu  at 15:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

File redirects should still show usage

When File:087882 cf786e35-by-Roger-May.jpg actually had a file on that name, I noted that it was used by several wikis. I moved the image to a more sensible name. I then intended to go back and change the articles that use it. But the information as to which wikis is no longer visible. I have raised bugzilla:34007. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile you can resort to other link checking tools such as fr:Special:WhatLinksHere/File:087882_cf786e35-by-Roger-May.jpg and so on, or simply walk through articles' interwiki links. BTW there exists a "bugzilla:" interwiki prefix: bugzilla:34007. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There are 2 at: Special:GlobalUsage/087882_cf786e35-by-Roger-May.jpg --  Docu  at 13:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Bugzilla 34007 has just been raised by me. Thank you for pointing me to Special:GlobalUsage - that raises another request - it should be included in Special:SpecialPages! — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Minimum number of edits

Given that recently there were a number of applications for filemover rights from the users who had similar or higher rights in other projects, and they were rejected since these users have insufficient number of edits on Commons (the last example), should we try to establish the minimum number for the number of edits of a user who is eligible to apply? Would an opening of an RFC make sense?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the year 2011

A quick note to mention that preparation for Commons:Picture of the Year/2011 is getting underway. If you're interested at all, pitch in by translating, starting discussions or preparing the infrastructure. --99of9 (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it okay to translate the information in Simple English? I'm a native speaker of Simple English and I'm interested in translating. --Katarighe (Talk) 18:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course! Go right ahead. --99of9 (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Global file usage points to non-existent page

The page File:Logic.png points to various deleted en.wiki articles/revisions (like "MEOW") in its Global Usage section. Should that really be the case? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 02:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a pretty old problem with various quirks that occurs occasionally for an unknown reason, afaik. In some cases it's a server-side update or caching problem apparently (and bad links automagically disappear after a few hours, days or weeks), but in other more severe cases bad links stay in place for ages.

Generally, I know this problem since May 2010. Back then thousands of pages were deleted at de.labs.wikimedia.org (a now closed wiki, which formerly contained a mirror of de.wikibooks.org. All Commons images that were once used there still list that wiki (de.labs) in their "global usage" section, see e.g. File:Fendt turbomatik frontlader.jpg#globalusage where this de.labs page is still linked as of today (more than 20 months after deletion). I don't know exactly how many files are affected by this de.labs-related issue, but I guess there are thousands of them, because de.wikibooks was – if I remember correctly – mirrored completely! According to the stats (count all namespaces) de.wikibooks had about 30,000 pages in early 2010. Dunno though, how many files from Commons were used – maybe only 2000, maybe 9000 or even more. And well, I also remember seeing bad global usage entries linking to other Wikimedia Labs (not only to the German one) …

Btw, there are some related bug reports, see e.g. #27280. --:bdk: 06:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Category/Label for "hidden categories"

There is a suggestion to rename Category:Hidden categories (and it would make sense to change the label used for hidden categories as well) - please see Category_talk:Hidden_categories#RFC. Rd232 (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion about Rd232 editing in this matter at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Administrator_Rd232. --  Docu  at 07:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons requires censorship-proof History feature

Dear everyone, I have suspected several times that images which were inconvenient for some individuals/organisations disappeared from Wikimedia Commons. Now a history feature does exist, but the original files seem not to be retained.

I suggest that any historical files should be retained by default.

A special procedure to delete copyright-infringing files could be set up, but this should require checks-and-balances and peer-reviewing of the most extreme possible kind, to make sure censorship is stood up against.

- A not very well informed, but very concerned user. --Gulpen (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about. How about corroborating your claim by some real links or diffs? --Túrelio (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

All admins can see deleted images, unless they are oversighted. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but this users del-log has only 1 file entry (a CD cover). --Túrelio (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a deletion log, where one can see file name and the name of the admin who deleted the file. Go to Special:Log. Deletions can be appealed. See Commons:DEL#Appeal. Typically, a CD cover would require a permission from the CD producer or from the artist who designed the CD cover. Teofilo (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. I was NOT referring to any files I have uploaded myself. Maybe you can clarify the matter for me by explaining why some images on these historical pages cannot be found:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D8%B5%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%8A%D9%86&oldid=1857249

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D8%B5%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%8A%D9%86&oldid=3928762 --Gulpen (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

These are galleries. Could you specify to which images exactly you are refering. --Túrelio (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am referring to the empty images on the above mentioned pages. They are there given these names: Saddam Hussein (107).jpg; Saddam Hussein 4.jpg; TrialSaddam.jpg; Saddamstatue.jpg; Saddam Mosque Mosul.jpg; Saddam bill.JPG; Saddam Hussein with Yasser Arafat.jpg; Saddam morto.jpg --Gulpen (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Because they got deleted as a violation of our licensing policy, unfree content uploaded without the copyright holders permission or without providing a source that confirms a free copyright status. This project is not for all existing content, its only for those content that is free. --Martin H. (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there any way that I can verify this myself? I have seriously tried to find some of them in the logs, but have been unable to do so. mattbuck writes: "All admins can see deleted images, unless they are oversighted." What does oversighted mean? And what does he mean with that deleted images can be viewed? Are they deleted or only hidden from the public? I find this information hard to find. --Gulpen (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Special:Log, also reading the mediawiki helppages first can help. --Martin H. (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleted images can be undeleted by admins; deletion doesn't scrub material from the servers, but prevents access for all except the relatively small number of admins. "Oversighted" (COM:OVERSIGHT) means hidden from all except the even smaller group of oversighters. Rd232 (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thumb	Gallery
File:GAIS 1951.jpg Red link for deleted thumbnail image takes you to a deletion log	Deleted gallery image displays only file name without any link Deleted gallery image displays only file name without any link

In a gallery there are no links to deleted images. This makes it a little harder to find deletion logs than for thumbnail images which have red links to pages where deletion logs ares shown. But it is still possbile to copy the file name from a gallery, add "File:" prefix, and paste into Commons Special:Log to find logs for a file. /Ö 19:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

For example, the deletion log for :File:Saddam_Hussein_(107).jpg is in http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Saddam_Hussein_(107).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 (non free fair use image uploaded from English language Wikipedia).

In English Wikipedia, it was also deleted and replaced by a free image http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Saddam_Hussein_%28107%29.jpg --Pere prlpz (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Bugzilla: 15464 - Feature: missing gallery image names become upload links. Rd232 (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your answers. It wasn't clear I had to add "File:". But most of your answers ease most of my worries! --Gulpen (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for bureaucrat rights

Following the recent successful Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Russavia (the first since 2010), there is another request for bureaucrat at Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/99of9. Notifying here as these requests are rare and should get appropriate scrutiny. Rd232 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: Request is now closed, with 100% support. Rd232 (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hi there, hmm I might have some problem.. I uploaded this spanish version link From this one link Can someone change the copyright status?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sistemx (talk • contribs) 22:06, 29 January 2012‎ (UTC)

 Done. You may use tools:~luxo/derivativeFX/ in future for derivative works. Otherwise it is always the best to copy the licenses and to mention the authors of the works the new one is derived from. But in general, SVG-translator could add such an option. We should ask jarry. -- RE rillke questions? 22:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

January 30

MediaWiki talk:AjaxQuickDelete.js#Current file name as default, file extension changed to lower case

I would be grateful to get some opinions on a feature on the move & replace feature. Thanks in advance. --Leyo 16:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Slidecasts

Linking to a question from a user asking if files from slidecasts are considered in scope for Commons : Commons:Bistro#Des préconisations pour les diaporamas sonorisés (slidecasts)?. The question is in French but, if you can read it, it probably has a better chance at getting answers if linked here. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes to PD tags

The URAA decision is a reminder that we have to be clear, for every new upload, why it is in the public domain in both the US and the source country. Some notes:

• Many works predating 1923 with known author death dates are adequately addressed by the {{PD-old-70-1923}} and {{PD-old-80-1923}} tags.
• We've been generally assuming {{PD-old-100}} works are PD in the US. This is true for published works for at least the next 11 years, but after that (or for unpublished works) it may not be. For this reason we will also require {{PD-old-90-1923}} and {{PD-old-100-1923}} tags (the latter covering many existing files).
• For works first published 1923 or later, things get messy. We need a tag to show PD in the source country. Additionally:
  • If they were published within 30 days in the US, we also need one of the US PD tags (and any of them could apply).
  • If they were not, then we have to establish {{PD-1996}}. I believe the {{PD-1996}} template is not specific enough regarding the reason the work was in the public domain in 1996 in its country of first publication, considering many nations' laws have changed since 1996. To address this, we need new more specific {{PD-1996}} templates, such as {{PD-1996-old-50}}, {{PD-1996-old-70}}, and for nations with particularly unusual or complex rules, nation-specific templates like {{PD-1996-India}}. See en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights for a table of such rules by country.

Enforcement: we need to make sure every file not already using a combined tag, like {{PD-old-70-1923}}, includes both a source country and US tag. The template {{PD-two}} exists for this purpose. I believe the best way to enforce the policy is to make it so that source country only / US only tags cannot be used outside of the PD-two template. If they are, it will show an error message and place it in a cleanup category. This is not hard to implement technically: we have the PD-two tag pass an extra parameter to both of its argument tags, and if the parameter is omitted, the tag will show the error.

Thoughts? Dcoetzee (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but about images for which the source country is the U.S.? Powers (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

In that case only the U.S. license is needed. In all other PD cases I support requiring the usage of two licenses that make the situation clear. Hekerui (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops yes forgot about those. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Apart from Powers' question above, it looks fine. I was wondering if we could have some templates that would "automatically" find out the copyright status of a work by combining parameters {{copyright status|country of first publication=France|date of first publication=1925|author death date=1936}} would produce something similar as {{PD-1996-old-50}}. Teofilo (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I considered this but this only works when the info is known. Often we make an "intelligent guess" that e.g. a work published in 1860 is probably PD-old-70 even if we lack the author death date. These kind of guesses, and ranges of values are hard to capture in templates that take specific values. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We could design a set of symbols such as those of Template:Other date to define ranges of dates rather than exact dates. Teofilo (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We've had this situation all along -- the URAA restorations have been part of U.S. law since 1996. PD-two has a common issue that you can't pass tags which themselves take arguments. I'm not sure there needs to be a sweeping change to existing files... but, for cases of copyright expiration, adding two tags (as part of PD-two or not) would definitely be helpful. I'm not sure a proliferation of PD-1996 templates would be a great idea either... you can usually tell which country is the one in question, and go look up the conditions of their law and figure it out. Keep in mind all of this stuff is ridiculously complex, and we do need to make things as easy as possible on uploaders, so any substantive changes have to be incorporated into the upload wizard, etc. The previous practice was basically as that as we notice files which are potentially problematic, we investigate and nominate for deletion as usual. If we make any changes... it should probably be careful, and not take effect anytime soon. Burdens of proof on the uploader have been a line in the sand; implementing this could pretty much scramble that even more. I don't see a need to make it more complex than it has been all along, as the law has not changed at all this whole time, but anything to make it easier (or to let uploaders enter information if they happen to know it) would be good. But yes, if we (as assumed) go with deletion of URAA-restored works, we should probably have a way to mark both copyright statuses. I think there are waaaaaaay to many existing files to actually require usage of PD-two though. Deletions on account of missing such tags would be very poor form on our part I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Not recommending deletion of such cases, just review and updating of tags (and deletion nominations where warranted). Considering the backlog, printing an error might be inappropriate, and bot assistance would probably be required. My issue with {{PD-1996}} is that, unlike most of our tags, you can't just look at it and say "this work does or does not meet these conditions," which makes it much more cumbersome to check, and so more likely to be wrong. This is particularly frustrating since in most cases the country of first publication is not specified in the file information. I do think a new wizard is needed to help users supply correct PD information - right now AFAIK the UploadWizard is still using the PD-old tags by themselves which is definitely not right. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We can't put all the burden on uploaders -- some research can be required for third-party reusers, or other editors here, to fill in some gaps; the full information doesn't need to be immediately apparent. But yes, the following pieces of information can help inform the status: date of creation, date and country of first publication, date the author died, and what country the author was from. Any and all of that helps, though a proper source usually means that much of that information can be determined by consulting that source, which is why we require that -- I'm sure many would doubt data provided by an uploader if there was no source, meaning we'd have to do the research anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we should have some kind of flexibility regarding existing files, but we should try to streamline our procedures so that uploaders document newly uploaded files in an accurate way, and provide them with the tools to easily do so. Teofilo (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The upload wizard should simply ask for the required input data such as country of origin, date of first publication etc. and throw out the corresponding templates by itself. The question is, what to do about important missing data? --Prüm (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The relevant country is the country of author, not the country of first publication, isn't it? Then, asking for author and publication data will be usually enough.--Pere prlpz (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The relevant country of a published work is the country of first publication per Berne treaty article 5-4)-a) The country of origin shall be considered to be:(a) in the case of works first published in a country of the Union, that country; [39] The relevant country of an unpublished work is the country of the author. Teofilo (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

 Question Throwing in a question for {{PD-1996}}: Requirement is stated 1) not simultanously published 2) and published before 1978 without compliance with U.S. formalities 3)and PD in country of first publication at URAA date. My question is about 2). Published in the U.S. or published abroad without compliance? --Martin H. (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've now created Category:Files requiring U.S. copyright review and put in it all files bearing the {{PD-old}}, {{PD-old-70}}, etc. tags (unless they have the "used-with-US=1" parameter). I'm having a bot automatically approve all {{PD-old-90}} and {{PD-old-100}} files by converting them to {{PD-old-90-1923}}, {{PD-old-100-1923}} (which is accurate at the present time, reasonably assuming the work was published during the author's lifetime). The next step will be to run another bot which approves any files that have a US PD tag. After that, another bot may be able to use the "date" field to identify some more PD-1923 works. A ton of manual review will still be needed. I'm not even going to think about the PD-1996 cases for now, as the PD-1923 cases are quite extensive. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow wow wow, hold on. I am not sure I get it. All {PD-Old-XX} are deprecated ? Should {PD-Old-XX-19XX} the rule ? What about PD-two, is it deprecated as well? We are losing load of translations in the process too. Jean-Fred (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

PD-two is not deprecated - I modified it to automatically mark its first parameter with used-with-US=1. The PD-old templates aren't deprecated, but have to be used either with PD-two or in combination with a US PD tag (in which case they will be marked by a bot as used-with-US=1). Even PD-old-100 may not imply PD-US for works first published posthumously, so it's important to distinguish these cases. The translations aren't lost, they can be ported to the new templates easily enough. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, ok. So shall use the two templates (either combination with used-with-US=1 or Pd-Two) or {PD-Old-XX-19XX} ?

About PD-old-100 files, for eg 17th century paintings, are we supposed to replace PD-old-100 by {Pd-two|PD-old-100|PD-1923} ?

Jean-Fred (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, except for old paintings you should prefer {{PD-old-100-1923}}, because it's more compact (or for PD-Art works, {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923}}). I'll add translations to the PD-old-XX-1923 templates soon if no one beats me to it. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, I fear I may have created the largest backlog to ever exist. Category:Files requiring U.S. copyright review currently contains 1.2 million files. Assuming each one takes 1 minute to resolve, it will require over 2 continuous man-years of work to review them all. If I can assume the "Date" field is the date of first publication, a bot could resolve many of these. Any other strategies that might help here? Dcoetzee (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Saibo is apparently upset about this review process, reverting my changes to Template:PD-old-100 twice, so I've stopped the bot which is automatically reviewing works in Category:Files requiring U.S. copyright review, in order to give him time to express his disagreement here more clearly before continuing. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a note: User_talk:Dcoetzee#Stop_your_attempts_to_break_Commons. Dcoetzee is pushing his agenda (with bot support) to fuck up Commons. Why on earth?! Where is the neutral conclusion of this discussion? I cannot see it. No actions until the discussion (the "all" DR which was severely bashed included) is over. There is no rush in any way. --Saibo (Δ) 22:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• My change to Template:PD-old-100 that you reverted twice merely placed files which need to be reviewed in a (hidden) review category. As I've already explained, not all works whose authors died at least 100 years ago were first published before 1923 (they may have been first published posthumously), so they require manual review to ascertain this and replace the tag by {{PD-old-100-1923}} or another suitable tag. How does this "fuck up Commons"? I never threatened to delete anything, and the tagging for the DR you mentioned above will of course be reverted as soon as it is closed. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Difficult to understand what Dcoetzee is up to. Even Saibo says it is madness. I agree. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • @Dcoetzee: Wait with any of your actions until we have discussed, thanks. We are lucky that you did not delete all URAAAAhh! files right away with bot support for being copyvios, hmm? --Saibo (Δ) 22:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I have explained this in considerable detail above. My objective is to locate works which are not free in the US, which are not permitted under Commons:Licensing, and nominate them for deletion, for the protection of the project and our US content reusers. To that end I am reviewing all files without a US copyright tag. The review category helps to track which files have been reviewed already and which have not. My bot, before you insisted I stop it, was tagging files which are PD in the US and so not candidates for deletion, quite the opposite of what you're assuming. Just to make this perfectly clear: I am not going to delete any files. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
      • (EC) You may want what you want but leave all the other users out of our personal US-centric agenda. You can do your personal projects in your user space. --Saibo (Δ) 22:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Saibo, the law is the law. If you don't like that, why don't you make it clear that our tags aren't about the public domain, which is a legal concept, but is instead about what Saibo thinks is okay for us to host?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
      • "Wow wow wow, hold on. I am not sure I get it. " was a comment of today by some other user above. Don't you get it, Dcoetzee? Go to your userspace for experiments, please. --Saibo (Δ) 22:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
        • This is a review process that I believe other users will want to help with, which is why I'm conducting it with a category. I don't see how it differs from any other active license review process. I already answered the questions asked by that user. If you have any substantive objections to this process, please explain them. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Processes are not pushed (proposed, discussion evaluated, and executed that fast) by one person. Objection: don't do anything and keep cool. --Saibo (Δ) 22:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
            • I'm not doing anything. You may feel free to discuss the review process here at your leisure. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
              • Nice - now you have understood. You can revert your bot's vandalism in the meantime. We do not need a review process (right now). So we do not need to discuss it. --Saibo (Δ) 23:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
                • I am reverting any potentially incorrect edits by my bot and appreciate you and User:De728631 identifying them. Please let me know if you find any others. If there is not consensus in favor of a review, I will also revert all the changes adding "used-with-US=1". (also reverting used-with-US changes now, pending consensus) However, I would advise you not to use the term "vandalism" in reference to good-faith edits. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
                  • If I cannot assume something to be good faith (for the project) it may be called vandalism, sorry - just facts. Already your mass DR without previous discussion was too much as I had told you in the DR. --Saibo (Δ) 00:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
                • Note that vandalism is defined as "malicious change" Bulwersator (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Note further that due to the actions here the last days it seems not to be advisable to send the uploaders form dewp to Commons - as we tried as hard as possible. A NoCommons template is already added to de:Template:Bild-PD-alt since 70 pma apparently doesn't be to worth anything anymore on Commons. If this would go on you could rename Commons to US-Commons (all the language problems will be solved, too). --Saibo (Δ) 22:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Why should 70 pma be worth anything on Commons? It's not EU-Commons, and most people in the world have not had that long a copyright term shoved down their throat yet.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Read the DR - will not repeat here. --Saibo (Δ) 22:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Then stop posting on the subject here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't think that such an aggressive style of communication (on both sides) is helpful here. But, Prosfilaes, in fact "70 years pma" is near to a worldwide standard (with some exceptions, but it's applicable in most countries, I think), and you could also vice versa say that "most people in the world have not had that long a copyright term shoved down their throat" regarding the "95 years after publication" term of the U.S. There are many cases where the "70 years pma" makes works free in their source country much quicker than in the U.S., but also cases where the opposite is true - depending of the author's year of death and year of publication. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Look at w:List of countries' copyright length and File:World copyright-terms.jpg. Life + 70 years is not worldwide, and seven out of the top ten largest countries by population are not life + 70. India is life+60, the US is, well, the US, and the other five are life+50. Life+70 versus 95 years after publication is about equal in length, but more than 50% of the people on the planet live under terms that are no more than life+60. Population-wise, I think life+50 is the most common copyright law. Life+70 is not a worldwide standard.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Well, at least life +70 years is very common (e.g. applicable in the whole European Union), and life +50 years is even more likely to make a work much quicker free than according to U.S. copyright, so I don't quite see your point here. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
          • My point is that life + 70 is not a worldwide standard, that it's barely less provincial then US law. Life + 70 is the third most common copyright law on the planet (I think; I didn't exactly add up all the life+70 nations, but it looked less than India's 1.2 billion). Your "applicable in the whole European Union" I think hits a big sore spot for me; the EU is to a first approximation a less-tightly knit US or India, in land area and population. So why is that our standard?
          • We have deleted huge swaths of files because they didn't fit EU law. Not only Picasso, but pretty much the entire subject of modern art has been deleted, even though we could have legally kept all the early history. I understood that this was a compromise; we would follow US law (which we have to), but we would also work with other laws to make Wikipedia more widely usable. Fine and well. This URAA thing was simply an honest disagreement about US law, and the courts would resolve it one way or the other, and we would bring ourselves into conformance with US law.
          • Suddenly the courts do resolve it, and this delusion that we had any intent of following the law that binds the WMF dissolved. If they had had the honesty of the Swedish Pirate Party and proclaimed civil disobedience to all copyright law, I would have had some respect, but instead this is a proclamation of the superiority of EU law over the US. The Rule of the Shorter Term is (mostly) used in the EU, so therefore the US is wrong for not having it. It's okay to delete a file because it would make it hard to distribute the Italian Wikipedia in Italy, but not because it would make it hard to distribute the English Wikipedia in the US... even if the Foundation and servers are US and we have to follow US law, we should still flout it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
            • I get your point now, thanks, and I think I can even agree with much of what you say. However, consider also that it's natural for Commons contributors from the EU (or European countries not in the EU, e.g. Switzerland, Norway) to react more strongly if it's proposed to delete files that are perfectly legal in their countries than when it's about files where they can see and accept that they aren't in the public domain where they live (the "huge swaths of files" you mention). It may not seem fair towards the U.S. contributors, but it's an inevitable reaction. An additional factor is that this time it's about files that are from these countries, so the images are part of our European cultural heritage. In this regard, Commons contributors from the U.S. are in a comfortable situation: Images from the U.S. which are PD in the U.S. are never threatened by deletion here - so, vice versa, European contributors may see it as unfair towards them if EU works which are PD in the EU are threatened by deletion, but not on the other side U.S. works which are PD in the U.S. but not in the EU. It is a dilemma. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• reasonably assuming the work was published during the author's lifetime --> I would rather we would carefully assess each case, rather than make bold assumptions not based on evidence. If we don't have evidence that a file is PD, let us tell the readers that we don't know, rather than make the reader believe that we know. I am not sure if every painting or every photograph is systematically published during an author's lifetime. It depends much on the notion of what the lawmaker means by "published". Probably many old 18th century paintings are PD in the USA not because they were published during the author's lifetime but because they were published in the 19th or the 20th century before 1923. Teofilo (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes. I struck that text because I stopped running that bot task and I'm reverting all its edits, for the reasons you described above. I apologise for not waiting for feedback from others on that dubious idea. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I guess that probably 90% of 18th century paintings were published via etchings/prints or photographs before 1923. We would still need to find out the remaining 10% and delete them. Some museums like the MET provide something close to a publication history. See this diff (for a 20th century work) Teofilo (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree with Dcoetzee that we must find the files that could not be PD in the US to review and tag those that actually are in PD - e.g. we must search for publication date. Creating a category of files needing review would be useful. Finding which files in this category are used in every project would be useful to recruit interested editors in finding publication date and reviewing the files.--Pere prlpz (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I could definitely build lists of files from that need review that are in use on various projects, that's a great idea. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
        • We do not need to find publication dates for files which are public domain (except in the one, single, overly important country, the US). And the files do not need review. The ones that you find that they are PD in the US get a "US-approved" tag and the others a deletion tag? Don't destroy Commons with US-centrism, thanks very much. --Saibo (Δ) 01:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that the sad fact that the content of WMF servers located in the US must comply with US law has been abundantly debated. Proposals to have non-PD-US files (or the whole WMF) moved to anywhere else should be discussed anywhere else (e.g. the deletion proposal page). Here, we are just discussing the best way to tag file licenses.

And of course, copyright status in any other country is an interesting information for any file, although it doesn't change the legality of keeping the file in Commons. If you want to start a non US-centrist project to tag all files with copyright information for all countries (or even some files for some coutries), it will be an interesting project. We are trying to start with just one country - the country that is relevant in our ability to keep the files here.--Pere prlpz (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Germany has de:Erstausgabe, requiring to find publication dates, and all EU countries have the same due to 1993 directive article 4. Teofilo (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but not Switzerland (which is not in the EU). Switzerland doesn't have a special protection for the publisher after first publication; e.g. if the author is dead for more than 70 years, the work is and keeps free, even if first published today. Date of publication is irrelevant. I don't know about the situation in Norway or Iceland, which are neither in the EU. Gestumblindi (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, before choosing which country's law applies, you need to either:

• show evidence that the work was never published and that the author is a national of a given country, or:
• show evidence that the work was first published in a given country

So you must always study the publication history of a work before saying that this work is PD. Teofilo (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Continuing discussion at #Organizing a US copyright status review below. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent copyvio closures by Yann

User Yann raised my eyebrows by blatantly ignoring copyright and keeping clear copyvios (like this) with lack of FOP in Russia in place. Therefore I am asking the broader community and uninvolved administrators to overturn his decision for the following DRs:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Street A. Golikov.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Belorusskaya-Koltsevaya
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Krasniye Vorota.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/Prospekt Prosveshcheniya

Artem Karimov (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You're ignoring that there were other arguments in the discussions linked above. For instance, in the DR about Krasnye Vorota, I've found a reliable print source which states an architect died more than 70 years ago as the only author, but you mentioned this with not a single word here. In general, the difference between a regular deletion request and a speedy deletion is just the fact that in a regular DR it is possible to bring up some arguments which are against the deletion. Therefore, there is nothing abusive on that closures. - A.Savin 13:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I did counter your source with official information. Artem Karimov (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You will remember that your editwarring in the Russian WP where you claimed that the official site of the St. Petersburg Metro is the only reputable source for the depth of a certain station brought you another ban in WP some days ago. An official site is just one of possible sources, people who make official websites are probably experts in web publishing but they may make errors in describing the facts they publish there. Apart from that, here is not a discussion on the reliability of web sites, but on the question if Yann handled correctly with some DR's he has decided, and the answer is: yes. A.Savin 13:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I remember that Russian Wikipedia neglects verifiability which is only valid on paper there. Your position is childish to say the least. Artem Karimov (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, perhaps we should establish a modified kind of Godwin's law where a discussion is to be finished as soon as the one participant alleges childish behavior to the other. However, I see no need for further conversation. Your point of view is clear, my argumentation should be clear as well. A.Savin 13:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Both A.Savin and Artem Karimov presented the reliable source, so there is either need for additional source, or we can keep the image having a support from print source. The aim is to prove freedom of the image, not to reject it. The decision for this case was correct.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you just missed a precautionary principle which says that "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted"... Artem Karimov (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly — there is no doubt for this very file. The print source is enough.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This discussion might have been better suited for COM:VPC instead of the normal village pump. There seem to be two disagreements: whether pictures are de minimis or not and whether the architects died long ago or not. I think that most images wouldn't pass as de minimis, but there is a possibility that some of them might. You seem to be presenting different (and possibly contradicting) sources for information about architects and the date of death of the architects. If it is unclear who the architect is or when the architect died, deleting per COM:PRP might be the solution. However, it might also be possible to research the matter better first. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I would say: first research, than act, would be the smart way to go. Many of the images are clear de minimis, which paradoxically makes them rather useless in terms of COM:SCOPE. --ELEKHH^T 15:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This kind of discussion is generally better suited for Commons:Undeletion requests. A pattern of bad deletions by an admin, proven by a string of successful undeletions, would be an issue for Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. VP isn't a great venue for this. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of DR is to determine if in the court of law it is possible to defend the idea that the image is free. A document was brought up which showed that such thing is more than possible, the validity of that document wasn't questioned, but a website which states the opposite was found. I would tend to believe that in a court it is the website will matter less, as it is a hearsay, and as such freedom of the image has been shown. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I tend to believe that both sources are equal and in case of uncertainty the file should be deleted. Artem Karimov (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As Dcoetzee has mentioned, discussions on the images should be taken to Commons:Undeletion requests so that a wider range of eyes can opine. If there are issues relating closings by an admin, please take it to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Please treat issues separately. I would suggest dealing with the closures first, and then it may or may not be needed to discuss other closures; a pattern may or may not exist. Either way, this venue is not the correct one.

Also Artem Karimov (talk · contribs) and A.Savin (talk · contribs), how about a compromise. You both work together to ascertain copyright of the Metro in the photo. If you both determine that the copyright has expired, I will 1) personally take photos of the Metro station when I am in Russia later in the year, or 2) organise for a friend to take photos for us. Please just leave ruwp stuff over there, and work together here to get the correct information. Can you both do that? Discuss those details at File_talk:Krasniye_Vorota.jpg, and I will keep it on my watchlist and try to help if needed. russavia (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Abuse filter log details

Is there a reason that only admins have access to the abusefilter-log-detail right? I'm often on IRC and every time I click the link to see the details, I always get a blank page. Having access to the detailed log would make it easier for me to identify the edit if it's vandalism or not. Could it be assigned to all users like on the English Wikipedia, or to a user group that deals with vandalism, like patrollers or rollbackers? Techman224^Talk 05:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

For patrollers, ok from my POV. -- RE rillke questions? 10:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with nominator, it would be useful for patrollers and it really isn't something that can be abused per se. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Now on COM:VPP#Right-change: Patroller. -- RE rillke questions? 17:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Corrected Version of ENWiki Logo

The current version of File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg has a shape artifact in the file. It is really only visible if you view the image at high resolution or change the color of the wordmark, but it's there. We have a corrected version and are ready to upload it but I wanted to see if there were any concerns or issues I am unaware of about this file (other than it's used everywhere) before I did so.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, no problem with WMF representatives uploading new versions of WMF logos. Probably would not want anybody else doing that though, since it's an official trademark and everything. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I have uploaded the new version of the file. Thanks!--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

January 29

Image overwrite?

Is it proper for one user to overwrite an image uploaded by another user? See File:Elisa Gabrielli on Christmas Eve 2008.jpg. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It's an unusual case because a user claiming to be the subject uploaded a new version, because they said (in effect) that they were distressed to have that image there, as it was taken at a funeral without their permission. The user had several months ago tried to request deletion [40], but got the formatting wrong on the speedy template. I suggest the best thing would be to delete the file, and reupload the new image under a different name (and replace the two WP uses of the old file). I think the discussion at Commons_talk:Deletion_policy#Privacy and the WMF board resolution regarding subject consent for images of identifiable living people are relevant here. Rd232 (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be uploaded under a new name. If the old image is deleted it should go through a deletion request (I reasonably expect such a request would be granted in exchange for a superiour image). Permission for the new image also needs to go through OTRS to verify copyright ownership - copyright of the image would not belong to her unless there is a contract to that effect. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think in this particular instance the overwriting upload is OK, though a deletion request and separate upload would still have been better. The new image appears in several places, but only one that I could find at the uploaded resolution. Probably should have a DR to remove the older upload. OTRS would help, even if just confirming that the account is theirs, but I'm inclined to believe the account is genuine (and would also assume good faith on the copyright claim). It may be a good idea to confirm the desired license, via OTRS, though the one that is there is about as restrictive as we would allow. The file needs renaming if it's not re-uploaded. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

She was smiling and making a peace sign at a camera while wearing a white button-up top next to a man in a red "HO HO HO" shirt at her father's memorial service? This may have been taken around that time, but this cannot realistically be a photo of a memorial service or funeral, but more likely a more generic Christmas service. So I don't think it is inappropriate of the uploader as was implied, just a person at a social church service and not some heartless bastard exploiting a funeral. We can still delete in favor of the better picture due to the subject's desire, but we shouldn't imply wrongdoing. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 08:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it is case of ABF but I think that User:Juniper99 is trying to upload and keep copyvio (and "Please remove this picture from my site") Bulwersator (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The image should be properly restored unless Juniper99 provides a) permission for the new image and b) a verification he/she is really the person claimed or connected with her. --Denniss (talk) 08:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Elisa Gabrielli on Christmas Eve 2008.jpg Bulwersator (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I left a message in User talk:Juniper99, although she isn't very likely to read it.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

She answered at User talk:Juniper99. Can anybody more used to permission messages and so help her, please? I still doubt that she is who she says to be, but we should check.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation category?

Yesterday I created Category:The Hiker for installations of the statue by Newman. Then I discovered that there's another, equally well-known statue of the same name by Kitson. The first step I took was to create separate categories: Category:The Hiker (Kitson) and Category:The Hiker (Newman). But what to do with Category:The Hiker? It shouldn't be deleted, because it seems likely that others may make the same mistake I did. I also don't think it would be appropriate to redirect (soft or hard) to one or the other, because it can refer to either. Is there a way to make a disambiguation category, or some sort of double soft-redirect? For the time being I've just left an explanatory message linking to each of the other categories. cmadler (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just mark the category with {{Disambig}}. I have done this and edited the text a bit. MKFI (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know why that didn't occur to me. cmadler (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)